User talk:Cinderella157

Thanks for Third Opinion efforts

Greetings! I would like to thank you for your efforts in giving an unrequested third opinion and reaching consensus in Talk:Malta convoys. Even if you were unsuccessfull, I appreciate your sound intervention. Best regards, Lord Ics (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2017

Korean war

Link to image

Flag explanation

I am trying to understand your point, and I do to an extent.

I ran into a similar confusion on 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, where flags were promptly removed when I added them. On Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the flags are showing however. Is this because there are multiple belligerents (technically) on the initial conflict as opposed to the later one? Ecpiandy (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Ecpiandy, one should only consider adding flags if there are more than two belligerents. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Iran War - Serious Allegations in Status

• Resumption of conflict between Hezbollah and Israel - Seriously incorrect infobox result

Adding such information to the conflict infobox template while a ceasefire is still in effect is extremely serious, especially since it was done arbitrarily without any discussion.

• Escalation of the Yemeni Civil War - Not Present

Where is the escalation? If you go to the page Yemeni_civil_war_(2014–present)#2026_skirmishes, where do you find the escalation from the text? For the rebel-held airport being bombed only once by the same state? Perhaps they've confused the Yemeni Civil War with the Red Sea Crisis; they're two different conflicts.

Sorry to write here, but there's a block on requests and discussions, but then it states that these restrictions are for the Arab–Israeli conflict, not the Iran War. ~2026-30628-51 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• The infobox is not a snapshot at the present point in time but a summary over time. However, the point about Yemen has merit. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Hi, you recently made a revert without a specific explanation. The introduction is correct and referenced. The names of the state are also referenced. the intro? the names? What is your concern? Historian1810 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Historian1810, I gave an explanation: not making sense. Please try reading aloud what you wrote. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok perhaps there was too much going on, but I've reviewed and summarized the text into two points: its importance for being global, and the different forms it takes as such an ancient state that goes through name changes, where it was never called "Spanish Empire" by itself (which is a historiographical category). Historian1810 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Historian1810, perhaps yes, there is too much going on and it still isn't clear what you are intending to say. I am not opposed to what you are trying to do by it needs to be a lot clearer. I would also suggest that it might better be placed in a dedicated section. ... Monarchy of Spain, Spanish, Catholic, or Hispanic Monarchy ... You are trying to say that it was called: the Spanish Monarchy, the Catholic Monarchy or the Hispanic Monarchy? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, don't worry, you're right that it doesn't make sense: another user has reverted me. What I'm trying to say is that it had several names depending on the form of the State, but that this State was, paradoxically, never called the "Spanish Empire". Under the Habsburgs it was a Monarchy (Spain, Spanish, Catholic, or Hispanic), and under the Bourbons it was called a Kingdom. These differences matter because you find that people often don't actually know what they're referring to when they say Monarchy of Spain or Kingdom of Spain. I'll use the solution you seem to be proposing of including it in a later paragraph. Thanks anyway. Historian1810 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the difference between Monarchy and Kingdom is not merely semantic but substantive, since the latter implied for Spain, a single law for all the Spanish kingdoms, that is, the well known Bourbon reforms. Historian1810 (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Excessive pruning of infoboxes

It seems that you are removing information such as coordinates from infoboxes without consensus, invoking MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE incorrectly. Going forward, please seek consensus on talk pages before removing information in infoboxes. Abductive (reasoning) 07:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Abductive, earlier this year there was an edit made to the map module that caused a map to be displayed in infoboxes by default whenever co-ordinates were present. At the time, the only way apparent to me to remove the map was to delete the co-ordinates. I removed the maps by deleting the coordinates where such a map was inappropriate - either because of another map in (or near) the infobox or because it further bloated an already bloated infobox. That is almost ancient history and nobody objected at the time. The default has since been removed. While I may have invoked INFOBOXPURPOSE (less is better), I don't specifically recall doing this. INFOBOXPURPOSE also tells us that the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. With few exceptions, what appears in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article and in a way that establishes that it is a key fact. If you believe that I have invoked INFOBOXPURPOSE incorrectly in other instances, I suggest you be more specific about such instances. Per WP:CONLEVEL, P&G represents the broad community consensus and is stronger than any local consensus on at an article while, WP:BRD does not require that permission be sought before making an edit. Emiya1980 has invoked Wikipedia:Gatekeeping. Reading the essay, it states that Insisting that a particular editor or group of editors must approve contributions from other editors in advance is a form of gatekeeping. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

But why remove maps? And can't it be done by | mapframe = no ? In any case, the place an event happened is one of the Five Ws and must be in the article as clickable coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I already explained: where the maps were removed, there were already sufficient maps. While | mapframe = no will turn it off (I have since discovered), it was not a parameter in the infobox documentation. There is nothing that says [It] must be in the article as clickable coordinates. The issue is also pretty much ancient history since the issue of maps on by default has been addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I concur with this complaint. Cinderella157 has similarly adopted this unilateral pruning to the infobobox's "Commanders and leaders" section on numerous pages for battles and military conflicts across Wikipedia based on his own subjective standards. Moreover, I can point to at least several instances when he has unilaterally removed figures from lists even where there is material within the article highlighting why they are significant to said engagement. - Emiya1980 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Emiya1980, you omit to mention that that the reverts you example are new additions that fall to WP:ONUS. Your addition of al-Atassi was reverted with the edit summary: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - not supported by body of article. The single mention is in the prelude section and not during the war. There is nothing subjective about the reason given. Futhermore, you have reinstated the edit without achieving consensus per WP:ONUS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact remains that more than one editor has expressed the opinion that your gatekeeping across multiple pages is getting quite tiresome. Ignore it at your own risk. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

September 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Specifying |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= needs to be defined in the template in order to work. You can look at the documentation for the template being used, but it is also helpful to use the preview button before saving an edit; this helps find any errors that have been made and ensures that the values added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is highly recommended that editors use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions of if I can help explain further, please let me know! You can also contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Edged and bladed weapons

A new page سلاح تیغه‌ای on the Persian Wikipedia has been linked to page Edged and bladed weapons, which you created, via Wikidata (Q11897048).

You will not be notified in the future about new articles linked to any of the articles you have created, if you wish to opt-in to receiving these notifications, please follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

2026 Iran war order of battle

Would it make sense to add the article for First Space Brigade to the Order of Battle article? The ref does say he was assigned to the First Space Battalion of the First Space Brigade. I’d assume that the First Space Brigade would need to be included as well. OrbitalVoid⁴⁹ 💬•🌌 23:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

No; he was part of the battalion and his death leads to the conclusion that the battalion was directly involved. While the battalion is part of the brigade, The ref does not tell us the brigade was directly involve. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Would it make sense to link to the section about the 1st Space Battalion in the article instead of just the main 1st Space Brigade article? I don’t see an issue with it personally but I’d rather not start an edit war in this case. OrbitalVoid⁴⁹ 💬•🌌 03:38, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

But there isn't such a section. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m speaking about the box linked at 1st Space Brigade#Structure. OrbitalVoid⁴⁹ 💬•🌌 05:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not certain how you would go about linking specifically to the 1st Battalion? Try it and we can see how it turns out. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)