This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deluge (history) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
@Gvssy Hi I saw that what your edits are I want to talk about them I give you a source that talks about Polish military victory [1] Poles ousted the Swedes but failed to achieve the same in diplomacy with defeat, source [2][3] They fully mention the defeat of Polish diplomacy at Oliva, because there is no point in debating who won, everyone won in a certain sphere, Poland and lithuania kept their existence, but sweden politically won the conflict. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Even if you have sources that describe either a Polish military victory and/or a Swedish political victory, these types of results are explicitly against WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX.
Results are meant to be as straightforward as possible, this is why results like, for example: "Soviet strategic victory" are against guidelines.
The best thing to do in this case is to add these sources (if they are not already there) to the outcome section in the article. Gvssy (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true, because the rules don't mention it, but I have a better idea to remove these results and do the
The guidelines in fact do prohibit it, here's a quote from the template:
"this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
Anyhow, I'm not sure exactly what your suggestion would change, since it already links to the Treaty of Oliva in the result parameter. Gvssy (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")
You began the discussion about Poland supposedly winning a military victory in while Sweden won politically. I, in what appeared too be in a simple manner, told you that guidelines go against displaying any form of result other than X victory, Inconclusive, or See aftermath in the infobox.
Then, you claim that this isn't true, not explaining your reasoning.
I am not arguing against changing the result to Treaty of Oliva, I am making sure you realized your mistake. Gvssy (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines don't say anything about something like that they say that it may be appropriate, but if you read further it says that if the sources write it like that it should be written like that, in addition not after my mistake, and that it would create a big mess, which I then realised.
Again, yes they do. Quote: "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat." If the sources do infact claim either a Political or Military victory for either side, this should either still not be included in the infobox (as it goes against guidelines) or just be displayed as "X victory", which is the norm and how this guideline is understood. To go along with this, it is better to either put the "Political" or "Military" victory rather than the infobox, which is also the standard from what I can tell.
Territorial changes coming from the Truce of Andrusovo should absolutely be included, as it ended the war between the Commonwealth and Russia.
Also, the territorial changes do not claim that the Commonwealth "fell" it says that it "declined" which are two very different subjects. Gvssy (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you should take into account such important things you only give examples that show more favourable things for sweden, the treaty of andrušov has nothing to do with the Swedish flood and the fall has the same, but you yourself changed the outcome of this war for example Polish–Ottoman War (1620–1621) and it's worth outlining that here you had no problem giving a result like for example "treaty at X", if you give such results then the Polish-Swedish war 1626-1629 should be the same result no? And the passage talks about outlining the scale of victory and not, for example, military or political victory AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Swedish victory" to the Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629) article because it isn't disputed by anyone. The result of the Deluge certainly is. In addition, the Truce of Andrusovo certainly has something to do with the Deluge. You realize the war did not end under 1667 with the truce?
I'm not sure why you're just blatantly lying, that's not what it's doing at all, ping a more experienced editor, and lets see what they have to say if you're so adamant that neither Military or Political victory go against the guidelines. Gvssy (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The armistice of Andrusov is the truce of Poland and Lithuania with Russia, it has nothing to do with the Deluge and one more thing you ask for an experienced editor let's see what an experienced editor wrote about these rules here "that they are not obligatory". Here [4]AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All guidelines are obligatory, so the so-called "experienced" editor you showed here is blatantly incorrect. And I'll say this again: The Deluge did not end with Oliva, it ended with Andrusovo. Maybe you're accidentally mixing the Deluge up with the Second Northern War.
The flood ended at Oliva, what nonsense are you talking,this editor is experienced, and one more thing infobox is a template created by someone, these are not wikipedia rules AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean it isn't followed? Since we're using the template, editors are expected to abide by the rules set. Also, it doesn't actually matter if this editor is supposedly experienced, because it doesn't appear that they are, considering they're calling it acceptable to ignore the rules set by the template. Also, I do recommend that you look at the date for the infobox in the article, maybe you would see that it did infact not end in 1660. Gvssy (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
