Talk:Crimean War

Short description

@Slatersteven the short description on this article currently reads as

1853–1856 war between the Russian Empire and thei...

getting cut off. Remember, a short description is mostly used to disambiguate and doesn't have the requirements of the lead sentence. For context, some articles have titles so descriptive that they don't need any SD. And because people mostly see the SD in the search bar, the distinction is mostly between similarly-titled articles, not similarly-themed articles. Typing "Crimean" into the search bar shows only one article about a war.

I believe "1853–1856 war" would do most of the work for this purpose, but because you are engaged on this topic I will trust your judgement on how to shorten the SD. Wizmut (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's too long. I linked the wrong guideline page earlier but here's the correct one: [1]

Under purposes:

>Short descriptions provide:

a very brief indication of the field covered by the article

a short descriptive annotation

a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields

An SD that gets cut off isn't short and is a bad SD. Wizmut (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a short description. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

At 100 characters, it's the longest such on Wikipedia right now.

Question: where do you personally see short descriptions? Wizmut (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• A long short-description is a bit like military intelligence. If the title is sufficiently clear, do we need an SD? Is the title is sufficiently clear (no similar titles) that it also serves as the SD? If we really need something different, "1853–1856 war" seem suitable. But arguing over an SD is a bit like arguing over the toilet seat (IMO). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Losses

@ SlaterstevenI don't really understand why my edits are being canceled without explanation, I pointed out a fairly authoritative source, from an author who wrote just a giant study about this war Dushnilkin (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I told you why I reverted them, do not edit war, I was not the only one. You should have asked this when first reverted. I shall do it for you, so IP what was your objection? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought that after the first rollback, no one would remove my additions, and I did not see a answer anywhere about canceling the data that I added, please repeat Dushnilkin (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That is still a violation of wp:brd, I can imagine they might have had a reason, but it is not for me to actually give it, its down to them. So leave it a few days, and if no one objects you can have your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand you. Dushnilkin (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Dushnilkin, your edit is a change to casualties in the infobox that would result in a glaringly wide range for the Russian casualties without the addition to the article of any supporting prose. I would suspect that the difference in these figures is not an inherently large discrepancy but more a matter of nuance as to what is actually being reported by different authors. I would think that we need to examine the sources more critically to see where the difference lies, with a view to creating appropriate supporting prose and how we should ultimately report this in the infobox. While the article doesn't have an actual casualty section, the nearest most appropriate section would be Aftermath in Russia? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking about this, because even in Russia there are many sources indicating higher losses than 148,000. However, I do not have English sources to indicate the data from their point of view Dushnilkin (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I created a window where I indicated all the sources of swinging losses that I have, if you have any additional work on this, then specify them Dushnilkin (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I reverted your edits adding a new section and readding to the infobox with the edit summary: We are discussing this. There is another section with nearly the same title. Edits screw with the infobox formatting. The addition was premature and there are many issues with the text added. The last sentence questions the higher figures. Does the source cited do this or is it your conclusion because of the lower figure. If the latter, it falls to WP:OR. Wars of the World does not appear to be an RS. We can see Clodfelter here. Clodfelter distinguishes between deaths in the Crimean war v deaths in Crimea - "a great many of them before reaching the Crimea" (attributed to Russian writers). We still need to work through this. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The source that I have indicated does not dispute your data, the words "however, this data can be confirmed by doubt," I added on my own. Here is a quote from a source: "our troops improved their sanitary provision, only a few formations in the Crimea suffered from typhus or fever (Oryol, Tula and Kaluga squad). The total number of cases in our army is 183.5 thousand people, of which 101.5 thousand it accounted for typhus and fever patients, and 19 thousand for cholera patients» Dushnilkin (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your own doubt would be OR. The distinction in the figures would appear to be in Crimea v in the Crimean War. This is nuance that needs the clarification of prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Zayonchkovski apparently reports 143,000 Russian dead and (per above) 183,000 cases of disease. But cases is not equal to mortality. Here is another source. The non-combat deaths reported in the infobox are actually died of disease (for France and UK at least) according to the source - Clodfelter. This is at odds with the source I just gave by about 28,000. I am beginning to suspect that there is way too much nuance (variation) for us to put anything in the infobox and confine our writing to prose (and/or a table) with a dedicated casualty section. Everyone appears to be counting different types of fruit (apples, oranges bananas etc) so that there may be no reliable comparison between figures. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think that in this case it is necessary to create a separate page where you can specify all possible loss options (which we currently have) and leave the infobox window empty Dushnilkin (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps we need a page to sandbox this but not a separate article, just a separate section in the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's basically what I suggested. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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)