![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What's the difference between Battle of Kherson and Kherson offensive? PurpleBuffalo ( talk) 06:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Liberation_of_Kherson Vittoriowitx ( talk) 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
88.101.101.137 ( talk) 15:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has won the battle of Kherson in 11 November 2022 Kherson was liberated by the Ukrainian forces
Add on Infobox about ukraine winning the battle Lucasoliveira653 ( talk) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The first one happened when Russians took Kherson and the second one happened when Ukrainians retook it. 196.150.158.217 ( talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I propose that section Russian-controlled Kherson be split into a separate page called Russian occupation of Kherson. The content of the current page seems off-topic since this article is more or less about the battle that took place and ended on 2 March. Also, Russia appointed Igor Kastyukevich as a de facto mayor of the city, meaning this goes beyond a basic military occupation of the city. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Ther are some rules for the use of Twitter in Wikipedia artickes. Keep and eye on them WP:TWITTER. Any use of Twitter for extraordinary claims regarding combatants and events in the ground will be reverted. Mr.User200 ( talk) 12:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The UN Security Council meeting on February 23, 2022 in New York City, USA included the Ukranian Ambassador indicating a telephone call on war declaration by Russia against the Ukraine, and the Russian Ambassador not responding to check with "Russian command", and later only indicating a special military operation by Russian Federation. Recorded and televised live on CSPAN.
Within the next week, while Russia continued to claim to be involved with Donestk and Luhansk only (Russian Duma and two "independent republics"-separate review, now bombed to smitherins by Russia; post bombing in 2014) all 6 power plants in Ukraine were targeted. Within the month, Lviv in western Ukraine was also bombed attacking internally displaced persons (protected IDPs) at a railway station.
To explain throughout the past three months, Ukraine has reported 1,000 schools hit and destroyed by Russia, well after 4.3 million Ukranian refugees (mostly women and children) reported as fleeing the war Russia is waging inside the borders of another sovereign Nation! Yesterday, it was reported that none of the 1,000 schools were the intended targets!
UN supermajority has condemned Russia for violating the territoriality of the sovereign Nation of the Ukraine. We have apartment buildings, manufacturing plants, hospitals and main government buildings were targets of the "wanton aggression". 24 cities in Ukraine were reported attacked in 48 hours this past week (May 2022) as "rage of destruction"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C056:7C0A:E4B:49F8 ( talk) 00:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC) 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C056:7C0A:E4B:49F8 ( talk) 01:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)JARacino 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C056:7C0A:E4B:49F8 ( talk) 01:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Alumni, Syracuse University with ASPA emergency management
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/01/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-claims-to-control-kherson-a-strategic-city-but-ukraine-says-the-battle-for-it-isnt-over Ukraine contest that the city is captured. 176.158.39.228 ( talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If the battle of Kherson is still ongoing, change "24 February-now" for "24 February-Present" and add the Status of ongoing below the date
If the battle has concluded and the Russian MoD claim is confirmed by a reliable source, add the end date of the battle and the status of Russian victory
Kind Regards 201.234.181.227 ( talk) 12:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know why the bridge, only crossing point other than railroad bridge and Hydro dam, was not blown up for defense?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.97.106 ( talk) 12:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Pentagon has stated that Ukrainian forces rentered Kherson and have begun to push Russian troops out. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/25/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-kherson?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes 108.88.8.211 ( talk) 18:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian army says Russian general has been killed in Kherson fighting From CNN's Yulia Kesaieva in Lviv The Ukrainian army says its forces have killed Russian Lt. Gen. Yakov Rezantsev during fighting in Chornobaiivka, in the Kherson region in Ukraine’s south.
The army said Rezantsez was commander of the 49th Combined Arms Army of the Southern Military District of the Russian Federation.
Russia’s defense ministry has not commented on the Ukrainian claim.
So far, some six Russian generals are believed to have been killed since the start of Russia’s assault on Ukraine, as well as a deputy commander of the Black Sea fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmclellan82 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the map back from the colorblind one 72.229.242.36 ( talk) 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
WP:ACCESS seems to favor color blind accessibility.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The initial letter of the title is only capitalised in running text if it would normally be capitalised. Per
MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
Per
MOS:CAPS, the burden is to show that capitalisation is necessary in accordance with the criteria of
MOS:CAPS. Looking at news sources
here, it certainly doesn't meet the high threshold set by
MOS:CAPS. The article title is even questionable given so few sources but that is another issue.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
08:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. There is no clear agreement as to whether titles using "of" in this way necessarily indicate that the article titles are proper names, or more simply reflect a standard way of referring to battles. Relevant arguments were presented by both sides in the discussion, but it is clear that there is not currently a consensus in favor of the proposed moves. Separately, please consider creating redirects from the proposed titles if they are likely to be used by readers and editors. Dekimasu よ! 05:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
In the majority of cases, the naming is not supported at all by sources as evidenced by links. In no case, do sources indicate that the names would satisfy
WP:COMMONNAME. The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle, that in these cases simply doesn't exist. This is misleading and can lead to
WP:CITOGENESIS.
One source is already indicating this: in what’s been dubbed online as the “Battle of Brovary,”
. The format "battle for X" does not have the same implication but is equally succinct, natural and recognisable and should be preferred.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books).Your search for "battle of kherson" -wiki may return 16500 hits but the search returns only 36 results it would describe as "relevant". The search using "battle for kherson" returns 65 results it describes as "relevant". For Avdiivka, each alternative returned only 32 relevant results. However, the premise of the RM is that don't have a body of WP:RS (let alone good quality ones) that would lead us to conclude a WP:COMMONNAME. As to the argument of consistency, "battle of" is fairly consistent for engagements where an engagement has risen to the level of being know in sources by a proper name. The evidence below is that naming is much less consistent (even tending to "for") for engagements that have not risen to the level of having a proper name (even if they might rise to having a proper name at some future time). There is no binding "wider convention" for naming that is not a proper name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.). And on those, "to" wins the battle hands down over "for".
the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources. Umm, your evidence? or is this the same type of WP:OR presented without
a single shred of evidence? Nothing you are saying here is any less WP:OR than matters I am raising. To JSTOR as a resource, I have addressed this below where you first raised it. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle—no it doesn’t. It’s a descriptive noun phrase. Who says it can lead to citogenesis while “battle for” can not? The entire rationale is unfounded, and does not even aspire to the level of unacceptable WP:original research. On the contrary, “battle for” (or “at,” “in,” “near,” or some other other prepositions) implies a specific kind of relation to the location, in this case the adversaries’ objective being control of the city, and should only be used when that can be demonstrated for every specific case. On the contrary, “of” is natural and devoid of such implications, only creating a non-specific association. — Michael Z. 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
... consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources ...It is not a simple majority.
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.Mixed usage of a simple majority does not establish that capitalisation is necessary.
You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names". Well, no. I have claimed that the format "battle of X" is more often associated with proper names, and
In a significant majority of these WP articles using "battle for", there is no WP:COMMONNAME and these do not meet the threshold for the titles to be considered a proper name (per MOS:CAPS). This supports the premise of the move, that "battle for X" should be preferred where there is no WP:COMMONNAME.[or no name at all in sources] That is quite a bit different from what you are attributing to me. You did say you were done a long time ago.
... please stop feeling the need to reply to every comment I make.If you are replying to me, it is perfectly reasonable for me to reply to you - particularly when you appear to be misrepresenting what I have said. Your link looks a bit WP:POT to me. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
make accusations of purposely misattributing or misrepresenting viewpointsbut it is, nonetheless a misrepresentation. As to your comments about civility, that boat sailed with this edit. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
... an assertion that the article titles are a proper name and that "Battle of X" should be capped in running prose - yet they all do- ie the articles are asserting that the titles are a proper name by capitalising the phrase in running prose. The association of the format "Battle of X" with a proper name is a tenet of my argument for not using that format when the the engagement does not rise to be known by a proper name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
... what I am asserting is that there is a clear convention, one which, as other pages on Wikipedia and external sources show, is almost universal ...may be construed as rising to WP:OR. I see no citations being made here for any opinions beyond some occasional WP links. However, just as you would state that MOS:CAPS has no applicability to capitalisation on a TP, WP:OR has a substantially different meaning and applicability between article space and talk pages. Shouting, swearing and making allegations of misconduct don't make one case stronger or another case weaker. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
... do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications, then the statement that follows,
“Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody, fails for being an assertion made without any evidence at all. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC) PS, if you feel that there is a better alternative to the proposal, you are free to advance this. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:OR nonsense(even if not deserved since at least some evidence relevant to the point was offered). That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only a reasonable and valid argument if there is a sound basis for direct comparison. Painting with a broad brush does not consider the nuance of the key issue. To Waterloo, the battle is (almost universally) reported in good quality English language WP:RSs as Battle of Waterloo and as a proper name (ie universally capped). However, it was fought at Mont Saint-Jean and the adjoining village of St Jean (see map in article [46]). Wellington's senior officers were billeted at Waterloo some distance to the rear of the battlefield. [47] In France, it was known as the Battle of Mont Saint-Jean. It just goes to show that the naming of "named" battles (in the format ""Battle of X") can be capricious and doesn't necessarily comply with your argument. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Though this is looking like a snow-oppose, I'm not !voting either way. Instead, I will suggest that it would probably have been better to have waited, and/or address these battle names individually on their article talk pages, based on any unique merits that apply and, using the sourcing that is to come and is specific to each battle/article. (Sorry about the length.) Cheers & Good luck to you. - wolf 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
There are reports the Ukrainian Army is outside of Kherson City and have begun to enter. 2601:244:4080:D380:8C65:B8B2:2B10:6B3D ( talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
So I asked this type of question before but couldn't find it, so I'll ask again I guess.
If Ukraine were to recapture the city, would there be a second page like "Second Battle of Kherson" while this is "First Battle of Kherson"? Dawsongfg ( talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Why are all of the article's sources coming from American, British or Ukrainian media? They remain too biased and must be balanced by Russian media too. 37.237.31.14 ( talk) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Kherson → First Battle of Kherson – This article is referring to the battle of Kherson in Feburary to March 2022, in the southern Ukraine offensive. The page should be renamed in order to avoid confusion with the battle of Kherson in the Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Hydrochlorics ( talk) 14:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
From the infobox, it appears like this article wants to discuss both the prior & ongoing battle(s) of Kherson. However, the article as it stands has mostly information regarding the initial Russian offensive from February to March 2022, and then an "Aftermath" section without any information regarding the current situation. Is there precedent to make a new section in this article to reference the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive since it relates to the Kherson Oblast, or should we wait until more information becomes available? Unburnable ( talk) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What's the difference between Battle of Kherson and Kherson offensive? PurpleBuffalo ( talk) 06:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Liberation_of_Kherson Vittoriowitx ( talk) 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
88.101.101.137 ( talk) 15:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine has won the battle of Kherson in 11 November 2022 Kherson was liberated by the Ukrainian forces
Add on Infobox about ukraine winning the battle Lucasoliveira653 ( talk) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The first one happened when Russians took Kherson and the second one happened when Ukrainians retook it. 196.150.158.217 ( talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I propose that section Russian-controlled Kherson be split into a separate page called Russian occupation of Kherson. The content of the current page seems off-topic since this article is more or less about the battle that took place and ended on 2 March. Also, Russia appointed Igor Kastyukevich as a de facto mayor of the city, meaning this goes beyond a basic military occupation of the city. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Ther are some rules for the use of Twitter in Wikipedia artickes. Keep and eye on them WP:TWITTER. Any use of Twitter for extraordinary claims regarding combatants and events in the ground will be reverted. Mr.User200 ( talk) 12:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The UN Security Council meeting on February 23, 2022 in New York City, USA included the Ukranian Ambassador indicating a telephone call on war declaration by Russia against the Ukraine, and the Russian Ambassador not responding to check with "Russian command", and later only indicating a special military operation by Russian Federation. Recorded and televised live on CSPAN.
Within the next week, while Russia continued to claim to be involved with Donestk and Luhansk only (Russian Duma and two "independent republics"-separate review, now bombed to smitherins by Russia; post bombing in 2014) all 6 power plants in Ukraine were targeted. Within the month, Lviv in western Ukraine was also bombed attacking internally displaced persons (protected IDPs) at a railway station.
To explain throughout the past three months, Ukraine has reported 1,000 schools hit and destroyed by Russia, well after 4.3 million Ukranian refugees (mostly women and children) reported as fleeing the war Russia is waging inside the borders of another sovereign Nation! Yesterday, it was reported that none of the 1,000 schools were the intended targets!
UN supermajority has condemned Russia for violating the territoriality of the sovereign Nation of the Ukraine. We have apartment buildings, manufacturing plants, hospitals and main government buildings were targets of the "wanton aggression". 24 cities in Ukraine were reported attacked in 48 hours this past week (May 2022) as "rage of destruction"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C056:7C0A:E4B:49F8 ( talk) 00:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC) 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C056:7C0A:E4B:49F8 ( talk) 01:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)JARacino 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C056:7C0A:E4B:49F8 ( talk) 01:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Alumni, Syracuse University with ASPA emergency management
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/01/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-claims-to-control-kherson-a-strategic-city-but-ukraine-says-the-battle-for-it-isnt-over Ukraine contest that the city is captured. 176.158.39.228 ( talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If the battle of Kherson is still ongoing, change "24 February-now" for "24 February-Present" and add the Status of ongoing below the date
If the battle has concluded and the Russian MoD claim is confirmed by a reliable source, add the end date of the battle and the status of Russian victory
Kind Regards 201.234.181.227 ( talk) 12:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Does anybody know why the bridge, only crossing point other than railroad bridge and Hydro dam, was not blown up for defense?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.97.106 ( talk) 12:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Pentagon has stated that Ukrainian forces rentered Kherson and have begun to push Russian troops out. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/25/world/ukraine-russia-war/russia-kherson?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes 108.88.8.211 ( talk) 18:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainian army says Russian general has been killed in Kherson fighting From CNN's Yulia Kesaieva in Lviv The Ukrainian army says its forces have killed Russian Lt. Gen. Yakov Rezantsev during fighting in Chornobaiivka, in the Kherson region in Ukraine’s south.
The army said Rezantsez was commander of the 49th Combined Arms Army of the Southern Military District of the Russian Federation.
Russia’s defense ministry has not commented on the Ukrainian claim.
So far, some six Russian generals are believed to have been killed since the start of Russia’s assault on Ukraine, as well as a deputy commander of the Black Sea fleet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmclellan82 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Battle of Kherson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the map back from the colorblind one 72.229.242.36 ( talk) 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
WP:ACCESS seems to favor color blind accessibility.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The initial letter of the title is only capitalised in running text if it would normally be capitalised. Per
MOS:CAPS: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.
Per
MOS:CAPS, the burden is to show that capitalisation is necessary in accordance with the criteria of
MOS:CAPS. Looking at news sources
here, it certainly doesn't meet the high threshold set by
MOS:CAPS. The article title is even questionable given so few sources but that is another issue.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
08:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. There is no clear agreement as to whether titles using "of" in this way necessarily indicate that the article titles are proper names, or more simply reflect a standard way of referring to battles. Relevant arguments were presented by both sides in the discussion, but it is clear that there is not currently a consensus in favor of the proposed moves. Separately, please consider creating redirects from the proposed titles if they are likely to be used by readers and editors. Dekimasu よ! 05:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
In the majority of cases, the naming is not supported at all by sources as evidenced by links. In no case, do sources indicate that the names would satisfy
WP:COMMONNAME. The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle, that in these cases simply doesn't exist. This is misleading and can lead to
WP:CITOGENESIS.
One source is already indicating this: in what’s been dubbed online as the “Battle of Brovary,”
. The format "battle for X" does not have the same implication but is equally succinct, natural and recognisable and should be preferred.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books).Your search for "battle of kherson" -wiki may return 16500 hits but the search returns only 36 results it would describe as "relevant". The search using "battle for kherson" returns 65 results it describes as "relevant". For Avdiivka, each alternative returned only 32 relevant results. However, the premise of the RM is that don't have a body of WP:RS (let alone good quality ones) that would lead us to conclude a WP:COMMONNAME. As to the argument of consistency, "battle of" is fairly consistent for engagements where an engagement has risen to the level of being know in sources by a proper name. The evidence below is that naming is much less consistent (even tending to "for") for engagements that have not risen to the level of having a proper name (even if they might rise to having a proper name at some future time). There is no binding "wider convention" for naming that is not a proper name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.). And on those, "to" wins the battle hands down over "for".
the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources. Umm, your evidence? or is this the same type of WP:OR presented without
a single shred of evidence? Nothing you are saying here is any less WP:OR than matters I am raising. To JSTOR as a resource, I have addressed this below where you first raised it. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The format "battle of X" tends to imply a degree of formal recognition of the status of a battle—no it doesn’t. It’s a descriptive noun phrase. Who says it can lead to citogenesis while “battle for” can not? The entire rationale is unfounded, and does not even aspire to the level of unacceptable WP:original research. On the contrary, “battle for” (or “at,” “in,” “near,” or some other other prepositions) implies a specific kind of relation to the location, in this case the adversaries’ objective being control of the city, and should only be used when that can be demonstrated for every specific case. On the contrary, “of” is natural and devoid of such implications, only creating a non-specific association. — Michael Z. 03:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
... consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources ...It is not a simple majority.
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization.Mixed usage of a simple majority does not establish that capitalisation is necessary.
You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names". Well, no. I have claimed that the format "battle of X" is more often associated with proper names, and
In a significant majority of these WP articles using "battle for", there is no WP:COMMONNAME and these do not meet the threshold for the titles to be considered a proper name (per MOS:CAPS). This supports the premise of the move, that "battle for X" should be preferred where there is no WP:COMMONNAME.[or no name at all in sources] That is quite a bit different from what you are attributing to me. You did say you were done a long time ago.
... please stop feeling the need to reply to every comment I make.If you are replying to me, it is perfectly reasonable for me to reply to you - particularly when you appear to be misrepresenting what I have said. Your link looks a bit WP:POT to me. Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
make accusations of purposely misattributing or misrepresenting viewpointsbut it is, nonetheless a misrepresentation. As to your comments about civility, that boat sailed with this edit. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
... an assertion that the article titles are a proper name and that "Battle of X" should be capped in running prose - yet they all do- ie the articles are asserting that the titles are a proper name by capitalising the phrase in running prose. The association of the format "Battle of X" with a proper name is a tenet of my argument for not using that format when the the engagement does not rise to be known by a proper name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
... what I am asserting is that there is a clear convention, one which, as other pages on Wikipedia and external sources show, is almost universal ...may be construed as rising to WP:OR. I see no citations being made here for any opinions beyond some occasional WP links. However, just as you would state that MOS:CAPS has no applicability to capitalisation on a TP, WP:OR has a substantially different meaning and applicability between article space and talk pages. Shouting, swearing and making allegations of misconduct don't make one case stronger or another case weaker. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
... do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications, then the statement that follows,
“Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody, fails for being an assertion made without any evidence at all. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC) PS, if you feel that there is a better alternative to the proposal, you are free to advance this. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:OR nonsense(even if not deserved since at least some evidence relevant to the point was offered). That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only a reasonable and valid argument if there is a sound basis for direct comparison. Painting with a broad brush does not consider the nuance of the key issue. To Waterloo, the battle is (almost universally) reported in good quality English language WP:RSs as Battle of Waterloo and as a proper name (ie universally capped). However, it was fought at Mont Saint-Jean and the adjoining village of St Jean (see map in article [46]). Wellington's senior officers were billeted at Waterloo some distance to the rear of the battlefield. [47] In France, it was known as the Battle of Mont Saint-Jean. It just goes to show that the naming of "named" battles (in the format ""Battle of X") can be capricious and doesn't necessarily comply with your argument. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Though this is looking like a snow-oppose, I'm not !voting either way. Instead, I will suggest that it would probably have been better to have waited, and/or address these battle names individually on their article talk pages, based on any unique merits that apply and, using the sourcing that is to come and is specific to each battle/article. (Sorry about the length.) Cheers & Good luck to you. - wolf 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
There are reports the Ukrainian Army is outside of Kherson City and have begun to enter. 2601:244:4080:D380:8C65:B8B2:2B10:6B3D ( talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
So I asked this type of question before but couldn't find it, so I'll ask again I guess.
If Ukraine were to recapture the city, would there be a second page like "Second Battle of Kherson" while this is "First Battle of Kherson"? Dawsongfg ( talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Why are all of the article's sources coming from American, British or Ukrainian media? They remain too biased and must be balanced by Russian media too. 37.237.31.14 ( talk) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Kherson → First Battle of Kherson – This article is referring to the battle of Kherson in Feburary to March 2022, in the southern Ukraine offensive. The page should be renamed in order to avoid confusion with the battle of Kherson in the Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. Hydrochlorics ( talk) 14:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
From the infobox, it appears like this article wants to discuss both the prior & ongoing battle(s) of Kherson. However, the article as it stands has mostly information regarding the initial Russian offensive from February to March 2022, and then an "Aftermath" section without any information regarding the current situation. Is there precedent to make a new section in this article to reference the 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive since it relates to the Kherson Oblast, or should we wait until more information becomes available? Unburnable ( talk) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)