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 is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Forgive me for diving into the information box in the worst nerdy traditions, but I spotted that Brialmont's losses for the French side matched exactly those given by Digby Smith for officers only. I don't have Brialmont, but obviously there is a mistake somewhere: either in the book itself, or by a Wiki editor. I thought it best to update the information box casualty and losses stats in line with Smith (whom I treat as definitive on these matters) and leave the discussion of losses to the end of the article.
More minor matter: Smith says dates were 3 to 5 May, the article (with references) says 3 to 6 May. Any thoughts as to which is correct? --Wally Tharg (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The article dates the battle as 3 to 6 May but doesn't mention any action after the 5th. According to Dr. T. A. Heathcote, in his book Wellington's Peninsular War Generals and their Battles, the British regained control of the village on the afternoon of the 5th and Massena, having lost 2,000+ men, made no more attacks. Although he and his forces remained in the area until supplies were exhausted, finally leaving on the 8 May 1811. In light of all this, I am changing the dates in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's incredible how bad this infobox is. The sources used to support the "strategic" victory didn't have a single "Strategic" point in them, and the claim that Wellington ended as master of the field is just plain false, as the French ended up controlling half of the town. Ruddah (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
While I doubt this mess can be correct without starting all over again, I'll made a small contribution. Aozyk (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The result of the battle has been changed by User:Aozyk despite the citations saying the end result was not indecisive. Shire Lord (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
