Jump to content

Talk:Seven Years' War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why?

[edit]

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 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]
And the Kalymk Khanate was removed. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, not mentioned in the article itself. Remsense 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 15:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ók then, í agree. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:16, 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 15:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 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 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 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
Flags of the Mughal Empire# Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is ðretty minor. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia in Infobox

[edit]

Russia is listed on both sides, both saying until 1672, but the left side for some reason has a note attached reading 'from 1672'. From my little research into this war it seems that Russia stopped fighting entirely in 1672, but I think the infobox should be clearer. Wikifan153 (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is listed on both sides, both saying until 1672

Yeah, who did that?
I would remove Russia from the Anglo-Prussian side entirely. Remsense 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughals and Maratha

[edit]

Both were involved in many wars with french [1] PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are not meant to be an exhaustive listing—their purpose is to provide key information at a glance, summarizing what the article itself says. As it stands, the actual article does not mention the Maratha once, so what is the infobox meant to be summarizing? That in turn reflects that their involvement in this conflict was comparatively very minor, so they should not be mentioned in the infobox at all. This is an encyclopedia article for a general audience. Remsense 18:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, never cite another Wikipedia article as a source: that is circular. Remsense 18:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it does mention Marathas in the article.
There were 3,000 maratha troops PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not mention the Maratha once. Remsense 18:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution of the other two confederacies was also minor PranshavAnandPatel (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they're mentioned in the article. Feel free to make a case for their removal here based on what the sources say. Remsense 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General and cited references section needs to be divided

[edit]

The Seven Years' War § General and cited references contains both sources for shortened footnotes, which often go into a Sources section & citations that are not used for footnotes almost always go into the Further reading section, which is one of the standard appendices and footers. Furthermore, most of the uncited sources are not in a citation template such as {{cite book}}, whereas the cited sources are. I intend to separate the two grouping & put the un-templated citations into templates, as per WP:CITEVAR:

  • imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit;

Peaceray (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]