Talk:Spanish Empire

message: Please indicate preferred option and why.
*Options 3 (average) and 5 (Encyclopædia Britannica) are both non-starters for reasons of WP:SYNTH and unreliability, respectively. Consequently, option 6 (Britannica+Taagepera) is just a worse version of option 1 (Taagepera). Option 4 (Taagepera rounded) is reasonable in prose and the current status quo there (specifically rounded down and stated as a lower bound), but doesn't really work in the infobox. Option 1 (Taagepera) is the current status quo in the infobox, and I don't mind it. Option 2 (Etemad) only works if we make sure not to imply that it's the peak value, and to my eye an inferior option to using Taagepera. Option 7 (no figure) is probably the best one—we shouldn't try to give a simple answer to a non-simple question. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of options (Votes!)

message: As a Spaniard myself I have to say this, the files SpanishEmpire1790.svg and Imperios Español y Portugués 1790.svg are fake, Nutka territory, Patagonia and the Essequibo were never part of the Empire (were as Spanish as, for example, the Kamchatka Peninsula which according to the Treaty of Tordesillas was "Spanish"), they were just reclamations but Spain never possesed them. And despite Louisiana and Florida were part of the Empire, Spain only controlled New Orleans, Mobile, Pensacola, Saint Agustine and some forts, the rest of the land was in native hands or wild nature.
So please, can you post an actual map of the effective Spanish territory? Thanks. 83.58.27.132 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Do please feel free to post an accurate map. Furius (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mate, it's not free to edit if it's protected. 83.58.27.132 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always make an edit request on the talk page, or wait until the protection expires (and long term page protection is rare). Donald Albury 01:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map (yes, again again again, this time by a Spaniard) 

message: The article says "The British suffered 25,000 dead or wounded and lost nearly 5,000 ships during the war".  This appears to misinterpret the source cited as listing solely British casualties rather than the total casualties on both sides.  The Wikipedia article on the war seems to agree that the total casualties of the war were 25,000 with British casualties being 20,000.
Also, 5000 ships lost seems like a ridiculous figure and is most likely a typo in the source, since it's unlikely the British even had 5000 ships, let alone lost that many.  Such a number would make it one of the biggest naval wars in history, rather than a largely forgotten colonial squabble of little significance.  The wikipedia article on the war gives British ship losses as 407, and it seems likely that the cited source contains a typo and is supposed to be 500 (and, as with the previous figure, is meant to be the total of both sides' losses rather than just British losses).
Can someone who is able to edit the article fix this?  2A00:23A8:4C05:DB01:F970:34E:9161:D494 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of Jenkins Ear 

message: Hi, I have never seen any evidence of Cortés himself conducting widespread, intentional cultural destruction in Mexico- can you please provide a citation for the following statement: "Cortés directed the burning of Aztec books and records, destroyed monuments, removed idols from temples, and purged the sites of sacrificial remnants to prepare the locations for Catholic worship." 142.180.3.116 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed on Cortes directing burning of Aztec documents and cultural relics