Talk:Coalition forces of the Napoleonic Wars

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Unsure about "Military history WikiProject"[edit]

Hi anyone who is able to help me. I'm interested in helping to improve the content of this article, however I'm not sure do I need to join the "Military history WikiProject" before I can contribute. Cheers to all! Twejoel 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this information has been ripped from another, uninformative site. Try to be a bit more creative. I mean what does this mean, "The skills required of light cavalry (patrolling, reconnaissance, and screening) had to be picked up while on active duty."? Britain had had light cavalry since the 1750s and it made much use of it in India during the 1790s. It's just speculation and myth combined into some sort of pseudo-fact.

"The best of the British units was the King's German Legion, which performed excellent service in the Peninsula and created history by breaking French Infantry squares at Garcia Hernandez." Again this statement is based on one made on an unquestionably biased website on the subject and is in turn derived from flimsy sources that haven't been fully analysed.

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point[edit]

Cleanup Co-ordination

This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
the article has multiple overlapping problems.
the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

Discussion[edit]

I have now considerably extended the article and hopefully cleaned some problems. I also added several pictures, but think, that the main impact should be on the tactics, not neccessarily on the the different nations. Information on them and their forces is already on their pages. But as I am no native speaker, please have a look on the article. There may be some mispellings or syntax problems. Anne-theater (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Army during the Napoleonic Wars[edit]

It seems to me that this article (Coalition forces) is meant to be a general overview of the coalition and not what is in effect now a British Army article with others tucked on. What is more, the content here is more detailed then that in the dedicated article British Army during the Napoleonic Wars. I would like to propose that the content from here be largely merged into the British Army article, and this article expanded somewhat to provide a balanced overview of all Coalition forces--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started that above article, and am (very) slowly improving it. I agree that the majority of information should be there, not here. The problem with a straight merge is that this information contains almost no citations (I did merge in some of the cited stuff), and I am hoping to make the British Army one a good article, at least. Any help/contributions appreciated. Gwinva (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am currently doing citation for Carabinier, and if I can reference that, surely there should be no difficulty or lack of help in Wiki referencing the British Army of Napoleonic Wars! Maybe advertise in the Napoleonic or British task forces? I do agree however that its not a simple straight merge. You are doing an excellent job though. I'm thinking that the structure you created should be used for other involved nations, Coalition and French Allied. I had used the Grand Armee for the Russian and Prussian armies but that required too much restructuring--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's plenty of sources out there (too many, perhaps) but I find it easier to work and cite at my own pace than find cites for existing stuff (particularly when its not exactly sparkling prose). If you want to weed this, then stick the text on the British talk page, and I'll see what I can salvage. Thanks for the compliment on the structure. It needs calvary yet, and artillery, staff and medical, camps cantonments, women/camp followers, irregulars..... I certainly agree that this page is British-heavy, and needs rewriting in summary style, but that seemed a bridge too far for me at the moment! Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]