Talk:Queen Anne's War

Duration of War

Why is this war stated as lasting over 13 years, when the time between March 1702 and July 1713 is only 11 years and change? 184.69.222.138 (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note on the name

A blurb at the beginning should make clear that the name Queen Anne's War is only used in American (US) historiography. It has different names in English Canada, French Canada, the UK, and France. Kevlar67 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

• Support. No reason for a second article on the same war. Tempshill 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Against. While technically Queen Anne's War and the War of the Spanish Succession are the same war, they are not the same conflict. "Queen Anne's War" refers to the frontier battles between English colonists, troops, and Native American allies and French troops and their Native American allies. "The War of the Spanish Succession" refers to the battles in Europe between the British and their allies and the French and their allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.232.241 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Against. They are the same war, but it is useful to have a separate article concerning operations in North America during this war. Queen Anne's War is a convenient title for North American operations since that is what the war is called in the United States. BradMajors 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. You can accomplish the same exact task within a subsection of "The War of the Spanish Succession". If "Queen Anne's War" gets too long, then an article split would be in order. However, given the material currently, that split is not necessary. KyuuA4 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support merge. I agree with KyuuA above. This article is short and currently not well supported by references, and I feel it would benefit from being merged with War of the Spanish Succession. If it grows to an appreciable length, it can be split off again. However, since War of the Spanish Succession is a featured article, I'm going to bring it up on that talk page and try to get some more opinions and help before I perform a merge. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate when you say this content would "benefit". You should also tag the War of the Spanish Succession article with the {mergefrom} tag. BradMajors (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I say "benefit" because the War of the Spanish Succession article is well-sourced, while this article appears to have no sources, so overlapping of sources would be one benefit. Another is that the subject of this article is one theatre of the war of spanish succession, and so 1) this article lacks an important context, and 2) the War of the Spanish Succession article isn't broad enough to include much on the north american theatre. Additionally I feel this subject would be better looked after if it was within a now-featured article, rather than its own short one. Size concerns shouldn't crop up for some time. Lastly, I didn't want to clutter the War of the Spanish Succession with a {mergefrom} tag since it was unclear whether this reflected consensus among that article's editors. I left a message on the talk page, and since I haven't gotten much response I'll probably revisit the issue soon. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the War of the Spanish Succession can not be the same sources as those used for Queen Anne's War. New sources would have to be added to the Spanish Succession article that cover Queen Anne's War. For example, I have a book on my desk on the War of the Austrian Succession it has at total of three pages on Northern American operations. Because of the relative unimportance of North American operations the Spanish Succession article should have a similar weighting for Northern American operations of <2%. You mention that the Spanish Succession article is a FA, but the affect of merging the Queen Anne's War article would make the Spanish Succession article a B class article.BradMajors (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

8 years after the last remarks in this discussion, the article is not only well-sourced, but one of the better historical articles on Wikipedia. 68.19.3.23 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Literature

Have anyone some proposal for literature about this war (or internet resource)?--Vojvodaeist 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-British bias

As with all wikipedia articles on the conflict between Britain and what is now the US, this article goes out of its way to show anti-British bias. I guess that since Wikepdia is controlled in the US, this is inevitable but it does general harm to the reputation.
The defeat of French forces in North America was made inevitable by Britain's control of the sea and by the demands on French land forces of B itish victories in Europe. 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Computer Proxy Problem

I must apologize, I tried to fix an incorrect link but a proxy on my computer, or something like that, added some gibberish that I can't seem to delete. Every time I try to edit something, it adds "Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0" So maybe someone else who doesn't have proxy/cache problems can fix that. Sorry. :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by DondeEsAntonio (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Queen Anne's War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Review to follow.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Minor point, but some multiple page numbers are separated by a space, others are not.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well done!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Map of Acadia

The map given here of Acadia neglects to include that New Brunswick was contested terrain along with Maine. Is there someone who could put in another map - indicating the contested terrain involved most of Maine and New Brunswick? --Hantsheroes (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Anne's War. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100608020446/http://www.history.army.mil:80/Reference/colon/QUEEN.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/reference/colon/QUEEN.htm

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) 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive use of "successfully"

Is it possible to "unsuccessfully capture" an enemy position? I think all the "successfully"s in this article, maybe with one exception, could be deleted. It doesn't even serve imply that there was effort involved, or unsuccessful prior attempts, or that success was uncertain right up to the end. For variety, perhaps "succeeded in capturing" would be an alternative. But "captured" would also suffice. Wegesrand (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Collective peace as "victorious" and "defeated"

Following this revert [1], I have edited the War of the Spanish Succession accordingly [2]. RedUser (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador

I was surprised at this revert, so I'll explain the edit here. The modern Canadian province changed to the name "Newfoundland and Labrador" in 2001, so referring to "St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador" for a 18th century event is anachronistic. At the time, the Newfoundland colony did not have jurisdiction in Labrador, which was part of the French colony "Canada". This is kind of like referring to a 19th century event in Königsberg, Prussia, as having happened in "Kaliningrad, Russia." The second part of the edit changed link text to "[[Battle of St. John's|captured St. John's in 1709]]" instead of "captured [[Battle of St. John's|St. John's]] in 1709". This avoids an Easter egg link. The current link looks like it would link to an article on the city instead of to an article on a battle. Are there objections to doing this edit again, or are there better ways to avoid the mentioned problems? Indefatigable (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Calling the location "Newfoundland and Labrador" is like saying that Queen Anne's War took place in the United States. I would not object to you restoring the time-appropriate name for the location. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've restored that portion of your edit. What I was actually reverting was the other edits on the links, which I've left as they were. —Dilidor (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualties listed in the infobox are, at best, poorly illustrated and sourced, it seems. Can we get an update on them? 86.7.140.64 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)