# Talk:Battle of Málaga (1704)

I think the statement at the end of the second paragraph, stating that Byng was censured for his actions, is misleading at best.  Byng went on to fight in fleet actions in 1707 and 1708 and won a major battle in 1718 (not to mentioned being created a peer in 1721) -- as noted in his Wiki page.  It would seem that this section needs to be worked on. (WHRupp (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

Good point. Wholly improbable, Byng was knighted on 22 October by Queen Anne ‘as a testimony of her high approbation of his behaviour in the late action’, was promoted to vice-admiral just over a two months later, and was commanding a squadron in the Channel by summer 1705. Other inconsistencies in this article include stating that Byng's ship, Royal Katharine, was badly damaged. Byng was actually aboard Ranelagh. Benea (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Málaga (1704)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Spudlace (talk · contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article. Spudlace (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also reviewing this article. Dabberoni15 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You can take over the review if you want. Don't see that it needs two reviewers. Spudlace (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This article has two reviewers? I didn't even think it had one! Dabberoni15 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dabberoni15: Oh, you can't review articles you've nominated, but don't worry, I'm going to pass this. It's well-written, has a good lede, no copyright violations. Sources are reliable and cited using a consistent citation style. No issues with neutrality or original research. Article is stable. Images are in the public domain and explained with appropriate captions. Good work! Spudlace (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DonBeroni, I know the first source is self-published, that is why I added another one (which is not self-published). I think there was a little confusion about the second source: The book [1] has more than 200 pages (254) and does mention Spanish participation in the battle on page 203. This is page 203 [2] and as you can see, it says "a large French fleet under the command of Admiral le comte de Toulouse was ordered to unite with the Spanish fleet" (in the section "Battle of Málaga"). Maybe you looked at the first source thinking it's the second one. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there @RobertJohnson35. Thanks for the quick response. I had a look through your second source and while it does say that the French fleet under Toulouse was ordered to unite with the Spanish navy, it (to the best of my knowledge, although maybe I've missed something here) doesn't say that the Spanish actually linked up with Toulouse's armada prior to the engagement on 24 August 1704. Just for the record, I was the one who took this article to GA status, and before I started working on it I noticed that Spain was included in the infobox as a combatant. However, when working on a revised version of the article prior to nominating it for GA status, none of the sources on the battle mentioned the presence of Spanish ships. Is it perhaps that you are thinking that Spain should be included because the Spanish navy was indeed part of the wider campaign the article subject was part of? I'm not objecting to the inclusion of Spain in the infobox, but I think if we are going to do so then we should find some evidence of Spanish ships actually participating on the engagement of 24 August. Perhaps you know of any sources which mention the presence of Spanish ships in the order of battle? Because if we can find some, then great, otherwise I must respectfully demur on the decision to include Spain in the infobox. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that the second source does not specify that they eventually met but I found more sources about the Spanish participation in the battle [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and also found a list of ships in the battle [13] (which also mentions that it was a Franco-Spanish fleet), some of the Spanish ships were Santa Clara and Veragua. I also found sourced content in Spanish wikipedia [14] that talk about where the Spanish and French fleets met and who the Spanish commander of the fleet was (Gutiérrez de Meneses Luna y Zapata). RobertJohnson35 (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There are several reasons why flag icons are not necessary for the infobox, which I will highlight below.

1: Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, "flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many... flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text". There is no information which flag icons convey in addition to the text used in the infobox and the rest of the article. What exactly is the point of adding a St. George's Cross next to a wikilink to the Kingdom of England? While the infobox requires combatants, commanders, etc. due to the fact that not filling out those sections would leave them blank, this is not true for decorative flag icons. While it is true that the flag icons could indicate which nation the commander fought for, this information is already clearly defined in the article lede and main body and there is no need to bloat the infobox by adding decorative flag icons, which in the English case being different from the national flag is confusing to anyone who isn't a Royal Navy expert. It also leads to the second problem, which is...
2: There is no evidence on which exact flags were used by either side in the article. The usage of flags in the early modern era was irregular at best, and European warfare of the period saw multiple flags being used by the same side. For example, the Royal Navy, which participated in this article's subject, used three different flags (the White Ensign, Blue Ensign and Red Ensign); in even a single English fleet, more than one ensign could be used. No part of the article describes the exact ensigns the fleets involved in the battle used, and there is no use relying on a single painter's speculative depiction of the engagement. As we don't know which flags the fleets involved used, adding them into the infobox qualifies as misleading speculation. Furthermore, the history of the national flags of Spain has historically been very opaque, and a definite national flag did not come into being until the late 18th and early 19th centuries. DonBeroni (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
As you have already been told repeatedly, there is an exception to MOS:INFOFLAGBOX that permits military history articles to use flags. Flags are particularly useful in this infobox since there were multiple belligerent states on each side of the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
None of your statements address any of my points. DonBeroni (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@DonBeroni The way you push through your edits without wating for consensus doesn't make working with you a very nice experience.
But I agree that using ensigns is probably not very helpful and that wikipedia should be careful with using national flags. If Spain's flag is in doubt for this period we probably shouldn't use a flag. However, this doesn't translate to every other page. Flags are useful when there are multiple belligerents DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)