Talk:Russian Civil War

Orphaned references in Russian Civil War
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "caven": From World War I:  From Battle of Baku:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The removing of the infobox
There was zero consideration with the members when the infobox was heavily reduced. I find this unappealing to me as a reader of Wikipedia because it removes the aspect of it being a massive conflict. Nusciii (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Result in infobox
Per MILMOS: As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles. This is actually in line with Ignore all rules. The previous version was here for years, therefore is consensual. So I strongly encourage you, @Remsense to present solid arguments how "see aftermath" is more helpful and meaningful for a casual reader who doesn't want to read lengthy texts, otherwise the previous version will be restored. Oloddin (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's not how consensus works, and that's not how IAR works. Guidelines themselves summarize existing sitewide consensus that generally isn't overridable by whatever you feel should be the case on an individual article: you actually have to provide a concrete reason why your preferred version is better for the article, which you haven't, and you likely cannot. Infoboxes were not designed to accurately summarize complex, subtle information, that's what prose is for. The previous infobox was one of the most egregious attempts to write the article in the infobox that I've ever seen. "People don't want to read" is not a good reason on an encyclopedia. They have to if they want to know what actually happened, I'm afraid. We shouldn't give them contradictory, malformed bullshit in the place of reading. Remsense  诉  02:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You introduced these changes that were challenged, therefore have to provide reasons for it and to establish consensus. replied to: RE: That's not how consensus works, and that's not how IAR works. You actually have to provide a reason why your preferred version is better for the article, which you haven't, and you likely cannot. Oloddin (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reasons are those at MOS:MILHIST, which is a community-level consensus that can't be overridden locally because you feel like it. What's your reason for why this article is so special? Remsense  诉  02:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I already cited it. "Only used where helpful". So if you think that it was "too much", you should have initiated a discussion first here. Oloddin (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope. You have to say why it's not helpful, me and the guideline (i.e. preexisting community-wide consensus) agree that it's helpful. Remsense  诉  02:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the guidance is not meant to apply mindlessly without consideration in any particular case. And small discussion among several editors is hardly a "community-wide consensus" for a matter that affects so many articles. Oloddin (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you dislike the guideline, then open another RfC about it. Keep in mind that it's not just MILHIST, it's the commonsense application of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE to military history subjects. (I already know what is plainly stated there about section links, so don't bother. This is an accepted case where it's best not avoided to put a section link.)
 * Failing that, you have yet to make an actual argument for why it's "mindless", e.g. why this article should be treated differently from every other one, which is what you'll be needing. Remsense  诉  03:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles are not uniform actually. Oloddin (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you have that argument. Remsense  诉  03:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that the purpose of infoboxes is to give key facts. "See aftermath" is not about that.
 * For now I'll put Bolshevik victory with sources. Oloddin (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, the point is that if key facts can't be related at a glance, it's better not to try and leave the parameter blank.
 * Simply "Bolshevik victory" is fine by me, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's deemed oversimplistic and therefore too complex to be summed up in the infobox by others. Remsense  诉  03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is where a disagreement starts.
 * Then "see aftermath" can be used in addition to victory, it's also acceptable by the guidelines. Oloddin (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Choose an infobox
We seem to have two different ideas about how much information should be in the infobox for this article. Here are the two most recent versions. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Responses

 * I don't care. My only interest is in getting a decision made, so the edit warring will stop.  I will notify WikiProject Military history in the hope that someone there will have good advice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nothing that needs to be added to this RfC other than an apology for my edit warring, which was unnecessary and disruptive. I also concur with other editors below in that World War II is an example worth emulating here. Remsense  诉  10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both infoboxes (but especially the second one) make it appear like Kerensky was somehow associated with the White Movement, which was not the case. While he did participate in the Kerensky–Krasnov uprising against the Bolsheviks, this was before the White Movement, which Kerensky never supported. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 00:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Massive version A takes up over half the content width, whereas Massive version B takes up over a third. Both spill two subsections into the body. There should be a very strong content reason for A to be picked over B, given how much space it takes away from the text. CMD (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are supposed to help readers, and not overwhelm or confuse them. If it has to be one of these, it needs to be B. Ideally even that would be slimmed down, especially when it comes to the leaders. Please remember that minor details can and should be left to the article prose. I'm going to ping to see if they'd like to comment, as they have a bunch of experience dealing with the World War II infobox. (Note that I don't have the expertise to be able to comment on the factualness here.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are supposed to help readers, and not overwhelm or confuse them. If it has to be one of these, it needs to be B. Ideally even that would be slimmed down, especially when it comes to the leaders. … minor details can and should be left to the article prose. I can't add anything useful to ed17's comment both infoboxes are massively bloated to the point of overwhelming the article. The Russian civil war is a massive topic, but the infobox needn't be!Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What information is excessive, in your opinion?--Oloddin (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of suggesting Commanders and leaders only mentioned once or twice, as this would indicate a low level of relevance. However, it turns out that some of them are not mentioned at all. Not even all the Belligerents are in the article! CMD (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of the information in infoboxes could be put in the article. For example, we could have a sortable table listing all the belligerents with their names and dates, or even a proper timeline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure it could, anything could, endless possibility. Nonetheless, here we are after 23 years, suggesting the weight is not very strong. CMD (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I agree that infoboxes should be simple, as their goal is to present readers with a very simple summary of the conflict. Both the options above look too complex to me, even allowing for the complexity of this war. For instance, I'd suggest omitting the names of the foreign intervention force commanders given the size of these forces and their impact was generally pretty modest when compared to the size of the various Russian forces. Including force strengths in the infobox adds quite a lot of complexity for little gain, and I'd be surprised if there aren't actually a range of figures for this. The solution used in the World War II article infobox has been to keep it very simple, but include links to the articles that cover the underlying complexity (E.g. links to what made up the Allied and Axis alliances, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: World War II's infobox is a fraction of the size of these. Sammy D III (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The WW2 infobox is missing the participants and when they joined or switched sides during the war, hardly a model to follow. A table of participants with dates is in my opinion the single most useful thing that a war article infobox can provide, alliances in protracted wars do require a handy guide. At least we still have one in version A here. VampaVampa (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That infobox was deliberated over more than most GAs, every choice you've noted was at least chosen for a specific reason. I think some elements are worth adapting. Remsense  诉  03:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I grant the WW2 infobox is actually quite well-organised, because they depend on well-structured Allies and Axis articles with additional chronological tables. Seeing the number of lesser participants in WW2 makes it clear that there had been no other option.
 * That said, would you suggest a similar solution here, separate articles on the two blocs of combatants (the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary sides)? By contrast, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) is organised the old way - it does include collapsible sections, so accessibility is an issue, but then one could simply get rid of the collapsibles. VampaVampa (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would adopt that particular approach, but I don't find myself rejecting it out of hand. Especially given that all three "sides" take the form of evolving institutions over the course of the conflict in subtle ways, we can't hope to fully describe that and maybe an extremely abbreviated description would serve readers best. Remsense  诉  07:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we did, i think my first draft would be:
 * Bolsheviks – I'm leaning towards excluding a mention of Krondstadt etc. here. Left opposition to the Bolsheviks was fuelled by war communism, but it wasn't as if they were a different faction in the war or were leading the war effort. I have less idea of how to properly treat Makhnovshchina et al.
 * Russian Republic
 * White movement
 * Allied support
 * Nationalists
 * Central Powers support
 * It's so hard, because there's no honest idea that there were only three sides. Like, uh, Piłsudski and Smetona were not allies, so their categorization is more for their shared background and relationship to the Bolsheviks than their association with one another. I dunno if that's good to do. Remsense  诉  07:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not really a fan of either but I would say that B is an improvement over A. As already mentioned, A is far too complicated to be useful and the infobox does not serve its purpose here. Mellk (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * B. I agree that A is far too cluttered to be useful. Ifly6 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * B is better, there is too much detail in A. Even B can be trimmed further, for example by reducing the number of commanders mentioned in the infobox. Alaexis¿question? 10:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both are overly bloated. B as the smaller one is "less bad", and would be better basis for further cutting and improvements. Commanders list is an obvious place for reductions, reducing Bolshevik and White leaders to 4-6 names should be trivial, pro-independence forces may require some discussion about where to draw the line, and the rest could be probably removed wholesale. I would also completely remove strength figures. Considering how those fluctuated throughout the war as some armies literally got built up from scratch, they offer little value, and in fact can be misleading. Neither World War infobox includes those.--Staberinde (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * B mainly reduces the belligerents and commanders sections. If the intention is to prevent edit warring, criteria for including and excluding information should be established first. Senorangel (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense  诉  08:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * B. Both infoboxes are bloated, but B is less bloated. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that we should go with A, or there should be some compromise where we lose the dates for the independence movements, or leave out some of them altogether. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE directly addresses this kind of bloat, including: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". Anyone posting might want to hit that link first. Neither of these come close to MOS. Both WW I and WW II have been mentioned as examples here. Sammy D III (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual situation. My suggestion would be to use 2 different infoboxes. The first version must be very short, even shorter than B, and it should be used as main infobox on other pages. Second version could include all details, maybe even more than A, but it should be just linked (essentailly as a supplementary table or a list page) to the main infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What information should the later infobox contain? Are we sure that it can't just be omitted from an infobox entirely if this is being considered? Remsense  诉  23:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have to be in an infobox per se, but the content could be kept in a different form. Splitting it up into multiple lists/boxes/tables, scattered throughout the article, could be appropriate.  For example, the details about the casualties could be moved to Russian Civil War (e.g., as a data table there), and that section of the infobox could be substantially shortened.  The "Commanders and leaders" section could be split to a new article, and replaced by a link to that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A with more collapsible sections - the length ratio of the larger infobox to the smaller one is roughly 6:5, that's not a great saving by any standard. An infobox bringing together all the key parameters for a lengthy and likely-to-be-expanded article is like a key to a map, it serves as an orientation guide and makes navigation easier. Reduced to bare bones and mentions for the sake of mentioning it loses much of its value. The most useful information that was dropped in the shortened version is the dates of participation of various sides in the war. If reductions need to be made, then I would advise collapsing or dropping commanders other than the top political leaders and key field commanders (who led the most substantial forces into action) on each side. The supporting sides ("Supported by") could also be collapsed. And if you are going to abridge the casualties section, then do not total killed, wounded and POWs for the Whites and for the Polish, Ukrainian and Finnish armies - this has to be kept comparable with the rest of the table (killed/died only). VampaVampa (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a non-starter per WP:NOHIDE. It would help to present ideas in terms of how they fit into our Manual of Style and content guidelines. Remsense 诉  04:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair, I was led into this by the older version A. I did not foresee such a radical phasing out of features but things can happen fast.
 * Regardless of that, I uphold my comment on including dates of participation for short-lived actors in a 6-year conflict, and on the need to be consistent with casualty figures. VampaVampa (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to have seen a choice between B and a not bloated version, but as A is even worse I support B out of the two. Infoboxes are meant to give a quick summary of the subject that can be easily and quickly understiod. Excessive detail goes against this purpose. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear as its author, B was just a start calibrated so that no one would probably get mad at me—so much for that—and I do not support it in its current state in concordance with everyone else. Would it be reasonable to start winding this down, as it seems the consensus is that the site guidelines command us to begin by stripping B down further? Remsense  诉  14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been open for about three weeks, and comments died down more than a week ago. I'll WP:RFCEND this and ask someone at Closure requests to produce a summary.  I think it's obvious to everyone who participated in the discussion that the longer version has been rejected, and that many editors would prefer something even shorter than the shorter version.  I wouldn't normally ask for a formal closing summary in such a lopsided discussion; however, since this has been a source of edit warring recently, I think it would be best to do this in the most formal way.  That sometimes helps people accept that their "side" does not have consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear as its author, B was just a start calibrated so that no one would probably get mad at me—so much for that—and I do not support it in its current state in concordance with everyone else. Would it be reasonable to start winding this down, as it seems the consensus is that the site guidelines command us to begin by stripping B down further? Remsense  诉  14:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been open for about three weeks, and comments died down more than a week ago. I'll WP:RFCEND this and ask someone at Closure requests to produce a summary.  I think it's obvious to everyone who participated in the discussion that the longer version has been rejected, and that many editors would prefer something even shorter than the shorter version.  I wouldn't normally ask for a formal closing summary in such a lopsided discussion; however, since this has been a source of edit warring recently, I think it would be best to do this in the most formal way.  That sometimes helps people accept that their "side" does not have consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Casualties as percentage of population
In most other conflicts of this scale, the casualty figure is put into context by citing what percentage of the total population it represents. We don't have that here. This is an oversight I will fix. Just putting it out here.