This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
I think it is a good idea of @Tise exists (cool) to place a collage in the infobox. I just think that were can choose images that look nicer and represent the war better. I have made two examples.
Example: The Battle of Blenheim (1704), the Battle of Vigo Bay (1702), the Battle of Cape Lizard (1707) and the Battle of Denain (1712).Example 2: The Battle of Vigo Bay (1702), the Battle of Almansa (1707), the Battle of Malplaquet (1709) and The Battle of Denain (1712)
Example 3: The Capture of Gibraltar (1704), the Battle of Ramillies (1706), the Entry of Charles III in Madrid (1710) and the Battle of Denain (1712)DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The troop strength and troop casualty boxes don't seem to match up. Adding up the numbers in the strength box, it would seem there were 862,090-1,007,090 total soldiers who fought in the war, yet adding up the numbers from the casualty box, we get 1,050,000-1,150,000 killed and wounded on both sides, as well as the figure at the bottom listing 400,000 total combat deaths and 700,000-1,251,000 casualties including disease. Using the highest numbers on either side, we get a max casualty rate of 124% and a possible rate of about 145%, which are 1. The most appalling casualty rates I've ever seen, and 2. Quite literally impossible.
Were the numbers flipped between the casualty box and the troop strength box, the purported 1,251,000 disease-included-casualties number would still be wrong. Even the given combat death stat of 400,000 seems out of place, as that would be about a 35-46% combat death rate with the given numbers, which I don't think is at all correct given the time period in which this war occurred.
I have no sources to back up my beliefs, but I'm going to claim common sense as my rationale for this conclusion. If the numbers include civilians, shouldn't it say that?
I wonder if we could get these numbers rechecked. Would anyone have any sources we can use to verify these? If the numbers are correct but there's just more information that needs to be added to make the numbers make sense, should we not do that? VacaBlancaLoca (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robinvp11 The comment of Childs is misleading. The armies in the Low Countries were actually greater in this war than they had been in the Nine Years' War. Like in 1710 when 165,000 allied troops operated in the Low Countries. The average size shrunk because there were many other fronts in the war, not because the countries couldn't put large armies in the field. What do you think? And do other historians share the findings of Childs? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Childs' perspective is still valid - if you look at the 1695 Siege of Namur, each side had over 130,000 men; the combined total of both armies at Blenheim was less than that. His point was that pre-industrial societies did not have the financial power to sustain such numbers, so it has very little to do with the number of fronts.
Plus, you can argue Flanders was an anomaly - if you look at the battles fought elsewhere, the armies involved very rarely exceeded 25,000 (the Siege of Turin being the main exception).
if you look at the 1695 Siege of Namur, each side had over 130,000 men; the combined total of both armies at Blenheim was less than that.
Yes, but the battles of the Nine Years War were not particularly bigger than the battles of the War of the Spanish Succession. In fact, the largest battles of the War of the Spanish Succession were bigger than the largest battles of the Nine Years War. Campaign wise the numbers also peaked in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Plus, you can argue Flanders was an anomaly - if you look at the battles fought elsewhere, the armies involved very rarely exceeded 25,000 (the Siege of Turin being the main exception).
@136.252.163.126 I won't edit war with you, but I just want to say that Pro-Habsburg Spain and Pro-Bourbon Spain is a more accurate way to frame it than Castille vs Aragon. And we can't have them both in the infobox. Why is Castille vs Aragon better? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg/28px-Europe_(orthographic_projection).svg.png){kind=small}
