Talk:Silesian Wars

message: Should it be merged with War of Austrian Succession? Halibutt 07:16, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I don't think so. --Ovebepari (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: this article is not simply in need of sources and citations, and clean up, it needs some serious attention by someone who knows the Silesian wars, Frederick's role, the problems caused by the end of the Piast dynasty (and the Piast agreements with the Habsburgs), etc.  I added the attention=yes parameter to the military history project.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: serious attention

message: Maria Theresa was never Empress of Austria as the article originally stated. There was no such office at the time. She was Holy Roman Empress by marriage, and Queen of Bohemia, Queen of Hungary and Archduchess of Austria by descent. I have deleted the words "of Austria".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.170.94 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Maria Theresa's title

message: The many small changes you made to this article introduced a number of problems. In several places you replaced "-ised" with "-ized", but this article is written in British English, as a template at the top clearly indicates. You replaced "assent" with "consent", but "consent" indicates willingness to do something, which was not the case in the situation discusses in the article; Frederick was merely accepting what someone else was doing. You repeatedly replaced wikilinks followed by extra characters (e.g. for pluralization) with piped wikilinks, which accomplishes nothing but making the article text longer. You added the "Oxford comma" to some lists, but its use is purely a stylistic preference, and your change clashes with the style used elsewhere in this article and in the rest of the Silesian Wars series. You overlinked "Berlin", which is already wikilinked at its first appearance in the body. You moved a quotation mark past the terminal period of the sentence where the period is not, in fact, part of the quotation, violating logical quotation. You also made a number of diction changes that in my judgment worsen the prose style of the article, such as inserting the word "significant" again and again in place of various other descriptors, and broke the grammar with your unexplained removal of the word "invaders". Please become more familiar with the Manual of Style and the conventions used in this article before making sweeping changes to material that has already been through a grueling Featured Article Candidacy and had its prose pored over by many editors. Thank you for your efforts. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just point out in response that "-ized" is also British English, Oxford style: see here. But you are right to request consistency in this. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2020 style edits

message: The many small changes you made to this article introduced a number of problems. You've repeatedly reduced piped names of Hohenzollern nobles to just their article titles, but you haven't paid attention to the rest of the sentences they're found in, resulting in unnecessarily repeated words (as in "Hohenzollern Elector Joachim III Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg" and "Margrave George Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach"), as well as places where a parenthetical title now has an opening comma but no closing comma. You've introduced repeated wikilinks which now have to be removed, as well as removing without explanation links that now have to be restored (as at the first instances of "Austria" and "Habsburg monarchy" in the body of the article). There are also stylistic edits that simply aren't improvements ("the beleaguered Austria"). Thank you for pointing out that the term "Brandenburg–Prussia" was anachronistic for this topic. Please move a little more carefully when you make changes to Featured Articles. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for missing the titles before the de-piped links, I don't know how that happened, but my fault. However the linking on Archduchy of Austria is a separate issue. While 'Austria' was used both at the time and by academics now as a synonym for the Habsburg monarchy it should not be linked directly to the archduchy because this was merely one of the constituent states of the wider Habsburg monarchy. Removing links to the archduchy was therefore a deliberate choice, as linking to the archduchy should be restricted to specific mentions of that entity or area, or to pre-1526 references when the archduchy made up the bulk of Habsburg possessions. Ecrm87 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's tricky, with "Austria" being used as a universal metonymy for the entire Habsburg monarchy. Make the changes you think make the matter clearest, but please ensure that the first occurrence of a term continues to be wikilinked. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2023 style edits