Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests)

RfC about turning Wikipedia:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests) into an official naming convention policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus against the proposal at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this policy proposal become a formal naming convention? --- Tbf69 P • T 17:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: centralized discussion. --- Tbf69 P • T 17:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For conflicts and protests which are ongoing, but started prior to the current year, ~~then~~ the title should use an WP:ENDASH and present, in brackets (2015–present) at the end of the title. For example, Example-Example war (2015–present) or Example protests (2015–present). – When a protest comes to an end, the title would need to be updated not only in a page move, but also in all the see also sections linking to the article and wherever else full titles are quoted. The delay involved in making such updates would leave misleading titles all over the place. small jars tc 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this from WP:CENT. This page is one editor's proposal without any apparent input or use by others. This only merits a community-wide discussion once it is clear that it has some degree of support by others. Sandstein 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Across Wikipedia, that sentence is de facto policy. Otherwise, conflicts and protests which cover multiple years would end up being updated every year. For example, a war that started in 2018 would have started with the title 2018 Example-Example war. In 2019, it would have been moved to 2018–2019 Example-Example war or Example-Example war (2018–2019). In 2020, it would have been moved to 2018–2020 Example-Example war or Example-Example war (2018–2020). And so on...

Generally most conflict and protest article titles become (2018–present) and then (2018–2023) once they've ended. Whilst this obviously causes the need for post-move cleanup (as you noted in Template:See also), the use of (2018–present) leads to overall less moves than updating every year, and therefore, less post-move cleanup. --- Tbf69 P • T 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on euphemisms presupposes a consistent definition of war, which does not really exist. What is the hole in current guidelines this is seeking to fill? CMD (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sentence on euphemisms, that could be changed before this becomes policy. As for the hole it's trying to fill, it's trying to prevent the unnecessary waste of time caused by the repeated WP:RMs on conflict and protest articles, which is caused by a lack of a naming convention on this subject. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the need to have a specific guideline for this. What's wrong with WP:article titles? Can you link to some of the repeated WP:RMs about the subject so we can see whether this is trying to solve an actual problem? Frankly, there seems to be more time wasted by your ill-considered proposals than by conflicts about conflicts. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 12#Requested move 31 December 2022 is a good example of an RM that would be unnecessary because of this naming convention. I'm not proposing something wild or outlandish, simply a new naming convention. If you have a look at CAT:WNC, a naming convention about wars looks like it would be a useful addition. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you expect people who can't understand simple English words like "invasion" (the invasion lasted a short time in 2022, but the war is still continuing) to suddenly stop starting silly move discussions because of even more policies that people are expected to know before editing Wikipedia. Start proposing that we should get rid of some policies and guidelines, rather than continually trying to add more. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. (Summoned by bot) Reading your talk page shows multiple editors telling you to slow down with the RfCs which you seem to not have listened to. You're trying to turn your brand new essay into a policy without it having been thoroughly tested by the community, hinging on the fact that one RM was very messy. While you COULD say it would've been a cleaner deal if the policy existed before, RMs about wars are not frequent enough to warrant a whole new guideline. This RfC is simply wasting people's time for no reason. MaterialWorks _(talk) 20:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please focus on this RfC. Anyway, look at CAT:WNC. This policy could clearly fit in there. --- Tbf69 P • T 20:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal is at most just an explanatory essay for WP:NCEVENTS. I don't see how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument to elevate it to policy status. It would probably be better for everyone if it simply stayed as an essay, or even better, was merged into WP:NCE. MaterialWorks _(talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (invited by the bot) It's unthinkiable to try to turn this essay into a Policy. There may be some good ideas in there for addition to the appropriate guidelines / policies through the appropriate process for modifying those, by that's about it. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good idea at this time. Gusfriend (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we do this? What are the benefits, what's the problem this proposed rule looks to solve?—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While this seems like a fruitful topic for an essay, I'm not currently convinced that there's a need to establish it as policy. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, as a side note: per MOS:ENBETWEEN, constructions such as "Example–Example war" should use an en dash rather than a hyphen. I've gone through and made that update on the page, but just wanted to make a note of it here as well.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No and appears it would result in requiring the page to be renamed in the future based on a ticking clock. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem. WP:RM already handles conflict and protest naming just fine, mostly through resort to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it currenty stands, this proposal would contradict WP:MILNAME: An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event [...]. I would suggest improving that and WP:NCEVENTS instead of writing yet another policy. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 19:41, 18 March 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.