User talk:Cinderella157

Welcome!

Hello, Cinderella157, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Military history project

Hello Cinderella157! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cinderella157. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 22:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Buna–Gona (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Cinderella157, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Action at buna.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Action at buna.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner bunar.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USA-P-Papua-p229 BOATLOAD OF RATIONS is brought up the Girua River, December 1942. (Collapsible assault boat.) milner bunar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

handy hint

• United States Army (n.d.). History of the Buna Campaign December 1, 1942 – January 25, 1943: Part 2 (June 17, 1943). Retrieved 1 November 2014.

collapsing text

How do I collapse a long portion of text so that only the subject shows, with a "show" (hide) box to click on the right?Woonpton (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

   For me, the best one is Template:Hidden begin.

abc

<text>

Military History Newcomer of the Year 2014

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2014 "Military History Newcomer of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in an interview in The Bugle

Hi, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle, and I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview with all the nominees for the 2014 Military History Newcomer Award which we're hoping to run in the January edition. If you're interested in participating, I'd appreciate it if you could post responses to some or all of the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2015/Interview by 11 January. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your responses Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you found Wikipedia and the Military History Wikiproject to be a welcoming place for new editors? Do you have any suggestions for how new editors could be welcomed?

Have you found Wikipedia and the Military History Wikiproject to be a welcoming place for new editors? Do you have any suggestions for how new editors could be welcomed?

My experiences have been at both ends of the spectrum. While working on this project, I have been mentored by User:AustralianRupert‎. I am very grateful for the assistance and support he has provided. Mentoring is one way of supporting new editors. I feel privileged to be part of the development of 13th Field Regiment (Australia) and particularly 1st Mountain Battery (Australia) both of these grew from stubs to B-Class articles almost overnight and are great posters for how Wikipedia can work as a collaborative experience. On the other hand, there are those that want to issue commands but don't want to do anything, those that want to make sweeping changes without considering accuracy and those that if you don't agree with them, respond with personal jibes. I think that the experience should be about collaboration, consensus and the facts. It would be nice to have a little more feedback sometimes. By this, I don't mean affirmation but different perspectives that recognise acknowledge and respect the differences between editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @User:Nick-D, I am being honest here and perhaps, not very tactful. I am ok with you editing the last 4(?) sentences as you see fit, just let me know before you put my name to it. Regards.

That looks fine to me - warts and all feedback is really valuable (and I agree with the points you raise!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Style of operation names

Hi @User:Peacemaker67,

Hope you don't think the stuff on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history is about dissatisfaction with your advice on Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#Clarifying operation names. The stuff on the MH page was going to happen in any case. I made the changes IAW your opinion. I am not that hung up on what the style should be - just that there should be a style. Although I do have my own preference, I am not trying to push it too hard. I approached you because the other party was trying to dictate one style. I was happy for them to change it to whatever they wanted if they were going to do it. Perhaps I was being too subtle and I was about to loose my cool. Fixed the problem anyway. Regards and thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm glad you've raised it. It could be clearer, and a tweak to the MOS wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change at Manual of Style/Capital letters

Hello Cinderella157, I've just read through your proposals and I posted a link to them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed change at Manual of Style/Capital letters since that page would be impacted and is watched by more people. Though your proposals are different from what has been my practice and my understanding of the existing MoS, I find them very clearly written. I look forward to watching the discussion. SchreiberBike talk 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

hi @SchreiberBike this is, if nothing else, a starting point to get clearly articulated guidelines. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, "solar" and "lunar" were not derived from proper nouns, but from Latin common nouns sol & luna, which were only later adopted as proper nouns in English. Same w terrestrial & Terra. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Operation names

I'm putting this on your talk page, rather than the MILHIST talk page because a consensus appears to have been reached and it appears you've taken the bit and are making the appropriate changes to the Manual of Style to implement it. I have recently edited a couple of pages in which operation names were bolded. Perhaps, where you add not adding emphasis through italics, you might add "or bolding". --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek, I am happy to do this since I perceive this as only a minor edit, quite consistent with the intention. However, it is not intended to override existing conventions for use of bold in the lead, where boldface is used for the article name and synonymous terms (usually in the first sentence of the lead) and target redirects (again, usually in the first sentence of the lead but sometimes elsewhere. This style amendment for operation names is not meant to override this existing 'rule'. To clarify, an operation name may be (nearly) synonymous with a battle so the first sentence would (and should) read something like this:

Battle Blah Blah (the implementation of Operation XYZ by the Allies) ...

Perhaps not a good example on how to word it, but you get the gist? I recall now your original comment. I perceived your comment to be a misunderstanding since this amendment is not a change to the existing general policy on boldface. I will amend the proposed change (final draft) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history before I make the actual change so you can make any further comment or suggestion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to suggest a change in boldface policy. What I had been running into in articles was something like: The 1st Foo Wing participated in Operation A, Operation B, and Operation C. I don't think this is quite in line with the bolding policy to start with, and just thought if the style for operations was to mention not adding emphasis through italics, it should also mention not using boldface solely for emphasis. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek, I didn't think you were. Just thought I needed to add the extra detail to the final draft so there was no misunderstanding or ambiguity. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The City

Hi, just saw some discussion at MOSCAPS. Yes indeed, at the heart of the city of London as it stands today is the City of London (alongside the City of Westminster). This is also known as "the City", which also (by metonymy) refers to the British financial services sector.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Hi, I was quite aware of this. It is used as an example in the MOS; however, the point the example seeks to make is not elaborated, thereby making the convention of style the MOS is seeking to make in that particular section, even more unclear. My understanding is that 'the City' has a long history of use as an alternative name for the City of London in a way which treats it as if it were a 'proper name' - much like a personal nickname. Furthermore, the article 'the' is an intrinsic part of the name - not appended to the name nor can other definite articles be substituted for it. Did you read the discussion by me at 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)? 'The City' in this case in analogous with 'The Hague'. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The universe/Universe debate

.... seems to be as endless as the universe itself! All of this causes me to wonder if I haven't communicated clearly, and/or how coherent communication can be better promoted at Wiki. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom I really didn't think it was [insert suitable explicative of your choice] that hard! We (you and I) must be aliens. It reminds me of the 'Shoot the Nigger' scene in Blazing Saddles and the closing line. I think that the problem is that most commentators (here) aren't reading back more than one or two posts and the real problem arose when I pinged, thinking it was important - given the short time frame of the poll. Perhaps everyone should have some sort of brain-lock installed that restricts them from commenting until they have read everything new. I have one thing more to try. Stay posted. This could get interesting. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm curious! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: people with brain-lock: Short-attention-span-syndrome, I think...sometimes it wears off, but, sadly, not always. Anyay, I came here wondering if you were aware of any current discussions on wording a proposal to reword the MoS' policy on capitalization of celestial bodies. I'm kind of itching to start one, but I don't want to jump the gun, and I have a tendency to misunderstand certain nuances and choose poor wording. Also, you said something somewhere that made me think you hadn't seen MOS:Register (an index of links to past discussions). Xaxafrad (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Xaxafrad, nothing as yet re Celestial bodies. I think the best and most likely approach is going to be one bite at a time. There is a lot of inertia and divided opinion. A lot of the problem comes from (I think) sneaking in the reference to the IAU. It all depends upon the outcome now for this RfC and then for 'solar system' who knows where then. From what I can see, there has already been a lot of toing and froeing over the second paragraph. This is where I quoted Dicklyon. Thanks for the link but it obviously doesn't include a lot of stuff. What are your ideas? I would like to see the lead of MOS:Caps addressed and the section on proper names. I think more recent edits have been retrograde. There are assumptions about the universality of conventions that aren't necessarily true in a global context. I would like to see capitalisation based on the conventions of English, in conjunction with sources and using the evidence of usage as a last resort. We shouldn't have to go off and do a source search every time we have a question. And which sources should we consider? Not something which is all that intuitive. I wish CMOS and some of the other style guides were on-line. Yes, the football team analogy had me stumped as to what was so hard to grasp? I also struck the same sort of obstinacy when I was trying to help out on improving Union (American Civil War)‎ for a GA review. Do you know what 'Hoosier' is? BTW have a look at this (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=B7jOGz7zMnwC&pg=PA85&dq=proper+name+definition&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0vPfVNe3AsPd8AXmkILIAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=universe&f=false). Thought it would muddy the waters too much given the attention spans of some but do with it what you might. Nice to hear from you. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not that smart. After reading your reply, I think I'm one of the ones with a short attention span. Personally, I'm all about "keep it simple, stupid", using common sense and intuition to use a minimum amount of complexity to reduce confusing ambiguity. I don't trust my own judgement, I've put my foot deep down my throat on more than one occasion. Having been confused before and disliking the feeling, I would like to prevent others from experiencing the same, especially if all it takes is a short, parenthetical statement. But I doubt such a statement would work for this case. I think the MoS:Caps policy page needs revising, but I'm not sure what revisions to suggest. Since sources are so inconsistent, I wouldn't rely on any of them, unless we can establish a consensus on the IAU, or some other (hopefully more consistent) organization. With that said, I would suggest to to recommend lower-case is as many cases as possible. Xaxafrad (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

After further reflection (that is, attempting to reply to a couple sections), I would specify I'm not smart enough to be a policy-maker. I like doing things the right way, so I also like learning policy; it's not enought to know the rules, but one should know both the exceptions and the spirit. You seem like a good policy-man (or -woman), I don't think I'll be doing much more contributing, but I'll try to watch things develop (it's so hard to keep up, sometimes!). Feel free to ping me if you want my opinion somewhere. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to reply, I know about the article Hoosier, and I heard of the movie when it was released (I was 5, the weird word stuck with me), but outside of that, not much. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Scythia

Thanks for your comments have re-instated the citation really it was a valid source for inclusion and the figure is not unreasonable I have mentioned it's initial removal on the talk page hereTalk:Scythia feel free to add your own thoughts many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Premature RfC

Hi,

I've removed your premature RfC on universe and explained why at WT:MOSCAPS. I'd ask you to hold off until there's agreed upon process and wording. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I found it to be exceedingly disruptive a mere few hours after the last close. I will ask an administrator to look into it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), This was not closed but reverted and the reasons given did not substantiate the reversion - specifically that this proposed an edit to the MOSCAPS and there was no consensus for same. It does not make such a proposal - infact, it specifically makes a statement to the contrary. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I made no such statement. I said that there was no consensus on the process or on whether this is the right question to ask at this time. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 10:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashill, I am not certain exactly what statement you assert you did or did not make however .... You did state: "In particular, multiple editors don't think that this should be specified in the MOS ..." This RfC quite specifically does not presume a change to the MOS but addresses the question originally posed on this talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I said that that question should be resolved before we decide whether universe is ever a proper name (a question that you rightly try to resolve before deciding upon MOS wording). I did not say that your RfC makes a MOS wording proposal. For the record, I do think that this should be specified in the MOS, but we need to come to a consensus on that point before deciding what the capitalization should be. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ashill, And this RfC is not presumptive of a change to the MOS. Therefore, a need to determine if a change to the MOS has consensus is not a prerequisite for asking this question. The justification you asserted does not substantiate your actions. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

The filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed for two reasons. First, DRN does not accept a case when other dispute resolution mechanisms are in progress, including other Requests for Comments, even if the RFC is controversial. Second, the case is a Manual of Style issue involving conduct allegations that can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Manual of Style, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Hey, thanks for pointing out that I put support instead of oppose in the universe discussion.

I actually went ahead and removed your comment because you were totally right and I fixed my mistake so it seemed unnecessary to retain, but if that offends you feel free to go ahead and re-insert it. Thanks again. It's clearly been a long night. AgnosticAphid talk 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping prang

I noticed your edit summary "fixed ping".[1] Lots of editors have hoped that sort of fix will work. Sadly, as WP:PING says, if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent and what's more In some cases (usually when changing another, recent, comment with a signature) the parser does not realise that a user has made a new signed comment, and so does not trigger a notification. NebY (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 1 review during January-March 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripe. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Buna-Gona

G'day, Cinderella, thanks for your fix regarding this edit of mine: [2] Not sure how I messed that up; I recall the harvnb script identifying it as an error at the time, but it doesn't seem to display like that now when I look at the history. So, I'm not sure what I was thinking! Anyway, thanks for the fix and keep up the good work! :-) Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Cinderella157/edit

Hello, Cinderella157. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "edit".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cinderella157. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retreat from Kokoda

@AustralianRupert, Hi, have you read Retreat from Kokoda by Raymond Paull. Nearly finished. Very much a narrative style rather than a formal history but interesting as a more contemporaneous account. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day, no I haven't yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bert kienzle2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bert kienzle2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG, I had previously sent to permissions commons but have now sent to the address you provided and added the tag if these are the correct actions? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bert kienzle2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bert kienzle2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Numbers

[3] I follow this for numbers in the text (more or less) but wonder if US usage is different? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 FYI, I am Australian. I was working by recollection of that there was no discretion in the MOS up to 99 (as I understand it to be in anycase) but it is no discretion is up to 9. My error but it does solve some issues where a x has been used. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hard luck ;o)) What are round and sigfig for?Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264 See Significant figures. A distance of 200 yds has one significant figure so 200 yards (180 m) implies a degree of precision down to 10 m (10 yards). Most battlefield measurements above 100 m (yds) are to the nearest 100 m (yds) or 50 m for the first few hundred metres/yards. The sig figure output adjusts to an appropriate number. In practical terms - 100 m is effectively the same as 100 yards unless you are getting out there with some sort of measuring device such as a tape or distance wheel or somebody paced out the distances. If you can't say that it was 200 m versus 190 m then you can't claim that the distance being referred to as 200 m is 220 yards (as opposed to 200 yards. The round parameter allows reporting to the nearest multiple/fraction of 5 but the sigfig parameter rounds to the nearest whole increment for the digits which are significant. So, 400 metres (440 yd) but apply one significant figure 400 metres (400 yd) and round to 50 400 metres (450 yd) When saying the perimeter was 4 km × 5 km (2.5 mi × 3.1 mi), the about 4 x 5 km means an precision of ± 100 or 200 m but reporting to 0.1 of mile implies ± 20 or 40 yards but using the round, it is reported to the nearest half mile 4 km × 5 km (2.5 mi × 3 mi). Hope that is clearer than mud. It avoids giving a false impression of the precision and accuracy of the measurements. Have a look at the edit code. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's most helpful. When I learned about convert I didn't realise that there were niceties, I assumed it was just for comparison. I've seen both on occasion but never thought to ask. Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edged and bladed weapons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kokoda Track campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Ford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Milhist co-ordinator elections

G'day, it's that time of year again when the Milhist project elects its co-ordinators for the coming year. I wonder if you have considered running? I think that you would make a great addition to the team, as you have been around for awhile now, are level headed, committed, and have a pretty good grasp on many of our processes. If you are interested, please consider adding your nomination here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2017. If you have any questions about the role, please let me know. I'd be happy to try to answer them. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert, I am honoured that you think I might contribute as a co-ordinator. I am a little hesitant to take on responsibilities but will give it a go if you wish to nominate me. I don't see you putting yourself forward for another term? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, yeah, it's pretty jack but I'm not sure about running again this year. I had been hoping to take a break as my wife and I are expecting another little one in the next couple of weeks. Plus, I am thinking of undertaking another masters next year. If we don't get many more noms, I guess I will just toss my hat in the ring again, but I'd been hoping that we could get some new blood. Regarding noms, it is a self nom process so while I'd like to, I can't really nominate you. Happy to check your nom statement for formatting, etc, if you do decide to nom and you would certainly have my vote. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for your pending arrival. What are you looking at undertaking? I appreciate your reluctance to step up again but I think that the project will be diminished by your absence even if it is time to take a step back. Fondest regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at doing a Masters of War Studies through UNSW at ADFA. Just not sure I have the time and energy anymore. Next year is a big year for me career wise and family wise, so I have to weigh those things a bit more before making the decision. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wingwraith (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I just replied there - I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the talkpage discussion to be closed - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work...-- Begoon 14:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

MoS

I guess Boson's citation to Quirk's book provides at least one source for the idea of some linguists approaching the philosophy side of the proper name definitional sphere after all. I wasn't aware of any such shift. It's rather dry reading, so I haven't been keeping up with linguistics journals and such, other than on a handful of pet topics like Tartessian and the "Celtic from the west" hypothesis. The Dunning-Kruger effect many have thus craftily crept up and bit me in the buttocks when I least expected it. I guess it's good to get a reminder every now and that one's understanding of understanding has to shift as the underlying understanding does. :-)

As for more circular reasoning in MOSCAPS, where are you seeing more of it? Sometimes it's not hard to fix such things with some copyedits and clarifications. The main approach so far has been to mostly avoid proper name/noun talk and go with a "don't capitalize unless necessary" approach, which basically resolves to "capitalize if almost all the modern reliable sources do". People mostly seem to like this, because it's consonant with our "follow the sources" operating mode, and is even consistent with WP:COMMONNAME in spirit (though it is not a style policy, which a lot of WP:RM arguers take a long time to figure out).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I have given up on MOS:CAPS as something of a lost cause so I have no "recent evidence" but you did refer to WP:SSF skirmishes and, unfortunately, those that shout loudest and longest tend to get heard regardless of the strength of their arguement - hence why I now only occasionally have a look-in there. The "there is only one" or "it refers to this particular one" s a particular misconception. The circular reasoning often goes hand in glove with SSF. You see it with job titles and anywhere else where there is a tendency to capitalise appellatives. You might be interested in this [4]. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The "there is only one" or "it refers to this particular one" argument is, yes, a constant "how do we get people to stop capitalizing this here?" issue. I'm skeptical that any "monoreferential appellative" references are going to help, nor that the concept can be explained in plain English in one or two sentences in a way that will work in MoS. It's more practical for us to just specify rules that seem arbitrary to some, always toward LC by default, without explaining them in great detail.

That book really shows some even more philosophy-like linguistic material, commingled with psychology. Lordy! I think I'll order a copy of that, just to see where some people are trying to go with it. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given that anthropology has radically changed in the last twenty-odd years, coming to be dominated in many ways by its own hybrid children like evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology. They're amazing tools for some kinds of data, but not so great for every kind of question (e.g., the fact that in a particular culture in a particular area, without a strong religious convictions against polygamy, you can predict polygamy on a village-by-village basis – simply from average number of available calories of food per day per household – doesn't actually tell us anything at all about the incidence of polygamy anywhere else nor about the nature of monogamy, other than there's a possibility that sharing of food and food-preparation labor may be a factor (which was already obvious).

A problem for us is that taking linguistics in any "everything is a quantitative datum" direction (or some of the more theoretical psychological ones in that volume). is too-new a thing for us to be certain it's right on anything. Its as problematic in a different direction as the old philosophical material (on which this book has a long chapter, which seems to inform much of its later reasoning), which is based on logical arguments for which we don't have any observable evidence. Two extremes, I guess. That's a 2007 book by a single author making arguments against colleagues publishing in 2005 or so, and we'd have to get on a journal site and see what the later reactions are, I suppose. Just in skimming it momentarily, there's two clear factual errors, or at least failures to consider the history and to think about human use not certain humans' use. The Internet is a proper name (and a proper noun phrase in some conceptions, like The Hague, but unlike "the apple I ate for lunch"), regardless of the decapitalization trend (a style fad introduced by newspapers, promulgated by journalism editors who don't know what they're talking about as a technical and word-history matter but – rather like us here – primarily concerned about stylistic consistency and not causing the reader's mind to revolt about spelling trivia in mid-sentence). It has no lexical meaning as a word rather than a name to much of anyone using it (as a noun). The concept of "an internet" and "several internets" a) is a backformation from that name, and b) it does not exist in the minds of most users of "the Internet", but rather is a technical concept, a now-obsolete word for WAN. So the psych arguments about "semantic memory", etc., cannot apply except for a tiny subset even of technical people (some mostly university and government sysadmins with grey in their hair), and same goes for the appellative assessment; the Internet isn't descriptive to anyone but that very rarified crowd. Rather similarly, the idea that "the moon" (which astronomers prefer as "the Moon") is just the selection of a particular instance from the lexical set "moons" is nonsense; we didn't even have the idea there could be additional moons of this or any other planet until the 19th century (as far as I know; we at least had no evidence of it, and it's unlikely the hypothesis would have existed before the telescope and some sense of what a planet is). So, "moons" wasn't a word except maybe in some playful poetry that might also have spoken of Londons or Christs. (From a more traditional analysis, "the Moon" has issues as a proper name because of the definite article, but people have argued for generations about this, mainly because what does or doesn't have an article varies by language or even over time in the same one, without any change of meaning or role in a sentence until you get down to the micro-level of morphology). The same core issue of the [m|M]oon case applies to a case without the "the": Earth. The word "earths" (in the sense of planetary bodies rather than kinds of soil) didn't exist except as a protologism or nonce word until within my lifetime, but most of us have probably encountered it by now, e.g. "Astronomers are using space telescopes to detect new earths around distant stars". So, I'm seeing a lot of cart-before-the-horse in that book. These cases are not at all comparable to "Parliament" (meaning the British one) and "parliaments". It's all kind of headache-inducing and simultaneously an exciting "where are were going with this in the 2020s?" topic, but it's hard to see how to apply any of it to make MoS easier or more stable. :-/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:SMcCandlish, a poser if I may? How should "the kantian imperative" be capitalised? I would say that "Kantian" is an adjective derived from a proper name and therefore capitalised but the definite article attaches to "imperative" indicating it is a common noun. If one applies the guidance to deprecate caps, it should be "the Kantian imperative" - a specific referent does not make it a proper name. Furthermore, it is descriptive. I go back to what I said about proper names being applied to "the concrete". I am prepared to be corrected on this and can't immediately cite sources. However, this leads to the issue of the title of works, which are abstract. Are the titles of works proper names or are they appellatives (ie, a name that is not a proper name) written by convention in "title case"?

There is the example of "the Location XYZ railways". Unless this is a company (and hence, a proper name), this is both descriptive, has the definite article applied and is pluralised - an appelative, even though it has a definite referent. "The Watts' riots", similarly. in this particular RfC, the main proponent for full caps advanced all sorts of arguements, including that they were a "specific event" and the emotive, that they deserved to be capitalised. In the end, they acknowledged the strength of my arguement. It was a "light-bulb" moment. In many cases, the sources are not definitive and it becomes a matter of who can rack up the most sources to support their position or discredit the sources of the opponent. And then there is SSF and the specialists throwing up specialist sources to counter the generalists and arguing that it is a specialist area and the specialist sources should predominate.

Which sources should guide us? Generalist acknowledged style guides which are not necessarily readily accessible to all? Specialist style guides? Sources which are subject to SSF or which have a propensity to over cap? This becomes problematic when the subject is not one widely published in a "general" sense. The results become skewed if the results are narrowly covered in say, only newspapers, which may be reliable for content but not style. "The Marvel Universe" is analogous to "the Kantian imperative", yet the sources are skewed. Sources that discuss "the Marvel universe" are intrinsically specialist. There is the whole "celestial bodies" fiasco of a couple of years ago - and hence, my "Faulty Towers" like references not to mention "the universe". "The Sun", "the Moon" and "the Earth" have "evolved" to be proper names (see the source I linked if I recall correctly). "The Solar System" (for ours) is "caps for distinction" and SSF, as is "the Galaxy" (for ours) - as opposed to it being a capitonym like "the City". I submit, it should be: "the Milky Way galaxy", not, "the Milky Way galaxy" - again analogous to "the Kantian imperative". The circular arguement, SSF, "he who shots loudest" and confusing the matter with TLDNR led the the SSF dominating against "strength of arguement" (IMHO). So much for WP consensus! I don't want to right the wrongs of the world (well, maybe I do but I know a brick wall when I see it, even if I bash my head against it a couple of times just to make sure it is real).

I would make two observations. If CMOS (as I perceive things) generally guides MOS:CAPS, then it should be paraphrased into MOS:CAPS on specifics, since it is not generally available. This does not preclude variation by consensus on specific details; however, where CMOS is specific, something should be said - if it was sufficiently noteworthy for CMOS, then there is good reason for us to note it too, even if our position is different. On my second point ... A good essay might go a long way to resolving many of the misconceptions and fallacies I have identified. It could support MOS:CAPS and might even be written into it where changes to MOS:CAPS might be less probable. As an example, I would refer to WP:SOLDIER wrt WP:GNG. While not written into GNG, it has considerable standing as it applies to MILHIST. Some thoughts. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

PS, I don't care so much what it says, so long as it (MOS:CAPS) is pretty clear, reasonably unambiguous and easy to apply. By these criteria, I think that there is scope for improvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't care so much what it says, so long as it (MOS:CAPS) is pretty clear, reasonably unambiguous and easy to apply." – Indeedy.

To start back at the top: Just speaking from an MoS perspective, it would be "the Kantian imperative", and this is how most other style guides will treat it. We only down-case an eponym where the modern usage in the sentence in question has lost all connection to the namesake and is not a comparison to the namesake's actual qualities/methods/whatever, and is not a direct reference to the namesake, but is a derived metaphoric usage, or something that has taken on a new meaning that's inaccurate when applied to the namesake:

• Justice has long been conceptually treated as something of a Platonic ideal in the West, with considerable consequences for our legal and governance systems. (Direct reference to Platonism.)
• The love we share is Platonic, in the strict sense – exploring together our connection to the world and what may be beyond it." (Direct reference to Plato's original idea.)
• My roommate and I have a platonic relationship. It's not some kind of platonic ideal we're pursuing, but a practical measure." Use of the adjectives in vernacular, buzz-word senses to mean, respectively, "non-sexual" and something like "philosophically motivated".
• Use of the death penalty for minor crimes did not survive the Draconian period in Athens. (Direct reference to the actual legal regime of Draco [Drakon]. Due to ambiguity, Draconic is often used for clarity now.)
• Soviet law was classically Draconian in many ways – rigid imposition of a rule system that "the people asked for", with severe consequences for transgression, resulting in general public loathing for it within a generation. (Direct comparison between Draco's legal system that of the USSR.)
• My boss is really draconian; it's like working for some kind of dictator. (Common figurative and rather confused usage to just mean something like "despotic", which Draco actually wasn't.)

Sometimes this can apply to national and other cultural or geographic adjectives:

• I'm of Scotch-Irish ancestry. (Direct reference to the Scots. Today we use "Scottish" mostly.)
• I only like some Scotch whiskeys, the less peaty and more iodine-laden insular malts. (Scotch actually comes from Scotland; it's a direct relationship.)
• Saturday's tournament will be in scotch doubles format. (Some still capitalize this usage, but people in sports more often do not; there's no known evidence this tournament format has a connection to Scotland. Cf. "welshing on a bet", sometimes altered to "welching" to further divorce it from its racist origin. Or "french fries" which aren't really French, nor is "frenching" a.k.a "french kissing", also commonly decapitalized these days.)

I've been meaning for some time to do one of my "survey almost every style guide available to see what they say on it" sprees on this one, and see if anything like a consensus has emerged on such treatment. Regardless, I observe that this pattern of use is real, even if it's not terribly consistent. Some would capitalize every single instance of these things, while others would LC all except maybe 3 of them (probably retaining UC for the Soviet, ancestry, and whiskey sentences). There are other cases of "genericization" of eponyms, e.g. "macadam" for "asphalt"; they seem to all have in common that any sense of reference to someone or something specific or what the connection was has been lost. Others are "crapper" for toilet and "guy" meaning "male human who is not a small child" (from Guy Fawkes, and originally a Guy meant a dastardly man, then guy meant a low-class man, then just a man). The average user of a diesel engine probably doesn't know that it's named for a person, nor that a zeppelin was, or that the caesarean section was named for a legend about Julius Caesar's birth. Medicine (so I see at our own Eponym article) has a curious practice of dropping the caps for adjectival use ("parkinsonian") but this doesn't seem to be spreading in English generally, and isn't even universally accepted in that field. The American preference for "cesarean" is proof of genericization and the loss of connection to the referent; Americans still write Caesar, but "cesarean" has just become an arbitrary word, to which the American trend of simplification has been applied (fetus, pediatrics, maneuver, specialty, encyclopedia, etc.).

Back to the other half of Kantian imperative: The MoS and NCCAPS regulars have long been trying to get rid of unnecessary capitalization of things like "Stafford–Manchester Line", "Powell Street Station", "Watts Riots", "the African-American Civil Rights Movement", "Method Acting", "Benford's Law", "Canada Goose", "British Shorthair". The results have been mixed and very gradual but toward lower-casing except when politics gets in the way (either external politics about events and social movements, or internal ones, as when a wikiproject WP:OWNs a topic and has a "F the MoS" attitude in favor of an SSF style they care too much about enforcing outside their own publications).

There's a big tension (even aside from specialist versus general-audience sources) between academic style and low-end press style (e.g. overcapitalization of descriptive names of events and movements, and mimicry of marketing overcapping in the titles of works, like "Do It Like A Dude"). The "follow the sources" argument gets confused very rapidly, especially among people who do not understand the WP:COMMONSTYLE reasoning and are somehow convinced that WP:COMMONNAME is a style policy despite all evidence to the contrary. "Which sources should guide us?" is the real question. The MoS position has consistently been that it's internal WP consensus first and foremost – no external source can tell us what works best for our context; thus we have MOS:LQ, probably our most radical departure from external style guides, though it's actually a return to an academic norm that didn't start to fragment until around 1900, mostly due to American newspapers. Generalist, mainstream style guides like Chicago and New Hart's are second. They are readily accessible, but their lack of free online access is irrelevant; people writing here should either just write, and leave it to gnomes to clean up after them (and absorb WP norms as they go), or read and follow MoS directly themselves, not try to second-guess MoS with off-WP style guides. Those are primarily of WP use in formulating and adjusting what MoS says, a policy process not an encyclopedia-writing one. Specialist style guides are something we generally don't use, except when they're very broad. The only one with significant impact on MoS is Scientific Style and Format, and we only follow it for thing where what it recommends does not conflict sharply with everyday reader and editor expectations (thus we may say to use 9 pm or 9 p.m. not "9pm", but we don't call for the use of weird units like mebibytes, because the real world has not adopted them.

The problem of SSF-accruing topics without much general-audience source coverage is address (to the extent it has been) by having general rules like defaulting to lower case for anything where the sources aren't remarkably consistent in capitalizing. The problem that this could in some cases result in every source capitalizing something that shouldn't, for something that's barely notable and very recent, is that we've been able to apply generalized rules from analogous cases, and the rules are written rather generally to begin with. Mostly it's been sufficient at RM to show that because of all the examples at MOS:ISMCAPS that a various things the adherents or afficionados of which want to capitalize but which aren't actually proper names should be lower-cased here. This can fail in OWN cases, as it recently did at Modern Paganism and some related topics. The argument goes that "the sources" capitalize, but it's the non-WP:INDY sources written by pagans that do capitalizing, plus some news sources who can't tell the difference between a religion or religious organization and a broad and an inconsistently defined categorizing label for a wide range of them, so they over-cap out of fear of giving offense. I have no doubt that article will eventually move to lower case, or be completely renamed, but it may take 5 years to erode the OWN/SSF blockade. (The articles in that category are generally completely controlled by adherents to the religious movement in question; breaking the blockade will require identifying where all their NOR and NPOV failures are and drawing sufficient attention the more serious problems undoes the conflict-of-interest stranglehold; the article can then be renamed as an afterthought.)

Dunno about "Marvel Universe". I know that "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is actually a trademark; and we're not capitalizing "universe" in this sense in other places, in absence of a trademark, e.g. at Star Wars expanded universe (I think the actual trademarks are "Star Wars: Expanded Universe" and "Star Wars Legends", but whatever). In general we should be lower-casing all these niche things at every opportunity. I think the "whole human meta-environment" things like the Earth, Moon, Sun, Solar System, etc. are capitonyms we can probably live with. The problem with writing "the City" in Wikipedia is it doesn't mean anything specific to anyone but residents of the city in question (or, sometimes, a nearby one; I live in Oakland, and if I see an SF Bay Area writer use "the City" I know they mean San Franciscio). But we all live on Earth, so no problem arises. The Moon is a place, so the argument can be made that it should capitalized like the Northern Hemisphere and the Rocky Mountains. People don't want to hear arguments that it should be "the moon" but "Mars" because Mars doesn't have a "the". They'll also point to common capitalization of "the Kuiper Belt", etc. I just got tired of arguing with them after a while, on the traditional lower-case of "the moon", "the solar system" in everyday English. It's just not worth the stress, and it's a small concession to make. "The Milky Way Galaxy" seems pointless when "the Milky Way galaxy" is sufficient, but people are going to argue for "the Galaxy" when they mean ours. I notice that right now our article is at Kuiper belt, but this is encyclopedically problematic because it's very, very likely that other solar systems have their own Kuiper belts, and there's already material written about this idea in the plural. As soon as better telescopes prove it, we're going to need that title to be about the concept of Kuiper belts not ours in particular. Same goes for asteroid belts; we have (in this line of thinking) the Asteroid Belt. (This "there's only one in our daily worldview" naming habit goes ultimately back to local populations; the endonyms of many people mean simply "the People", and they live near things that often linguistically boil down to "the Mountain", "the River", etc.; their meaning gets forgotten over time and treated as a proper name without a word-level meaning or non-capitalized equivalent, as the language changes but the name does so more slowly and doesn't keep up, and sometimes gets an equivalent later word tacked on to it, Torpenhow Hill 'Hill-hill-hill Hill' being everyone's favorite example.) Anyway, to back up to "Marvel Universe": if that turns out to be not a trademark somehow, it's not really a "fatal" problem if it gets capitalized on the basis that virtually all the sources on the topic capitalize it (if this is true). We actually have a rule at MOS:TM that capitalization and other style quirk for a commercial and similar name can be used if it's consistently done in the sources (thus Deamau5 and k.d. lang, but not P!nk or Ke$ha). It's another of these compromises between following randomly varying source usage no matter what and having no rules, versus having a rigid ruleset and complete disregard for style in RS. The "Marvel Universe" kind of capping is minor problem in that it inspires attempts at more SSF capping without a "all the RS are doing it" basis, but we can pick these off in most cases. So, it's tedious but nothing more.

CMoS has had more influence on MoS than any other style guide, but we don't follow it blindly. It's terribly nationalistic, infrequently updated, and strongly resistant to reflecting real-world change. I just got the new 17th ed. and haven't gone over it yet, but I strongly suspect very little we care about has changed (at least in a positive way). The 16th (and 15th) eds. had provable errors in them (I don't mean differences of interpretation but objectively demonstrable mistakes, like citing authorties for a CMoS rule that do not support it, and CMoS contradicting itself right in the same section, and elsewhere declaring facts about usage that can be disproven in just a few minutes' fact-checking). I for one have taken some pains to make sure that Hart's/Oxford is well-represented, too, and to seek commonality. We also use Fowler's, Garner's (which has become more internationalized in the last edition), and some others, and try to avoid the influence of The Guardian and other British press outfits, because they all contradict each other and they have nothing to do with writing in an encyclopedic register, often being compressive and expedient to the point of confusion. For the same latter reason we don't take much from Associated Press Stylebook. Scientific Style and Format has had a strong influence on the sci-tech material. Most of the rest that are available are derivative of these, too narrowly specialized, primarily about citation styles (AMA, AHRA, MLA, MHRA, etc.), the house style of particular entities, punditry by non-notable people with questionable credentials, or just covering basics (Struck & White, Gower). Regardless which books we're using, we're trying hard not to import any rule that is not necessary, i.e. that does not forestall some kind of recurrent screaming match, otherwise MoS gets too long (it already is), and starts to defeat its own purpose, by providing too many things to keep arguing about.

By all means write an essay; we haven't had a new style one in a while, that I know of. We do already have a lot of topical MOS subpages, just as there are many for notability and naming conventions, but they have often proven problematic, in that they can PoV-fork easily (by wikiproject intent or lack of maintenance), and people most don't read them. The the notability ones are taken more seriously because it's life-or-death for an article at AfD. Even short of an essay, just a list-out of logic or comprehensibility problems would probably be helpful. I've already got two or three concurrent RfCs open on language clarifications, once at MOS:CAPS and I think the other at MOS:BIO, and at least two discussions over the last couple of months at WT:MOS are probably good enough as the bases for RfCs to patch up the main MoS page on a few points. It's baby-steps work, but articulating what the issues are is the first step.
Thus ends my firehose of a reply. Feel free to refactor as you like to break out discussion items.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ , 18:59, 25 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Reply

@User:SMcCandlish, Thankyou for your reply. I am glad that you have appreciated the link. I think that we are seeing many of the same things. If I can do something, it is to sow the idea of an essay to support MOS:CAPS since this is likely a path of lesser resistance. To some extent, the lead at MOS:CAPS sets itself up to fail in the cases where it does fail: "... capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, or for the first word of a sentence." Having said "primarily", it does not address the many other cases which are commonly capitalised and which WP may "choose" to capitalise or not. An essay can make these other cases explicit. Most of the contention in WP as to CAPS arises not from what are proper names but the other cases where CAPS are often applied and the misconception that this (CAPS) makes them proper names - the circular arguement fallacy. While MOS:CAPS links to proper noun, there are two limitations. The issues transcend the articles boundaries and an article in the mainspace cannot be contexturalised to how it might be applied in WP. An essay is not so constrained. I (we) have identified a number of fallacies that lead to over-capitalisation. An essay might give "real" examples and give caution to these fallacies. On the matter of proper names, I think that the "properties" could be guided as a first check as to whether to CAP. English is a language of exceptions and the second check would be common exceptions. If these two checks do not indicate a decision, then the sources should be consulted as to usage. In practice though, the sources might initially raise the question. From this, an essay can guide how sources should be weighed to avoid some of the "traps" we have discussed. An essay can also record the collective memory of WP - precedent. It can report on decisions like "XYZ line" and guide decisiona on that which is directly similar (other lines). It can also provide guidance on decisions which are not "physically" similar but for which the conceptual considerations are similar - facilitating transference. I don't think that I have either the subject expertise or the WP memory to pull this off myself. Certainly, a lot of what we have discussed is a nucleus for such an essay. It is a case of putting this into a form that is comprehensible. It is something that has been fermenting for a while. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That all makes sense to me. Digging up "precedent" material would be a lot of work. Most of the relevant discussions/disputes have been operationally resolved at WP:RM, since it's an RfC-like process with a record (though not an easily searchable one; some improvement as been made in that regard, at my request, about a year ago – see search tools at the top of Wikipedia talk:Requested moves). The RM discussions do not get to every single over-capping case that MoS cares about, but probably does hit most of them. However, not all the RM outcomes are actually consonant with MOSCAPS at all; it's fairly common for a OWN/LOCALCONSENSUS camp to bloc-vote and get a result they want which directly conflicts with the guidelines, and to even spread that result to other articles. This can take years to clean up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Merge in MOS:PN – We have a pointless WP:CONTENTFORK in the guidelines, at MOS:PN.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:SMcCandlish, I just came across this gem - David Wilson (Army General). Will think on drafting a lead/intro as an outline for a more detailed article. Precedent material need not be comprehensive and exhaustive but illustrative and transferable. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The overcapping disambiguation, or is the content a mess, too? If the latter, I feel your pain. PS: Congrats on the election. Nice to know someone cognizant of and non-hostile to MoS/AT concerns will have some influence there for a change. (I'll try not to lobby you!)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

NB: Weren't we just talking about something like this?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2017 – September 2018

In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollback?

In a cursory glance through the user rights of the current coordinator tranche I noticed that you do not have the rollback tool. Would you be interested in acquiring it? I can grant it if you like, and you can put it to use both within and outside of MILHIST. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81, Yes thanyou. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, I've enabled the tool. Enjoy! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please

Hi, Cinderella. When checking up on the recent IP on Talk:Werner Mölders, I noticed this comment from you, where you say things like "[Coffman's] "excessive zeal" sails close to Wikipedia:POV warrior, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Troll - perhaps indistinguishably so." Those are serious attacks on an experienced, never blocked, editor whose intentions for Wikipedia are obviously good, even if you personally find them misguided. "Perhaps indistinguishably so" — really? If you want to call somebody a POV warrior, wikilawyer, and troll, then, as Coffman says on the page, ANI would be the right venue (even though with a high likelihood of a boomerang, since it's hardly ever appropriate to call anybody those things). The article talkpage is for discussing content. Your back-pedalling response when Coffman complained was "To be clear, my general observations apply specifically to this article to the extent of what you perceive as 'excessive detail' is not more widely accepted for a large part" (the syntax of that is obscure, but I think I understand largely what you meant). I'm afraid that's not "clear" at all, because what you had said could not be taken as specific to excessive detail on that article at all — it was a general and wholesale attack on the integrity and good intentions of a user. Did your typing run away with you when you wrote it? If so, it's a pity you didn't find it in you to apologize in response to their protest, and cross out the attacks. I'm never one to insist on insincere apologies, but please introspect a little, put yourself in the other person's place, and another time give a post more thought before hitting "save". Bishonen | talk 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen, I have no doubt that Coffman believes he is acting in good faith and with integrity. I observed that there is some benefit to WP in his contributions but with considerable disruption. My comments were made objectively and are based on observation. At Wikipedia:Troll, "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the reliability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict." I do not believe that Coffman's actions are deliberate and intentional. However, there is sufficient evidence that they should be reasonably aware that their actions are nonetheless disruptive. Do they have an agenda? Is it motivated by POV? Is this a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Is removing the place of birth and death from an infobox quoting "unsourced and unnecessarily intricate detail" (or words to that effect) appropriate? Is that Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged? Do such matters fall to Wikipedia:When to cite? Are such edits a case of: "However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several mild forms of disruptive editing which are better avoided. Ideally, common sense would always be applied but Wiki-history shows this is unrealistic. Therefore, this essay gives some practical advice."? And: "Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification."? (from Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue - though I am not saying this example particularly falls to WP:BLUE). Is there evidence of some of the behaviors at Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot? Are the arguments advanced "strict" and "ridgid" interpretations per WP:BURO? Do such actions reasonably fall (close) to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering? Are arguements in support of their actions WP:REHASHED in other articles even though they have been consistently rejected? Is this a case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? Are such behaviours "close to" or "perhaps indistinguishable from" Wikipedia:POV warrior, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Troll?

You will note that I quoted and supported another editor's statements. I have expressed an opinion. Where I have indicated a process, I believe I can substantiate same. Such comments are not a personal attack if there is evidence of same per WP:NPA. I could provide evidence that has led me to my observations. I am sure that others might do the same. However, this is unlikely to be productive since, I note, at Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, the acknowledged difficulty that WP processes have in dealing with the behavior described therein.

You are correct in assuming that any demanded apology, if given at all, would be insincere - my personal integrity would not permit such or, if given, it would be significantly qualified. I did not "backpeddle". You are applying to me a judgement of my motives which is incorrect in its conclusion. I saw in that particular discussion, examples of what I more generally described. Apparently, I was unclear in this. I do not see that I have either a right or duty to strike another's comments and as an aside, I saw some element of truth to the statements. As to the response from Coffman to me, I saw in this as something of a dare. My statement was made after careful consideration of what I have observed over a period of time and what was described in the links. I did put myself in the other person's shoes. I will acknowledge that I was somewhat frustrated by the "result of the seemingly never-ending problems" associated with this editor and the disruption caused.(Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Cinderella157. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cinderella157. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

Dear Cinderella157


I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and, a very Happy New Year.
Thanks for all your help and contributions.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, thankyou and best wishes for you and yours also. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Cinderella157. AfC submissions Random submission ~5 weeks 987 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2017

		The WikiChevrons
		As nominated by your peers as part of the 2017 Military History Newcomer of the Year Award process, you have been highlighted as an editor who has contributed significantly to the Military history project in 2017. As such, I hereby award you these Wikichevrons. Thank you for your efforts in 2017. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of four Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

British logistics in the Normandy Campaign

The main question that the subject of the article begs is: why the British? Why not the Americans? Far more has been written about the latter; the British Army's logistics is a less-explored subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, Ah! Though it did occur to me that a study of the British might be more instructive than the usual method of the US to use a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about MOS:JOBTITLES

There is a discussion about whether to add clarifying text (shown in boldface) to MOS:JOBTITLES at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification of "Titles of people" that you may be interested in. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have settled toward consensus, Cinderella. What is your advice on how long to wait to implement the improved examples? I'll look for your advice, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @HopsonRoad, this is not a formal RFC and MOSCAPS is well watched, so pretty much anybody with 2 cents to add will have done so. I would suggest just a couple of more days. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yeah opps

I've not a clue why that phrase rang such a bell with me when I saw him still maintaining his position but it did. Opps, didn't mean to echo you apologies rendered Milady of Heart.Tirronan (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Many thanks for the special barnstar. Much appreciated. The beer is to refresh you after all of your efforts put into this whole issue. You have more than earned it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Caps or not?

There was an RfC on the talk page for the Japanese medium tank Type 4 Chi-To as to whether the word "tank" should be added to all Japanese tank article titles [5]; consensus was that it should (even though not all other tank articles for other countries are consistent in doing same). My query to you for your opinion is should it be "Tank" or "tank". I believe it should be in lower case letters. What do you think? One editor started adding the word "Tank" in caps to a few article titles after the RfC and then stopped. Anyway, let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @talk, I think that "tank" is acting in an attributive sense, rather than being part of the "proper" name (particularly given the article title existed without it). I think, therefore, that tank should be in lowercase - particularly since MOS Caps tends to less rather than more caps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history the section on tanks. I tweaked it according, per the above. See what you think and if you believe it needs further wording. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek, tweaked it a little. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 5 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

German war effort of 1939–45 Case Request

Hi, Cinderella157. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52, May I ask if the notification at the statement by user:GreenMeansGo is considered in this? I did so as a courtesy to all involved (and ArbCom) and not as an intrinsic part of my statement. I note that K.e.coffman's initial statement exceeded the word count (by the measure I employed) and has subsequently been greatly increased. By way of the principles of natural justice (more specifically, that "rules" must be applied to all in the same measure and that justice must be done and seen to be done), I ask, if I may, if action is being taken to address this? I also advise that I am making a request for an extension. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I am looking at these separately. As these statements include replies to other editors who have commented on their statement, we usually allow some leeway into the lengths - I will go and double-check the guidance on this shortly. When I posted this notification, I could see no such reply directed to other editors, hence I did not consider this at the time. Sorry, just understood what you meant! It does not IMO, however I've moved it back into your own section where it should be. If you have applied to the committee for an extension in any case, I'll keep an eye out and tag as appropriate when they make a decision on this. Mdann52 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52, request sent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52, I note a subsequent statement that refers to my statement as a whole. Consequently, I submit that to significantly alter my statement has ramifications on that which has been subsequently made. This has occurred since my application. I request that this be be conveyed to the decision maker or (alternatively) you advise me of the appropriate means to convey this subsequent development to the decision maker. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just do as I'm told, anything regarding an extension should go to the committee directly. Mdann52 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with TonyBallioni

• I don't want to further clutter the case request page, but I think you completely missed Newyorkbrad and The ed17, and what I'm pretty sure was also Bishonen's points with this edit. You are now only linking to three murderous events and one non-murderous Nazi propaganda action instead of three non-Nazi murderous events and one Nazi murderous event. I think you should know that the number of people who find this incredibly offensive is still likely going to be very high. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, and you have all totally missed my point. History is rarely pleasant but it serves a purpose. From hindsight, we might have foresight. Yes, these were to be evocative and thought provoking (but this was not my point). My "intent" (that is, my point) was a warning of what might be! Newyorkbrad was incorrect in their assumption of my intent and their criticism falls to ad hominem and WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Though I am concerned by what they saw in the various statements that would cause them to reach that conclusion. That should be a concern for all. I would direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case As a consequence of the thread there and some time after my initial statement, I observed: How they are construed; however, may well speak more to the person doing so than to my intent. I also note the ad hominem there. I am sorry, but I do not see why this is perceived as "so offensive" and why, in a robust discussion I cannot or should not refer to historical events? I have not made a personal attack against an individual or group. I do not believe that I have contravened any policy of guideline. I would, however, be more concerned with some other comments/statements that I believe have significantly crossed such boundaries! To criticise me for advocating WP:NPOV - really. And gross misrepresentations. In the RW, there would certainly be sanctions for such conduct. I deliberately included a Nazi event for some fear, that to not do so might label me as a Nazi apologist too - the substantive allegation against LargelyRecyclable? The Nazi book burnings better represent my intent too. All of these events are ideological in nature, in some way they relate to censorship of information (books), they were conducted by the dominant authority, they were consistant with the prevailing law (or, at least, were condoned), they were ostensibly for the "greater good" but history now casts them in quite a different light (as evidenced by your characterisation). They each serve as a warning of what could be once we start to travel down this path. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. History serves to tell us that. My intent was to indicate a potential future and not a commentary on what had transpired to that point - I was not analogising but cautioning.

I deliberately did not overtly state my intent. It was a literary device intended to give an "edge" to this thought provoking statement: "Hey, just what did he really mean?" There is then my subsequent predictive statement: How they are construed; however, may well speak more to the person doing so than to my intent. This did not form part of my original thinking, but I do find that what has transpired is quite revealing.

If you are prepared to make a rational, logical, objective case (that does not rely on purely emotive reasons to any considerable extent per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) as to why I should strike these links then I will give it full consideration and, (per WP consensus) if there is any weight to the case, I am more than likely to do so. However, (in respect to these links) at the moment and quite frankly, this is taking on shades of Monty Python's Life of Brian[6] (warning: hyperlink is to scene from movie). If you prefer, I could find a similar scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've really debated on how to respond to this. I'm not sure there is really a correct response, as I literally have never been at a loss for words anything someone has said on Wikipedia until now.

All that I am going to say is this: it is impossible to separate the events of the last century, and in particular the crimes of it's tyrannies, from emotions for people. This is not at all a bad thing like you seem to be suggesting it is: emotion is a natural human response to things, and forms part of our intuition, and intuition is the basis of all of our intellectual and logical thoughts. We shouldn't let it overrun us, but the fact that a fair number respected editors are shocked that you would even think to make the comments should tell you something.

Saying that and keeping that in mind, I think you also need to remember that there are editors here who grew up in or currently live in countries that were occupied by the Nazis. We likely have editors who are the children and grandchildren of holocaust survivors. We likely have editors who's parents lived through the brutalities of National Socialism, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that we actually may have editors who directly experienced the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. For many of these people, the crimes of the Nazis are not just history, they are very real things that affected and still impact them and their families.

Keeping all of this in mind, regardless of whether or not you agree with K.e.coffman's actions, they view themselves as doing important work making sure that Wikipedia's coverage of the Nazi war effort accurately reflects the historical record, and doesn't gloss over the brutalities. There are other very respected editors who have stated on the ARC page that they view their efforts the same way, and I know at least one of those editors is from a country that the Nazis did occupy. Seeing you compare (or even appearing to compare) those actions, which reasonable people can view positively even if you don't, to a crimes committed by Hitler and Stalin is likely to be very offensive to them for any number of reasons.

Additionally, even if we throw out the reactions of people who are emotionally invested in this, let's just go to the fact that comparing any actions on a website to murders by Hitler and Stalin trivializes the actual suffering and death of innocent people who died at their hands, and is extremely disrespectful. There is nothing on this website that is remotely comparable to that. I hope you will really consider what I am saying here, and what other people have attempted to tell you elsewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, thankyou for engaging in a discussion in a reasonable way without resorting to some of the more negative behaviours I evidenced before. You have not relied on emotive arguements to make your case. Rather, you have made a case by exploring the emotional factors in play. Your statement: Seeing you compare (or even appearing to compare) those actions, which reasonable people can view positively even if you don't, to a crimes committed by Hitler and Stalin is likely to be very offensive to them for any number of reasons. Is a bit unclear to me so I may have misunderstood.

I think you will agree that dramatic social and ideological events in history may be characterised by: revolution, counterrevolution and even counter-counterrevolution. In each, there are dramatic (even diametric) shifts in the prevailing ideology.

Firstly, I have no intrinsic objection to the overtly stated aim of Ke. However, as I sated at the request. This appears to be nearly as extreme (in practice) as what they seek to redress. Secondly, there is how they go about achieving this. I stated that I found their user page disturbing. Yes, there are examples of what should be improved. However, it did not convey to me a message of somebody interested in collaboratively improving the project. The means does not justify the end. Bishonen linked to Talk:Werner Mölders. There is reference to posts on my talk page. You will see these above. If Ke's actions focused more on building consensus in a collaborative rather than confrontational way, there would be less resistance to them achieving their overt objective.

I am still not certain if you have quite grasped the "caution" I intended. I was certainly not comparing Ke's actions to Hitler's or Stalin's. That would be most inappropriate and contary to WP:NPA. [C]omparing any actions on a website to murders by Hitler and Stalin trivializes [that] ... There is nothing on this website that is remotely comparable to that. I was making a caution as to where this could lead if it was decided to travel down this path. I am not suggesting that this would lead to mass murder or at least, not in the way you suggest. However, you might also underestimate the power of the web. These events started in a small way. From Little Things Big Things Grow. Can you imagine the web in the hands of Stalin or Hitler? This path may lead to censorship of literature to be used on WP and to prescribing language and perspective to be used in WW2 article through a decision condoned by the prevailing authority. And from there ... ? This would be contrary to policy. It would also be contrary to the laws of the US which I understand, bind WP. I could also link to Nineteen Eighty-Four.

In your response though, you identify some very real concerns of potential bias and Natural justice.

Your case is compelling. But so, I believe, are the reasons for making the links in the first instance. How do we reach a consensus in regard to this, by which both concerns can be addressed? I think you will agree that this has been much more constructive and enlightening than any of the previous. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this response shorter than the one above: while I get that you are coming from a good place here, I am generally of the philosophy that even if we are 100% right on the merits, we should usually avoid acting in a way that causes others to respond negatively if there is a better way to go about it. For the point you were making, you could have said something like My fear is that going about things in the way he is, K.e.coffman is going too far in the other direction and causing Wikipedia to lose other important parts of the historical record. That would have conveyed the same idea without necessitating references to crimes by tyrants in a content dispute about crimes committed by one of the same tyrants (and another from the same era.)

From a more practical standpoint, as I'm sure you understand, the events of the Second World War in Europe, are very emotional topics for a lot of people. If you can make the same point you're trying to make in a way that doesn't get them upset, they're more likely to listen to what you are trying to say, and come to some form of middle ground with you. Sorry if this doesn't address all of your points, but it's how I usually analyze things (on-wiki and off-wiki) so at the very least, I thought it might give you an idea where I am coming from. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Firstly, I do not expect a response to this. I would like to thankyou for engaging in a constructive dialogue. By your suggestion (for which I nonetheless thank you), I still think that you miss the essential point and caution I was trying to make. My opening statement has already pretty much said exactly what you suggest. If this request to ArbCom is accepted (it now is?), where might that path lead. I was looking beyond the individuals involved. There is the potential for sanctioned censorship and for imposing an ideological perception of how events of WW2 are to be depicted.

I am perhaps more use to engaging in robust, polite but dispassionate discussions to exchange ideas in a full and frank way. While I certainly sought to be evocative and thought provoking, it was not my intent to deliberately upset people. You have represented a Eurocentric perception of the issues (not a bad thing) but you might appreciate too, that the events directly and indirectly touched nationalities from across the world. I have been considering how to respond to Newyorkbrad since their comment. Some of what I have discussed with you is the result of some of my drafts. I think you might appreciate that it is not simply a matter of striking these links, since the caution they represent is IMHO, of great significance. Some of my dilemma has been how to convey my concerns accurately but succinctly.

I am considering a course that links to Orwell's novel and the proverb above as well as this discussion. Of course, if you disagree with this, I welcome your opinion. Once again, my thanks. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I won't engage with the finer points above, but since The ed17 and (perhaps also Tony here?) seems to be encouraging you to remove or radically alter the famous sentence with the four links, I'll just point out that silently removing/altering text that somebody else has already specifically commented on (in this case me and Newyorkbrad) is frowned on. It wrongfoots the other person and is confusing for the reader. Even changing one of your four links the way you have done makes it look, to somebody who reads the RFAR page now or in the future, as if NYB and I are careless readers, and removing the whole sentence might make us look a little unhinged ('What are they talking about?'). The correct thing would be to strike out, with <s> and </s>, anything you now wish to disown or change, and then add anything you may want to say instead. I'm only talking about anything that has been explicitly commented on; there is IMO no need to fuss with strikeout code for altering other parts of your statement. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I used the word "redact." :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Children in the military; scoring for the contest

Hi. I don't really want to start a debate and am content for you to rule an article ineligible for the contest for any or no reason. However, I tried hard to make sure that all of this time's articles were eligible and so am a little surprised at Children in the military being ruled out, especially the grounds. AustralianRupert assessed it as B class on 14 April, [see diff]. Prior to that I had made 89 separate edits in March and April to what started as a 15,000+ word monster. My only edits since were to sort the dashes with a script and to tag as EngVarB.

Just for your information. No response nor action necessarily expected. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, I will look at it again. I have no issue with you drawing this to my attention. I am not infallible :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't put yourself out - I already seem to be causing enough work for coordinators. I am trying to learn from articles ruled ineligible and I don't 'get' this one. It is only 3 points, so makes no difference to the results. (Which I settled when I withdrew another 3 pointer, as liable to be over-ruled, a couple of hours before the deadline. [[7]] With it I would have been joint first.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to be fair above all else. I may well have got it wrong potentially. You are not putting me out. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of sticking my oar in where I shouldn't, I assume that you are aware that many of 47thPennVols B classes are self awarded and have not gone through the usual B class peer review? [eg]. I will shut up now. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A fair call per your points and aplogies. I didn't go back far enough in the history. The points will be awarded. On the other, I am aware. It did concern me. I will make a comment to them but I did a cursory check on each article and was moderately satisfied that they were in a reasonable state and for the most part they were created from anew. Again, if you think I got it wrong, I will consider same. I strive to be fair. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not worried about the points, just whether I am finally getting a grip on the rules. I am reassured. If you felt that any were borderline eligible I would appreciate it if you would let me know.

Re self assessing, I am not sure that it is my place to comment, but you may be inserting the thin edge of the wedge to a slippery slope. () Eg, I have had an article awaiting B class review since 25 April. It is, IMO, solid B. If I had realised that I could self assess I would have done, which would have put me in first place as I then supposed, second with 47thPennVols' current score. I didn't as this seemed bad form. (And goodness knows I don't need a reputation for any more of that!) If the rules are that this is allowable I will do next time - and regret not realising that I could this time. I assume others will as well. Which is likely in short order to undermine the B class peer review system. An unintended consequence, but potentially serious.

PS I tend to agree with your view of 47thPennVols' articles. I have assessed several as B class myself, given him advise on a couple of general matters and was, I think, the person who first suggested that he put his articles into the contest. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I have posted to their talk page and pinged AR. If there are any specific articles you think there are concerns with (without saying what these might be) I will look at them more closely. I used some discretion, as these were mainly WIR articles linked to their drive. This is a little politic. However, my personal integrity is pretty important to me and ultimately overrides this. I have no issue with adjusting the scores per the annual comp or otherwise redressing any "ultimate" inequity that might exist thought I also WP:AGF. I am a bit time-poor in the RW atm. But it was a "duty" to contribute to the project in doing the checking. Having said that, I will take the time to consider any concerns you might raise or otherwise assist you as I can, here on WP. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Thanks but don't bother. I am just sore because when I withdrew that borderline article late on the 30th to drop me out of joint first I consoled myself with the thought that I would place second. I knew that 47th had messed up his self scoring, but assumed that his 8 self assessed Bs would be dropped to Cs. (And give him a flying start to May.)

47thPennVols is an enthusiastic, hardworking editor. He has written 12 articles from scratch and is a worthy winner. It won't do any harm for someone to win who has done so many WiR articles either. Of the 6 of his articles which were peer reviewed I did 3. They were high quality and whilst I wanted changes to all 3 before agreeing B class, or C in one case, he took this in a positively welcoming spirit. (Although his two Cs were from the 6 which were peer reviewed.)

I am blathering. Summary: let things lie. I shall be amongst the first to congratulate 47PV. And thanks once again to you for the sterling work you do behind the scenes to keep things ticking. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As there seems to be a Wiki-etiquette that if one discusses another editor on a talk page I feel that I ought to draw this discussion to your attention. Hopefully you will understand where I was coming from with my comments.

PS Thanks for putting in a good word for me with 47PV. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Just to let you know how I do the contest check, for B-class and lower. I first check the article TP to confirm the current assessment and then its history, to check the previous assessment and deficiencies that were identified. I then go to the article and its history. I look at the article prior to the comp period and how the article has been edited - particularly wrt deficiencies from the prior assessment. I think I do a reasonable job of discharging my due diligence though your one article slipped through the cracks. I did not understand PVs intent. I do take the caution you were trying to make. I exercised a limited degree of discretion which (I believe you agree) was not unwarranted or unreasonable.

On the matter of March's comp, I had intended to check your entries but was beaten to it. I might then have applied the same standard as I had in Feb. I can understand that the checks done in March may have appeared overly summarial. I cannot say more than that, simply because I did not look into things in more detail. I had also intended to contact you and discuss any concerns you may have had but the RW got in the way. Nonetheless, you may always contact me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It seems appropriate and thorough to me. As for Children in the Military, entirely understandable that you didn't go back 150 edits, especially given my history of, ah, 'enthusiastic' entries in the contest. And you were entirely receptive to my query. Re my "caution", fine - I wanted to mention it in case you missed it, but not to give the impression of telling you how to do the job. And yes, an entirely appropriate use of discretion IMO, for what that's worth. I have no complaints about the March scoring.

If you felt that any of my April entries were a bit borderline I wouldn't mind a heads up. No need to go into detail, I will work it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, no issues and history didn't come into it. My default screen showed all of April an some but not enough of March. I have just driven six hours and around 500 km. A beer would be very welcome. Where are you from? I am having a couple to unwind.

Whew! Sounds like you have earned one. I'm from Derby in the UK. You? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Monto, Queensland, Australia. You get a differtent perspective on distance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Mondo looks like a nice quiet sort of place. But 500km to Brisbane is a bit much. I note that England has a population density more than 1,500 times greater than Queensland. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

If I could buy you a real beer I would. Sadly, this is the best I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Cinderella157, the Arbitration Committee has now listed you as a party to this arbitration case. This is not a finding of wrongdoing in any way; the Committee has simply determined that you are a party to this dispute. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of the German invasion of Russia during WW2

This is my analysis of the German invasion of Russia.

1. The invasion of Russia was commenced without neutralising Britain. The resolve of Britain to pursue the war was underestimated, as was its strategic importance. Both matters should have been glaringly evident.
2. The invasion of Russia compromised the North African campaign by diverting resources. While not, of itself, strategically significant to a great extent, it would have secured the southern flank and it would have offered significant strategic opportunities. Specifically, this would have been potential access to eastern oil reserves.
3. The Balkans campaign delayed the Russian offensive (which may have affected the outcome). Significantly though, the resources required to occupy these territories far outweighed their strategic value. A political, rather than a military solution, may well have been more expeditious.
4. Blitzkrieg is a strategy of rapid maneuver that relies on exploitation of opportunities and bypassing to seize the initiative, maintain the initiative and maintain the momentum of advance to achieve strategic outcomes. The risk of such a strategy is that the rate of advance may outstrip the capacity to support the advance.
5. While the the German army had modern, mechanised armoured units, the main part of the German army was not so modern and relied heavily on horse-drawn transport.
6. Campaigns (specifically Poland and France) were successful because of "limited" objectives that were quickly achieved without exposing German logistical limitations.
7. The Russian campaign was initiated on an unprecedented scale (troops to support) across a broad front, with objectives at a great distance, through terrain with "primitive" transport infrastructure. All of these conditions would, and did expose deficiencies in the German logistical capacity.
8. The German offensive strategy was ostensibly a "land grab". It failed to identify and secure immediate strategic objectives that would neutralise the Soviet capacity to counter the ultimate German strategic objective.
9. The German advance was across a broad front. This is contrary to the principles of warfare wrt German blitzkrieg doctrine in particular. It did not concentrate but diffused offensive power (and logistic capacity).
10. The campaign "season" in Russia is limited in duration by the seasons: a relatively severe winter, followed by a spring thaw and summer rains. The impact of the rains and thaw were exacerbated by the limited transport infrastructure.

RegardsCinderella157 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:K.e.coffman (particularly) but also @User:Assayer, you have expressed views regarding the Three Wehrmacht alibis, and edits which are overly sympathetic to the Wehrmacht or are a case of selective empathy, such as: "The great expanse of Russia made controlling a front line difficult". Also: "Historical research has firmly established that the military elite of Nazi Germany constructed a deliberately biased account of the Battle of Moscow by arguing that the German offensive only failed because of Hitler, the winter (weather) and Soviet reinforcements from Siberia." I would have thought that weather was a matter of fact, though more specifically, how each side dealt with this battlefied constraint. I would have also thought that Soviet numerical superiority was also a matter of fact (ultimately). I am also fairly certain that there are (many) cases where Hitler's orders were contrary to a prudent military course. As for the "great expanse", it is a matter of fact that such conditions make the effective exercise of command and control more problematic. Each of these are "facts" my question then, is what makes these facts apologistic or alibis, that you find unacceptable. I would also ask for a comment on my analysis, to the extent that you believe it falls to the same error of perception (ie an apologetic bias?). This would do much to help me understand your perspective. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I happily accept an invitation to discuss these matters more closely. The context of the discussion was the sentence During the autumn of 1941, his [Guderian's] offensive on Moscow was delayed by orders from Hitler with whom he disagreed sharply. Soon, German troops found themselves delayed by bad roads and mud and then suffering from the winter cold, one of the major factors that led to the failure of Operation Barbarossa. mainly sourced to Guderian's memoirs. This implies that the German troops were facing bad weather and, in consequence, bad roads, because (!) of Hitler's orders. They were belayed and then, so the logic goes, even more delayed by the roads and thus suffered from the winter cold, so that the whole Operation failed. But belayed for what? To be delayed implies that you could have been on time. Part of the myth is that the Battle for Moscow was close-run and the Germans barely missed victory. Therefore timing is crucial and Guderian's reasoning suggests that if he and not Hitler would have gotten his will, the troops would not have been delayed. This feeds well into the "Blitzkrieg legend" (KH Frieser) according to which speed is crucial for victory. Thus the victory was lost, to borrow Manstein's phrase Lost Victories, by Hitler. In contrast, historians like David Stahel have pointed to the poor planning of the German High Comand. He argues that Operation Barbarossa was based on poor intelligence, strategic misconceptions and an erroneous understanding of warfare in eastern Europe. The German High Command believed that German military superiority over the babaric Russian hordes was natural ("Tannenberg myth)". The strategic premise of eliminating Soviet resistance close to the border was overoptimistic and, in fact, required further operations. The anticipated final blow simply would not come, neither at Minsk, at Smolensk, at Uman or at Kiev (and certainly not at Moscow). In conclusion, the whole campaign was ill conceived and failed not at least because of poor strategic planning, i.e. poor German military leadership. For Guderian and other generals, however, it was Hitler who had them delayed. Besides, the image of the Red Army as faceless hordes who overcame superior German tactical and operational capabilities merely by overwhelming material might (and the assistance of General Winter) fashoined by the German generals was popular during the Cold War, but failed to appreciate the development of the Red Army during the war. Knowledge of the Soviet war effort has greatly increased since the 1990ies and the works of David Glantz.

My argument, therefore, is not that your analysis is completely false, i.e. that the weather had no impact whatsoever, but that your analysis is lacking some important, maybe more decisive aspects. I would argue that the campaign would have failed regardless of the weather and also if it had not been delayed by Hitler. Representatives of the German military elite like Guderian, Manstein and others with their memoirs and the Operational History (German) Section of the Historical Division of the US Army with its topic leader Franz Halder crafted a different explanation of the German defeat which maintained their professional authority. But their account is not in line with the findings of modern historiographical research. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer, thankyou for your response. I will offer some comments sometime in the near future. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer, thankyou again for your response. I accept much of what you have said. I would address your observation: "but that your analysis is lacking some important, maybe more decisive aspects." I won't profess to be widely read on the specific area. But would offer the following, noting it is not a change of my assessment but a clarification.

1. There is a distinction between the campaign failing and the result of the war with the Soviet Union. A war with the Soviets was probably doomed to failure - particularly as Britain was not taken out of the equation. A German success required a decisive blow. It is moot if such a blow could have been delivered but I perceive this to be unlikely - regardless of the what-ifs.
2. Hitler exerted direct control over the military. Churchill also exercised control with some less than stellar results such as the Greek campaign and relieving Wavell after forcing him out of his chosen strategy. The same could, be said for Stalin? Roosevelt, on the otherhand, appears to have distanced himself more from the military - though this might be a misperception. Closer to my home, there is the dynamic of the relationship between MacArthur, Blamey and Curtin. There has been some good work that specifically analyses the politico-military interface and the dynamics of the personal interactions as it panned out through 1942 and into 1943. What I am not seeing in discussions is the same sort of detailed analysis per Hitler, but rather, discussions that pick around the periphery? In a dictatorship, the "yes man" factor is incredibly strong. This, however, is not critical to my analysis.
3. The campaign failed for many reasons. I would agree with the assessment you attribute to Stahel. In some respects, these are different ways of saying what I have said.
4. Blitzkrieg has its roots in the tactical developments of the last part of WWI: the rapid infiltration employed by the Germans in operation Michael and the all-arms integration pioneered by John Monash (my analysis). The tactics are not unique to Germany. Speed and maintaining the momentum is critical to keep the opponent unbalanced. It denies them time and space to prevent them from regrouping and reorganising to make a concerted defence or counter attack. Its success requires maintaining a focus on the strategic objective. Pockets of resistance are by-passed and often encircled. There is then, the "final" objective, which is encircled and captured or "annihilated". It is fair to say that speed and time are everything.
5. The doctrine is limited by combinations of weather and terrain that restrict mobility. It can be compomised by a failure of logistics to keep pace with the rate of advance. It should concentrate and direct force toward the objective. It also requires a force of sufficiently mobile infantry to keep pace with the advance to secure the line of communication and contain any bypassed pockets. These things are essentially basic military science.
6. As I indicated above, the German Army was lacking in logistical capacity to support a long range penetration while attacking across such a broad front diffused both force and logistical capacity. It also lacked any significant motorised capability in the balance of its infantry. These are matters of planning and a failure of planning and military appreciation.
7. The impact of winter upon the German forces (as I understand it) was that they had not prepared for a campaign that extended into winter. Equipment had not been supplied for winter fighting and vehicles had not been winterised. There was then a failing of the logistical system to meet this shortfall in a timely way. Again, this is a failure to plan for and meet this contingency.
8. The decision to delay the campaign and proceed had foreseeable consequences in respect to winter and the autumn rains. Attriuting this failure must rest where it falls.
9. From what I can tell, Hitler and his generals had differing opinions on what was the strategic objective. My understanding is that Hitler (and some of his generals?) saw the objective as neutralising the Soviet Army by encirclement and annihilation, while others saw Moscow as the centre of mass (a key "hub"), the capture of which would neutralise or severely disrupt the Soviet Union's political, industrial and military capacity to wage war.
10. While a tenet of Blitzkrieg type warfare is to seize opportunities and exploit weaknesses in an opponent, its success depends on maintaining a focus (and direction) on the primary strategic objective. Any opportunity for the opponent to regain balance will compromise success. Of course, the strategic focus can change but alternating focus IMO is a recipe for disaster. It gives the opponent time to regain balance around the initial focus - particularly if they have much the same appreciation of the criticallity of the initial objective.
11. The centre army group advance outstripped its logistical capacity and its infantry. These are matters of appreciation of capability and of planning. The effect was to reduce the momentum of the advance, thereby compromising it.
12. I note references in articles that Bock surreptitiously disobeyed orders to halt his advance and disagreed markedly with superiors on how to conduct his advance? My comments do not hinge on these but I would be interested in your observations.
13. My understanding is that Hitler did strip the two panzer armies from the centre, sending one north and one south and there was protest from the centre. Did this affect the course of the battle in the centre? Yes, unquestionably. Could Moscow have been captured in 1941 had this not happened? Possibly (not probably) but there are many imponderables. The centre was already impeded by logistical limitations and the capacity to secure its LOC. Would the result of the war with the Soviets (and overall) have changed but for this decision? Unlikely. I perceive that Moscow, while of extreme importance to the Soviets, was not the "critical mass" that would lead to the collapse of the Soviet regime. My appreciation is that Stalin's control was too strong for this to occur and ultimately, the manpower available (not just as troops) would tell.
14. Hitler's decision to strip the panzer armies from the centre is debatable but not necessarily wrong - the strategic focus of a campaign can change. What I would highlight is these were split between north and south rather than being concentrated against one primary objective (MS101). A subsequent decision was then to revert back to a focus on Moscow. This appears quite wrong for so many reasons (some of which I have indicated above).
15. Conclusion: An invasion was always doomed to failure. Any planning "concept" of a success for Germany failed to properly appreciate the strenghts, weaknesses and capabilities of the opponents. In the first instance, this is a military failure. However, any analysis cannot ignore the political element (I would refer to my earlier comment regarding Churchill and Curtin). The actual planning and conduct of the campaign had many significant (yes, gross) deficiencies. These are, for a very large part, a fault of the military. But again, one cannot analyse this in isolation from the political context. This political context is much deeper than just the direct interaction between Hitler and his generals and how he directed elements of the campaign. There is the whole interface between the military and government: resourcing, structure and appointments just for starters.
16. The three alibis: Hitler was the the commander-in-chief and therefore (according to most perceptions of what that means), ultimately responsible for the conduct of the war. He may have been many things, but I don't think "idiot" is one of them. I did read recently something to the effect that, as a commander, he could be erratic - sometimes brilliant and sometimes mediocre. For 1941, the impact of winter was a matter of poor planning and preparation. In later years, winter tended to reverse tactical advantages held by the German forces in favour of the Soviets (and the converse is equally true). I think there is no doubt than Soviet manpower was significant in the long-term, as was supply from the US (and UK to a much lesser extent?). However, I am not suggesting that the battle "would" have been won but for ... and I do not absolve commanders for their failings.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GWE evidence talk page

I have removed your statement regarding MastCell from the evidence talk page, at the request of two arbitrators. The evidence talk page is not really the place for this sort of material; it is intended for resolving questions about the arbitration and evidence gathering process. If you still wish to pursue the matter, you have two basic options: pursue it outside of arbitration at a venue such as AN/I, or pursue it within arbitration by entering it as evidence within the case. In my view, it would fall within the scope of the case, as behaviour on case pages is generally (implicitly) within the scope of any case. GoldenRing (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

MPS1992, evidence added by KEC just before the close would constitute rebuttal. Rebuttal can be added in the evidence phase and in the next phase. So it is essentially immaterial that it was added just before the close of evidence. Between now and the next phase, evidence will be considered and assessed on its relevance to the case. Irrelevant and inconsequential material will be removed. Further rebuttal (and presumably counterpoints) can be made. In short, I wouldn't be concerned with the last minute additions at evidence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add evidence to the GWE evidence page now

I'm asking you to do this now as it would be unfair to other editors to have to wait much longer before they see your evidence. Given some of your earlier comments I'm sure you will understand this. I'm glad you're providing diffs but there's quite a bit in your sandbox that is about policy or guidelines and isn't actually evidence. The bits about wikilawyering, ownership, be bold, etc. aren't what we consider evidence. You can be assured that the Arbitration Committee members have years of experience and knowledge about policy and guidelines. Although I want you to move your evidence (preferably without those sections) you will of course be able to add more. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I will comply today. My sandbox is both a self-reference and a work in progress. As to links, I am sure that the Arbs are aware of such policies. While they are not evidence, they are an intrinsic part of advocating my case. I would note, the page views to my sandbox. They significantly exceed what can be attributed to me; so, it would appear to be no secret as to where I am going with my evidence. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

To clarify comments from GWE ArbCom workshop

You raised a question[8] that I wil try to answer: I commented upon a claim by Peacemaker67 (Dapi could have been dealt with on the drama boards if KEC had made a better case and not been guilty of poor wikibehaviour and POV pushing himself.), seconded by you saying: KEC has made no attempt I can see, save a 3RR and boomerang topic ban (both against Dapi) to deal with the issues through normal processes. Saving up complaints to gain traction here, where they might have been dealt with elsewhere appears disingenuous. I quoted both Peacemaker67 and you and tried to make clear whom I was quoting. My comment was to remind readers that while a topic ban against user Dapi89 was proposed on ANI (because of repeated incivility), MilHist coordinators chose to turn on KEC as the (more) guilty party. In the same thread KEC gave that event as a reason why they did not turn to ANI, and I would say, understandably so. Because even if Peacemaker67 and others were right in alleging that KEC was guilty of "long-term POV pushing", that would by no means have legitimized Dapi89's continued incivility. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer, thankyou for the response. This is much clearer. My take on the Dapi boomerang comments is that it was a case of WP:POT or, if you like, a boomerang boomerang, which is what we have here at ArbCom too. If you look at my case studies in evidence, you will note that I have not condoned the actions of Dapi. However, it is an acknowledged as a response that is a consequence of CPUSH. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions awareness notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

In particular, personalization of style disputes (e.g. making pointed comments about whose views you refuse to even read at WT:MOS) is precisely why the WP:ARBATC case happened. It's not constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @SMcCandlish, if there is something particular? I was perhaps brief to the point of being unclear in my comment at US/U.S. I got about halfway through before I concluded the discussion was going in circles but I agreed with what you were saying by-and-large (ie let it be). Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I can diff if you want, but this isn't an accusation or threat (these templates are only informational about discretionary sanctions scope, and aren't warnings of impending drama). What prompted it was the comment that you were TLDR-ing half of a discussion, especially material by me; I would have left the same template regardless who it was about, though. I tried recently to get discretionary sanctions removed from MoS and WP:AT, but ArbCom refused (unanimously) so we're stuck with it. Admins are going to hold us to higher standards in MoS/AT threads. No way around it. ArbCom insists these notices will have a dispute reduction effect (and by leaving one, I'm basically notifying myself!), so I'm putting that to the test. It does seem to work in areas like "your ethnicity versus mine" content disputes, but whether DS will function well in policy debates is ... an open question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @SMcCandlish, I can see, having looked back, that what I wrote might have been misinterpreted (ie I wasn't clear). I hope what I said above made things clearer. TLDR-ing after half of the discussion was simply being honest as it did appear to be going in circles - and not for your part, I might add. It was not intended to be incivil but an objective statement. Anything that stifles civil but robust conversation is wrong (IMO). Perhaps Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read needs to be modified. Best of luck with the RfC. It is a can of worms that just won't stay closed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I guess all the drama around DS lately has me on edge. Either I'm being a WP:JERK or WP:AC/DS's applicability to policy stuff is a terrible idea. Or, most likely, both. Sorry about that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, thank you for your review during the April to June 2018 quarter. Here is a WikiStripe for your contribution to our article quality processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

Sigh. I notice your editing has slowed down, and I don't blame you, but I hope it's not because you feel invisible or unappreciated at Milhist. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hope you'll stick around improving Pacific War articles. Also I'm sorry for some inconsiderate words I used when commenting your proposed tban. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

MilHist coordinator

When I was really new on MilHist - and goodness knows that I am still new enough - I received a lot of tolerance for what I hope was perceived as my puppyish over-enthusiasm. The coordinator who went the extra mile to cut me some slack, orientate me, and generally make me feel that MilHist was a friendly and collegiate place to work was you.

I note that you have not yet indicated whether or not you will be re-standing as a coordinator. I hope that you decide to; there will be other over-enthusiastic newcomers along who will need your patience and advice to turn them into low-drama content generators. (Which is what I hope I am on my way to becoming.) I also got some insight into the amount of relentless, thankless, behind the scenes work you did. I, for one, do not take for granted that this simply "happens"; your input in ensuring that there was a framework for others to work within was appreciated. In short, the project needs coordinators like you, please stand. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for standing, Cinderella157, and thank you for your work as a coordinator over the last year. I hope you will stand again in future. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella, I've participated in these for about a decade, and I'd like to encourage you not to read anything negative into the result. It looks to me like validation for you: you got a lot of support in this election. There were limited slots, and a lot of people running who have a lot of experience at Milhist. I'm glad you're sticking around. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Small Scale Experimental Machine or Manchester Baby

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I note that you say that the status quo should remain. However, I and I expect others, are also concerned about the status quo ante, which was that the article about this machine and the references to it in other Wikipedia articles used the name "Small Scale Experimental Machine". They were then changed by one editor to "Manchester Baby". Part of that editor's justification being that "Small Scale Experimental Machine" was not always capitalised and so was a descriptive phrase and not a proper name. --TedColes (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi TedColes, the article title was not the subject of the RfC I closed but there has been a discussion with formal close to move to the present title. There are processes to challenge a close on the basis that the closer was substantially incorrect in assessing the consensus. With only a quick look, I am not seeing an error in the close. I know this is probably not what you wanted to hear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I'm not sure how, or indeed whether, to pursue this further. I will think about it. --TedColes (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a proper close: Talk:Manchester Baby#RFC on capitalizing small-scale experimental machine. You appear to be weighting the arguments by how much they appeal to you, and not taking account of their policy basis. This impression is strongly reinforced after I notice that some of what you HTML-commented as additional notes indicates a bunch of personal analysis of what a "proper name" is, and which seems to be grounded in the philosophy meaning of the phrase, when only the linguistics one has any relevance to typographic question. It's not the closer's job to inject complicated arguments but to assess the arguments that have been presented by others. If you want to make your own, you need to be a commenter in the discussion not a closer of it.

The arguments that respondents presented for capitalization are invalid WP:OFFICIALNAME stuff. It was never in dispute by anyone that some people have capitalized this phrase, so evidence that some people capitalize it is really not dispositive of anything at all. Our rule (MOS:CAPS) is to not apply capital letters unless the RS consistently do so – and it was proven that they do not. Those responding in favor of lower-case presented arguments consistent with our pertinent WP:P&G (and with thousands of previous RMs about over-capitalization, though this particular one was an RfC instead of an RM). I suggest you rescind this closure and let someone else re-assess it. Had this been an RM and taken to WP:MR I would bet serious money that your close would be overturned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish. Apologies for the time to get back to you, as I have been travelling. Firstly, I quite disagree at a personal level with capitalising in this case. Secondly, even Dicklyon has conceded the RfC to be a forlorn hope. I discounted the official name stuff and only considered capitalisation in sources per MOS:CAPS. MOS:CAPS has no substantial basis in either philosophy or linguistics for determining what is a proper noun|phrase. Rather, it defers to what everybody else did on the question of English orthography rather than defering to onomastics. The comments added were not part of my consideration in making the close. They were added to inform future discussion. They were added in a position subsequent to announcing the close and the reasons leading to the close. Furthermore, the points I raised would support decapping.

In respect to the sources, the earlier sources tend to support the decapped version, while more contemporary sources tend to support the capped version (are mixed). I noted the various comments regarding WP:CITOGENESIS. The list article substantially deals with "facts" and "alternative facts". The RfC was a question of orthography and not a question of "fact". It would appear that WP has likely been responsible for (or has significantly influenced) contemporary orthography on the subject of the RfC. The question is then, whether "contemporary sources should not be preferred" or "older sources should be preferred"? The case against caps is that: because citogenesis has occurred, contemporary sources should be ignored. As such, the case against lacks depth that would give it strength. Generally, more weight would be given to contemporary sources. It is not established why citogenesis is "wrong" in questions of orthography. Such a position does not acknowledge that living languages can and do change. An alternative would be to make a strong case for why the older (decapped) orthography should be preferred. I am not seeing this as being developed in any strength. What I am seeing is: "it is citogenesis and I don't like it". Consequently, I have found no clear consensus for either proposition and, that the status quo (caps) should therefore continue.

I do believe that the close is unsound. My close (and not my further comments) touched upon what I have described here in more detail. The evidence you cite that the close is unsound appears to me to be contrary to what you purport it to represent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I assume the first sentence of your last paragraph is missing a "not". I'll bulletize this for easy digestion; no one likes a text-wall. :-) I'm sure this will sound much testier than I intend it. I'm not angry with you, and even constructive criticism always "sounds" angry in a medium without voice tone and facial expression and body language and so on.

I agree with the sentiments totally. Damned double negatives caught me out - my fix didn't.

• Why MoS has the rules it does is immaterial. It simply does in fact have them. Our take on proper names is of course based on the linguistics notion not the philosophy one, but we also have to account for consensus, and it clearly is that when the sources overwhelmingly prefer a particular stylization (not just capitalization) that WP will go along with it for WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy reasons – and that it will not so, but apply MoS's defaults, when the sources are not consistent. You don't get to wave that away because you don't care for how that decision was arrived it, because you don't like the non-onomastic nature of it. Trying to rely on that as a rationale makes this sound even more like a supervote (whatever behind-the-scenes stance on capitalization you now profess in user talk). You seem to be sort of wikilawyering against yourself as a Gedankenexperiment and that's not a good basis for a close.

• I disagree with: "Our take on proper names is of course based on the linguistics notion not the philosophy one". MOS:CAPS makes a passing gratuitous reference to capitalising proper nouns. "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized". WP defers to orthography (in sources) rather than linguistics (or philosophy for that matter).
• The MOS default for a lack of consensus is the status quo. The presumption for consensus is a "strong" case. I will expand upon this in following; however, in disagreeing with my close, you presume that there is a sufficiently strong case to the contrary. Herein lies the crux.
• I have assessed the sources (in a way that you don't believe correct). I have not in any way "waved it away" because of the non-onomastic nature. I have purely relied upon an assessment of the sources. It is at this point that your "arguement" looses traction. I might explain:

1. You believe that I should have relied upon the empirical evidence (the sources) to induce a close for decapping.
2. You assert that I have closed the RfC in the way I have because I am partial (ie not impartial) to the non-onomastic nature of MOS:CAPS
3. If I had acted partially on the premise of onomastics and applied deductive reasoning, I would have arrived at a conclusion for decapping?
4. Your argument is flawed. The premise is contradicted by the evidence unless you assert that I arrived at the conclusion for a perverse reason. I don't believe you are alleging that I did so - or is that what you mean by the last sentence of this (your) dot point?

• I have previously discussed with you my views on caps and over-capping. Specifically, this includes a tendency to over-cap on a basis of misunderstanding just what is a proper noun and/or why nouns are capped. Proponents for capping often apply various circular arguements. It is not a matter of "professing now".

• Probably so; I honestly have a dim memory for parties in old discussions; the usernames all blur together! Inducing a close: "no consensus" would have worked; it would have stalemated at the same title, without declaring those with no actual policy basis for their stance to be in the right. MoS: I think I was misunderstood. MoS has two kinds of rules: Its line-item defaults for various style peccadilloes ("do this not that") are based on linguistic and "kinda-sorta linguistic" material, primarily other style guides, which near universally interpret proper names in the linguistics way (proper nouns, and – in English – usually also adjectives and other modifications derived from them); the philosophy sense of proper name has jack to do with typography and simply exerts no influence on the style question (despite various RM pundits' attempts to make it do so). MoS's meta-rules – when to make an exception to those defaults – have nothing to do with linguistics or philosophy, but with policy concerns like RECOGNIZABLE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• No one reading a close separates the comments in the closing statement that follow the literal closing sentence itself as not being of a piece. The normal closing format is a short result statement followed by a rationale for it, and you have used that format. If you wanted to provide follow-on commentary considered separately from your close, that should be some other kind of post, such as a ===Follow-on comments=== after the bottom tag of the closed original discussion.

• Well, I would (ie not being "of a piece"); particularly when premised by: "I will make further observations that they may inform future discussions on capitalisation." But then, perhaps not everybody reads "in total", as I do but cherrypicks what they want without the full context - just saying what I do (asked and answered). I might consider your suggestion. My intention was to prick the brains of those interested. I might say, that I have been successful in a degree?

• The very fact that you're relying on a very recent increase in capitalization in sources and discounting sources from the actual era when the subject was an active project means you are feeding directly into citogenesis whether you "noted" it or not. Noting that you've been warned you're about to walk off a cliff then walking off it anyway is the opposite of wisdom.

• You are now starting to make a case with substance (your first sentence)! Why should the sources from the actual era be preferred as opposed to contemporary sources, which are usually given more weight? Had this been established/addressed, I might (would have) very easily closed differently.
• You believe that I should only consider what is before me. To consider other factors is to exercise a supervote. I should act within WP:P&G but not that which is not placed before me? If I have bought anything to this close that was not already there, it was that living languages change with time. Was I wrong for thinking the sky is blue.
• On the one hand, you instruct that I should abide blindly, but on the other, that there is no wisdom in doing so. Sorry, but I see this as a case of trying to "have your cake and eat it too".

• "It is not established why citogenesis is 'wrong' in questions of orthography"?! Please show me the line in WP:CIRCULAR policy that makes such an exception. Yours is an utterly novel opinion, and if you put it to an RfC I bet you any amount of money you want to wager that consensus will disagree with you, because it's not an argument we accept for anything else whatsoever.

• Orthography is a matter of style, not of "fact". WP:SPELLING deprecates archaic spelling as a matter of style. Ligatures of diphthongs were once relatively common but they are specifically deprecated, except in names (MOS:LIGATURE).
• You are referring to WP:VER by way of WP:CIRCULAR. Verifiability applies to being able to check information. Where sources are in conflict, due weight would need to be given to the alternatives. As a matter of style though, the choice is one or the other. WP:VER is inconsistent with how MOS:CAPS works in using sources.
• No reference was made to either WP:VER or WP:CIRCULAR in the RfC. It is moving the goal posts to do so now?
• To suggest that I should have considered these appears to suggest I should have exercised a supervote in light of theses. That then looks very much like cherrypicking.
• To say: "show me the line in ... ", looks very much like reversing the burden of proof.
• "I bet you any amount of money ... ", looks like an appeal to higher authority.
• You are referring to particular P&G out of context - such as P&G for naming articles. They might help inform discussion in other contexts where there may be no specific guidance but they do not have standing outside of their primary context unless it is explicitly established. It is a case of Apples and oranges. Establishing that there is sufficient comparison for these to be relevant has not occurred. An elliptical arguement only works if the omitted logical premises are sufficiently well established.
• Please see List of fallacies.
• My "opinion" is not novel. Matters of "style" are quite different from matters of "fact". Neither proposition of the RfC establishes a consensus since both lack critical premises that might otherwise establish one or the other as consensus.

• Without picking at this at too much length: When people demand to make style changes based on [cherry picked] sources, they're making a facts argument not an arbitrary style one, so source rules come to bear on those arguments (a good reason to not try to turn style arguments into content disputes!). Citogenesis = CIRCULAR. It's not necessary to mention a particular P&G page by name or by a particular shortcut, just its reasoning. (E.g. "Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent RS" is a perfectly valid rationale at AfD, despite not citing GNG by name.) Apologies for fallacious game-playing (though the betting line was more an appeal to emotion; I'm not sure who the "authority" would be). There's no proving a negative or reversing a proof-burden, however, in pointing to CIRCULAR and noting that it doesn't make any carveouts like "except for style matters". Title P&G do apply to non-title content, because they're effectively incorporated by reference into MoS; it's explicit that the style in the title and in the main text should not be in conflict (e.g., it's not okay to have a clear consensus to have Sony be at that title, then gin up a WP:FALSECONSENSUS among four people to write it "SONY" in the body text just to mimic their logo).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Finally, the opener of an RfC (or RM, etc.) doesn't get to close it even if they want to rescind it, if others have commented (unless the comments are consistently in favor of retracting it). Otherwise people would be shutting down their own RfCa any time things turned against them, simply to WP:GAME against any actual result being neutrally assessed against their proposal by an uninvolved closer.

But whatever. I didn't expect you to act on what I've posted here. Almost everyone thinks their closes are perfect and will not revert them; in over a decade here I think I've gotten people to do it a grand total of once, and to modify ill-worded closes only twice. (This actually has negative implications for the future of how seriously WP treats RfC closures, especially in WP:RMNAC cases, but it will take the community a long time to figure that out, as it always does when process slows erodes over time.) I do expect that some what I've said here will be understood better over time (after the natural defensive reaction has worn off) and will inform your future closes. Please do not use for supervoting (or anything that looks like it – "the optics matter") any more untested and unlikely ideas about policies like CIRCULAR magically not applying to cases you don't want them to apply to. This particular close appears to be marginally too old to challenge for reversal (if I'm reading the WP:AN pulse correctly), but if it were not, I would be doing so. Not out of any sort of anger or personal animosity, but simply because it's not a close based in policy and source analysis, on their face, of the arguments presented, but injection of a very a novel synthesis of what a particular policy "should" mean, if MoS were based more strictly only on one approach, which it is not. I'll re-stress that I'm not writing this in anger or trying to pick a personalized fight; this is entirely about close wording and rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish. Please read this first. I am responding both here and to your dot points. ""Here", is largely to your closing para, while the other is to each point. I hope that this will make sense at the end. This form of communication can appear terse. You and I can engage in an "arguement" without personalising it and without misconstruing brevity for insult. I would refer to my I don't like it comment - it was a way of explaining how I was assessing things, without any intention of personalising.

If I am wrong, I am wrong. Having said that, I would need to be reasonably convinced. I am a very logical person, not too proud to admit an error or oversight. I too, do expect a better understanding of my close after further discussion.

I might try to summarise our different views. You perceive I have relied on facts not in evidence to arrive at a novel conclusion that is contrary to P&G and leads to circular "magically" not applying when I don't want it to. I would say that you assume that certain P&Gs apply in a particular way even though the RfC is silent on the premises that arise from them (as you see them). Your view is that the close is unsound (and novel) because I "chose" to ignore these silent P&Gs. I would say that my close is sound because I did not rely on these silent assumptions, the applicability of which, have not been established. If these matters were made explicit and the applicability established, my close would have been quite different. This could have been done by individual commenters at the RfC of by making the relationships between different documentation explicit and clear (when such is intended). What does appear novel to me is that you appear to suggest I "join the dots" that don't exist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the measured response. I don't disagree that your reasoning has a basis, though I end up not being swayed by it. WP:CLOSE says, in pertinent part: "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." ... "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." ... "[The closer] is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant." These instructions are basically just meaningless noise if the closer cannot connect any dots and cannot rely on what the P&G actually say, whether anyone quoted them or not. The closer is, importantly, assessing the consensus of the community on the matter, not just the 7 people (or whatever) that commented; this necessarily means integrating underestanding of extant P&G into the close, since they are the much greater (WP:CONLEVEL) consensus within which the discussion is taking place.

On the other hand, the same page can seem a bit wishy-washy about this stuff, noting that a close is not "determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy"; the closer does "not personally select which is the better policy". But this only applies when the commenters are advancing conflicting policy arguments against each other, one side claiming P&G "A" applies, and the other shouting for page "B". That didn't happen here; one side made policy arguments, the other side demanded that particular sources be given more (undue) weight, based on being newer or more "official", both of which are broken arguments. There is no policy by which sources that one camp prefers should be mimicked, and multiple P&G against this idea (I suppose OFFICIALNAME is technically a "supplement", whatever that is, but as one accepted for over a decade as a key supplement to a policy, it probably has guideline-level buy in; MOS:TM is clearly a guideline; and AT policy itself does not address capitalization matters at all; for titles, the guideline is WP:NCCAPS, and it would not sanction this over-capitalizing, right from its first, boldface sentence; MOS:CAPS agrees with it – NCCAPS is based on MOS:CAPS).

In the end, I'll drop this as too stale, and it'll likely get re-RMed later. Absent clearer material on closing, I can't entirely fault you not being comfortable applying P&G that were not explicitly cited, just so, by the participants. But it's not really how stuff usually gets closed. If an argument made doesn't actually rely on real policy (or sourcing that's actually applicable to the question, if it's a factual rather than style matter), such a !vote gets discounted. E.g., it's entirely routine for RM admins to decline WP:RM/TR requests when someone presents a move rationale that the admin knows is bogus; they do not have to rely on a third party to drop by with an explicit objection. Similarly, closers of RMs routinely re-list things despite a head-count majority, when the could-be-closer realizes the majority argument has no policy basis; and RfCs often sit, still running, for a long period of time at WP:ANRFC, or get closed as no consensus, for the same reason. It's better to not close, or close with no result, than to close with a questionable one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: I briefly addressed some of the bullets above; if I missed anything crucial or misunderstood a point or something, ping me. This already got longer than intended, and I haven't wanted to drown you in this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish. My close was "no consensus" (for either proposition). Living language does change (even if WP is the vehicle of change). Consider the evolution: SCUBA, Scuba and scuba, or more recently E-mail, email. With the information age, such changes in orthography occur much more quickly. All of the examples in WP:CITOGENESIS are "false facts". They are quite clearly and unambiguously bad/wrong because they are "false". Evolution of living language is not bad/wrong but a fact. Consider this:

"... medieval is now more common than mediaeval (and the now old-fashioned mediæval) even in the United Kingdom ..."[9] An extensive survey of reliable sources might well result in favouring mediæval, if we did not give more weight to contemporary sources or sources that are contemporary and considered more authoritative (see WP:RS AGE). In this RfC, citing WP:CITOGENESIS actually muddied the waters, since it did not then clarify why the older sources should be preferred but rather, simply implied subjectively that citogenisis is bad/wrong in a case where the evolution of language is a fact (neither bad nor wrong). What then, are the reasons that we should prefer older sources in this case (which are fairly clearly for decapping) over newer sources, (which are divided but tending to cap)? As I noted above, you started to develop an arguement of the missing dots in this discussion.

Your position appears to be that CIRCULAR applies not only to "fake" or inaccurate facts (such as listed in Citogenesis) but to matters of style and orthography, such as the capitalisation of words and phrases. The problem with this proposition is that it denies that living languages can be changed (or influenced) by WP. It is a flawed proposition, since it assumes a premise that is, at the least, unsound if not demonstrably false. It would be purely arbitrary to remove WP from any "list" of vehicles that change or influence contemporary language. I also note that WP did not create the capitalisation leading to the claimed citogenesis. It can be attributed to a prior (reliable?) source. Whether the WP decision to cap in the first instance was correct is totally another question. I would be happy for an RfC to address the larger issue re the influence of WP on orthography falling to CIRCULAR.

On the actual subjuct of Baby, I would offer an analogy:

The HAL 9000 is an heuristically programmed algorithmic computer (note that this redirect is in sentence case), produced by HAL Laboratories. HAL is an acronym (more-or-less). A [the] (since there was only one) HAL was installed on Discovery One. It had a name - HAL (or perhaps Hal, for the purpose of making this point). The name was the same as the acronym. The name was not "heuristically programmed algorithmic computer".

SSEM was the title of the project? Titles often use title-case. It is moot whether a title (in title case) is a "proper noun phrase" or an orthographic convention. Does the title of the project transfer to the name of the actual machine? It was known as the "Mark 1 prototype"? While most people get the "clear cases" of what is a proper noun and what should be capitalised right most of the time, there are a lot of misconceptions. Capitalising does not make something a proper noun nor does only one referent. I don't think that my view falls to Proper name (philosophy), which is an element of the Philosophy of language, which "explores the relationship between language and reality". Grammar (and onomastics?) studies and codifies language. If I use logic (a branch of philosophy) to analyse a problem in the context of grammatical codifications, it does not fall to "proper name (philosophy)". The points I have raised for further discussion are all touched upon at proper noun (I think) though there is unlikely a quantum distinction between lingustics and the philosophy language.

Pardon my length too. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Close was no consensus: Right! Sorry; I was mixing up two different closure matters (it was another caps case, but involving a four-letter preposition in a song title). I guess my objection really is a teacup matter. "Linguogenesis": I don't have any disagreement with the fact that WP is probably having minor effects on written English usage, but the "mystical conversion" of a descriptive phrase (and possibly a proper name of a project) into an alleged proper name of the machine itself, to be capitalized and treated as if its official designation, is a factual claim, not really a general language-usage matter. Maybe an edge case. It's a citogenesis/CIRCULAR matter because sources were not treating it as a proper name (for the machine, anyway) before WP mistakenly did so. WP invented the idea out of thin air, and now a certain group of editors are trying to cite (basically unreliable) sources that cribbed from us, as "proof" that their viewpoint is correct, and someone connected to the project is even engaging in obvious revisionism. It would be very, very different to, say, point to sources in support of logical quotation or singular they which mention that part of their rationale for supporting them is that they're used on WP; we may well eventually have to do so, in updating our coverage of both English-usage matters. It's not a comparable sort of scenario; the latter wouldn't really be citogenesis. Anyway, we're not confusing the difference between projects/program[me]s/missions/entities and their output/components/products/services in other places or other ways; we're actually careful not to. I thought on the HAL analogy, and it doesn't seem very analogous. The closest thing to a name the real computer has is Baby (which bears no relation to the name of the project that created it), so it's not a close comparison. Philosophy/linguistics: There's a new-ish volume out that caught my eye, an academic's attempt to reconcile the two (actually more than two, but mostly in two fields) approaches to proper names, and I saw an interesting review of it, but it's expensive and I've haven't shelled out for it yet [10]. Plus it's a monograph; I would rather see an edited volume with a dozen papers in it. Some other fields also seem to want to get in on the act. Synergistic, cross-disciplinary fields like cognitive psychology and sociolinguistics are likely where a meeting of minds will occur. The whole anthropological and linguistic professional spectrum is undergoing professional revision, as it were, since my time at university. Entire fields exist that weren't even on anyone's mind back then, and they seem to be doing really interesting stuff, though they probably have their dreck as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I think we can agree that your initial primary issue is resolved and agree to disagree on some of the detail?

I think that "Linguogenesis" is a useful phrase to apply to the evolution of orthography, as opposed to CITOGENISIS, which is a list of false factoids. I would disagree with your comment per "factual claim". Capitalisation by WP is an opinion, as opposed to an assessment based logically on codification and which may be verified (but the last part is debatable)? Opinion is based on interpretation of evidence. [Verifiable] evidence is a "fact" - "the distance is ... " or "X said ... " (Even though what X said may be their opinion, it is a "fact" that they said it). WP does not even consider facts such as a birth certificate as being definitive. Indeed, to do so might fall to OFFICIAL.

I'm not certain that WP invented it out of "thin air". You and Dick both noted at the RfC that capping can be linked to Burton in 97/98. I also think that you understate|underestimate the power of the internet and of WP. The list article, CITOGENISIS, is evidence of that power.

On HAL. The analogy is incomplete. Clarke's narrative is evidence that the HAL 9000 was referred to by the proper name, HAL [Hal]. The characters referred to Hal without using articles ("Hal has gone nuts" not "the HAL has gone nuts"). What we don't know (through similar direct contemporaneous evidence) is how the project team referred to the machine. I doubt that they said: "I'm going down to tweak [the] Small Scale Experimental Machine"? In everyday usage, it would have been referred to in a less formal way - "the SSEM (shem)" or "the machine"? Weak proper names that include "the" are pretty much geographical. Applying the definite article in this case would be strong evidence that SSEM is not being used as a proper name like Hal.

Again, you are starting to make a case that might have been compelling in the RfC, even though I am picking at it. I agree that part of the problem is distinguishing the title of the programme from the name of the machine and a name is not necessarily a proper name. However, I also think it moot (per somewhere above) whether a title is a proper name or rather, a name that is written in title case by a similar orthographic convention?

I hope that this discussion is useful in ultimately dealing with such issues in a better way. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Break

Sure. I don't have have an "ah HA!" certain argument to present against any of that. To clarify, though, I'm not suggesting that what MoS does with typography is an objective, sourceable, external fact; rather, some of the claims made in support of the capitalization were verifiable as being factually correct or not, either outright or on a preponderance of the evidence, and trying to extrapolate from isolated cases of capitalization to get to "this is a proper noun" or "this is conventionally capitalized in English" (ideas which are generally not distinct in the minds of most Wikipedians, nor treated as distinct enough by MoS) is something easily refuted by observation of the frequency with which it's not capitalized.

We're having essentially the exact same debate over at Talk:Apollo Command/Service Module#Requested move 26 November 2018, with capitalization fans making the same source-distorting, P&G-ignoring arguments. "I found someone who capitalizes it, and I like it capitalized, ergo WP must capitalize it or WP is wrong and is doing harm" is what their "reasoning" distills to, basically, bolstered (they think) with WP:AADD stuff, various fallacies, and the other "usual suspects" behavior from the capitalize-or-die camp. It's unfortunate, but I would bet money this will also hang at "no consensus" despite the fact that if you discount the bogus arguments there is in fact clearly a consensus for lower-case. RM closers are not always brave enough to do the P&G-based analysis and buck a majority. The same tiny handful of "capitalization warriors" are skewing RM results. They are playing a tendentious, IDHT WP:WINNING game and so far have actually been getting away with it. The pattern is to get involved in virtually every single capitalization-related RM, maybe get what they want 5% of the time, then try to leverage those "wins" as if they're evidence that RM has a consensus record in their favor when the opposite is true. It's patently a WP:Civil PoV and long game technique of trying to tear down a guideline they subjectively don't like but which they can't actually get consensus to change. They need to be topic-banned, and I'm on the verge of preparing a case against one of them already (after repeated warnings that I would do so). It's not okay to wage a guerilla war against site-wide consensus to "protect" your pet topics or pet stylistic trivia peeves.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I looked at the Apollo RfM. I am seeing a strong case for decapping and a "non case" for capping as summed up by Tony. I think your comment per M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle being a proper name is poor/wrong. "Infantry carrier vehicle" is a descriptive designation. M1 Abrams main battle tank does have a "proper name". M60 general purpose machine gun (GPMG) doesn't. (but M1126, M1 Abrams and M60 might all be considered proper names but not the designations that follow). "Hat, khaki fur felt" of "Hat KFF" is army double back speak for an Australian slouch hat. In "Toyota Lexus", Lexus is a proper noun but Toyota isn't - it is an attributive noun that is capitalised because it is derived from a proper noun. Many people get confused when a name has a single or limited number of referents. Confusion also occurs when you start adding an attributive that is capitalised (Apollo) - there is a tendency to cap the rest "by association". Because of the issues you raise, I think that MOS:CAPS would benefit by some clarification.

Would you mind looking at Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose#RfC about when to talk about stuffing beans up your nose as I would like some input on how to deal with it please. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the input over there, though I think some of these onomastics arguments won't convince people; they're not all accepted by everyone who thinks and writes about proper names. Even though I don't have a strong disagreement with any of them, wearing one hat, when I put on my "how to get our titling and writing patterns across to Wikipedians who have neither linguistics nor philosophy degrees" Homburg, it's a hard sell. I don't want to sound like I'm picking a new argument about the veracity of what you've said; rather, it's kind of a PR matter. :-) For example, the argument that a proper name can't be pluralized obviously isn't going to work for most people; they'll look at the desk right in front of them and say, "I have a Sharpie in my pen holder. That's a proper name (specifically a trademark for an indelible ink marker brand). I put another one in there. Now I have two Sharpies in my cup. Still a proper name, yet pluralized. In fact, if the brand name had been Sharpy, I could write 'two Sharpies', actually altering the trademark to comply with English norms, though some might prefer 'two Sharpys' if they're hardcore about preserving trademark stylization", and so on, on and so forth. This would be a difficult argument to defeat, except in a huge and academic text-wall virtually no one would read (i.e., the refutation of it would not have much if any effect on the debate).

Another tactic I never try here is distinguishing between proper names, per se, or proper nouns more particularly, versus derived appellative nouns, "proper adjectives", etc. It just goes in one Wikipedian ear [or, in this medium, eye] and out the other. People just do not get it (nor will even care at all when the "real" proper noun and the attributive are identical). It's much easier, possibly even necessary, to simplify it.

Similarly, none of the MoS regulars ever take on the idea that modern linguistics is tearing up and redefining the entire notion of "preposition" as two different classes of things with different observable "rules" of usage (for non-academics, McWhorter's Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English, or maybe Pinker's The Sense of Style, goes into this in some detail – I read them back-to-back and may be misremembering). Trying to inject this sort of thing into, say, MOS:5LETTERRULE discussions would hopelessly confuse matters, among an editorship that already has brains falling out on the floor when you tell them there's a preposition in "Do It like a Dude" and that's why to not capitalize like in that construction. Hell, some of them want to capitalize a in that, too, since it says "Do It Like A Dude" on the CD cover. They don't care about linguistic or MoS arguments of any kind at all.

In other words, sometimes a grammar-school "parts of speech" approach has to be maintained here, despite its flaws, to communicate with other editors and get the results we need to get, and even that can fail. Things like M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle are treated, unitarily, as if proper names, and getting into an analysis of how they really are an agglomeration of things that end up being capitalized under pretty much exactly the same rules as a real proper name just isn't time well-spent at WP. Only a handful of people who bother to read it will understand it. In the end, MoS likely isn't ever going to draw such distinctions because it makes figuring out how to write something too complicated; we seem to be better off treating everything that's "proper-name-like" as a general class, and permitting a "when virtually all sources stylistically agree with each other but not MoS" override (to forestall any more attempts to manufacture an illusory fight between WP:COMMONNAME and MoS). This is why we have an article at Meal, Ready-to-Eat instead of Meal, ready-to-eat. That result's perhaps not ideal, but it's not the end of the world, and trying to lower-case that will cause more trouble than it's worth. The average Wikipedian will continue to insist that it's a proper name. (Though even in that reality tunnel, it really should be moved to Meal, Ready-to-eat per the rule to not capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen itself a proper name [broadly defined].)

Re: 'Confusion also occurs when you start adding an attributive that is capitalised (Apollo) - there is a tendency to cap the rest "by association"' – Yes, that's an addition/clarification I would support, though getting past EEng might be a challenge. He's even more resistant than I am to adding new stuff to MoS, and I'm the one who invented the idea that we should refrain from doing so. >;-)

On BEANS, I'll go have a look-see. Haven't been to that page in years, actually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, the plural thing with the pens is easy to explain:

"I have a Sharpie [pen] ..." - pen is an implied noun in the noun phrase and "Sharpie" is attributive. That pen is not called "Sharpie". It is a trade name.

"I have two Sharpie [pens] ..." but with the noun implied, we pluralise the attributive.

I could give an alternative explanation but in any case, Sharpie is not being used as a proper name. You are probably right though, even though much of the points I made are touched upon at proper noun. Your analysis of the WP reality on caps might be seen as condescending but reality is what it is :) I raised M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle, because it is very like Florida-class battleship and probably as hard to understand/explain as the Sharpies - hence, not a good example. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Try getting the average editor to understand this and buy into it! So much pain. I'm not advocating "the Sharpie retort", just describing [from long, tiresome experience] the kind of folksy reasoning that editors will bring. On many of these RM matters, it's encased in a thick layer of WP:GREATWRONGS paladin armor, too, the "I am here to defend Holy Traditional English as passed to me by Mrs. Macgillicuddy in 7th grade" stuff. Or – even worse – the angle that "Wikipedia is wrong and a total, ignorant embarrassment to everyone in [insert any random field full of jargonistic practices here], so professionals like me are never going to rest until it's written correctly, our way." These people (of both stripes) have zero patience for linguistic or philosophical explanations, but a mixture of both is required to even try to get across to them how proper names really operate. You first have to explain what "attributive" even means, then prove it's a well-accepted notion, despite them never having been taught the concept or the word. Then comes all the rest. Then they simply wave it all away as a bunch of noise and just insist on "following the sources" (i.e., the ones they hand picked to agree with them), or make some kind of argument to authority ("it's official", "it's how [some industry/discipline organization] does it", "according to [something listed at WP:TSF goes here] ...", or whatever. It just never stops. It may never stop, because even if we get the current batch to drop the matter, every single day someone new is going to arrive who is incensed and on the warpath that some article here isn't titled the way they would have done it. And this is just the capitalization fights. Next comes the hyphenation and dash squabbling, date format bickering ("well we use '2002/03 season' in snooker"), and on and on.

Anyway, now that I've vented my "woe is me" spleen, it occurs to me that you might be in a good position to write what we've needed for a long time, which is an actual article at Proper name (linguistics) instead of a redirect to Proper noun (and merge out of that page all the material that doesn't really belong there, except any compressed bits needed for proper WP:SUMMARY style). I've intermittently thought about it myself, but I lack the materials do it well, and I don't know the material well enough (my last formal academic study of this was ca. 1991, and both the linguistics and philosophy perspectives on the questions have actually shifted since then, anyway). If we did have a solid piece on it, with good sectioning or other anchors, it might be something we could directly reference in MoS, and begin to be less vague and conflating about such matters. I'm not in the habit of trying to volunteer people for such tasks, but you really do seem to be in the right place and right time for it, with the right toolkit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, It is good to be able to "vent", bounce-off ideas and have a good robust discussion without fear of treading on delicate toes. I very much believe that "good guidance" might resolve many of the perennial issues. I feel some of your angst in respect to these issues. I am neither a philosopher nor a linguist by qualification but a critical thinker with a modestly good education. Interestingly, my best insight into quantum physics was not from my studies in chemistry but the historiography and philosophy of science (OK - a (very) little philosophy). I don't think I have the resources to write such an article to a WP standard but I have suggested to you before the possibility of an essay to the same end. It is still something I still wish to attack, though I have become somewhat disheartened with WP. This dialogue has been useful, both to prompt me and to help coalesce ideas. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Same here. I regret that I began it by grousing at you about a no consensus close (and then forgot that it was one). At least this turned productive even if it didn't start that way.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Pointer: This might be up your alley: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Expand MOS:INSTITUTIONS to cover 'act', 'bill', 'resolution' and other items of legislation?. I added one of by "big-ass replies" there, an attempt to work in some thinking about how proper names (in the broad sense) operate without wading into technical details. I'm not sure if it was successful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, sent you mail on this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Danke. Never mind the long reply if you have better stuff to do; I appreciate the input and have some revisions to think about in what I posted at the thread in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, did you actually have a look at the breed standard cited for Huntaway? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't. D'oh. I updated my comment to indicate that the standard is almost empty of detail, but still establishes that a national org. accepts it as a breed and under that name. A British breed club has a more specific standard [11], but it's a breed-specific club not a general registry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, from your link, I would not describe what is there as a "breed standard" but as a "description" that might be written for any landrace or feral population. From your link: "Huntaways are not recognised by kennel clubs as a "true" breed, but as only working dogs". This might be viewed as a "technicality" but the distinction is "central" to the proposal and its workability. I am not working against you but I think there is a flaw in the current reference to "breed standard" that could be tightened/improved/addressed to make it a truly workable solution. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well if even that source says it's not really a breed, then I guess it's not. I really wasn't paying much attention to that particular case. My point in that paragraph was suggesting that breeds that have an organization around them but no appearance conformation standard, but some other standard (generally of purebred heredity) count as breeds, but "police dog" or "draught horse" (random animals of uncertain stock that been put to a particular purpose) do not. Even "breed people" don't capitalize things like "police dog" and "draught horse", but there's a middle ground where a lot of them do, mostly just mimicking the capitalization of headings in breeder organization documents. E.g., they're apt to capitalize mountain dog, which isn't even a real breed group, but a classification of dogs based on them being from high-altitude areas (typically shaggier and thicker-bodied, but not actually closely related to each other).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

But Huntaways do have a studbook register that admits dogs that have won trials. My point is, that a breed register is probably more "definitive" of a breed than a "breed standard" that may not exist for many breeds. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Module talk:Infobox military conflict RfC on result parameter

Hi SMcCandlish, I am a little confused by the meaning and implication of the subject "close". The close was "no consensus", with essentially no comments. I may have this wrong, but "no consensus" is not the same as "consensus against". In "no consensus", the result is to default to the status quo. The problem is that the proposition was phrased to determine support of the status quo. The status quo is long standing (several years - notwithstanding some minor tweaks recently) and arrived at after a broad discussion. Further, the result section is given weight by MilMos. The close does not discuss how the close relates to MilMos. Am I just not getting it? Your thoughts on what it means and how to deal with it would be appreciated. I am thinking of asking the closer to clarify their close (as distinct from challenging the close). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Argh. Yeah, that's not a helpful close at all. I think the closer is trying to say they detect a consensus against a simple "X victory" or "Inconclusive" binary choice of input, but that's not at all what "no consensus" means. Given how long that particular dispute has been going on (in more than one place) the close basically resolved nothing at all and is simply going to lead to another RfC. Worse, a clear consensus did in fact emerge, which is that the documentation offers good guidance and that infoboxes are not the place to split hairs, while nuances and debatable interpretations should be covered in the article body. This came up especially and recently at Algerian War, and if you see its infobox, you can see why. The improperly closed RfC was obviously meant to resolve the issue that was raised at that article's talk page but which came to a stalemate. The closer should probably redact their close or completely rewrite it (to make sense and to actually represent the results of the discussion). Otherwise the only solution is likely a WP:VPPOL RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cinderella157. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi, as I said, I removed that for a reason. I think the 1 vs 1 "essay contest" was inappropriate to begin with. This is why I added similar sub-sections for all the other thread participants (which you removed). This section, and the sub-page, named for me have not been used and will not be used. Without sections for the other editors,

I don't want one there with my name on it, giving the wrong impression that this is a dispute solely between PsA320 and myself. I showed up long after it started and there was already disagreements posted between PsA320 and the others. Just because I was the last to try and discuss this with them, shouldn't mean that I should be singled out as the sole opponent in this dispute. No sections for the others, then no sections for me. Besides, the admin that tried to set that up has a abandoned the page anyway.

I appreciate the effort you're making to resolve this, but I'm pretty much done with this. I hadn't posted there in awhile, I only responded today because of this close attempt by the admin. I have ceased responding directly to PsA320 for some time now (you may have noticed). Please leave that section out. Thanks (sorry about the length here) Cheers - wolf 08:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Image policy

I revert your addition to the policy on images as it seems to be regurgitating the same thing as that is just above what you added. Perhaps add some information ton whats already there?--Moxy (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"The lead image (appearing at the top of the page) should usually be no wider than upright=1.35 (which is the default equivalent of 300px at preference selection of "220px")."

Hi Moxy there was a little more to it than just that (ie that which you combined). I see that you have combined some of it up to the preceding. I am thinking the converse might be a better approach. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Henry Reid Bay

Hello, Cinderella157,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Henry Reid Bay! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

An apology

from me to you, Cinderlla157, for my rudeness to you a couple of weeks ago. I was in a bad place—major operation for the wife—and frankly shouldn't have been editing; I realised that, and stopped for a fortnight. I hope you can see your way to accepting my apology, and we can resume "normal" relations  ;) take care! ——SerialNumber54129 14:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I sincerely hope that things have gone well. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, Let me know when you are in a position to discuss the review. No pressure on my part. Letting you know that I will be largely without internet next week. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, a misrepresentation by making a quote out of context is considered to be uncivil, even rising to the level of a personal attack. This quote: "Standardising on "Katherine" at this point in the article" and that part of the post referring this is taken out of context. My "frustration" is repeated posts of similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Your post at WP:ANI

Hi, Cinderella. I noticed your comment at ANI,[12] in a discussion of a possible topic ban from images for Beyond My Ken. There, you link to discussions at both Talk:Eduard Dietl (Dietl was a Wehrmacht general) and Talk:Erwin Rommel, referring to several posts by BMK directed at you on those talkpages, and complain that those posts are "'bullying' and certainly not in the spirit of collaboration". (If I've understood you.) Please don't return to old battles in an area that you're topic banned from.[13] I'm not asking you to change or strike out anything you have already written at ANI, but please avoid the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945 completely from now on. If you want to keep talking about it, I suggest you appeal your topic ban. Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Thank you Cinderella!

Hi, thank you for voting to keep the Pavlos Kouroupis article. Could you please put a strike through the entire sentence where it starts by saying Article adds nothing of substance, not just through where it says delete. It will look better that way. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Pacific War Discussion

Hi Cinderella157,

This message comes as a follow up to your proposal for an RfC on the Pacific War talk page regarding its infobox. As indicated in my reply, I thought you raised a feasible option for overcoming the current impasse. However, aside from Havsjö and myself, no one else has bothered to comment on it either positively/negatively. Do you have any ideas on how we could get the discussion moving forward? Emiya1980 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

I believe that these two edits [14] [15] violate the topic ban imposed here:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban

Please self-revert. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

And I do not believe so. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

As you saw at Village Pump, I requested that you withdraw your closure. You declined. I have initiated a close review:

WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names

Alsee (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Closure review

Hey, can you please elaborate on your closure? In what terms do you think should lead of the articles should have chrono order and that the 'chrono' arguments are "compelling"? Specially I'd like to know if there's guideline supporting your closure. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, any writing should develop ideas in a logical and ordered sequence. There are many ways in which to sequence information being presented, of which chronological order is one. The arguement of chronological order was compelling in this case, not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence. I observed that links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. However, I don't think the comments in favor of the move "were not specific". Comments [16], [17] and [18] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. In your closure, I think, guideline-wise arguments are priored over personal points of the users. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)