|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Greetings! I would like to thank you for your efforts in giving an unrequested third opinion and reaching consensus in Talk:Malta convoys. Even if you were unsuccessfull, I appreciate your sound intervention. Best regards, Lord Ics ( talk) 14:12, 26 September 2017
I respect your efforts in trying to cleanup the template in the 1965 war article, But it is unfair that I had to go through all the effort of making a collage, for it to be removed by one click. If it doesn’t fall into the category of WP:MONTAGE then edit it to do so, or provide feedback on how to. I have spent a day laying out those images in the infobox, Please respect my efforts and work. Titan2456 ( talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
huh. What is this about? BTW, I reverted your edit. 20 upper ( talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I was also puzzled by the IP edits (128.234.103.232). 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:50EC:F570:8AF1:5603 ( talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, you have recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. Consequently, I inform you that a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion (see here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War) was started about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute, but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your opinion is welcome in the new discussion. -- Pofka ( talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings Cinderella157. It seems we have similar opinions regarding the overuse of the phrase "battle of" on Wikipedia and we both recognize the dangers it poses for future citogenesis. I was not a Wikipedia editor at the time of your requested move of Russo-Ukrainian War "battles", but I would have been a strong supporter. With that being said, I want to create an article on the events of 1 March 2022 in Bashtanka, while avoiding becoming the first person to coin the term "Battle of Bashtanka", which I think we'd agree is a formal-sounding term implying previous use in scholarly sources, but in reality has not been previously used in the English language, according to Google. Could you suggest an alternative title? Would "Battle for Bashtanka" not carry similar implications? Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way to encourage/attract more MILHIST nerds to do substantive content work on the war? Asking because I have no idea how the project works, apart from that they (technically, we) are all obsessed with battleships and obscure American Civil War units, and I definitely think that the rigorous (perhaps obsessive) attitude towards sourcing and stuff might go a long way towards producing good writing with less room for disputes. As it is every time David Axe writes a new piece some editor will decide that it must be prominently inserted, and a lot of other articles are near-daily accretions of updates with no coherent picture.
The real issue is that a distressingly high percentage of editors don’t have strong writing fundamentals and can’t weave originally phrased, tight prose out of sources. MILHIST people tend to be basically competent for some reason.
What I mean is, it’s not even a due weight issue most of the time, it’s just a clunky narrative flow. A lot of the battles end up leaving the reader with no concept of anything beyond a series of minutiae.
In terms of potential SYNTHy issues, there are a decent amount of high-quality sources by now on 2022. Not many books, of course, but there are a lot of retrospective analyses
Also, a lot of contributors (myself included) are losing interest and frankly I believe (as I guess I always have) that expanding a brigade or division’s page is more helpful than quibbling over an unduly weighted paragraph in a main article.
What do you think?
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings Cinderella157.
Regarding your edits that removed the flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section, citing "flags here serve no useful purpose," I respectfully disagree with this decision. The PRC flag is essential in that case to accurately differentiate between
PRC and
ROC.
As per
MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS guidelines, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Notably, I have yet to encounter a military conflict infobox devoid of such representations, as evidenced by
Operation Hailstone, which shares a notably similar structure.
Skylisan (
talk) 01:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Why did the revert on the article Raid on Tendra Spit remove so much of the article's content including: the infobox, units involved, the aftermath second, etc Salfanto ( talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The still-open Belarus RfC raises an interesting point for MILHIST infoboxes in general. Transit rights are by tacit precedent generally not mentioned without exceptional reasons; this is not codified in project or global RfC to my knowledge. Do you think that seeking a project or global RfC to formally clarify the matter, as you did with "supported by", would be a good idea?
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 06:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Greetings! I would like to thank you for your efforts in giving an unrequested third opinion and reaching consensus in Talk:Malta convoys. Even if you were unsuccessfull, I appreciate your sound intervention. Best regards, Lord Ics ( talk) 14:12, 26 September 2017
I respect your efforts in trying to cleanup the template in the 1965 war article, But it is unfair that I had to go through all the effort of making a collage, for it to be removed by one click. If it doesn’t fall into the category of WP:MONTAGE then edit it to do so, or provide feedback on how to. I have spent a day laying out those images in the infobox, Please respect my efforts and work. Titan2456 ( talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
huh. What is this about? BTW, I reverted your edit. 20 upper ( talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I was also puzzled by the IP edits (128.234.103.232). 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:50EC:F570:8AF1:5603 ( talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, you have recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. Consequently, I inform you that a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion (see here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War) was started about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute, but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your opinion is welcome in the new discussion. -- Pofka ( talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Greetings Cinderella157. It seems we have similar opinions regarding the overuse of the phrase "battle of" on Wikipedia and we both recognize the dangers it poses for future citogenesis. I was not a Wikipedia editor at the time of your requested move of Russo-Ukrainian War "battles", but I would have been a strong supporter. With that being said, I want to create an article on the events of 1 March 2022 in Bashtanka, while avoiding becoming the first person to coin the term "Battle of Bashtanka", which I think we'd agree is a formal-sounding term implying previous use in scholarly sources, but in reality has not been previously used in the English language, according to Google. Could you suggest an alternative title? Would "Battle for Bashtanka" not carry similar implications? Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus ( talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way to encourage/attract more MILHIST nerds to do substantive content work on the war? Asking because I have no idea how the project works, apart from that they (technically, we) are all obsessed with battleships and obscure American Civil War units, and I definitely think that the rigorous (perhaps obsessive) attitude towards sourcing and stuff might go a long way towards producing good writing with less room for disputes. As it is every time David Axe writes a new piece some editor will decide that it must be prominently inserted, and a lot of other articles are near-daily accretions of updates with no coherent picture.
The real issue is that a distressingly high percentage of editors don’t have strong writing fundamentals and can’t weave originally phrased, tight prose out of sources. MILHIST people tend to be basically competent for some reason.
What I mean is, it’s not even a due weight issue most of the time, it’s just a clunky narrative flow. A lot of the battles end up leaving the reader with no concept of anything beyond a series of minutiae.
In terms of potential SYNTHy issues, there are a decent amount of high-quality sources by now on 2022. Not many books, of course, but there are a lot of retrospective analyses
Also, a lot of contributors (myself included) are losing interest and frankly I believe (as I guess I always have) that expanding a brigade or division’s page is more helpful than quibbling over an unduly weighted paragraph in a main article.
What do you think?
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings Cinderella157.
Regarding your edits that removed the flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section, citing "flags here serve no useful purpose," I respectfully disagree with this decision. The PRC flag is essential in that case to accurately differentiate between
PRC and
ROC.
As per
MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS guidelines, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Notably, I have yet to encounter a military conflict infobox devoid of such representations, as evidenced by
Operation Hailstone, which shares a notably similar structure.
Skylisan (
talk) 01:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Why did the revert on the article Raid on Tendra Spit remove so much of the article's content including: the infobox, units involved, the aftermath second, etc Salfanto ( talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The still-open Belarus RfC raises an interesting point for MILHIST infoboxes in general. Transit rights are by tacit precedent generally not mentioned without exceptional reasons; this is not codified in project or global RfC to my knowledge. Do you think that seeking a project or global RfC to formally clarify the matter, as you did with "supported by", would be a good idea?
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 06:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)