Category talk:Nazi Germany military templates

Precision in headings
It seems objects to making associations to Nazi Germany more evident in headings of templates in this category. Did we run out of ink or something? Or did we suddenly reach a point of perfect education on Nazi Germany so that all people around the world naturally knows that military unit X and Y is associated with the historical Nazi Germany and not any other entity, former or subsequent? PPEMES (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No reason to be obtuse. I didn’t realize you were such a self-appointed expert in the area. The fact is it’s self evident, speaks for itself; people can click on the link. Its un-needed verbiage. Who do you think it would be associated with Venus or Mars. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What if its context is not immediately self-evident to all visitors? Couldn't we afford the two words "of Nazi Germany" to be included in the header to clear any potential misunderstanding, and save uncertain visitors the clicking to verify what is referred to? PPEMES (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me think about it further and I will write a reply tomorrow afternoon, Eastern standard time. Right now I have a real life event that commands my attention.Kierzek (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have had additional time to consider the matter and even though I still do not really see the necessity of the added wording, I will withdraw any objection and revert my last edits, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have updated the contents of Category:Nazi Germany military templates accordingly. Please let me know should you have any further comments. PPEMES (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * However, now I noticed that has objected. Per WP:BRD, could you please share you concerns? PPEMES (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Policy states NAVBOXs are groupings of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles, policy does not say they are somewhere to list anything vaguely related to the subject area in the title, whilst CONCISE is specifically about article titles, it also applies here. If you want to add links to Nazi Germany, the appropriate place is in all of the articles, not the titles of NAVBOX linking those articles. On a side note, I see attempts to separate Germany and Nazi Germany as a way to allow Germany to distance itself from it's history, this subject area is part of Germany's history. I note this is the second time you have attempted a mass introduction of references to Nazi Germany into NAVBOXs, my reversions of your edits were to maintain consistency with other non-German NAVBOXs in the topic area (per TITLECON). Cavalryman (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Further, per BRD, you made bold additions, I undid, we are now discussing, you should not be reintroducing your undiscussed additions until we have concluded. Cavalryman (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the concern of transparency completely invalid - should the average visitor be referred to guessing what German state a template of a unit X is associated with? Is ink really that scarce on Wikipedia? PPEMES (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was not a separate German state, it is a term used to describe a period of Germany's history. We do not say Elizabeth I was Queen of Tudor England. Cavalryman (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Are you comparing the recency and historical notability of Nazi Germany to Tudor England? PPEMES (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No I am comparing the fact that they are both terms that are used to describe a period in their respective country's histories. You are now attempting equivocation. Cavalryman (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Either way, I'd be happy to insert "in Tudor England" or the like to the headers of eventual templates on English military units pertaining to that period. I really don't understand how you cannot not wish for increased transparence in a project like this. PPEMES (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are wanting to do is not CONSISTENT with other NAVBOXes in the topic area (WWII), further as I have already explained it falls short of CONCISE and I would argue also PRECISE. The place for links to the Nazi Germany article is in articles, not NAVBOX titles. Additionally, for a reader to see a NAVBOX they need to be in an article that pertains to that topic area, they are extremely unlikely (unless they have strayed from main space) to find the NAVBOX elsewhere and experience their first exposure to the link. Cavalryman (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Certainly not all templates stacked at footers clearly immediately pertain to respective article topics? Are we out of ink? PPEMES (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you have posed that last question several times. And yes every navbox at the bottom of page should pertain to the respective article, per WP:NAVBOX "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional". Cavalryman (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's misleading to just put "German" to headers of military units templates. As if SS units where of present? Who would be helped by that misinformation? PPEMES (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the role of navboxes with infoboxes and lead sections, I find it hard to believe anyone opens a page and scrolls all the way to the bottom (past the aforementioned two) to find a link to Nazi Germany. As I have articulated above, policy does not support what you are wanting to do. Cavalryman (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC).

How can policy discourage information and clarity in this case? PPEMES (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained above how this is both unnecessary and against policy. Cavalryman (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC).

This RfC is a mess, user PPEMES needs to familiarize himself with WP:RFCST, specifically point 3, with emphasis on "neutral statement". Anyway, regarding the issue itself, mention of SS already makes association with Nazi Germany completely self-evident, and therefore the proposed addition is a redundant cluttering.--Staberinde (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)