| Revision as of 12:44, 19 October 2024 editRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors58,856 edits →Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:43, 6 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:War of 1812/Archive 29) (bot |
| (10 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 55: |
Line 55: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we give the americans an image of their outfits? == |
|
== Flagicons == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the British have an image for their outfits in that era, The Americans don't. can we change that so we can see what the Americans looked like in the war of 1812? |
|
The flagicons should not be removed from the infobox because, as another user pointed out, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: "Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include...Summarizing military conflicts" Along with this infobox being a infobox that summarizes a military conflict, the flagicons also serve a useful purpose by showing the flags flown by each of the countries in the war, which is a case of the flagicons conveying "information in addition to the text." ] (]) 02:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I'm fine if someone responds with yes or no.) ] (]) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Agreed. INFOBOXFLAG is pretty straight forward that situations like this are the exact moment to use the flag icons. There are multiple factions on each side, the flag icon next to the commanders helps out as well. Its also common for any and all articles on military conflicts to have flagicons, and its seems pedantic to the point of sticking out to erroneously demand that not be used in this article. ] (]) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
*While ] is permissive of flags for conflict boxes, they must still serve a useful purpose when they are used - ie their use is conditional and must not be primarily decorative. As {{U|Moxy}} observes, these are {{tq|small images most people can't see}}. They are not sufficiently clear to show the differences in flags that may occur with time and therefore, are not capable of showing {{tq|the flags flown by each of the countries in the war}} at the time. This rational is not consistent with the ''spirit and intent'' of the guidance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] |
|
:Flags ''can'' serve a useful purpose when there are two or more belligerents on one or more of the sides and they act as a ''key'' (shorthand) for information pertaining to the specific belligerents in different sections of the infobox. There are multiple belligerents in this case but most of the belligerents do not have national flags. Consequently, flags are not able to effectively serve this purpose and other devices are being relied upon - eg the names themself are sufficiently distinctive to indicate the allegiance of commanders. The flags are therefore redundant and are not fulfilling a useful purpose here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About the revert: |
|
:Note, the use of the Spanish flag is inappropriate/misleading per the discussion above regarding Spain. <small>I had made a response to this effect earlier but for whatever reason, it didn't actually appear.</small> ] (]) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand why it was reverted (I'd be guessing likely due to the "Both sides claim victory" and "Native American defeat" parts), but I don't exactly know why everything was removed? |
|
== Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I obviously shouldn't have added some of the information I did decide to add, other things I added such as other casualties surely shouldn't have been removed? ] (]) 09:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
The previous status quo has been to include reference to the Napoleonic Wars in the infobox, as most historians consider it either to have been a theater of or at least been importantly related to the Napoleonic Wars. However, this seems to have become controversial recently among some Misplaced Pages users. This section is to discuss, argue, and form a consensus as to whether this connection should be present in the infobox of this article or not. I for one '''Support''' the continued inclusion of "Napoleonic Wars" in the "part of" section do to the large historical consensus that the War of 1812 was directly related to, impacted by, and had an impact on the Napoleonic Wars (as a most conservative argument, many more ascribe it the status of a theater in itself). In fact, on the Napoleonic Wars article itself, the War of 1812 is described as a subsidiary war. ] (]) 10:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The changes to the result parameter are contrary to ]. Per ], the infobox is not a place for detail. It is there to summarise ''key facts'' from the article. The article should remain complete without the infobox. The casualty section is a mess and quite contrary to the guidance. Your edits there only take things from bad to worse. We should be writing such things into the article. Regards, ] (]) 10:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Mere longevity is the weakest and often worst form of consensus. You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them. The fact that another article says something is not itself the substance of an argument—{{cf.}}] and ]. I also think its inclusion there is mistaken, but it even says on ] merely that {{xt|The War of 1812 coincided with the War of the Sixth Coalition}}. There is no source cited there attesting that it is actually considered subsidiary <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::So are you blaming me or the infobox itself? |
|
::To clarify your position ], are you against the inclusion because your interpretation of history differs, or only because you don't feel it's at the moment properly sourced? ] (]) 10:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::''"The changes to the result parameter are contrary to ]."'' |
|
:::I'm not sure what you're asking here—like always, we write articles based on what reliable sources say. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 10:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I think I clearly acknowledged that I made a mistake here, don't particularly get the point of repeating it to me. |
|
::::Well from what I understand, most sources acknowledge the important connection between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, so I'm asking if your interpretation of history differs, and that's your issue (historians do often disagree) , or if, if properly sourced, you will be satisfied and drop your argument? ] (]) 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::''"The casualty section is a mess and quite contrary to the guidance.Your edits there only take things from bad to worse."'' |
|
:::::I stated it pretty clearly above: {{xt|You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them.}} It is the {{para|partof}} parameter, not the {{para|relatedto}} parameter. That would get you started at least —we generally only include information in the infobox if it's a critical fact attested in many sources, per ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::How do I worsen the casualty section by adding more info to it? Is there a problem in acknowledging the fact that there isn't only one source giving one specific casualty number? I don't get this point in the slightest. ] (]) 11:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I also request that you self-revert, as you are mistaken about what ] says. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The present version is still misusing the {{para|partof}} parameter in a way that is nonstandard and thus potentially misleading. It should also be noted that the other editor below would prefer its removal from the infobox also, so if you're willing to assess consensus by what editors are presently saying, you're insisting against consensus. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 11:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Since France was not involved in the war, and the U.S. was not involved in the wars between France and the UK it's not clear that it was part of a war between France and the UK. It's better to explain the connection in the body of the article rather than put it into the info-box. ] (]) 10:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Campaignbox_Napoleonic_Wars}} |
|
|
:For what it's worth, this has been discussed before ] and ]. I'm not sure that either discussion resulted in what could be considered consensus. |
|
|
:Whether or not to count the War of 1812 as a Napoleonic War seems to be sort of inconsistent across Misplaced Pages: |
|
|
:* The ] article has it as a ] |
|
|
:* The ] puts it essentially on equal footing with the ] (though this is obviously a bit strange). |
|
|
:* The battle map on the ] page (not sure how to link it directly) only includes conflicts in Europe, so not the War of 1812. |
|
|
:I think this argument essentially has as much to do with the definition of "part of" as the definition of "Napoleonic Wars" so it's difficult to support with sources. I like the "relates to" phrasing in the current edit, but as ] mentioned, the definition provided for <code>|partof=</code> at ] doesn't necessarily support this. Overall I'd say I'm currently against including this change in the infobox but I think it could make sense to add more detail on the relation between this war and the Napoleonic Wars in the content of the article itself. ] (]) 12:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Again, it doesn't matter what other unsourced content someone else added to another article. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::True, I don't mean to imply that as a reason to make a decision one way or another here, just that it's not unusual or nonsensical for editors to categorize things this way. And the listing of the War of 1812 as a "subsidiary war" isn't unsourced, though I don't have access to the book to look through the exact language used there. ] (]) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I did check the book. (And yes, it was fast, since I perused the index, in case anyone was wondering.) There are no such claims; it is a history of the period that discusses affairs in an interwoven, transatlantic manner as the title would suggest, but does not make any of the claims or characterizations that are at issue here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
While the British have an image for their outfits in that era, The Americans don't. can we change that so we can see what the Americans looked like in the war of 1812?
I understand why it was reverted (I'd be guessing likely due to the "Both sides claim victory" and "Native American defeat" parts), but I don't exactly know why everything was removed?
Even though I obviously shouldn't have added some of the information I did decide to add, other things I added such as other casualties surely shouldn't have been removed? Setergh (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.svg)
.svg)
