Talk:Waterloo campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo

Copied text

Much of this page appears to have been copied from a text which, judging by its style, dates from the nineteenth century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1432:de00:d8b3:87f0:ffa0:7a30 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is and if you look in the References section you will see that it is fully attributed as such per the plagiarism guideline. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a difference between paraphrasing an author in order to provide a summary and copy-pasting wholesale, particularly from a single author whose method of speech is fairly archaic by 21st century standards. This seems to be a pattern you have followed in the Ligny battle article and the post-Waterloo campaign article as well, which has rendered them (like this one) huge, unwieldy, and difficult to understand. Brianify (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an article that anyone can edit. If you wish to update the the English you can do so. -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tenses

British council: will have or would have:

We use would have in past conditionals to talk about something that did not happen

@user:Mild Bill Hiccup with this edit you added the word in red to a sentence:

On this position he might rely upon the aid of a sufficient portion of Blücher's forces from Wavre which combined with his own would have enabled the Coalition to confront Napoleon and his main army with a numerical superiority at a decisive point.

I think the change you have made to that sentence changes it meaning from "could (and did combine)" to "could and didn't combine". As Wellington's and Blücher's armies did combine, I think the insertion of have changes the meaning of the sentence and makes it incorrect. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Without the "have" the grammer is incorrect. It should be "could have" to be factually and grammatically correct. That the armies later combined is not germaine here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I also removed the "d" from "enabled" "which combined with his own would enable the Coalition-- PBS (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW while I am delighted to see that someone else is watching this page, but what brought you here with millions to choose from? -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Answered my own question Revision as of 07:31, 24 September 2015 -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the "d". The short answer to why I landed here is Alistair Horne's book How far from Austerlitz?. Well worth a read. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Waterloo Campaign which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)