User Talk: Cinderella157

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 128K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = User talk:Cinderella157/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives}}

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

Korean war

Link to image https://www.awm.gov.au/visit/exhibitions/korea/weapons/nk_com ↗

Main talk page OOB discussion

Hi Cinderella157, thanks for your last thoughtful post at the main OOB discussion. It is frustrating trying to amend these articles in the face of (a) what is known about usual chains of command but *not specifically referenced in this instance*!! (b) assumptions about admin chains of command; Christmas tree lists.

I wonder whether, in the face of all these factors, whether the tree lists ought to be removed, and just create a list of involved units which could almost be in textual form. We do not have enough data in a way for this article to remain as an OOB.. Buckshot06 (talk) ↗ 08:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi {{U|Buckshot06}}, I have created these two OOBs (Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces and order of battle ↗ and Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese forces and order of battle ↗) which I think work reasonably well in capturing the units involved. They work because we have reasonably complete records. What they don't do well is capture the flux of the battle with time. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing an Order of Battle ↗: {{tq|An order of battle aims to detail an army so that it may be compared with the opposition's order of battle by readers.}} In the case of the battle of Buna-Gona, the Allied forces increased gradually over time while the Japanese forces suffered attrition over time. The OOB does not capture this and no reasonable comparison can be drawn without considering this.

:An OOB works reasonably well for historical events where we have reasonably complete sourced information. It does not work well for large scale wars or wars over a protracted time where organisations can change significantly with time. They almost certainly don't work at all for more contemporary and ongoing events where or information is more incomplete than complete. I could easily live without the 2026 Iran war order of battle ↗ and similar OOBs for this reason. They may keep some editors off the streets but are not really a service to our readers (IMHO). They create a false impression that we know more than we do.

:I first saw tree lists about a year ago I think when they started appearing in conflict infoboxes - particularly for the Russian invasion of Ukraine ↗. They appeared to go viral like a new fad. They don't work well in infoboxes IMO because they are being used to put too much information into too smaller space. That is not what infoboxes are for.

:I am not a fan of tree lists. They may have a place but when the tree becomes particularly long, they become less navigable and any benefit is lost. A normal tree starts with the root in the centre. These don't.

:The academy article states: {{tq|Orders of battle are structured ...}} it does not specify a tree list. There are many ways to structure information. We are not at liberty to over-ride VER and engage in OR and SYNTH in order to impose a particular structure.

:We are possibly tending toward a common ground on the overall issues. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Ukraine war

why do you believe it not necessary to put the minister of defense on a war page? Rhatsa26X (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

:Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ↗, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. If the prose of the article does not evidence that they are a key commander/leader, then they don't go in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

I have recently discovered the editing 'prowess' of LucyGermanDog - I see from their previous interactions on this site you've ran into them before, what is the best way to actually get through to them that their edits are heavily US centric / Bias / and clearly revisionist ? They have a history of disruptive editing looking at their talk page, and attempt to shoehorn US nationalist (and sometimes outright wrong) views on things. Looking forward to your reply. NapierCharles (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi {{U|NapierCharles}}, the editing at War of 1812 ↗ was problematic and, as you observed, you both went over 3RR. I was considering raising an ANI that included the 3RR and you would have been collateral damage. Your raising the 3RR report made this moot. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

rmv to talk page

Notification of closed amendment request

A amendment request ↗ in which you were a party has been closed and archived. This is only a notification, and no action is needed on your part. EggRoll97 ^{(talk ↗)} 22:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

First Italo-Ethiopian War Article reverts

Cinderella157, I'm a bit confused why you undid my edit of the First Italo-Ethiopian War ↗ article yesterday. I understand that you were just following the MOS:MILFLAGS thing, but it's honestly a confusing policy, given that most war and battle infoboxes I've seen in my many years here on Wikipedia have flags or shields next to the country names, so it seems pretty hypicritical of some articles for wars and battles allowing flags and shields on the infoboxes while others don't. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{U|JCC the Alternate Historian}}, In conflict infoboxes with three or more belligerents, the use of flags will usually be consistent with MOS:MILFLAGS ↗ (see also MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS ↗ that gives voice to MILFLAGS) but not when there are only two belligerents - as in this case. Flags in an infobox need to convey information other than the flag itself. They do this by showing allegiances in other parts of the infobox when there are two or more belligerents (per example at MILFLAGS). Editors who have not read the guidance will likely be unfamiliar with when it is appropriate to use flags. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means ↗ tells us that one doesn't need to be familiar with all the rules before editing WP. If there is an error, someone will come along and fix it sooner or later as there is WP:NORUSH ↗. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::So for future reference, wars and battles involving just two combatants doesn't need the flags on the infoboxes but wars and battles involving three or more do? Alright then, if you say so. Thanks for letting me know. JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|100px ↗| 100px ↗}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This is for all your contributions to the English Wikipedia since 2014, especially those related to the 2026 Iran war. Pachu Kannan (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
|}