Talk:First Sino-Japanese War

Missing article?

"After more than six months of unbroken successes by (the) Japanese land and naval forces and the loss of the port of Weihaiwei, the Qing government sued for peace in February 1895".

Shouldn't be there an article between "by" and "Japanese"? Ramiro Echeverría (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Reads OK with or without: successes by Japanese land and [Japanese] naval forces. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"this does not generally go here"

@Remsense "this does not generally go here". Actually it does. Check Second Opium War, Opium Wars, Russo-Japanese War, American Revolutionary War, Mexican–American War. There's more btw. Alexysun (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A collection of other articles being in violation of guidelines (WP:RESULT) doesn't justify another being as such. Feel free to help out by bringing those into line so I don't have to. Remsense诉 21:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Do it. Alexysun (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense You claiming that WP:RESULT does not allow for treaties to be stated in a bullet point below the result in the result section of the infobox is an outright lie. Alexysun (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed.

"Restricted to" makes it rather clear. If you call me a liar again, I am going to report you at ANI.Remsense诉 22:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First, that is an incorrect interpretation of WP:RESULT. I have already consulted the HEAD coordinator of WikiProject Military history, who confirmed that he is not aware of any such restrictions that you mentioned.

Secondly, threatening to report someone who has committed no wrongdoing constitutes an attempt to intimidate and remove them from the platform. Feel free to report me if you wish. I have no fear, for my actions have been above reproach. Alexysun (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What does the word "restricted" mean to you? Similarly, calling an editor a liar and claiming it's beyond reproach shows you are also unaware of what another policy, WP:NPA, plainly says. It seems you are saying your personal attacks are "beyond reproach". Remsense诉 23:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I really dislike doing it, but I'm going to ping @Hawkeye7 since their comments are being leveraged in this discussion. Remsense诉 23:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditto to me or @Remsense? Alexysun (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

My "Ditto" means, what Remsense to you. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

“Infobox clutter”?

My understanding of WP:RESULT is that it pertains largely to adjectives describing victories, i.e. "pyrrhic" or "decisive". Including the article for the Treaty of Shimonoseki in the results section falls in line with what is established as an exception, such as links to Aftermath articles or results; it's hardly cluttering or superfluous. Also, considering the length of a conflict to be clutter is puzzling; that's a fairly universal part of all infoboxes for military history on Wikipedia. Pave Paws (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the mention of the Treaty of Shimonoseki and placed it in the lede just as there's no mention of it there. Pave Paws (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You're quite wrong here: it's not "essentially universal". Again, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE very clearly says the infobox should be limited to key facts about a subject. In most cases, the precise length of a war—given separately from start and end date—is not key information and not frequently attested in sources. It's frankly agglutinative clutter that people add everywhere because they saw it in one place and they like to treat Wikipedia infoboxes as their research spreadsheet, and I've yet to see a real argument for its universality. An example where the precise span is justified is Thirty Years' War. Remsense ‥ 论 04:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) is for key significant facts and the guidance instructs that less is best (a paraphrase). When it started and finished are key facts. How long this was is evident without explicitly stating - it is just filling up space. However, I agree with Remsense that this would be significant in the case of the Thirty Years' War (or similar), where the duration has a specific significance. Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox flags

This is a case where there are only two combatants. In such a case, flags serve no useful purpose and should not be used per MOS:MILFLAGS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

HawkNightingale175 regarding reinstating this edit and your edit summary: I looked at the rules and didn't see anything against using military flags to denote military figures. "Subnational" clearly refers to things like administrative regions, not the military. Additionally I have seen multiple consenses on Wikipedia on how many commanders to add to infobox section (last time I checked it was around 10?). The relevant guidance at MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, which is explained in fuller detail at MOS:MILFLAGS, tells us that flags in the infobox must serve a useful purpose. MOS:MILFLAGS explains how they might do this. However, because there are only two belligerents in this war, they do not serve a useful purpose as defined in MOS:MIL. Sub-national flags are flags for any sub-entity of a nation. It does not exclude the nations military. Per MOS:ICON: It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns, provided that the flags are (as usual) accompanied at first occurrence by their country (or more narrow) names—our readers are not expected to be military historians. The sub-national flags reinstated have not been defined for the reader on first use. Notwithstanding that there is no good reason to use flags at all in this instance, these undefined sub-national flags should not be used. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. For a commander/leader to be listed in the infobox, the body of the article should evidence that they played a key and significant role in the battle/war. The guidance also tells us that less is better. Template: Infobox military conflict tells us to limit the number to about seven a side. This was the case until you added passing mentions to justify adding extra commanders. WP:OTHERCONTENT is not of itself an argument of any substance unless it reflects best practice, which usually means compliance with prevailing P&G. WP:CONLEVEL tells us that a local consensus at different articles carries less weight than the consensus of P&G. The edit is contrary to prevailing P&G at multiple points. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)