Talk:Crimean War

Lead length

Admittedly a complex topic, but I think the lead needs to be condensed. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Crimean War

Dear Sir Slatersteven,

I noticed you reverted my edit that added the line about the significant Irish contribution to the British military during the Crimean War. Your comment indicating 'UNure we need this undo' suggests you may have had some uncertainty about undoing this edit.

Notably, History Ireland is a reputable publication that provides well-researched articles on historical topics, often written by historians and experts in the field. It is considered a reliable secondary source, which aligns with Wikipedia's standards for citations.

I believe this detail is relevant and important to include, as it highlights the substantial Irish participation and role in the conflict. Could you please reconsider adding this line back in? I'm happy to discuss further and provide any additional context or justification for including this information.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Shahidullah-Bin-Anwar (talk • contribs) 08:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNOT applies. There is nothing to establish it is significant in the context of the article. It is presented as a random factoid that does not enhance the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional commanders in infobox

This edit by Perast would add a significant number of additional commanders to the infobox - not all of which are supported by the body of the article. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the information in the infobox should be supported by the article (ie it summarises information from the article). Documentation for this parameter at Template: Infobox military conflict tells us to limit the number to about seven a side. This is consistent with the advice at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - less is better (ie don't bloat the infobox). Consequently, we should populate the parameter with those commanders/leaders that are most key or significant. The edit adding these additional commanders is contrary to the prevailing guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I am aware that the recommended number is 7 for each side, but then again it is merely a recommendation. Check pretty much any other article on wars (e.g. American Revolutionary War, First, Second, Fourth Coalitions and so on) and you will find almost or more than double that number of recommended commanders in the infobox. If this edit is an issue for you, hopefully you can make the same arguments on the talk pages of the aforementioned articles. Nevertheless, I am willing to compromise. I'll remove a few of the commanders who didn't play much of a role in the war (although all of the ones I added did), and if the ones I kept are currently unsourced/unmentioned, I will amend that. I'll make this change within 1-2 days if you agree. Perast (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many bloated infoboxes around which do not reasonably comply with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and other guidance. WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a reasonable argument for ignoring guidance. I have and do address such instances when I come across them. I will get to the other articles you have flagged but there is WP:NODEADLINE. About seven is not a ridged number within a small margin but doubling this is not reasonable. Limiting the number also dovetails with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We need to be very critical about what we put in an infobox. Just because someone gets a mention doesn't mean they must or should be included in the infobox. WP:ONUS also applies here. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that double the amount of recommended commanders is a bit much which is why I have already agreed to remove most of the commanders I added. Although nearly all the commanders I plan to keep are already talked about in the article, some are missing, for example Behram Pasha. But if you read from his article, he played a big role in the war ("inflicted upon the Russians the most profound humiliation which they had experienced during the whole war"). I will make sure to mention this in the edit I am about to start soon. Also do we keep monarchs who didn't personally fight in the commanders section? Perast (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We populate the infobox with those that are of most significance as evidenced by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have saved you some trouble and removed those which are not supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No we do not need another bloated info box with Waggon master general in it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

@ Dushnilkin In the source you gave, there is no mention of irregular troops, only mobilized soldiers are mentioned, and you also wrote the British and French casualties again, as I said again, the Ottomans mobilized 200,000 to 300,000 soldiers, there is no mention of irregular troops, and 400,000 is an exaggerated figure, the source you gave is already a Russian source, if we cannot agree, you can write (Russian estimates) to the data in the infobox. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You can mark them yourself, the only thing I can show you are examples where some of the troops mobilized by the Ottomans simply weren't counted as soldiers. I will also add this data[1] to the infobox. Dushnilkin (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it makes more sense now, thanks. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Dushnilkin, the infobox is for a simple summary of key facts, not the type of detail you are adding to strength and casualties. Such detail belongs in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not add details to the data in the infobox, but updated them, they can also be included in the text of the article. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The semantics of what you see you did is not the issue, it is the effect. We don't start up different subsections within an infobox parameter for different sources. That is detail and not a simple summary. That is what the body of the article is for. From the body comes a simple summary used in the infobox. There is nuance as to why the figures are different. The body of the article explains the nuance. As you have access to these sources and can see what the nuance is, It should be you that incorporates them into the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll create this paragraph later. Dushnilkin (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add external link

The Crimean War, 1853-1856 page at the University of Pennsylvania's Online Books project is the most extensive stable, continuously updated online bibliography on the topic, complete with bibliographies on 45 subtopics. Since the External links section includes a message "Please, do not insert external links without discussion", I am proposing this addition here. Ivan (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)