move the historical discussion off this page?

edit

Why is this historical reevaluation of the column in this page? it makes only passing reference to the Battle of Maida. Perhaps it can be move to the heavy column page. -Gomm 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reference isn't "passing" -- the whole section is about the Battle of Maida; I've made that more clear in case it wasn't. Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Date of battle

edit

It is stated in the opening paragrapah that the battle was 4 July, but down in the "Battle" section the date is 6 June. Please fix or explain. Softlavender (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Result

edit

Once again, a group of Anglophilic editors have decided to edit war over the result of this battle in the infobox. Having done some work previously on this article I feel I should weigh in on this. No doubt this was a British tactical victory. However the idea of a British withdrawl seems contestable. Withdrawal seems to imply the British were made to retreat. As I've mentioned in the article, one can argue Stuart's withdrawl was completely planned as part of his expedition – he achieved his main goal of delaying the French from mounting an invasion of Sicily. Previously I put a French strategic victory into the result also since Stuart did fail to relieve the siege of Gaeta which meant the entire mainland fell into French hands. However, I can see how this can argued as not true since even by Maida, it can be aruged that Gaeta would inevitably fall. Still, I have decided to only include in my view the uncontestable result of "British tactical victory" in the infobox. The rest... well read the article and make up your own mind. Centyreplycontribs10:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Maida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply