Talk:Seven Years' War

message: The infobox here has gone completely mad, and needs to be drastically shortened, perhaps with several hidden "other" sections. In NO way does thwe current version comply with WP:INFOBOX. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. For the commander section, for example, only commanders who are mentioned in the article should be included. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some changes. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

text: It is not out off control, this was just a very large scale conflict with lots of belligerents and is very imformative. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is way out of control - read WP:INFOBOX as to what should be there. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:    For reasons that are not entirely clear, Blackmamba has raised this as an ANI. That being the case, it provides an opportunity to have a wider discussion on this topic; I have include you as you've expressed a concern - I suggest we start on the ANI page :) Robinvp11 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have apoligized for this. It is on the ANI. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox out of control 

message: I have disrupted lots of constructive editing. I should of resolved the conflict better. Although i still think some of the editing is opinanted, but í should of simply resolved the conflict by working it out. If anything, I’m the vandal here and í take full responsibility. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, because you were trying to help, and on Wikipedia we only call people acting in bad faith vandals. Live and learn! :) Remsense诉 15:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I whould like to apoligize 

message: So, there has been lots of debate on this article why the Aceh Sultanate is on here, but í think í found a source. The Aceh rebels have a source cited, so í think the Aceh Sultanate whould also be mentioned. The Source it sites is a Book called the Dictonary of Wars, on Pg. 417. So, if anyone has the Book, please check that page. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was not that they were not involved at all, the point was that their involvement was not important to a summary explanation of the conflict, which is what an infobox is supposed to be for. We shouldn't list every polity, commander, and nuance—sometimes, that can't even be justified in the article body, never mind the infobox. Remsense诉 16:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ók, then, what does Wikipedia classify as a belliegrent? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. Aceh was not important in this conflict. Remsense诉 17:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How unimportant was it? Blackmamba31248 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unimportant enough that you have to go to page 417 of The Dictionary of Wars to  find a citation to that effect. Again, coverage on Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in sources. Remsense诉 17:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what I've been saying each time but want to do so again: an infobox is meant to summarize the body of the article, not provide all the information in the article. You know how many times Aceh is presently mentioned in the article? Zero. So this is a non-starter, we have to agree that a paragraph on Aceh's participation is due in the article first, then we can think about whether they might fit into the infobox. Remsense诉 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, í agree with you. Same with the Filoipino rebels. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok