User talk:Cinderella157

Thanks for Third Opinion efforts
Greetings! I would like to thank you for your efforts in giving an unrequested third opinion and reaching consensus in Talk:Malta convoys. Even if you were unsuccessfull, I appreciate your sound intervention. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2017

Asking your opinion on MILHIST process
The still-open Belarus RfC raises an interesting point for MILHIST infoboxes in general. Transit rights are by tacit precedent generally not mentioned without exceptional reasons; this is not codified in project or global RfC to my knowledge. Do you think that seeking a project or global RfC to formally clarify the matter, as you did with "supported by", would be a good idea?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Transit rights, if mentioned would usually be represented as "supported by". It is used in the case of Belarus in the invasion article because there is an affirmative consensus (RfC) to do so. I don't have an issue with "supported by" being used in this case. The sources are strong enough for us to say this in a Wiki voice, which is what the infobox is doing and its involvement is somewhat exceptional. As an aside, while I opened that RfC, I did not comment to either support or oppose the proposal. Similarly, I don't have a issue with the same thing happening in the Russo-Ukraine War, but I also think it could be left out because it is for part and not the whole of the war. A unqualified placement suggests the whole and a qualified placement leans to nuance - if you have to add notes etc it is probably best left out.


 * The present RfC is somewhat different in that it would advocate explicitly calling Belarus a co-belligerent. Apart from the issue with sources and whether it can be said in a Wiki voice, this is inherently problematic when the section of the infobox is labelled "belligerents" and everyone listed in a column is inherently a co-belligerent. The distinction that would be made by this is too subtle and too nuanced for an infobox. I guess I should vote! on the RfC now. I was putting it off to see where it was heading and what the arguments were. I don't see the "co-belligerent" option flying.


 * To answer your question, I think we are reasonably covered by the "supported by" RfC. This present RfC is an exception in my experience/recollection and doing anything to head it off at the pass is probably a solution looking for a problem (WP:BEANS - "and don't mention the war"). :)  Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)



Battle of Kyiv (2022) revert
You've cited MOS:MIL and MOS:CAPS as justification for reverting yet have apparently not looked at the policy in detail which states: 'Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion). The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone'

Given that the sentence is talking about the 'Battle of Kyiv' and not just 'the battle' it should be capitalised. Historians always capitalise 'Battle of', if you're in any doubt find any history book and check. If you need cited sources for this specific capitalisation see: West Point and Wall Street Journal Ecrm87 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , please read Manual of Style/Military history:
 * The general rule from MOS:CAPS is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in reliable sources, it should be capitalized in Wikipedia. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is a proper name, consensus should be reached on the talk page; the MOS:CAPS default is to use lower case, unless and until evidence of consistent capitalization in the sources is presented.
 * See also MOS:MILTERMS, which reads:
 * Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources ... [emphasis added].
 * In other words, the default advice in the lead of MOS:CAPS applies. The default is to use lower case unless the term is consistently capped in sources and there is a burden to establish that it is consistently capped before applying capitalisation. So, while some sources might capitalise the term, it was lowercased because it does not meet the required threshold for capitalisation. Furthermore, we certainly do not always capitalise battle of X, per your edit summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just my point 'Battle of' is always capitalised in sources. You can't get more reliable sources in military matters than army colleges, whose purpose is to study these battles. They capitalise 'Battle of', historians capitalise 'Battle of' and I've already cited two leading examples accordingly. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * While most well known battles capitalise battle of fairly consistently, this is not a universal rule (see this ngram) and the guidance is not telling us that it is a universal rule. Two sources do not tell us that it is consistently capped in sources but a review of news sources here and Google scholar here tells us that there is mixed capitalisation in sources and therefore, it should not be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

1965 War
Greetings Cinderella157, I was just wondering why you have undone my edit on the military infox box regarding the 1965 war? Thank you. Ssateleshan (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see TP per edit summary - specifically Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Korean war
Link to image

Battle of the Durna?
It seems to me like there are enough RS to support such a delineation (a couple google searches easily verifies this). Do you concur? Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I presume you are talking about the Durna River to which this source (probably not an RS but nonetheless useful) refers? I did searches (on and off Wiki) for "Durna" and really didn't find anything else. Perhaps I have missed something since you wouldn't be asking without substance. Are my misses a google regional thing? Perhaps you can send your search link and a couple of links to key hits. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty there are other sources (not necessarily for the specific name but that a discrete battle occurred on the line of the river; in fact, I only saw that one while drafting when I searched the full term) but I’m not quite sure when I’ll have time to dig them up. Certainly DeepStateUA and Bohdan Myroshnykov discussed it on multiple occasions in terms of operational-tactical dynamics.
 * Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , draft away but I would consider adding content to Eastern Ukraine campaign in the first instance. Operational-tactical dynamics etc may fit better in a higher level article than one more specific to the Avdiivka region? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)