Talk:First battle of Öland (1564)

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hanseatic League (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League articles

Military history: Maritime / European / Nordic / Early Modern

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Comment from June 2014

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

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– 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)[reply]

Oppose – Consistency can be good, but the best direction to get there is consistency with guidelines. This suggests that this would not be the right way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 13 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]

Support. Standard terminology both on and off Wikipedia is to capitalise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per standard usage and terminology. Intothat darkness 13:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support standard. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are many instances where ordinal battle of X is an alternative name for the subject of an article and these alternative names appear with various capitalisations. The issue does not just apply to article titles. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there should be redirects from both capitalizations. I would personally not try to make the mentions in all articles consistent. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question (BarrelProof) Is there any evidence that the subject articles have been incorrectly capitalised wrt the guidance at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 14 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]