This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It’s not different in the same way at all. Artemivsk’s name was changed. Czarnobyl is a foreign spelling that’s not used in English, and there’s no reason to use it. —MichaelZ.21:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose — The
Battle of Chernobyl page history (i.e. talk page) must be preserved as a redirect to the
Capture of Chernobyl. In
this news article from
Forbes, it is said, “But for Ukraine, the Battle of Chernobyl (as Wikipedia is already calling it), wasn't just about protecting a strategic corridor or preventing another nuclear accident; Chernobyl is a powerful symbol of how Ukraine fared under decades of Soviet – Russian, essentially – negligence and exploitation.” The Forbes article was written prior to the vote to the “Capture of Chernobyl”. For that reason, the talk page history must be preserved. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Parham wiki: Why does
WP:TITLEDAB apply here? If I am understanding correctly, the requested move is to move
Battle of Czarnobyl (1920) over to the
Battle of Chernobyl name, which is currently a disambiguation page. I presented evidence which shows a
reliable secondary source referred to the
Capture of Chernobyl in 2022 as the “Battle of Chernobyl”, and mentioned the Wikipedia article known as “Battle of Chernobyl”, which was the previous name for the current
Capture of Chernobyl article. If I understand
WP:TITLEDAB correctly, number 1 says, If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies and number 2 says, If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated. I would actually say an article as detailed as the current
Capture of Chernobyl article (i.e. 47 references) and a mention to the 2022 event by
Forbes as the “Battle of Chernobyl”, which also mentioned the Wikipedia article, would be the clear
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the 1920 event, which, at the time of writing this, has 1
RS reference cited. So, could you provide more evidence to say why the 1920 article would be the primary source in this instance, given we do have a media article referenced above that refers to the “Battle of Chernobyl” for the 2022 article? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)13:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
By renaming this article, Battle of Chernobyl will be renamed Battle of Chernobyl (disambiguation).
The name of this article should not be "(1920)" until the title of the article Capture of Chernobyl is changed to Battle of Chernobyl (2022) (Is the article Siege of Mariupol called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of Battle of Mariupol (1919)?).
That makes more sense now. Thanks for explaining that. However, I’m still not necessarily sold on the idea to make “Battle of Chernobyl” a disambiguation page. For instance, I believe the
Battle of Chernobyl should remain a redirect to the
Capture of Chernobyl (2022 article). The 1920 article and the 2022 article can be linked similar to how
2013 El Reno tornado is linked used the
About template to the lesser known
2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado. The main reason I believe that is because the Forbes article referenced the Wikipedia article “Battle of Chernobyl” directly for the 2022 article. I don’t believe the 1920 article (which might not really even pass
WP:N right now if I was being honest) could be considered primary enough to need a disambiguation page, rather than a simple about template link-up. The names are not duplicate as well, which means a disambiguation page would be more like an extra step readers have to do since logically (i.e. number of references in each article), the 2022 instance is what would be search for the most. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)15:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Michael Z. Moving Czarnobyl to Battle of Chornobyl appears to be the best option because sources using that title more often. But I do not support moving Battle of Chernobyl to end in a dab because the relatively recent capture could easily be searched up as the "Battle or Chernobyl".
The Night Watch(talk)18:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It’s not different in the same way at all. Artemivsk’s name was changed. Czarnobyl is a foreign spelling that’s not used in English, and there’s no reason to use it. —MichaelZ.21:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose — The
Battle of Chernobyl page history (i.e. talk page) must be preserved as a redirect to the
Capture of Chernobyl. In
this news article from
Forbes, it is said, “But for Ukraine, the Battle of Chernobyl (as Wikipedia is already calling it), wasn't just about protecting a strategic corridor or preventing another nuclear accident; Chernobyl is a powerful symbol of how Ukraine fared under decades of Soviet – Russian, essentially – negligence and exploitation.” The Forbes article was written prior to the vote to the “Capture of Chernobyl”. For that reason, the talk page history must be preserved. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Parham wiki: Why does
WP:TITLEDAB apply here? If I am understanding correctly, the requested move is to move
Battle of Czarnobyl (1920) over to the
Battle of Chernobyl name, which is currently a disambiguation page. I presented evidence which shows a
reliable secondary source referred to the
Capture of Chernobyl in 2022 as the “Battle of Chernobyl”, and mentioned the Wikipedia article known as “Battle of Chernobyl”, which was the previous name for the current
Capture of Chernobyl article. If I understand
WP:TITLEDAB correctly, number 1 says, If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies and number 2 says, If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated. I would actually say an article as detailed as the current
Capture of Chernobyl article (i.e. 47 references) and a mention to the 2022 event by
Forbes as the “Battle of Chernobyl”, which also mentioned the Wikipedia article, would be the clear
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the 1920 event, which, at the time of writing this, has 1
RS reference cited. So, could you provide more evidence to say why the 1920 article would be the primary source in this instance, given we do have a media article referenced above that refers to the “Battle of Chernobyl” for the 2022 article? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)13:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
By renaming this article, Battle of Chernobyl will be renamed Battle of Chernobyl (disambiguation).
The name of this article should not be "(1920)" until the title of the article Capture of Chernobyl is changed to Battle of Chernobyl (2022) (Is the article Siege of Mariupol called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of Battle of Mariupol (1919)?).
That makes more sense now. Thanks for explaining that. However, I’m still not necessarily sold on the idea to make “Battle of Chernobyl” a disambiguation page. For instance, I believe the
Battle of Chernobyl should remain a redirect to the
Capture of Chernobyl (2022 article). The 1920 article and the 2022 article can be linked similar to how
2013 El Reno tornado is linked used the
About template to the lesser known
2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado. The main reason I believe that is because the Forbes article referenced the Wikipedia article “Battle of Chernobyl” directly for the 2022 article. I don’t believe the 1920 article (which might not really even pass
WP:N right now if I was being honest) could be considered primary enough to need a disambiguation page, rather than a simple about template link-up. The names are not duplicate as well, which means a disambiguation page would be more like an extra step readers have to do since logically (i.e. number of references in each article), the 2022 instance is what would be search for the most. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)15:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Michael Z. Moving Czarnobyl to Battle of Chornobyl appears to be the best option because sources using that title more often. But I do not support moving Battle of Chernobyl to end in a dab because the relatively recent capture could easily be searched up as the "Battle or Chernobyl".
The Night Watch(talk)18:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.