Talk:Charge of the Light Brigade

Request for info

I visited the site of the battle in 2003 and took a number of photos from the position overlooking the field where there is a memorial (if memory serves) and some military kit, a T34, a patrol boat etc. I made extensive notes at the time on the photos but now that I have changed computers, my explanations are missing. Would be grateful if some kind soul were prepared to help me orientate them, so I can see where the charge started etc etc. Any takers?? ir5ac@lycos.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir5ac (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley of the Shadow of Death image.

This comes from the Siege of Sevastopol, five months after the charge. The connection with this article is a bit tenuous: is it worth keeping here? --Old Moonraker 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --Old Moonraker 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Crept back in, removed again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fenton Photograph

The Fenton photograph of a very few of the "Charge" survivors was originally captioned something like "Survivors of The Charge of The Light Brigade after the battle." Plus the photo's own licensing page said it was taken in October 1854. Can't be. The charge took place then, but Mr. Fenton did not arrive and begin taking his famous photographs until March 8, 1855. He stayed until June 26, 1855. So the picture of some of the survivors had to have been taken several months after the actual batle. I changed the caption to reflect that. Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Link now to version of the image with better licensing information, higher resolution but without the color correction.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fenton13ltdragoons.jpg is now under consideration as a featured picture on Commons. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Calthorpe's quotation

This is copy/pasted from User talk:Old Moonraker to enable wider discussion.

Hi! i wouldn't strenuously object to adding "sic" back (i don't think linking it makes sense, i.e. "linking all words is silly" :-) )... but using it does seem to imply (rightly or wrongly) to most people that it was an error preserved in the transcription. I also doubt that you'll see a flood of "corrections"... look at, for example, Serjeant-at-Arms, where there's no "move war". Another solution might be to explicitly link "Serjeant" to Sergeant, like [[Sergeant|Serjeant]] which implies that it's meant to be spelled that way. Another point to consider is that a Chaucer quote won't have sic on it, on the other hand, i don't know how relevant that is. I don't know... like i said, i'm not going to get upset if you revert. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply on poster's talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!... do you have the source involved? I'm just wondering if "Serjeants" has a colon after it in the original, as all the other categories listed do. Did this somehow get lost? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Went back to the original (and in doing so found a typo in the page number) and found that it's a table, which I can't do on Wikipedia. Colon inserted, as suggested. URL attached to the footnote, to assist any editor who wants to try to use a table instead of text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? I left out the ellipses, but tried to get everything else. I'm not sure it's better at all. --Storkk (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As it's a quote, we should, according to MOS:QUOTE, try to "preserve the original style, spelling and punctuation". You have succeeded where I failed—thanks. The same guideline suggests that in blockquotes the quotation marks may be dispensed with: indeed as it stands the opening mark does look a bit incongruous.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the problem with the quotes, however because of the table, even using <blockquotes> it's not crystal clear that it's a quotation. I couldn't think of a solution to this. I'll be copy/pasting this discussion over to the article's talk page so that it's more open to other contributors. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying the quotation marks inside the block, pace the manual of style, which deprecates this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I appreciate the work that went into collating this information, but the "media" section in this article has much too much trivia. Just because a work of film or fiction mentioned the Charge of the Light Brigade, does not mean we should include it in a list here. Better would be to link the Charge of the light Brigade from the appropriate article about those films or works. See also WP:TRIVIA. The only media works that should be listed here, should be those which received significant coverage in outside published sources, covering their link to the battle. Thanks, --Elonka 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but from a superficial glance this would take "Music" away altogether and reduce the other sub-sections to only a couple of entries each. IMO this is for the better, but might this cause a bit of an upset to editors where a casual reference in their favorite novel, or pet song, has gone? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

Is there any reason that this page is protected? From what I see it was protected in July in response to vandalism and about a month later the protection was taken away and then after 6 days without any edits at all the protection was re added and it has been protected ever since. I feel that unless there is a specific reason that this page is still protected I feel it should be unprotected Sean0987 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC) sean0987

There are a lot of pages that receive more than their share of vandalism from Middle Schoolers. This is one. Children are exposed to the Charge in the famous poem which is adequately covered and usually not the reason for their edits anyway - just simple vandalism. We are getting into fairly sophisticated knowledge here. I don't see that even a well-behaved middle schooler is really going to be able to contribute a whole lot at this point. I vote for protection.Student7 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that revealing note. I knew it existed on Wikipedia but I never heard it said with such clarity. The 'We' being the elitist types that think they 'know-it-all' and creating their own version of 'wikiality' so noted famously by Stephen Colbert. I particularly like the use of

We are getting into fairly sophisticated knowledge here.

Really? Then it must be pretty advanced stuff they are teaching middle-graders these days!! Or do you just not like the thoughts of strangers tinkering with your own version of the truth? Either way the clarity is all yours....