Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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

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

Link to image [1]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fullbore target rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rimfire. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can non-military losses be added in the Infobox Military Conflict? like (500 buildings destroyed) (500 vehicles were destroyed) (500 agricultural sites damaged) Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not expressly forbidden but nor have I seen it done and would advise against it - particularly if military casualties are confined to personnel. It would also need to be seen as a "key fact" (reported in sources as having particular significance - not just that it happened) as well as being supported by the body of the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is not there for a random collection of factoids and, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but could you please roll back this edit, until there is a consensus for the change? The original version was stable for a long time, and there does not appear to be a strong consensus for this edit so far. If you wish, we can start another RFC on what to put into that part of the infobox, but we should not be making unilateral changes to such crucial parts of the article until there is a clear consensus among the involved editors. Thank you. Grandmaster 14:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, one can equally say that the substance of the existing version has more recently also been stable for a long time. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by substance, but the infobox said "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border" for years, until you changed it to Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh without consensus at talk. I don't think that's how it should be done in a contentious article like this. Grandmaster 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, I made changes in response to the recent TP comments but the key difference (substance) between the two versions remains the same. The more recent version of these two parameter has been stable for nine months, despite intervening edits and over three hundred page watchers. Opposing change for the sake of opposing it could be considered disruptive - I don't like change is not a substantive reason to oppose the change. Nor is claiming that the Republic of Artsakh doesn't exist (not you) - we have an article on it. It is defined even if it is disputed. As another editor points out, this is not (shouldn't be) controversial - particularly as it is supported by P&G. If you believe there is reasonable reason to prefer the earlier version, we might seek further input into the discussion (eg a notification at MilHist). You are also free to start an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that that you gave a 3RR warning to User talk:Donoatetome12 about exceeding 3RR on Spanish Empire. Please note that I had previously warned the user about edit warring, and they responded that they had stopped, and indeed they had not edited the article after that. Your warning to the user seems to have been unnecessary, and a bit bitey. Donald Albury 15:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury, the difference between your warning and mine is that they have actually violated 3RR but I am not going to pursue it. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see why saying that the battlefield at Moshchun "was recorded on the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine as a monument of history of national significance" is a bit redundant because it mentions "monument" twice, but this can be easily avoided by using my original wording: "became a monument of history of national significance of Ukraine." I don't understand why excluding the type of monument is necessary because that's a direct translation of the official designation (пам'ятка історії національного значення), and the register itself includes many categories, so simply saying that the site is on the register is vague. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 03:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwabb1, to a native speaker of English, this too is a clumbsy construction: "became a monument of history of national significance of Ukraine." First of all, we have three ofs in a row, separated by one or two words. The key point is that it was recorded on the register (and thereby recognised as a monument of national significance). Where you would say "a monument of history", a native English speaker is much more likely to say "a monument of historical significance" or even "a monument of national significance" since monuments are inherently about history, making historical redundant. As a side note, where you have embedded the infobox in other articles, I see you only giving the Ukrainian name. Any such text should be English. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is recorded on the register, it could be a monument of national or local significance, and monuments may be assigned to one or more categories (not only history but also architecture, monumental art, archaeology, garden and park art, landscape, or science and technology). Simply saying that the site is on the register fails to provide any of these details. I understand that the exact wording may be somewhat strange, but as I've said, that's the official designation.

The official names of the monuments on the register are only given in Ukrainian without an official English translation. The example of the Arlex Obelisk in France as provided in the documentation of the Template:Infobox historic site shows the official name in French, and the directions for this field are to write the "official name of the historic site" so that's exactly what I am following. If there was an official English translation I would use that instead, but it does not exist. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 04:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made an alternative suggestion as an edit. How is that from your POV?

For a recent case the Ukrainian official name is "Будинок, у якому жив і працював історик, археолог і етнограф Д. І. Яворницький" and the translation is "The house where historian, archaeologist and ethnographer D. I. Yavornytskyi lived and worked". I am pretty certain that this would be more simply identified in English per sources as "House of Dmytro Yavornytsky" or "Home of Dmytro Yavornytsky"

That looks good and includes all the information necessary. Thank you for the improvement.

But as for the official name sections, I believe they should be left in Ukrainian. After all, the parameter is not asking for the common name - that is instead reflected in the title or somewhere else on the page. I agree that often the official names are too complicated or too simplified, but they are official and that is exactly what the field designation1_offname is for. Theoretically I could translate them, but would they still be official names after that? I don't think so. Another option is to omit this field altogether. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 07:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way, while I used google translate to translate the official name above, without that it is nothing more than a meaningless scrawl. This is En Wiki. At the very least, we need a translation of the official name along with the native language official name. I'm not all that fussed if a romanisation is also provided. Anticipating a response, the French used in the example of the Arles Obelisk doesn't take rocket science to work out (old obelisk). Cyrillic text is a totally different kettle of fish. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what about having the official name in Ukrainian followed by an italicized translation in parentheses? Maybe also add Template:Lang for the Ukrainian-language sections for good measure. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 16:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you would give the English followed by the translation but I could live with the alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case English is the translation, so I'll go ahead and start adding the translations. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments in recognition of your irreplaceable work on articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war. Wishing you all the best in 2025. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, all the best to you too - another sane voice in the insane cacophony. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cinderella157, hope you are doing well. This is regarding your recent reverts where you removed the flags of the countries and some military involved in conflicts. I am totally ok with removing military flags. But can you please quote the part where it says that national flags are also not to be used? I see Russian invasion of Ukraine uses it. So does Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) and a hell lot of articles. I believe that the MOS asks not to use the military flags. National flags have been used everywhere. Even if you see Israel–Hamas war it uses flags of both Israel and Hamas. It even uses flags of Shin bet. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaan Sengupta, per the guidance, flags should only be used in the infobox when they serve a useful purpose. They can do this when there are more than two belligerents on at least one side. They can then serve as a key for information in other sections of the infobox (eg commanders) to tell us which country they are from. Russian invasion of Ukraine satisfies this. Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) is wrong on many levels. Israel–Hamas war might appear to be wrong but Israel is at war with not just Hamas but it allies, which are hidden in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I was mainly following the example of Vietnam War, Iraq War, Korean War, Bosnian War, Second Congo War etc. Do you think all of these need to have the 'w' changed to lowercase? The first two pages of google scholar on Vietnam War show 15 results are capitalized and 5 are not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, I am not saying that all of these (or all X War articles) should be recapitalised. This ngram would support Vietnam War but this ngram does not support Bosnian War. Many editors do not consciously consider capitalisation and the P&G but tend to apply title case to article titles unconsciously or consider them important events capitalised for significance when we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - usually because they argue these are proper nouns|names based on a simplistic and incomplete definition. MOS:CAPS relies on usage to determine capitalisation because of that common misperception. I would say that such capitalisation should not be taken at face value and might require correction. I would also say that the capitalisation for the other Gaza wars should be considered, having raised the issue in proposing a move of the Israel-Hamas war to Gaza war. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that Vietnam War should have capitalization because at the end of ngram chart it is capitalized about 14x times more than its not capitalized? While Bosnian War is only capitalized 1.3x than not being capitalized, so it defaults to sentence case? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, pretty much correct. Per MOS:CAPS, we only cap things when they are consistently capped in sources in prose. Ngrams are one tool that can be used but can be limited if there are other contexts or if it only has a small sample (sampling error). We can also look at google books or google scholar and search other repositories. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, lowercase ("Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2023–present)") may indeed be more correct. It appears to be a minor change, though. Should I go ahead and modify it in the RM, or leave such instructions for the closer? I'd think former should be fine.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, the problem is, that having started the RM with one option, others are voting on the substantive proposal as made it becomes very difficult to change mid-stream and presenting additional options complicates the process. With multiple split options the outcome is more likely to be no consensus, simply because there are too many choices. The PTOPIC issue also needs to be addressed - ie "Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2023–present)". It is best to proceed by increments. IMO the better RM would be Israel-Hamas war to Gaza war (2023–present). There is no change to capitalisation. It does not affect the DAB page. Others might argue PTOPIC and (2023–present) is unnecessary. Whether that gains traction or not is immaterial since the primary objective of the move (from Israel-Hamas war) is likely to succeed. One can either withdraw the RM and re-propose it to this alternative or one can try to add now info that it should be lowercase and why. Because the RM in its present form does not address the fate of the disambiguation page, it is arguably malformed and reasonable to withdraw it. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the move it to Gaza war (2023–present), then the disambiguation page doesn't come into play, and I did give that as a option. I don't want to withdraw the RM as that yet again wastes the community's time. I think what might be best is to add to the RM (Gaza war --> Gaza war (disambiguation)) and then ping all the support !votes, giving them an opportunity to change their !votes at their discretion.

Also pinging Kenneth Kho Chicdat Rainsage if they have any thoughts?

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be too far along to withdraw or make major case changes too. Besides, this n-gram shows uppercase is by far the most common name in English so wherever the page is moved it will move to the correct casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, the ngram corpus does not extend to cover this war, so ngrams lack context. Your ngram does not try to contexturalise for use in prose (as opposed to expected title case uses) and even then, it is not consistently capped in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn, would adding "Gaza war --> Gaza war (disambiguation))" be a major change? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uppercasing is the correct casing for 'Gaza War', as your RM question shows. Please uppercase your further wording and ideas, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn, apparently Cindrella157 disagrees. But my question was more regarding the move of the disambiguation page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he disagrees that has nothing to do with the disamb. page already being uppercased and your RM question, which has obtained quite a few support comments, being uppercased. I'm not commenting on the page itself, so please don't list my opinions here in that discussion, just mentioning that casing is already decided for both the disamb. page and the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your comments about caps, thanks, @Randy Kryn. Do you have any suggestions on whether I should modify the RM to say "If consensus is found for the page to be moved to "Gaza War", then the existing Gaza War page should be moved to Gaza War (disambiguation)."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no comments or preferences aside from casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questioned asked here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other Gaza Wars (with which this article should be consistent) are uppercased, so absent serious necessity we should uppercase this one as well. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no change to capitalisation." Actually, lowercasing would be a change from current practice. Gaza War and other pages use caps. Of course, consensus can change, and other pages don't bind our page. I think it's fine to include PTOPIC issue on this one, as the RM included a fallback title for participants and closer to consider. Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenneth Kho@Chicdat, Above, Cinderella157 points out that presumption is generally towards lower caps, as per WP:NCCAPS.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that if we change this article's name to Gaza war rather than Gaza War (no comment on dates), then that breaks the consistency rule, thus if we change the caps we also have to change the caps for the wars of 2008–9, 2012, and 2014. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which may very be what we do. After this RM is done, we can propose that as a multi-page requested move.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, 2/3rds uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all revolutions are proper names, which is why nearly all revolutions should be capitalized according to WP:NCCAPS. It's quite a simple matter — there is no need to bring out ngrams when they are in direct contradiction with NCCAPS. --Plumber (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plumber, you state: ... nearly all revolutions should be capitalized according to WP:NCCAPS. What does WP:NCCAPS state such that nearly all revolutions should be capitalized? If nearly all are capitalised, then some are not. Why/when are some not capitalised? If [ngrams] are in direct contradiction with NCCAPS, where does NCCAPS establis that contradiction? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple logic — WP:NCCAPS: This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be in sentence case, not title case. Only the first word is capitalized, except for proper names. Nearly all revolutions should be capitalized since nearly all revolutions contain unique, proper names. --Plumber (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plumber, one needs to read the guidance in full for what it is telling us and not one particular phrase taken in isolation out of the fuller context. From the lead: For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. A proper name is [near] always capitalised, with a nominal allowance for editing errors. Therefore, if a noun|name phrase is not [near] always capitalised in sources, it is not a proper name. While proper nouns have a specific referent, the referrant is not necessarily unique (there are many people called John Smith). Specificity can also be achieved by use of the definite article (the) and modifiers. Specificity is not a defining property of a proper noun. Simplistic definitions of a proper noun fail to include the key distinction - that proper nouns are not descriptive. X R|revolution is inherrently descriptive, being a revolution that occurred in place X. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, common sense. All individually named and defined successful revolutions should be uppercased as proper names, just as all of Earth's tectonic plates all have proper names. But, just as a group of Wikipedia lowercasers somehow convinced the closer of the tectonic plate RM that they are not (the close literally said that they were not proper names - not a proud moment for an encyclopedia) things like this occur. 'Simple logic' and common sense should, of course, exist on Wikipedia in these discussions. As should consistency. But the opposite has a strange foothold here, and it creates obvious errors which then build on each other to habitually persist and multiply. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All individually named and defined successful revolutions should be uppercased as proper names. I would like to see where that criteria has been written in a WP:RS. ... just as all of Earth's tectonic plates all have proper names is something I am starting to associate with the sound of a dead horse being flogged. Per a recent discussion on your TP with SMcC, your view on the use of caps appears to fall to emphasis, significance or importance. That is one potential use of capitalisation - which we don't do here. It is also inconsistent withe the definition of a proper noun. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella, I’m usually not that serious on this website, but this is a LARGE exception. So please, stop reverting my edits, such as in the First Italo-Ethiopian War, as they took me a lot of time to make. It’s very tedious to add flag icons and you deleting them really just rains on my parade. Please understand that I sincerely want to make Wikipedia a better website, and that I’m not just mindlessly vandalizing articles.

Sincerely, TJ Kreen TJ Kreen (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Kreen, there was a P&G based reason for the revert left in the edit summary. Your edit was contrary to MOS:MILFLAGS. Did you read that guidance? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn’t violate the guidance. The flag icons didn’t interrupt the flow of the text, they’re historically accurate, and every category has an applicable flag. But this is besides the point. TJ Kreen (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits. TJ Kreen (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I’ve had multiple problems with your bitey behavior for months now, and frankly, I’m sick of it. TJ Kreen (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:MILFLAGS: In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) acknowledges that it may be appropriate to use flags when summarizing military conflicts in an infobox. Nonetheless, flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text [emphasis added]. Considering this, the guidance further states: Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not. When there are only two belligerents, flag icons convey no additional information than the flag itself. Their use is primarily decorative, irrelevant or redundant. Since there are only two belligerents, the use of flags in the First Italo-Ethiopian War is contrary to the guidance. Reverting an edit because it is contrary to WP:P&G and indicating the relevant P&G is not being "bitey". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🤨 TJ Kreen (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite certain what the emoji is meant to mean in this instance. I hope it means that the detailed explanation of MOS:MILFLAGS resolves the reason for the revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]