Talk:King William's War

Untitled
I have read that the war started in 1690, should the start date of the war be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingmusic (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Note on the name
A blub at the beginning should make clear that the name King William's War is only used in American (US) historiography. It has different names in English Canada, French Canada, the UK, and France. Kevlar67 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add those names to the intro. I don't know what they are. Funnyhat 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. It must be made clear that KWW is the North American name for the Nine Years War. NOT just the name given to the north American theatre. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Take the beginning of Queen Anne's War for example: "Queen Anne's War (1702–1713), as it was known in the English colonies, was the..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DondeEsAntonio (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Great job
I just want to commend everyone who helped write this article. A lot of Wikipedia articles tend to "go in one ear and out the other", but this one was very easy to read and made sense, and was very helpful in providing the information I needed. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DondeEsAntonio (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Andros a Catholic?
Is there a reference for the assertion that Andros was a Catholic? If so, it should be added, and the entry on Anros be revised because it notes he was an Anglican. (I suspect the latter is actually correct.) AnthroMimus (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From at least one source, Andros was accused of being papist by New Englanders. However, Puritans used this term as much to refer to conforming Anglicans as Catholics, at least when they were propagandizing.  Magic ♪piano 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the reference, thanks, Magicpiano. (And sorry for the dely in response.) The question I have is if he in fact was Catholic why did the very Protestant establishment after the Bill of Rights of 1689 allow him to be returned as a crown agent in Virginia? Wouldn't it be safer to say "Andros, thought by many New Englanders to be a papist and in any event appointed by the Catholic King James ..."? AnthroMimus (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The reality is that Andros' religion isn't really important in this article, so I've removed mention of it entirely. (It's certainly more relevant in other articles involving him.)  Magic ♪piano 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
This article includes links to Canada (New France) and New France. With the titles being almost identical and a lot of the content duplicated, the case for merging them seems quite strong. I know very little on this subject and lack the expertise to do it. What do other editors think? RASAM (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate Map of King William War
The map of King William's War does not adequately reflect the New England incursions into Acadia or the incursions on present-day Maine. Is there someone who could work on this?--Hantsheroes (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you asked the map's author?  Magic ♪piano 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary
From the lead guideline "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

However to meet this requirement so that those who use search engines can navigate to the correct page it is necessary to get a brief description over in the first paragraph. If one searches for this using Google Search the current page returns

That does not help anyone understand what it is about, because all it is doing is listing alternative names. As it happens Google has recently been putting up its own definitions which it extracts from Wikipedia or from wikidata (I am not sure which). That description reads:

If potential readers are using a search engine other than Google then they are not so forgiving for example see for example a Yarhoo search, as ask yourself if the snippet returned for Wikipedia and www.u-s-history.com is more inviting to the potential reader:

I came here because I want to expand the section called "Operations" in the English Army article. I ought to be able to cut and past the fist paragraph or two be able to give a brief description of he war. At the moment this lead is not organised in a way that makes that possible. I suggest that those who edit this article regularly consider rewriting the lead with the common American and British titles in the lead (just two) -- footnote the rest of the alternative names (or move them lower down the lead) along with the their origins -- and use wording like that of the alternative Google lead and the lead used by www.u-s-history.com to summarise the conflict in a sentence or two. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Name left unexplained
You'd think the person who the war was named after would at least be referred to and said of what exactly he did, but he's not mentioned even once? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King William's War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627115249/http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=14831 to http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=14831

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Expansions
I agree with the Comment above that the Lead section needs rewriting - I'm happy to give it a go. Also, I think the accepted convention is to use the term Native Americans, not Indians. Anyone know?

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)