This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Hastings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
Frankly, the coordinates are entirely TOO exact - and unsourced. The exact location of the battle is not securely known... it's probably somewhere near these coordinates, but the exact precision is misleading to readers. I'd remove the coordinates completely if I thought we could make that stick, but at the least, could those restoring them to the title come up with some sort of sourcing for them, rather than edit warring over them please? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that page only refers to coordinates in this sentence "Infoboxes using geographical coordinates should use |coordinates= as the parameter name, with the {{coord}} template in the parameter's value." ... which has nothing to do with whether or not the coordinates should be in the title area of the article, nor does it actually discuss any other of the concerns I brought up above. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the title attribute indicates that the coordinates apply to the entire article, and not just one of (perhaps many) places mentioned in it—so it should only be omitted in the latter case. Additionally the title option will mark the coordinates as the primary coordinates for the page (and topic of the page) in the geosearch API.
And... that's still not relevant to anything. Why would anyone not think that the coordinates given in the infobox do not also mean that they are for entire article ... and the coordinates are STILL unsourced and way too precise. Why shouldn't I just eliminate the coordinates altogether? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears to mean something to the people who wrote the template documentation. I should take it up with them if you don't agree. The accuracy or otherwise of the coordinates is a different argument. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria removed them, and you restored them saying there was no consensus to remove them. I've undone your revert -- four people have now removed them from the title, so there's clearly consensus for that. Two people have now removed them from the infobox, and Ealdgyth says above she agrees with that -- the coords are not precisely enough known for us to provide without misleading the reader. We should not provide inaccurate information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are including yourself in the totals, which, as you hade made no comment on the subject before is rather high-handed. Please note I don't actually care whether the coordinates given are right or wrong, I am merely trying to apply the MOS. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was including myself; I didn't mean to imply there was consensus for removing them completely before I made the edit. However, the coords had been removed from the title by three different editors, and you reverted each of them; I think you might have considered that to imply consensus for removing them from the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History of events is as thus: Original removal of coords from title was by an editor who was carrying out a block removal of coords from title for a vast number of pages, despite several editors asking him to stop. He had no interest in this article in particular which is why I reverted it. Secondly Ealdgyth reverted my edit without discussion so I restored it. Nikkimaria reverted it claiming it as a concensus when there wasn't one. Then you added yourself in without prior discussion. If there is a genuine concensus that the coords should be removed both from infobox and title then fair enough but that hadn't been demonstrated at my last edit. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say "don't actually care whether the coordinates given are right or wrong, I am merely trying to apply the MOS" is ... not a great way to approach editing. I would hope that all editors care first and foremost about correct information and only secondarily about the MOS. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many horses were used by each side? The Bayeux Tapestry shows 190 horses or mules, of which 182 were probably horses. But it shows horses being used far more by the Normans and the Saxons as mostly on foot, so this cannot be used as firm evidence. How did the Normans get so many horses across the English Channel, when the relatively small boats could have carried only a few at a time? Presumably then invasion force was built up over time in multiple voyages, rather than just arriving as one complete invasion force? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "official" site is under dispute by a number of professional historians and archaeologists with sites ranging from Caldbec Hill itself to Crowhurst via Battle Abbey and the mini roundabout ( Time Team 2013?). There are other sites put forward by various individuals i.e. Beech Farm, Beechdown Wood, on a ridge 3 miles east of Battle and my own two sites ( Skirmish at Battle High Street by Fire Station and the main battle taking place on a ridge just inside Ashes Wood ( the Malfosse happened 300 metres away deeper into the wood). While I don't expect the minor sites to be listed or noted in any way do you not think that the reader be made aware that the actual site is in dispute? 185.246.231.169 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Senlac was originally known in Old English as Santlache meaning "Sand lake", the Normans punned it into the Norman French Sanguelac (translates into English as "blood lake”) the name became shortened to Senlac. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey records two guildhalls in Battle; one of them, the guild of St Martin , located in Sandlake.[see Searle, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (1980), pp. 64-65].Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
