User talk:Cinderella157/Archive 5

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Article titles and capitalisation 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, in the open Article titles and capitalisation 2 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide. For the Arbitration Committee, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The existing Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic is amended, to narrow the scope to only apply to article titles and capitalisation. The contentious topic area is to be renamed "Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Article titles and capitalisation", and the exact scope is available at the final decision page.
• The word limit restriction (discretionary) is added to the standard set of contentious topic restrictions for all contentious topics:

  Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• The Arbitration Committee assumes the indefinite topic ban of Dicklyon. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dicklyon is indefinitely topic banned from challenging or requesting a review of any closure within the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Cinderalla157, SMcCandlish, and Dicklyon are limited to 500 words in any discussion related to the article titles and capitalisation contentious topic area, broadly construed.
• Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) is warned for edit warring.

​​​ For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation 2 closed

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LucyGermanDog's editing pattern to infoboxes. Keith H99 (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I see your latest edit has a typo problem, please check it. PG2345 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake in First Indochina War. PG2345 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you help me shorten the introduction of First Indochina War? I feel it is long but I really have no experience in this. I mean the information in the introduction is fine but it needs to be presented in a more concise and readable manner. Thanks! PG2345 (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

PG2345, yes, it is way too long and not all that well written. As you are asking for help, could I suggest you write a draft in your sandbox. Once done, I can have a look at it and make suggestions. I would suggest that one needs to be "very" critical of what goes into the lead, including only the most key or significant points. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's possible to move some information down. Leaving any information out would be a waste. PG2345 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyway hope you help me improve the article. PG2345 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

PG2345, I think it's possible to move some information down. The lead is a summary of the body of the article, so, the information in the lead should already be in the body? Give it a try and let's see what you come up with. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a sock of Phạm Văn Rạng. 59.153.224.11 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Yom Kippur War when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't just knee-jerk revert other's edits. You need to actually preview them and see there are error messages. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cinderella157! 🙂 I hope you're well, and thank you for bringing up some interesting points regarding policy that goes against the use of collages in infoboxes (I wasn't aware of these interpretations before!) To not bloat Talk:Syrian civil war#Syrian civil war collage with a question that could get off topic, but genuine question, without getting into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, how is this conflict any different from other major war articles on equally dynamic topics (Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War)? Are all of these articles wrong to have an infobox collage? I agree with the WP:COLLAGE and MOS:LEADIMAGE policy, but I also feel like no one image could possibly define such a large event where readers [recieve] visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page, I'd just look like one of the smaller events part of the larger one. If the answer is actually yes, then this is a wider issue that needs to be addressed that might deserve an RfC. Thank you again for bringing up some interesting viewpoints, and cheers from North Carolina! Johnson524 02:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Johnson524, you say, I also feel like no one image could possibly define such a large event. However, the purpose of the lead image is not to define the event but provide visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. The two are not the same and I would see the perception they are as the root of the issue. The guidance goes on to say that agreeing on such an image can be difficult. That does not mean it cannot be done but collages are an inappropriate shotcut to consensus, as I read P&G. This otherstuff is only pertinent if such articles represent best practice and few (if any) do. If we are looking for an iconic picture, then we could look for a picture that recurs in sources as a major image. My view has prevailed at Thirty years war and the process of selecting the image was relatively painless. We could address this piece by piece given it is WP:NORUSH though we could also create a broad RcF for military articles or more generally. My interest in this is part of addressing infobox bloat more generally. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Collages were discussed at length regarding pages about years not too long ago, and kept as is. That decision to keep collages was determinative for the site. Let's not try to remove collages again, the input on editor's time was extensive. Thanks. And Cinderella157, although we've had much less interaction since the casing ARBCOM, I trust you've found nothing inappropriate in my work on casings since, although I guess you can't even comment on that. I hope all is well and productive, and the best of Christmas and the holidays to you and yours. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Cheers Randy Kryn and best wishes. I do recall a discussion specifically for years - eg 2021. Quite frankly, the lead image there is just visual noise - like a crowd talking (as are many others). I don't think I participated in that discussion. You will appreciate that my primary interest is MILHIST and this is where this discussion has originated and where it should stay - at least for now. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague: You recently undid my revision of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Ukrainian_war_(2022%E2%80%93present)&action=history with the title comment. You misunderstood my revision. I see, that you are familiar with Serial comma (Camridge vs. Oxford commas). My edit was NOT about this issue. It was about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Compound_sentences . Please note, that in this situation both British and American English follow the same rule, which is described in the aforecited wiki-section. I respectively request you to restore my edit, and follow the rule for compound sentences in your future edits. ApoieRacional (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

ApoieRacional, in British English, where conjunctions (particularly and, or and but) are used to join independent clauses, the conjunctions are taken to inherently have a pause - ie a comma is not used. See Fowler's Modern English Usage: Omitted between connected [by conjunction] but independent sentences ... This article is written in British English. This is also not a case where the comma is justifiable as a serial comma. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. I think, we are still talking about different situations. Could you please provide a web-link to your reference [Fowler's Modern English Usage: Omitted between connected [by conjunction] but independent sentences ... ] ? I want to understand what type of "pause" you are talking about.

Have you read the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Compound_sentences ,

that I referred you to? ApoieRacional (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a paper copy of Fowler's. When I refer to a pause, this is in the same sense that a comma provides a pause. Yes, I have read the article and also the link to comma you provided, where it states: Some style guides prescribe that two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) must be separated by a comma placed before the conjunction [emphasis added] - ie, it is not universally accepted as mandatory. As I suggest, this is a matter of ENGVAR, with American English generally using more commas than British English, particularly before and. Similarly, BrEng would omit a period in Dr or Mr. The sentence in question is: Peace negotiations have stalled and Russia has repeatedly refused calls for a ceasefire. These are not so closely related that they need to be joined. As readability is related to sentence length, arguably the better solution is to actually split them. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. The way I understand the rule about comma in a sentence with two verbs (e.g. stalled and refused) is that:

if the two verb share the subject, there should be no comma:

Russia STALLED on the frontline and REFUSED ceasefire.

if the two verbs have different subjects (i.e. it is a Compound Sentence), a comma is required:

Russia STALLED on the frontline, and its negotiators REFUSED ceasefire. ApoieRacional (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

A comma is required by some style guides. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You did not provide a reference to support your last statement. ApoieRacional (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

See quote above. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The only " quote above" from you is Fowler's , that you refuse to supply as a full text. I am not trying to be an a-hole, but please try to look at your responses from my viewpoint ... ApoieRacional (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Everything in green is a quote: Some style guides prescribe that two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) must be separated by a comma placed before the conjunction [emphasis added]. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. So, I was educated with these "Some style guides" .

Apparently, not everyone was educated the same way.

Is there a wiki-policy on this matter?

I know, that Wikipedia allows the use of both American and British English, as long as only one is used throughout each article.

But I am unaware of the policies regarding more subtle rules, like the one we are dealing with here. ApoieRacional (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing specific. WP:RETAIN comes close and MOS:OXFORD deals with a similar issue. I have now fixed the particular issue by splitting the sentence. I might suggest that it was not prudent to make the edit summary you did: I keep getting shocked, that wiki-editors do not understand how commas are used in composite sentences. While I am unaware of anything in writing, I have observed a general trend in WP to reduce the usage of commas to what is necessary for clarity - eg: removing it between the month and year in a date; and, not always using it with a parenthetic clause (... the US president[,] Donald Trump[,] attended the summit ...). Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I agree with you, that Wikipedians tend to "reduce the usage of commas", but I may be too old-fashioned to accept this trend... ApoieRacional (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the infobox flags that LucyGermanDog added to Second Battle of St. Michaels. Unfortunately, LucyGermanDog may have added flags to other battle infoboxes--definitely Battle of St. Michaels. TwoScars (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi TwoScars, LGD has reverted the couple I reverted. Is there a reason you did not address this yourself? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I thought something might have changed in the MOS. I trust your experience and education more than LucyGermanDog—and you decided to revert the change. The MOS does not appear to have changed, so I just got rid of the flag icons (again) in the two St. Michaels articles, and mentioned "Flag icons are not recommended in the MOS - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". It is a trivial issue, but I like to agree with the MOS or at least the Military history MOS. TwoScars (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

LGD mentioned "Undo it for every other battle of the war of 1812 where there are flag icons representing the nation if this is such an issue." However, the flag icons are still out of the InfoBox for the two St. Michaels articles. TwoScars (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi TwoScars, MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS (the link you give) has a see also for more detail that directs to MOS:MILFLAGS. Accordingly, they shouldn't be used where there are only two belligerents and they are redundant as a result. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I was about to post the MOS:MILFLAGS link to LGD's talk page, but I see that you have already done that. Excellent! TwoScars (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure that Japanese losses in battles against the United States are less than 1.3 million killed? Judge for yourself. General George Marshall claims that the Japanese army lost 965,000 killed. As for the navy, Japan lost a total of 414,000 killed, mostly against the United States. That works out to roughly 1,300,000.Moreover, Japan's total losses in WWII amount to 2.1 million killed in action. Against the US, 1.3 million, against China, 500,000, against the USSR, 140,000 (if you count those captured according to Soviet data), and about 200,000 in battles with the US's European allies. It all seems to add up. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for the time you took with your considered close. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The close seems to be based on circular reasoning: Given that the proposals reasonably appear to be more equivocal, strength of argument is derived by reference to WP:HOWEVER, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE etc.. The argument presented was that there is not a scientific consensus on the origins at this time, and reliable sources were presented to support that position. Invoking rules against fringe positions in response is assuming the conclusion. - Palpable (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The close seemed to do a good job of WP:DETCON to me. TarnishedPath^talk 22:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:DISCARD: When determining the consensus, the closer should discard irrelevant arguments. Palpable (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see much irrelevent that they would have needed to disregard from those opposing the proposals. I think they did a decent job at summarising consensus in line with WP:DETCON. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I believe you agreed to step back from this topic area after a previous bludgeoning episode - Palpable (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You can read what I wrote at Special:Diff/1281197018/1281219463. You should be careful about misrepresenting what editors write/agree to. More importantly you'd do well to be more concerned with your own conduct in the topic area given the warnings on your talk. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• A strong cogent argument is made by reference to established criteria (in this case P&G) and how/why these criteria apply in reaching a conclusion. Where I state, ... strength of argument is derived by reference to WP:HOWEVER, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE etc, there are cogent arguments made in the discussion that cite these links. However, citing a link by itself or without establishing how or why these links apply to reaching a conclusion are not cogent arguments. Consequently, I have given little or no weight to comments that do not rise to being cogent arguments. Perhaps I was too brief in writing that part of my close but I hope this gives some clarification. It was certainly not a case of assuming the conclusion.
  The argument presented was that there is not a scientific consensus on the origins at this time. This is one theory or perhaps more correctly one hypothesis on the origin; though I note that it is actually a collection of similar hypotheses that includes accidental or deliberate release that may or may not include genetic modification. While no hypothesis has been proven, there is nonetheless a consensus in sources as to the likelihood of the various hypotheses. Consensus does not mean total agreement. WEIGHT is informed by the consensus regarding the likelihood. This is addressed by the discussion, with cogent arguments that quote sources that the hypothesis of a lab leak, while not excluded, is generally considered unlikely (though not totally excluded as a possibility). These outweigh the argument that we should be more equivocal about the hypothesis because it has not been debunked. This then leads to the conclusion of the close. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  The proposer presented a wide range of sources to show that there was no scientific consensus, including a survey, quotes from scientists and from organizations like the WHO. The opposers presented references instead of sources, many of which I agree were not cogent. WP:NPOV straightforwardly requires representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The reliable sources presented in the discussion are in fact more equivocal than the article, and the proposed wording remained very clear that lab leak was a minority view.

  I don't know if the discussion was going anywhere, but I don't think it needed to be closed. It's a little sad because if you look into the talk history you'll see that in terms of careful sourcing, wording, and engagement this was the highest quality discussion on the topic in a long time. - Palpable (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  I closed the discussion because there was a request made at WP:CR. You would state that there was no scientific consensus but that it is very clear that lab leak was a minority view. As I said above, consensus is not total agreement. The former statement is contradicted by the latter. Arguments based on the latter were weighed accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  I see, thanks for the context. - Palpable (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

PS My talk page is not the place to make allegations of misconduct against a third-party. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, my apologies - Palpable (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Cinderella157,

I wanted to open a good faith working relationship on any pages we share. I think would be good to establish a detente in the face of clash. Thanks.

Best, Wahreit (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Wahreit, in respect to the edits I have come across, I can summarise my concerns. Any changes to the infobox should reflect the body of the article so there is consistency between the two. Changes need to be sourced. Sources should not be discarded out of hand, noting also that verification does not guarantee inclusion. Changes to the body of the article should be well considered. By this, I mean that the prose must maintain a coherent, logical presentation. Don't bloat the infobox with detail. If an edit is challenged, there is a WP:ONUS to gain consensus - this means opening a discussion that focusses on content. Be careful about unilaterally declaring consensus - it is not a vote but determined by strength of argument. Give time for responses. Will live all over the world. We all need sleep and sometimes the real world means we can't all be here 24/7.

These are general concerns I have for similar edits regardless of who is making them. I trust you will see that these align with community expectations that are reflected in P&G. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cinderella157,

Fair points. Thank you for your support and being a mediating voice in all this. Have a great weekend.

Best, Wahreit (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Cinderella157,

These are literally before and after images from the war. The English language page doesn't have the number of illustrations found on the Arabic page. These ruins are from the war, there was no attempt to restore old buildings until modern times. The restored picture comes directly from the Arabic language page of the war. It shows war damage as the Ottomans intentionally destroyed the city to expel the inhabitants and end the Emirate of Diriyah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

There is firstly the matter of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and where images are placed to support prose. Secondly, asserting that a modern image of the ruins evidence the "ruin" caused by the war is WP:OR. EnWP is not the Arabic page. We have different P&G. I nonetheless appreciate you raising this here rather than edit-warring over this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't original research. The ruins and the restored section are part of the museum complex. They are remnants of the war.

https://saudipedia.com/en/diriyah-museum FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your link says nothing about the deterioration that has occurred since 1818 and your reply does not address IMAGERELEVANCE - where these images have been placed and how they "support" the associated text. It does not address that the article already has a sufficiency of images for the article display size. If these images are "necessary", what goes? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that there has been additional deterioration since the destruction sure, but that would mean we don't use any photographs of historic sites. The text is about the destruction of the city and the expulsion of the population being the culmination of the war. It's also about the Saudi's viewing the Emirate as the origin of their state, which is why they restored parts of the palace and turning it into a museum. It didn't strike me as there being too many images. What is the measurement for this? FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Given what appears to be mud-brick construction, there has likely been a lot of deterioration in nearly 200 years. Furthermore, the image does not evidence what is clearly war damage. However, the key point is IMAGERELEVANCE. Where does the prose near the images you placed have text about the destruction of the city and the expulsion of the population being the culmination of the war or what you say that follows. If the images start to impinge beyond the prose of the article, there are probably too many images. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It is a bit too low to get the image in there with Abdullah. I was going to add some more text to the campaign section. I'll see if there is room for an image of the city after I finish with that. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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