This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
On 28 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from First Battle of Lyman to First battle of Lyman. The result of the discussion was moved. |
shouldn't the Map for the table be an old map from around its capture? this map is fitting of the second battle when it was lost/liberated but says almost nothing about how it ended up in Russian hands. AnAustralianHistoryBuff ( talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we use sentence case in article titles and only capitalise words after the first if they are consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. Sources cited for both articles are substantially news sources. In Google searches of news sources for First Battle of Lyman, Second Battle of Lyman and Battle of Lyman, there are almost no such sources for the search terms, let alone such sources that capitalise battle. These are descriptive names that do not rise to the threshold set in WP:P&G requiring capitalisation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Use commonly recognizable namesParham wiki ( talk) 08:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Soooo I just saw the above discussion only after moving the two pages and correcting things along those lines. I find myself in an awkward position…the local consensus previously determined seems to go against a broader and recognized convention…
@ True Pagan Warrior, I am not aware of a current WP guideline, but if you ask the people at MILHIST they will all tell you that it’s a universal convention in the English-speaking world. This is what @ Necrothesp was talking about.
@ Cinderella157, I hear your arguments…but if RS don’t give it a name, perhaps the presumption would be to follow the convention?
And consider this…wouldn’t we have to do the same about all the battles to which we’ve given descriptive names motu proprio?
Although, I do see the sense in not giving a name that smells faintly of OR. But half the time the precise scope is OR anyway.
I think this speaks to our continued problems delineating the scope of individual battles in our coverage of a conflict largely consisting of positional warfare along a continuous front.
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. MOS:CAPS also has MOS:MILTERMS, which gives specific advice:
Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources ...MOS:MIL also addresses capitalisation:
The general rule from MOS:CAPS is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized in Wikipedia.Descriptive names (noun phrases) are common names. Battle of X is a descriptive name. It is not a true proper name. One will see the names of battles capitalised but this is more a term of art for emphasis or distinction and a result of WP:SSF. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not cap for emphasis or distinction. There is also a misperception that if part of a name is normally capitalised (eg a location name), then this confers capitalisation on the full name phrase.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
On 28 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from First Battle of Lyman to First battle of Lyman. The result of the discussion was moved. |
shouldn't the Map for the table be an old map from around its capture? this map is fitting of the second battle when it was lost/liberated but says almost nothing about how it ended up in Russian hands. AnAustralianHistoryBuff ( talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 20:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we use sentence case in article titles and only capitalise words after the first if they are consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. Sources cited for both articles are substantially news sources. In Google searches of news sources for First Battle of Lyman, Second Battle of Lyman and Battle of Lyman, there are almost no such sources for the search terms, let alone such sources that capitalise battle. These are descriptive names that do not rise to the threshold set in WP:P&G requiring capitalisation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Use commonly recognizable namesParham wiki ( talk) 08:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Soooo I just saw the above discussion only after moving the two pages and correcting things along those lines. I find myself in an awkward position…the local consensus previously determined seems to go against a broader and recognized convention…
@ True Pagan Warrior, I am not aware of a current WP guideline, but if you ask the people at MILHIST they will all tell you that it’s a universal convention in the English-speaking world. This is what @ Necrothesp was talking about.
@ Cinderella157, I hear your arguments…but if RS don’t give it a name, perhaps the presumption would be to follow the convention?
And consider this…wouldn’t we have to do the same about all the battles to which we’ve given descriptive names motu proprio?
Although, I do see the sense in not giving a name that smells faintly of OR. But half the time the precise scope is OR anyway.
I think this speaks to our continued problems delineating the scope of individual battles in our coverage of a conflict largely consisting of positional warfare along a continuous front.
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. MOS:CAPS also has MOS:MILTERMS, which gives specific advice:
Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources ...MOS:MIL also addresses capitalisation:
The general rule from MOS:CAPS is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized in Wikipedia.Descriptive names (noun phrases) are common names. Battle of X is a descriptive name. It is not a true proper name. One will see the names of battles capitalised but this is more a term of art for emphasis or distinction and a result of WP:SSF. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not cap for emphasis or distinction. There is also a misperception that if part of a name is normally capitalised (eg a location name), then this confers capitalisation on the full name phrase.