Talk:Battle of Hastings

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)

Also "convention is that it is needed in the article" - it already IS in the article - in the infobox. Why is it needed twice? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes refers. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

THis is more relevant, from Template:Coord#Usage:

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.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair enough. I think consensus has now been demonstrated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Horses

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)

In his 2000 TV series A History of Britain, Simon Schama says that William brought 6,000 horses, carried in 400 ships. Harold Godwinson says 700 ships, but that claim is unsourced. 86.187.161.211 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Site in Dispute.

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)

Senlac

In his 2000 TV series A History of Britain, Simon Schama claims the battle site was called Sarlac meaning "lake of blood". 86.187.161.211 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Need to confirm Rasojp (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

its Harald III not Harold III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.137.24 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Harold was killed" or "Harold is killed"?

Hey @Piledhigheranddeeper I was sent on a mission by TortieCat on Discord to tell you that your edit from 21:05, 14 October 2020 should be "Harold was killed". The reason why it should be "Harold was killed" is that TortieCat told me word for word:

the text on the thing says "King Harold was killed" or "King Harold has been killed"

it's the perfect passive system

if it said harold rex interfectur it would be "king harold is killed"the text on the thing says "King Harold was killed" or "King Harold has been killed"

Thank you for taking your time to read this message.

PS: I don't know Latin or the Battle Of Hastings, if the "correction" ended up being wrong explain why so I can tell TortieCat why it is "Harold is killed" IServe1PurposeFor-tortie-ondiscord (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the image depicts "Harold being killed", i.e. the event of his death, as opposed to "Harold was killed". While the literal translation from Latin may be "was killed", the reader can already infer from the painting's age and the battle it was painted for that Harold most definitely was killed. The caption is simply describing what the image depicts, and it makes somewhat more sense to keep the tense the way it currently is to keep things simple. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks Sirocco745, I appreciate you replying in quick time! IServe1PurposeFor-tortie-ondiscord (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Always happy to help :D Sirocco745 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)