Talk:War of the Bavarian Succession

message: This article does not cite any sources. NMTPhysics (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Is the Berenger ISBN correct? Can't get a match for it online.  --JN466 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Berenger ISBN

message: This is a bit of a nit in an otherwise fine article, but Francis lost Lorraine in the War of the Polish Succession.  The text in the background session makes no suggestion that he lost it militarily.  My guess is that the gyrations by which he ended up with Tuscany were face saving, but I've never dug into the diplomacy ending that war. Magic♪piano 02:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He lost it militarily in war, but he was forced to formally renounce his claim to it, in exchange for Tuscany, in order to be allowed to marry Maria Theresa; that was France's price for endorsing the Pragmatic Sanction.  Crankshaw's biography of Maria Theresa has Johann Christoph von Bartenstein (who, surprisingly, has no Wikipedia article, so far as I can tell) telling him "No renunciation, no archduchess."  Perhaps simply changing "relinquish" to "renounce" would be better?  Delving into the details of Lorrainian succession in the 1730s don't really seem relevant to this article. Binabik80 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Francis and Lorraine

message: A map of the various territories and parties involved would be extremely helpful. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add a map? 

message: According to the Duchy of Bavaria article, the Duchy of Bavaria ceased to exist in 1623, long before the War of the Bavarian Succession in 1778-79. By then, Bavaria was an electorate: the Electorate of Bavaria. Shouldn't this article read "Electorate of Bavaria" wherever it currently reads "Duchy of Bavaria"? Neelix (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Neelix, thanks for your comments.  the terminology is complicated.  The Electorate was a political term and the "duchy" refers to the physical space governed by the dukes.  After 1814, the ducal territory became a kingdom when the dukes were raised to the rank of kingship.  It would be okay to call it either the duchy of Bavaria, which refers to a specific territorial space, or the Electorate of Bavaria, which refers to the entirety of the Elector's personal (and family) holdings. If you look at History of Bavaria you can see that Bavaria is referred to as a duchy well into the nineteenth century. auntieruth (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchy or Electorate? 

message: A Saxon–Prussian alliance fought the War of the Bavarian Succession (July 1778 – 21 May 1779) against the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy to prevent the Habsburgs from acquiring the Electorate of Bavaria.
The first sentence of the lead. Isn't that a bit strange as an introduction to this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrupt, to say the least 

message: I changed the sentence "Finally, Catherine II of Russia's threat to intervene on the side of Prussia with 50,000 Russian troops forced Joseph to reconsider his position" to "Finally, Catherine the Great's ..."  This was then reverted by Lubiesque with the edit summary "Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great might be okay in a biographic article, but not here. What's wrong with Catherine II ?!"  This is the wrong way round: "Catherine II" and "Frederick II" would be much more appropriate to a biography, whose job is to explain who these people are; here, the appropriate names are "Catherine the Great" and "Frederick the Great", since those are the names everyone actually knows.  People make an instant mental connection when they read a reference to "Catherine the Great"; far fewer of them make such a connection when they read "Catherine II of Russia", and unless they're already familiar with the period, it's going to float on past them being the ninth generic Germanic monarch the article has managed to mention in its first three paragraphs.  Also "Catherine II of Russia's threat to intervene with fifty thousand Russian troops" is plain bad writing, and either "of Russia" or "Russian" needs to be removed.  Basically the article is better written and more informative to its readers with "Catherine the Great" instead of "Catherine II of Russia", which to me are the only two considerations with Wikipedia.  However I'd like to thank Lubiesque for pointing out that "Frederick II of Prussia" also occurs in the lede.  I missed that when I made my initial edit, and I recommend fixing that as well.  Binabik80 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Having received no pushback, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes.  Binabik80 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I would have preferred Catherine II....and Frederick II if that's of any importance, although I originally had used Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great and it was changed by an editor.  I also don't appreciate your saying X is plain bad writing, since that's just impolite(IMHO).  I don't agree that it's better written with Cath or Fred the Great, than the other way.   I probably wrote it originally as Catherine's threat to intervene with 50,000 Russian troops ..... However, I'm not getting into an edit war with someone. auntieruth (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We can debate whether or not it's impolite, rather than forthright.  I certainly didn't mean to cause offence, and I apologise for doing so.  As a professional writer, I would honestly find it impolite only if someone withheld from pointing out a flaw in my writing in an attempt to spare my feelings.  Anyhow.  Repeating a distinctive word like Russia/Russian in the same sentence is flawed writing, especially when the repetition doesn't add any information: it's pretty obvious that when a monarch provides troops for a war, those troops are going to come from the monarch's country. We'd only need to specify both the monarch's country and the troops' nationality if they were different ("fifty thousand Cossacks" or "fifty thousand Hessian mercenaries").  My original edit removed the redundant repetition; the reversion restored it.  I wanted to make the point that regardless of whether we referred to Catherine by numeral or cognomen, it would still improve the sentence to address that.  Binabik80 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with forthrightness, but your comment came across not as collaboration to improve, but condemnation of what was there.  It's important, also, to remember that a lot of people put their fingers into the pie once it's posted, and when I looked at the history of the page, I realized that although I had written Catherine the Great/Russian troops, someone else had changed it to Cather II of Russia and her Russian troops, which is, I agree, redundant.     I'm not sure what reversion you're pointing at--I didn't revert anything, I don't think. I certainly have no problem with people improving the writing. The problem comes up when too many people are trying to improve the writing.  auntieruth (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine II/Catherine the Great 

message: Did the War of the Bavarian Succession end on 13th or 21st May, 1779? The first sentence of this article says 21st May. The Treaty of Teschen was signed on 13th May. What happened in between? --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending on 13th or 21st May, 1779? 

message: 139.104.3.2 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect!