User talk:Cinderella157

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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

"Battle of"

Greetings Cinderella157. It seems we have similar opinions regarding the overuse of the phrase "battle of" on Wikipedia and we both recognize the dangers it poses for future citogenesis. I was not a Wikipedia editor at the time of your requested move of Russo-Ukrainian War "battles", but I would have been a strong supporter. With that being said, I want to create an article on the events of 1 March 2022 in Bashtanka, while avoiding becoming the first person to coin the term "Battle of Bashtanka", which I think we'd agree is a formal-sounding term implying previous use in scholarly sources, but in reality has not been previously used in the English language, according to Google. Could you suggest an alternative title? Would "Battle for Bashtanka" not carry similar implications? Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaintPaulOfTarsus, I could suggest engagement at or action at. I have had a brief look at things and I think it is pretty thin. With a pers:vehicle ratio of about 2.5:1 this strongly suggests a supply convoy. The reports of where it was from and where it was going to are contradictory? Information from the time suggests it was wandering about behind Ukrainian lines? This event may have more to do with creative imaginations in the fog of war in the first week or so of the invasion than any fact. See here regarding Vasylkiv and the alledged downing of Russian transport planes - all evidence of which has apparently been wiped from the face of the earth. Until recently, it had its own article (Battle of Vasylkiv). If I were invested in writing about the engagement at Bashtanka, I would do more research to confirm something satisfying WP:NOTABILITY and of substance actually happened there and it is not just another good story that should be catalouged under fiction. WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be roughly the same amount of information available on Bashtanka as on Voznesensk, which is a rather sparsely covered event itself; both incidents might be better served as paragraphs in Southern Ukraine campaign or an expanded-scope battle of Mykolaiv. I will assemble a draft article with what I am able to find and ask again for your assessment later on. Thank you SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SaintPaulOfTarsus, the Battle of Voznesensk would appear to have more substance to it but there still appears to be a goodly smattering of fiction/propaganda. The size of the attacking force and the claimed casualties don't seem to gel. What I most notice is the number of claimed vehicle losses for the Russians and lots of photos but only one of a Russian AFV in refs 2 & 3. Call me a skeptic. So yes, we can see where a more objective viewing of the NEWSORG sources and WP:VNOT leads us. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voznesensk is considered to have been significant because of its effect on the operational maneuver situation.

I’ve never heard of a significant engagement at Bashtanka. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, but it does suggest it was more of a “patriotic armed civilians take potshots at passing Russians with nonexistent security practices” similar to what allegedly occurred near Hadiach (a lot of the minor events during the meeting engagement phase are sadly not well documented e.g. it’s unclear whether the Battle of Vasylkiv referenced above ever happened).

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other point: we are very much limited regarding battle articles by the amount of coverage in sources. I can't overstate this. Thankfully we can wait for the oversize milhist volumes from British publishers (growing up they all were idk) to show up in libraries per WP:NODEADLINE. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveBoulevardier: Slightly off topic, but is there a protocol I should be following with respect to foreign-language sources? I have contributed to a number of entries in RUSUKR for which little high-quality English-language content that is not of the breaking-news variety exists. Naturally, there is much more in the way of good retrospective content in the original Ukrainian/Russian, but I often find it awkward adding so much content from these that the reference list contains a plurality of non-English articles. Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST project involvement in RUSUKR

Is there a way to encourage/attract more MILHIST nerds to do substantive content work on the war? Asking because I have no idea how the project works, apart from that they (technically, we) are all obsessed with battleships and obscure American Civil War units, and I definitely think that the rigorous (perhaps obsessive) attitude towards sourcing and stuff might go a long way towards producing good writing with less room for disputes. As it is every time David Axe writes a new piece some editor will decide that it must be prominently inserted, and a lot of other articles are near-daily accretions of updates with no coherent picture.

The real issue is that a distressingly high percentage of editors don’t have strong writing fundamentals and can’t weave originally phrased, tight prose out of sources. MILHIST people tend to be basically competent for some reason.

What I mean is, it’s not even a due weight issue most of the time, it’s just a clunky narrative flow. A lot of the battles end up leaving the reader with no concept of anything beyond a series of minutiae.

In terms of potential SYNTHy issues, there are a decent amount of high-quality sources by now on 2022. Not many books, of course, but there are a lot of retrospective analyses

Also, a lot of contributors (myself included) are losing interest and frankly I believe (as I guess I always have) that expanding a brigade or division’s page is more helpful than quibbling over an unduly weighted paragraph in a main article.

What do you think?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveBoulevardier, my paraphrasing of your observations would be that, many articles read like a news tickertape. Coverage is dominated by news reports with very little meat, though yes, we are starting to see some analytical coverage. Unfortunately, I think that the symptoms you describe are the very reasons some more experienced editors don't become all that involved. If approached through the project page though, they will comment on a specific issue and thereby give some balance to some of the more egregious issues of weight.

What I am starting to see is some review through more critical eyes of the plethora of minor articles that appeared through 2022. I guess that we can only keep plugging away at fixing the things we can. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Soviet border conflict

Greetings Cinderella157. Regarding your edits that removed the flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section, citing "flags here serve no useful purpose," I respectfully disagree with this decision. The PRC flag is essential in that case to accurately differentiate between PRC and ROC.
As per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS guidelines, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Notably, I have yet to encounter a military conflict infobox devoid of such representations, as evidenced by Operation Hailstone, which shares a notably similar structure. Skylisan (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on page

Why did the revert on the article Raid on Tendra Spit remove so much of the article's content including: the infobox, units involved, the aftermath second, etc Salfanto (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ecrm87, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Capitalization:

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.

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)[reply]

Please see TP per edit summary - specifically Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Recent edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean war

Link to image [1]

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)[reply]

Hi RadioactiveBoulevardier, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RadioactiveBoulevardier, 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)[reply]