This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seven Years' War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
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).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia articles
The infobox here has gone completely mad, and needs to be drastically shortened, perhaps with several hidden "other" sections. In NO way does thwe current version comply with WP:INFOBOX. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For the commander section, for example, only commanders who are mentioned in the article should be included. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not out off control, this was just a very large scale conflict with lots of belligerents and is very imformative. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is way out of control - read WP:INFOBOX as to what should be there. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:@DavidDijkgraaf:@Remsense: For reasons that are not entirely clear, Blackmamba has raised this as an ANI. That being the case, it provides an opportunity to have a wider discussion on this topic; I have include you as you've expressed a concern - I suggest we start on the ANI page :) Robinvp11 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have apoligized for this. It is on the ANI. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they here? There are no sources cited. Same with Mallacca, which did not exist as an Independent country during that time period. Also, Dutch East Indía company Stuff needs to be source cited, and fixed, like Singapore. I also changed “rebels inside Dutch Ceylon” to “Sinhala rebels” but the original thing no sources where cited. Also, why can’t í add the Iroquois flag? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a lack of understanding as to what constitutes a Belligerent, while colonial disputes continued regardless of whether France and Britain were officially at war.
The article needs serious surgery. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Á lot of these edits í disagree with. For example, no, we can’t mention every commander listed in the article, but instead some should be mentioned in Battles they where involved with. Í agree with some part of the belligerents changes, but we can’t just remove a belligerent we are únsure of. Instead, we need to act responsinle and find somewhere online mentioning it. But a lot of the belligerents removed where belligerents. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox is meant to summarize the most important content in an article. Even if you disagree with them specifically, your characterization of edits that are clearly rooted in best practices, both in general and specific to military history as "vandalism" is unwarranted.
If one would like to know all the relevant information about a conflict, they should read the article or its sources. The infobox as is stretches the form well beyond what it was designed to do, such that it considerably less helpful as a quick summary for readers. Remsense诉 05:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the legal and Wikipedia definition of Belligerent, then come back and discuss, rather than the other way round.
There are various comments from other editors on this TP on the additions to this Infobox - having a go at me when you're the person who's introduced major changes to a stable article without discussion seems odd.
I have invited other editors to comment on the ANI - let's see where we end up. I will happily abode by the editorial consensus. Robinvp11 (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I've closed the ANI thread, because this is just a content dispute that should happen on this page.) Remsense诉 08:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these belligerents were added without a source, so i propose that we should first find the source and then add them. Not the other way around DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have disrupted lots of constructive editing. I should of resolved the conflict better. Although i still think some of the editing is opinanted, but í should of simply resolved the conflict by working it out. If anything, I’m the vandal here and í take full responsibility. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, because you were trying to help, and on Wikipedia we only call people acting in bad faith vandals. Live and learn! :) Remsense诉 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there has been lots of debate on this article why the Aceh Sultanate is on here, but í think í found a source. The Aceh rebels have a source cited, so í think the Aceh Sultanate whould also be mentioned. The Source it sites is a Book called the Dictonary of Wars, on Pg. 417. So, if anyone has the Book, please check that page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point was not that they were not involved at all, the point was that their involvement was not important to a summary explanation of the conflict, which is what an infobox is supposed to be for. We shouldn't list every polity, commander, and nuance—sometimes, that can't even be justified in the article body, never mind the infobox. Remsense诉 16:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ók, then, what does Wikipedia classify as a belliegrent? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Aceh was not important in this conflict. Remsense诉 17:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant enough that you have to go to page 417 of The Dictionary of Wars to find a citation to that effect. Again, coverage on Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in sources. Remsense诉 17:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've been saying each time but want to do so again: an infobox is meant to summarize the body of the article, not provide all the information in the article. You know how many times Aceh is presently mentioned in the article? Zero. So this is a non-starter, we have to agree that a paragraph on Aceh's participation is due in the article first, then we can think about whether they might fit into the infobox. Remsense诉 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, í agree with you. Same with the Filoipino rebels. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why where the French and Indian War and Indian front belligerents removed? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the French and Indian War started two years earlier and was largely a separate conflict from other theaters, it seems like it might make sense to keep it to its own article as far as the infobox is concerned. That seems to be the gist of @Robinvp11's edit summary at least, and in this case it makes sense to me. Remsense诉 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French and Indian War where still part of the conflict, it’s what started it. But, even if you do think that, what about the Indian Front with The Mughal Empire? And The Phillipenes? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, not mentioned in the article itself. Remsense诉 15:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were the same war in the broadest sense, but histories of the conflict really don't tell them as one story. The point being once again, that we need to add it to the article before we add it to the infobox. Remsense诉 15:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is an entire section in the article on both. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the figures that are mentioned in those sections (like George Washington) are also in the infobox. Remsense诉 15:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the Iroquois Confederacy, the Algonquin Wabanaki Confederacy, and the Mughal Empire back to the infobox, since they are mentioned in the article (and deserve to be there, in my mind obviously) Remsense诉 15:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the Flags of Wbanaki and Bengal Subdah called I’m trying to add them Blackmamba31248 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three states in question had anything resembling a "national flag", that's why I didn't add them. Flag abuse is another big problem on Wikipedia, and the mindset should be the same: "putting nothing is better than misrepresenting the past by insisting there should be something" Remsense诉 20:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Bengal Subdah had a flag. The Wabanaki did not have a flag, but it does have a banner called the Wampa banner. But you’re right. Most of the Naitve Amercian belligerents had no Flags. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, of course the Mugals had a flag. Here is the page talking about them
But yes, í do agree with you with flag abuse. For example, when including the Cherokee nation ín a war in the 1700s, you can’t include a flag in the infobox, because even if they have a flag now, they didn’t back then. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, i wasn't sure and thought i had doublechecked, that seems fine then Remsense诉 01:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmamba31248, per the recent addition: in addition to the sourcing issue, this is also one of the struggles of writing a tertiary source: a lot of content we like might be minor and not due for inclusion. This article is currently too long, but I'm not sure this is worth a mention even at this length, unfortunately. Remsense诉 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]