Talk:Swedish invasion of Brandenburg

Article title
Is there any reason this can't be at Swedish invasion of Brandenburg, a much more natural name in English? Srnec (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a major problem. The current name was a translation of the German Wiki article, de:Schwedeneinfall 1674/75. But what do most English sources call it? --Bermicourt (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't have a name for it, as far as I can tell. My main concern was that there might be another Swedish invasion of Brandenburg of which I was not aware. I feel confident that there was not, but I can't be certain without doing some research. Srnec (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

and, there is no other article "Swedish invasion of Brandenburg". Per WP:AT and particularly WP:TITLEDAB, According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. The year range is therefore unnecessary. Are there any objections to a move that remove the years? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks for asking. I've checked German Wikipedia and there were lots of "Swedish invasions" but only this one appears to be associated with Brandenburg. So I don't see a need for the year range. Srnec, what do you think? Bermicourt (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Srnec (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
Hi, I am a little concerned about the figures given in the infobox: that these are consistent with the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you talking about all the figures in the infobox, or some specific figures like the number of casualties? What are you suggesting, exactly? The casualty figures for each belligerents are sum-ups of all the combat casualties from the battles/engagements that are depicted in the article. Alexander Alejandro (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I am talking about all four figures save the Swedish strength of 20,000. You are saying that the casualty figures are a composite from different engagements? I am suggesting that the article should summarise the casualties such that the infobox reflects the article. Also, the Brandenberg strength figure isn't clear to me from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for the clarification. What do you think about this infobox, but with added dates to the figures? While the Brandenburg strength in December 1674 is unknown, the 15,000 figure is mentioned in the end of Swedish spring campaign (early May 1675 – 25 June 1675). The casualty figures in this version are composites of the engagements during the end of June 1675, as mentioned in Campaign by Elector Frederick William (23–29 June 1675). Is this version better, or should I elaborate it further? Alexander Alejandro (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, with that info I have applied a couple of fixes so that the figures in the infobox are supported by the article. Whether these figures are actually verifiable is another issue, since the article could do with better application of citations. I have also remove the flag icons per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have been making a number of edits to this page and in particular, the infobox, and have made some reference to this discussion in your edit summaries. My comment above may not have been clear enough/misunderstood. My concern would be that information added to the infobox should be clear from the body of the article (and appropriately sourced) so that (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) the infobox is summarising key points from the article and the article would be complete without the infobox. While your edits to the infobox have clarified some points, I really think that these should be worked into the article body IAW P&G. They also add a degree of complexity/nuance to the infobox for which the infobox is poorly suited. I will see what I can do when I get a chance. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I just saw an infobox being made and reacted to the numbers in it (from the article), since those were not based on the actual strength reports of the Swedish army but rather what was "promised" beforehand. The '20,000' Swedes that kept being repeated in the article was also not sourced, AFAIK, so I removed it. I'm sorry if my edits caused issues. Is it the dates in it that is bothering you, or the notes, or both? Everything currently said in the infobox is also made clear in the base article, except perhaps for the combat losses part (since this is a number given from all the engagements, I think it would be good to have those battles and the numbers mentioned as reference behind the number) - the 5,000 Brandenburg garrison troops and the 15,000 relief army is mentioned, but not sourced. But, since I don't have any replacement numbers, I didn't care to remove them. Imonoz (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, it is to some extent both the dates and the notes but mainly the latter and that such detail should probably be written into the body (eg the aftermath). Also, it isn't a jumping up and down issue, just a matter of improvement. I agree that the 20,000 (5/15) is problematic because it is unverified and the Brandenberg figure appear to jump about. The article appears to jump about a bit.   Perhaps the "Course of the campaign" could benefit by an overall summary that precedes the three individual phases?  Cinderella157 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed the notes from the infobox; everything in there is now mentioned in the base article (including the combat losses). As far as dates are concerned, I personally feel like it helps a lot (this was originally suggested by Alexander), especially seeing as we don't have an overall strength count for either the Swedes or Brandenburgers to use (only figures for certain dates). If we have a number without its date, I feel like the purpose is lost and the reader can easily be misled (if the base article is ignored). In my opinion, since having dates in the infobox improves it, any guidelines telling us otherwise should be ignored. A lot of war-related articles has dates and timelines in the infobox, e.g,. the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. But I'm open for suggestions. A summary that precedes the different phases of the campaign would most likely help, yes. To be honest, this article probably needs a lot of work, but I'm not motivated to do that now. Imonoz (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Date formatting
Hi, the lead has this markup that renders as and reached the city of Magdeburg on 21 [O.S. 1675] 6. I'm not certain how to fix this. Should this render as: 21 [O.S. 31] June 1675? I have applied this 21 June 1675 on spec.

I would have thought there would be a template that automatically converted from one to the other but I'm not seeing it.

I see many instances such as 5/15 May 1675, which I found confusing until I assumed they were a reference to N.S./O.S. dates. Would this be better rendered as 5 [O.S. 15] May 1675? I also see other date examples such as 23 August 1674. These are in one or the other style. One might assume it is N.S. but that is only an assumption that could be wrong. I don't have any specific knowledge of this event nor ready access to sources.

Asking for your assistance in this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * According to the German Wiki article from which this was derived, the date is rendered as 11 June jul. / 21 June greg.. So 11 June is the date in the Julian (O.S.) calendar and 21 June in the Gregorian (N.S.) calendar. So I think the template should be 21 June 1675 which renders 21 June 1675. Alternatively I guess could still be used which gives . I'll change it now. Bermicourt (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)