Jump to content

Talk:First battle of Öland (1564)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Action of 30 May 1564)

Comment from June 2014

[edit]

The summary side bar states swedish losses as 300 and danish as 101 (which seems plausable)but the text says the reverse. The sumary does not mention the damaged ship. The casuialty figures also may not include the first two ships damaged or captured.

The nationality of the first two ship damaged is not clear, are they both Danish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 November 2024

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Support cites WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT, Oppose cites MOS:CAPS. Both cases are quite strong and consensus does not seem to be reachable at this moment. There is also argument that this is the wrong venue, which convinces me even more that there is no consensus here. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Apologies to my fellow habitual decappers, but I looked around a bit after Talk:First Battle of Panipat#Requested move 25 October 2024 and found that PadFoot accurately described a de facto situation on Wikipedia: enumerated battle articles on Wikipedia overwhelmingly use "Battle" in uppercase, at about a 40:1 ratio. These 13 are the only exceptions I found. It may be best to establish complete consistency. Note that First Battle of Przasnysz exists and is uppercase (and First battle of Przasnysz is a redirect to it), but there is no Third battle of Dongola or First battle of Bàu Bàng (regardless of letter case). I just created Second Battle of Chamkaur and Second battle of Chamkaur as redirects to Battle of Chamkaur, and First Battle of Khan Yunis is a redirect to Siege of Khan Yunis (and I just created the corresponding First battle of Khan Yunis). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Toadspike [Talk] 17:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize; lowercasing would involve renaming about 475 articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what's hard. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reaching a consensus that it's the right thing to do might be hard. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially with topics such as First Battle of Bull Run and First Battle of the Marne. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That many articles in a given area don't conform to the MOS:CAPS guidelines is not a reason to add to the problem and ignore the guidelines (which are overwhelmingly followed everywhere else on the project) on even more articles, just because "it's always been done that way". The solution to this inconsistency is to move those that don't conform, and 475 is hardly a huge number - a mass-move can take care of it fairly easily if and when it's appropriate to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: ngrams clearly suggest that for the past two decades, "First Battle of" is used more commonly than "first battle of". Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche and @Necrothesp. PadFoot (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PadFoot2008, pinging individual editors to this discussion can reasonably be seen as WP:CANVASSING unless reasonable reason is given as to why these editors (and only these editors) were pinged. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support standard. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have only commented on the WP:CONSISTENT aspect of the WP:CRITERIA for article titles. We currently have about 97% consistency among similar article titles. 13 out of about 480 is a small amount of inconsistency. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably then, you would not know how many of the 480 have been miscapitalised wrt WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS? Cinderella157 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and from watching Talk:First Battle of Panipat#Requested move 25 October 2024, it may be difficult to reach agreements about each topic on a case-by-case basis. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue This RM potentially creates by default an exception to the prevailing P&G with multiple ramifications - particularly inconsistencies between various related P&G where none presently exist as well as inconsistencies between article titles and content. It is to effect, a change from sentence case titling to titlecase titling - a matter that is well enshrined in P&G. WP:CT/MOS applies to WP:AT and the MOS but does not extent to individual RMs. Per WP:ARBATC: A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus. Per WP:RMCLOSE, there is no minimum level of participation and the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Consequently, it is not appropriate to use an RM as a de facto means of changing article title P&G.
It is appropriate to use a multi-RM for capitalisation of a word phrase within very closely related articles and the decision will be based on identical evidence for each affected page. An example of this would be the capitalisation of singles and doubles in articles about the Wimbledon Championships for each year (see Talk:Wimbledon Championships#Requested move 2 November 2021). In other cases, the word patten may be similar but the subject articles are only broadly related. The rational may be similar but in each case the evidence for the individually affected articles is assessed on its own merits (see Talk:Eurasian plate#Requested move 6 October 2024). Talk:First Battle of Panipat#Requested move 25 October 2024 was of the latter type and was quite reasonable because a case was made by the nom based on individual merit within the prevailing P&G for each of the affected articles. This RM should also be of the latter type but the case made by the nom here is not based upon the individual merit of the affected articles (or the other 400 odd articles) but a de facto change to P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT is Wikipedia policy. It is part of WP:AT, and so is WP:CRITERIA, which says "The title [should be] consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." We currently have about 97% consistency among similar article titles, with these 13 being the remaining 3%. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CONSISTENT is a shortcut to part of the policy, WP:AT. That does not mean that it is being correctly construed. The meaning of that part of policy cannot be assumed from the word used in the shortcut. The applicable section of WP:AT must be read in the fuller context of the whole policy and not in isolation. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is nothing simply "assumed from the word used in the shortcut" here. What WP:CONSISTENT says is "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics." These ~480 articles cover similar topics. Another exact quote is given immediately above your comment. Where do you think you see an assumption based on the word? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the word in a shortcut nor a single sentence should be construed in isolation from the fuller policy nor the supporting guidance. The section is referring to word patterns rather than spelling and capitalisation, and most usually where these are disambiguation patterns. CONSISTENT specifically links to WP:TITLECON where the lead states: Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles, to the right. In determining the appropriate title for that article, editors should consult the topic-specific conventions that are relevant to a particular article. It continues: This essay collects general examples of applications of title consistency that have been widely accepted by the community in various discussions, as well as exceptions that have also been widely accepted by the community. Construing CONSISTENT as an argument pertaining to capitalisation is a novel argument that is not so documented as a community norm. CONSISTENT tells us that it does not apply to varieties of spelling of words within a pattern. The examples there indicate the limited scope of this particular criterion. There is nothing to vaguely suggest it applies to capitalisation. WP:NCCAPS is a naming convention explicitly linked from WP:AT and NCCAPS that covers how to determine what should be capped in an article title. LOWERCASE is emphatic about the use of sentence case. CONSISTENT should not be used as an end-around to impose titlecase. That is a pettifogging argument. Furthermore, it is consistency of the 95% which is in question as has been evidenced by usage in sources for a sample of those articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible for RM to be the wrong venue for requested moves. Trying to resolve a dragged-out RM question through RfC earlier this year resulted in something approaching an insurrection on the part of a supposed policy-and-procedure stickler and a particular wikiproject (though their antics of course did not magically result WP being unable to use whatever dispute resolution mechanism the community desires to resolve a dispute).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, consistency works for this one. Not getting definitive n-grams on the nominated articles that I've checked, most of which say there are no results to plot. So given the choice between "no results" and Wikipedia consistency, policy applies. Good find by BarrelProof, and thanks for moving this forward. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While WP:CONSISTENT is quoted by the nom, it construes an inconsistency between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT where there is no inconsistency in the spirit and intent of the guidance and the letter of the word both within WP:AT and with derivative P&G. Invoking a shortcut does not mean that the linked P&G reasonably applies and/or that the P&G has been reasonably construed (or misconstrued). One cannot simply take a presumed meaning of a shortcut word (consistent) as representing the P&G linked by the shortcut. The meaning is established by the linked text within the fuller context of the prevailing policy and supporting guidance. CONSISTENT applies to word patterns in title phrases. Note, CONSISTENT does not link to CRITERIA but to Wikipedia:Article titles#Consistency. These word patterns in title phrases are usually established through explicit naming conventions. Note, there is no explicit naming convention in play in this instance except WP:NCCAPS. Per WP:TITLEFORMAT, the use of sentence case is not covered [emphasis added] by WP:CRITERIA - ie it falls outside CRITERIA. WP:TITLEFORMAT applies to any potential title selected by application of WP:CRITERIA - ie the potential title must also satisfy WP:TITLEFORMAT; thereby giving the latter precedence. WP:LOWERCASE is part of TITLEFORMAT. Asserting (through just citing the shortcut and without consideration of the fuller context) that CONSISTENCY also extends to the capitalisation in a word pattern is a pettifogging argument.
The relevant P&G for determining capitalisation of article titles is WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. This is created by explicit links. WP:MOS also comes into play through MOS:AT and Capital letters, which invokes MOS:CAPS. Capitalisation is guided by usage in sources and consequently by WP:RS and WP:VER. Naming and capitalisation are also addressed at MOS:MILNAME and MOS:MILCAPS at MOS:MIL. There is a harmony between the relevant P&G at every level. Capital letters also informs us to use sentence case for headings etc within articles. The use of sentence case for headings captions etc is enshrined in WP P&G. The MOS prevails in respect to the style used within an article. This proposal would create an inconsistency between the article title and usage within the body of the article where no such inconsistency has previously existed. This move is a de facto change from the use of sentence case to the use of titlecase. It is clearly contrary to the spirit and intent of the guidance and the letter of the word.
While WP:CONSISTENT is quoted as the rationale for the move, it is in fact premised on WP:OTHERCONTENT. Othersuffisms are only reasonable arguments if there is a direct comparison between the subject and the otherstuff and the otherstuff is shown to represent best practice. In turn, best practice is the appropriate application of prevailing P&G. In this case though, the precedent proposed directly contravenes the prevailing P&G. The argument is ipso facto self-defeating. Per responses to my question and comment above, there has been no attempt to establish if the subject articles or the other 400 odd article that are capitalised have been capitalised correctly in accordance with the prevailing P&G. Instead, the precedent is presented as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Such a rationale is inherently inappropriate.
Some of the pool of articles are from the Israel-Hamas war while others are from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where both topic areas are subject to a high level of scrutiny. Few battle articles within these areas are referred to by a name in sources and none that I can recall have a name that is consistently capitalised in sources. The article names are largely WP constructs. They consistently use the lowercase form in the titles and prose and this has been upheld by a firm consensus. My observation is that many of the titles in the pool are poorly represented in sources (particularly the use of an ordinal) and are likely WP constructs also. I have reviewed a number of articles. Many are not sufficiently reported in sources to give a valid ngram. Searching google scholar, many do not give results for ordinal battle of X but do give a result for battle of X, indicating that ordinal battle of X is likely a WP construct for disambiguation. In many cases, there is mixed capitalisation insufficient to be capitalised per MOS:CAPS (or at least grounds to more closely scrutinise the issue of capitalisation).
Report of Google scholar search results for a sample of articles
While many topics with a title Battle of X are correctly capitalised since this is consistently done in sources for that topic, it is also true that there are articles (often those that are less well known) in which the title is not consistently capitalised in sources and should not be capitalise. The same is true when an ordinal is applied to the title (ie ordinal battle of X). It can be seen from the search results using Google scholar that many of the articles of that format are not consistently capitalised in sources and consequently, should not be capitalised on WP - in prose or as article titles. The assertion that there is a convention to capitalise these titles either off or on Wiki is false. An assertion that all of those articles which use the capitalise title are correctly titled is false. Consequently, an otherstuff argument is not valid. The claimed consistency is a false consistency. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, WP:OTHERSTUFF is about when someone cherry-picks individual cases that support their argument while ignoring the larger context; not when someone surveys all clearly similar cases to show a general pattern. Sometimes there are different aspects of the policies and guidelines that need to be balanced against each other – as, e.g., in constitutional law in cases where freedom of speech can interfere with public safety, and some judgment is needed. I think this is one of those cases. If the judgment turns out to be that the capitalization in the wide swath of hundreds of other articles should be reconsidered rather than that these 13 articles should fit the current clearly evident pattern, that's fine. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERCONTENT (which I cited) have different contexts, they have the same fundamental message in regard to making an argument of precedent - ie that similar things exist elsewhere on WP. The links do not distinguish between whether these other things are a singular or multiple (articles) and I don't see that they implicitly or explicitly refer to cherry picking the examples of precedence. The fundamental message is that precedence is not of itself an argument of any strength. Any strength comes from showing why the precedence is best practice. If one is arguing to ignore the letter of a fundamental rule or law such as the constitution for the greater good then this would be an argument of WP:IAR. But WP:IAR comes with a caveat, that by ignoring the rule there is an improvement to the encyclopedia (with a corresponding burden to substantiate the improvement). This is not a very different from that at OTHERSTUFF/OTHERCONTENT. If one is arguing the balancing of established rules, laws or principles (eg the five principles at WP:CRITERIA) then the strength of argument comes from establishing that a proposed point of balance is actually a point of balance providing the most benefit. Balancing is not a matter of ignoring one in favour of another. The overt premise of the RM is that CONSISTENCY can over-ride TITLEFORMAT and consequently LOWERCASE. However the rationale given in rebuttal was: Reaching a consensus that it's the right thing to do might be hard. This is an argument of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and such a rationale is inherently inappropriate. Misconstruing P&G for the sake of expedience in the face of notable detriments is not a benefit to the encyclopedia. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed entirely. I recently had a very, very long discussion with Randy Kryn about this. Any time someone is making an "IAR" argument at RM, there's about a 99% chance that they cannot objectively substantiate an improvement to the encyclopedia, and simply want something capitalized subjectively as "importance signification" that agrees with their personal idea (contradictory of the next person's idea) of what "proper name" means, using definitions derived from philosophy which have no bearing of any kind of typography (see WP:PNPN for a summary). We have a sourcing-based capitalization standard for a reason, namely that it is not possible to satisfy these mutually contradictory approaches to what "proper name" does or should mean, or what should qualify, or why. And signification-capitalization as an implication method only works between topical experts writing for each other and sharing the same pre-established "capitalizing X signifies Y" meaning in their house style. It's worse than meaningless, but actively confusing, to every other reader. We have a guideline against it for good reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cindarella157: thanks for compiling that list. Tony (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:MILCAPS: The Google Scholar results (which are more useful for this than n-grams, because we can identify the sources and the context of usage) clearly demonstrate wildly mixed capitalization, sometimes with lowercase dominating, and zero cases (among this batch of conflict appellations) of consistent capitalization in independent reliable sources, just lone-wolf instances of capitalization. "The article names are largely WP constructs" is correct; these are mostly WP:NDESC titles not WP:COMMONNAMEs, as these events generally do not have common names at all (which means they cannot have proper names, in the linguistics sense that actually has any connection to typography).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Do you mean you oppose the proposed move? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Fixed. I obviously need more coffee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:32, 21 November 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_battle_of_Öland_(1564)&oldid=1261838107"