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 Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles 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.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar articles
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 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 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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories 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.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
The infobox on Gibraltar states that the territory was captured by the British on 4 August 1704, instead of 3 August as this article states. Which one is correct? —howcheng {chat} 08:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the aftermath of the capture in the lede[edit]
The lead does not mention either the sacking of Gibraltar that took place after the takeover (which resulted in a diminishing popular support for the Allied faction in Andalusia) or the fact that, as a key consequence of the capture, the Spanish population left the city forever (even though they might not know at the time that it would be permanent), which resulted in a mostly non-Spanish population (to this day). These facts are not good or bad: they are verifiad historical facts which most sources cite as very relevant in a pivotal turning point in the history of Gibraltar. These issues should not have been removed from the lead, don't you think?[1] - Imalbornoz (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic example of Lede fixation by an editor with a bee in his bonnet. And I can already see you winding up to make personal accusations against other editors being somehow "embarrassed" by history. The information is in the article, it's been added in a manner reflecting WP:NPOV and I don't see it as belonging in the lede, which is supposed to summarise the main details in the article. Yes that should have been removed, no it shouldn't be re-added. You have no consensus to do so. WCMemail 14:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Tens of thousands of shells were fired in the attack."
Can this really be true? I know that shells existed before this time but don't believe they were very common in 1704, especially for use on Royal Navy warships. Even a hundred years after this time the Royal Navy was using primarily solid shot, with some use of chain, canister or grape shot. I don't believe even one shell was fired by Nelson's ships at Trafalgar in 1805.
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
