Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Kherson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 125.209.145.195 (talk) at 06:35, 19 May 2022 (→Kherson contested once again.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Use of Twitter

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)[reply]

Same article?

What's the difference between Battle of Kherson and Kherson offensive? PurpleBuffalo (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle" is about the events happening in and around the city, for the control of the city. "Offensive" is about Russian operations in the greater province, for advancing through the province and reaching "battle" sites.BasilLeaf (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't agree with the distinction and think that we can merge such articles into one.BasilLeaf (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

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)[reply]

The source is now updated to reflect Kherson's loss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the Battle of Kherson

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)[reply]

The New York Times is a reliable source and has stated that Kherson has fallen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{reply to|Knowledgekid87} The New York Times is correct that Kherson has "fallen," but in the context of modern warfare, especially the kind of warfare that we're seeing in Ukraine, that isn't enough to say that the "battle" is remotely over. The Ukrainians have already recaptured parts of the city and the "battle" in this modern war is not so much a fight over positional control as it is an effort to wipe out the enemy's army. For these reasons, it would be most accurate to say that the battle is ongoing. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonovsky bridge

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)[reply]

No, and it's not our business to infer. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
several sources suggest treason as the cause for the quick fall of Kherson:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/29/2088926/-Ukraine-update-How-did-Kherson-fall-so-quickly-Betrayal-looks-like-a-good-bet
https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/808265.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/zelensky-sacks-traitor-generals-wbqkrr06r
this one is available through the waybackmachine, since it has been censored:
https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/03/26/kherson 171.7.255.149 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kherson contested once again.

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)[reply]

Kherson is as contested as Mykolaiv is right now, if not more. Yet the Battle of Mykolaiv is listed as ongoing, while Kherson is considered a Russian victory. THis is clearly illogical, so I agree that Kherson should be considered an ongoing battle.Wolf359Locutus (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is referring to action in Kherson at the beginning of the war, not currently. Curbon7 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the battle for Kherson city at the beginning of the invasion, which ended more than a month ago. EkoGraf (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL whoops 125.209.145.195 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Russian Lt. Gen. Yakov Rezantsev

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-25-22/h_474504b422b84d41eef29e572c5e9420

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)[reply]

Andrey Mordvichev was also reported by Ukraine to be killed in an airstrike at Kherson a week earlier. Jebiguess (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

Change the map back from the colorblind one 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already established. Wretchskull (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been established? There hasn't been any sort of agreement as far as I see. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. WP:ACCESS seems to favor color blind accessibility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now the maps are the same color, so it doesn't make sense to keep the colorblind one anymore, as the original will end up being more up-to-date now. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

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)[reply]

3 days and no opposition, so I will be WP:BOLD splitting. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: it is a particularly short article and the occupation is appropriate to be dealt with in the aftermath section. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022
  • Oppose, info about this is short. It can perfectly be integrated into this article. Super Ψ Dro 13:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of "battle" in "battle of Kherson"

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)[reply]

Use lower-case per MOS:CAPS, as sources do not consistently capitalize this as a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2022

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: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Battle of Sievierodonetsk that you nominated, is a redirect to Battles of Sievierodonetsk (2014). Redirects aren't subject to RMs. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CX Zoom, thank you. It should have been for Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022) and Battles of Sievierodonetsk (2014). I have corrected this here and added notices. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In dissent to the above, I will note how the google search results are not very convincing arguments either, and limiting to solely news seem to yield rather different results from actual usage (reliable sources include more than just newspapers, and in fact Wikipedia is very much not a newspaper...). "battle of kherson" -wiki yields over 16500, not the two results implied by the above link. The same search for "battle for kherson" -wiki yields just 7000... I'm not going to bother doing the same exercise for many others; as it yields similar results, ex. "of Avdiivka" (3900) vs "for Avdiivka" (700)... In all cases, even with only news selected, the difference is usually not even one order of magnitude, in fact in most cases both numbers are far below 10, which suggests that the number of reliable sources covering these in detail is overall very small, and thus that the actual wider conventions used everywhere (WP:CONSISTENCY) are probably a better guide. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP is not a newspaper but the reality is that almost all of the sourcing for any article to do with the event of the invasion are news sources. Of the nominated articles, I would be hard pressed to find any sources used that are not news sources. I did also look at Google Scholar for the nominated articles and their present names. These returned no hits in almost every case and, in the couple of cases where there were hits, these were almost exclusively to wiki like sources. Not surprisingly, ngram searches won't give hits because the events are too recent. There was no evidence that would lend to these articles having a WP:COMMONNAME. WP:AT would guide us against using raw Google searches as you are doing here: 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)[reply]
What the google results do show, however you take them, is that people (average readers) tend to use the same convention as elsewhere, and that would perfectly match the other parts of the article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA) which you are seemingly ignoring, notably naturalness (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for
Even if, somehow, the usage amongst sources is divided, the advice of COMMONNAME is then to look at the other criteria (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".
As for the rest, as has been shown multiple times, the conventional "battle of" applies in nearly all cases, whether the battle is consistently capitalised or not in sources (in fact, you have not presented a single shred of evidence to support your WP:OR into this). We should defer to the convention which is clearly documented (go look at List of battles 1901–2000; go look at the results from JSTOR which I show below; go look at any other source about history, ...), whether you personally like it or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What google results show is not what "average readers" use but what web page writers (who in the most are not WP:RS) use. ""Battle for" is quite a natural phrase. Reading my posts, you will see that I have not ignored it. For the most part, it is not a case of divided usage in determining a WP:COMMONNAME but no usages (for most cases). The quoted section does not apply (for the most). List of battles 1901–2000 is clearly incomplete but what does it proove? Are more proper named battles called "Battle of X"? You say: 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)[reply]
I have shown clear evidence that "battle of" (with or without caps, not that it matters: in many cases, this is a stylistic choice) is used so frequently that it's nearly universal. You keep making an assertion that "battle for" is more frequently used for battles which are "not proper names", but have not shown a single example for this (short of a few examples which you, um, "created" for this purpose...). As such I am going to keep dismissing it as OR nonsense until you present actual evidence, such as usage in sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

the military history talk page has been notified. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems like a sensible proposal frankly. I would support it. Until proper names are clearly stabilized by external reliable sources, these are just descriptive titles invented on the run by Wiki editors. Using "for" (rather than "of") underlines that better. But I am not sure if it applies to each and every one of the moves proposed above. Walrasiad (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More accurate description. UlyssorZebra (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. Nominator has already notified WikiProject Military history. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: pinging participants of conflicting discussion at Talk:Battle of Enerhodar#Requested move 19 April 2022. Ganesha811 and Cinderella157 have already commented above, leaving Elijahandskip and Gog the Mild. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite no clear-cut common names being available online at the moment, "Battle of..." is still the established Wikipedia template for battle articles in various conflicts. Also, at least to me in a sense, "Battle for..." implies that a battle is still ongoing, despite ending. EkoGraf (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per EkoGraf and as Battle for seems as likely to be subject to WP:CITOGENESIS as Battle of. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I did a quick search on WP and as stated by EkoGraf, the vast majority of Wikipedia article start with "Battle of..." ie Battle of Midway, Battle of the Bulge, etc. This list give an alphabetical list, and appears for every "Battle for..." there are +100 which are described as "Battle of...". Looks like most of the "Battle for..." relate to Science Fiction ie Battle for the Planet of the Apes, Battle for Terra, Emperor: Battle for Dune, etc Ilenart626 (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 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)[reply]
I can get behind that reasoning - the common understanding is that "battle of" means a battle associated with that location whether it is taken or not. Battle of Normandy is probably a fair comparison. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/rebuttal/evidence: Commentors here have listed a number of well known engagemrnts as evidence for the format "battle of X" such as: Battle of Midway, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Stalingrad, and Battle of Cannae. Notable battles are commonly designated in good quality (often academic) secondary sources using this format. Moreover these generally rise to the status of being proper names, in that "battle" is consistently capitalised in these name phrases even though capitalisation is not intrinsic to the format - ie "of X" is a prepositional phrase acting as an adjuct (modifying) the noun "battle"(?). These engagements that have been so designated in sources (plural) satisfying WP:GNG have this as their WP:COMMONNAME. Given this relationship to WP:GNG and the imperative that articles created in WP meet notability requirements, it is not surprising that the corpus of WP articles for military engagements is largely populated with the title format "Battle of X". (RandomCanadian)
However, this is not (as is suggested in comments) the exclusive naming format - not even for articles with "battle" as part of the name. This search revealed multiple example of "battle for" for actual military engagements (without even getting through the full first page of the search.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] (Ilenart626LightandDark2000) As an aside, I don't recall that any of these cases are ongoing engagements. Furthermore, List of battles (alphabetical) (listed above as evidence) is clearly not comprehensive. There is no implication that "battle for X" is reserved for ongoing engagements, even though some of those listed for moving are probably still ongoing. (EkoGraf) 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.
Looking at some Google ngrams ngram results with hits for "battle for X".[35][36][37][38][39][40] one tends to see a trend for early use of "battle for X" as a significant form (or mixed uaage). If it emerges that the engagement is known by a proper name , this is most often of the form "Battle of X" however, if "battle for X" might be considered the WP:COMMONNAME then it rarely rises to being considered a proper name (ie the most common name is rarely in the form "Battle for X"). This goes to the matter of WP:CITOGENESIS. The format "battle of X" is most readily associated with "recognised", common or proper names of battles. The articles for move have titles that are neither recognised, common nor proper names. (Gog the MildMzajacGraemeLeggettSchreiberBike) I have pinged editors that have already commented at points of this post that would appear to be associated with their reasoning to oppose the proposal. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Ping Severestorm28 Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In one fell swoop: nonsense. "Battle of" is a format common even for battles which are not "well known" at all. Ex. Battle of Saint-Denis (1567); Battle of Vitebsk (1812); Battle of Christmas Island; Battle of Adys; Battle of Octodurus; ... The format "battle of" is a near universal convention (the few more well known exceptions I can think of are naval engagements which use "off", ex. Battle off Samar;), in use both on and off Wikipedia. A look at lists like List of battles 1901–2000 reveals only a few exceptions; List of battles 1301–1600 has exactly none). Unless there is very clear evidence something is not known as the battle "of" something, the only thing using any other format does is actively impede readers by having articles at surprising titles. Arguments that following a well established convention is somehow citogenesis sound as hollow as they are unconvincing, since such arguments miss the whole point of the article title policy (which is to use recognisable names consistent with existing conventions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, in this thread, I have linked (allbeit as a hyperlink) about 11 WP articles that use the title format "battle for X" and to my recollection, none of these are sea battles. I have reasonably made you aware of these examples. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11 examples, compared to the hundreds I have shown, pretty much is a very tiny and negligible minority. Also far less convincing when you're the one doing the caps changes to support your argument here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And since the best kind of examples are counter-examples, here are:
  1. A few isolated of "battle of Verdun" ([41]; [42])
  2. An instance of the "battle for Verdun" ([43])
  3. And even the "Battle for Verdun" ([44] on p. 291 Even the Battle for Verdun received scant mention.; [45] on p. 777 As the Battle for Verdun began in February 1916 [...].
Of course, that is a very small sampling (that vast majority of the other sources use the capitalised "Battle of Verdun"), but it shows that this is simply a stylistic choice and has very little, if anything, to do with "battle" being capitalised or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, I don't know what is realy intended by the links to "Verdun". This ngram would indicate that "battle of Verdun" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for the engagement. There is clearly a multitude of sources on the subject to indicate the common name as evidenced by the reference section of the article and this search of google books (ngrams are bases on the corpus of Google Books). While this may not always be considered a proper name, the ngram evidence would indicate that in recent times the Battle of Verdun (arguably) reaches the threshold to be considered a proper name. This, however, is not pertinent to the issue of this RM, where the engagements herein are not named in sources or, if they are, it is in such a small proportion of sources on the subject no common name could reasonably be asserted (ie there is no consensus in the sources). Yes, I have already acknowledged that there are perhaps hundreds of articles on WP using the format "battle of X" but such a listing does nothing to discern which of those are comparable to those subject to this RM. Nor does it discern what proportion of these "hundreds" have a WP:COMMONNAME and which have a proper name as determined by sources. Only five (in this sub-thread) have been indicated and of those, the Battle of Saint-Denis would appear to have this as its WP:COMMONNAME. So the pertinent comparison is 4 to 11? Yes, I have changed capitalisation in articles but only where its being a proper name is not supported by sources per MOS:CAPS. I do not rely on the changes I have made but on the sources (or rather the lack of them) that such instances are not proper names. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either I can't read or the ngram link you give clearly, clearly shows that the most common form is actually "Battle of Verdun", not "battle of Verdun". You consistently claim that "for" should be used for battles which are "not proper names" (nevermind that these are not proper names, but stylistic choices). My example clearly shows that, depending on the exact style one chooses, all combinations are possible, and your argument is thus invalid. Not only that, it entirely misses the point. Whether the battle is a proper name [sic] or not, "to" and "for" are matters of choice and convention, however a convention which is very heavily weighted on one side and for which you have not provided any convincing evidence that it somehow doesn't apply here. I'm done here, nothing more to add, please stop feeling the need to reply to every comment I make. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for capitalisation as set by MOS:CAPS is ... 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)[reply]
Come on guys let's keep it civil and to-the-point. I agree it is indeed reasonable for you to respond to his responses Cinderella157 but we don't need to make accusations of purposely misattributing or misrepresenting viewpoints, it's not really conducive to the argument at hand anyway.
As for the central point, while I might agree that 'battle for X' might be preferred where there is no WP:COMMONNAME, I really do think we could say there's a common name here considering it's about a conflict which battles are very frequently and numerously named along the pattern of 'Battle of <x>'. This isn't just my own opinion considering there's currently a broad consensus opposing the motion too. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 12:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amadeus1999, I did not make accusations of purposely misattributing or misrepresenting viewpoints but 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)[reply]
RandomCanadian, of the lesser known engagements you have listed, are you asserting that none of these have a WP:COMMONNAME as would be determined by an assessment of reliable sources, since it is the premise of the move that none of the candidates have a corpus of sources that would lead to a WP:COMMONNAME for those articles. If this is your assertion, then none of those articles you list would have sufficient evidence (per MOS:CAPS) to support 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS applies for articles. This is a bloody talk page. I couldn't give less of a bother about how I'm capitalising stuff on a talk page. Such pedantic remarks are frankly disruptive.
And for the benefit of avoidance of any possible doubt whatsoever, 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, and that the evidence presented here is far from sufficient to establish that these battles do not follow that conventionl. Now I'm done here, over and out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, you have misread my comment. ... 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)[reply]
And that is, as I've already boldly highlighted, WP:OR nonsense which is not supported by a shred of evidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, my original question in this particular thread is whether there was a WP:COMMONNAME for the five lesser known articles listed? My own searches are indicating that these engagements have few or no sources that would result in a WP:COMMONNAME (except perhaps the Battle of Saint-Denis) and none of these would rise to the title "battle of X" being considered a proper name. Yet these articles would report (by usage) that these titles are proper names - supporting a tenet of my rationale. Any analysis (such as analysis of raw google search results) or statements of opinion unsupported by citation such as: ... 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)[reply]
Well now it is rising to the level of WP:original research, but vague evaluations like “is largely populated” and “a significant majority,” when there is no defined corpus or methodology, do not indicate any causal relationships or even correlations between the supposed implications. None of the conclusions are supportable. “Of” creates a grammatically neutral association, while “for” implies some kind of motivation for somebody, and other pronouns have not been considered. The rationale is not sound, and it does not override these obvious inherent implications. —Michael Z. 15:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, the premise of the RM is that none of the candidates have reliable sources that would allow us to determine a WP:COMMONNAME. Consequently, even naming them "battle of X" might be described as WP:OR but WP:AT gives us general guidance on how to deal with such a case. The use of qualitative terms does not make the analysis less valid. I have provided the evidence so that my assessments can be confirmed. If you would state: ... 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)[reply]
Naming stuff as "battle of X" is not OR. It's following the convention (WP:CONSISTENCY) which is used almost everywhere, on and off Wikipedia. Try taking a look at academic sources, ex. JSTOR (in contrast, looking for "battle for" will yield you both A) far less results and B) plenty of stuff which is not actually about a military battle but about some other form of "battle", for ex. "A Battle for Survival", "The Battle for RDX Production", "THE BATTLE FOR THE POLITICAL SYSTEM", ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selecting a name not supported by sources (when there is no WP:COMMONNAME) "could" be construed as WP:OR but is permitted by WP:AT in such a case. Please read my response and what I was responding to. WP:CONSISTENCY is only one of the five principles to be considered and not an overriding "convention". Reviewing JSTOR search results for "battle for" indicates that the term is used largely for engagements reported as having a proper name - ie "Battle of X" is usually reported in the capitalised form in running prose. On the otherhand "battle for" returns many results that are not directly connected with military engagements. This serves to indicate that "battle for" is a natural construction. The search of JSTOR can be narrowed to a topic (military studies) as here. Discerning titles or headings and like (where capitalisation would be expected) the results tend to indicate that "battle for X" is more commonly associated with battles that don't have a proper name. This is a tenet of the proposition. However, broad searches do not address the pertinent question and premise of the RM: how we should name recent events which have no WP:COMMONNAME and which clearly have no proper name (v historical events which may have a proper name and are more likely to have a common name by virtue of time). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you need evidence about the meaning of of and for, it’s in any English dictionary. —Michael Z. 15:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence in the original nomination that "battle for" has anymore evidence than "battle of". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Changed vote to Oppose per explanation above and below by RandomCanadian per above explanation by @RandomCanadian as the use of of does strongly imply (inter)national recognition as a (significant) field of battle that in my eyes elevates the significance or recognition of a battle similar to naming conventions of battle theaters, despite the fact such recognition may not exist. Some of the examples listed by the original request probably still belong in the format "Battle of" considering they have attracted such recognition and dedication by consensus, Battle of Kherson comes to mind as a likely candidate for this. I'd be in support even more so for applying a distinction like this on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket transformation across the board, which seems excessive and might throw people off or cause undue implications for some readers. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that historical battles that are discussed at length tend to follow the "Battle of" naming convention regardless, but seeing as these battles are recent, this obviously does not apply. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amadeus1999, if you believe that a particular article is an exception to the proposal, then you are free to advance this with an argument and evidence as to why it should be an exception. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, the above explanation by @Cinderella157 rather. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As my explanation shows rather convincingly, "battle of" is not reserved, in any way, for "significant" or merely distant historical battles, so your argument is not only unconvincing but has already been rebutted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought in the category of "could have been shower thoughts": What about 'Battle of' for battles that took place in a certain place, and 'Battle for' in case a battle has taken place to specifically occupy or capture that place. This could be a detritus take but I genuinely pondered it for a moment, thought I'd share. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 02:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Amadeus1999: The Battle of Stalingrad was very much a battle specifically to occupy or capture that place; so was the Battle of Vimy Ridge, so was the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip; same for the Battle of Quebec (1775); and I can keep going back in history and picking stuff at random pretty much as far as I want if you need further examples. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm yeah seems like non-sense on my part then. That thought was merely conjecture anyway. Probably shouldn't have even brought it up as it's off-topic. Thanks for your examples and arguments though. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 02:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've changed my vote. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 02:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of the oppose !votes are badly reasoned. "Battle of Stalingrad" is not a descriptive title, but a common name. Same with "Battle of France". You absolutely cannot go around making up articles with titles paralleling "Battle of France" or "Battle of the Bulge". That would be very bad practice. We should not try to apply external naming conventions for battles to make up our own names. The UK actually created formal names for every engagement in World War I. Articles titles should be merely descriptive or else found exactly in RS. "Battle of" titles are not the former. It is not for Wikipedians to decide if the fighting in the eastern and western suburbs is one battle or two. Srnec (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree it is indeed not up to Wikipedians to decide, I still think WP:CONSISTENCY applies here. If virtually all news outlets, articles, blogs, etc. use "Battle of" formatting, why should the Wikipedians then get to decide to divert from this long-practiced standard in favor of "Battle for", and how would we possibly monitor and moderate each entry as to whether it 'qualifies' for "Battle of" or "Battle for"? ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 15:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Battle for" implies a specific target, i.e. the battle was specifically aimed at the place in question and not for some other objective. In many cases, and probably applying in Ukraine, many battles happened near populated places, or named localities, but probably weren't directly for them. For ex., the Battle of Waterloo only has anything to do with that town due to sheer location and historical coincidence. It would be very inaccurate to refer to it as the "Battle for Waterloo": that was not the thing that was being fought over. If Napoleon had met the Allied armies, at, I don't know, Mons or Charleroi, the battle would still have happened. "of" on the other hand is neutral and indeed merely descriptive (as it indeed does not apply any specific relationship other than location). And it is very much the standard widely used everywhere (including on Wikipedia, which does indeed reflect how external sources describe something...). In this case, both "battle of" and "battle for" seem to be used by sources, but since the former is usually more accurate and fits with the existing convention, it should be preferred unless there is clear evidence that a substantial majority of sources are not using that format. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just scanning through them, most of the links listed above are for control of location cited, not simply happening at that location. If "control" and "target" is indeed what is guiding the choice of these article titles, then certainly "battle for" is warranted. Walrasiad (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian (just so U|Walrasiad doesn't think this might be directed to their comment), Srnec has addressed the key issue: that the nominated articles have titles that are WP constructed. Much of what is said in your response is opinion without reference to authorities or conjecture without any evidence or if evidence has been proffered elsewhere it does not discern that which is applicable to the key issue. Such statements have been pejoratively referred to as 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)[reply]
I said I was done replying to you, and I'll stand by that commitment, so please don't ping me or post long responses to my posts again. Solely for the benefit of others: the above is still repeating the same (discredited, and hence indeed bolded nonsense) notion that battles which are "proper names" are battles "of" while those which aren't are battles "for". See my posts from 22:20, 27 April; or 13:19, 26 April; for the existing refutations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: My point is that "battle of X" is a bad descriptive construction because there are so many reasons that a battle can get named a certain way. Thus, we have "Battle of the Atlantic" and "Battle of Crete" and "Battle of the Bulge" and "Battle of the Golden Spurs". It is true that "battle of" most commonly is a descriptive title indicate the (approximate) location of a battle, but it is not clear enough to meet WP:NDESC. If RS use the form "battle of X", however, that is enough. That is, if RS consider it an acceptable short descriptor (even if it does not yet rise to the level of a common name), I consider that good enough for WP:NDESC. But if we are looking for a descriptive title for an unnamed event, we should never use "battle of X" on our own authority. For reasons you yourself have given, "battle for" is probably good enough as a mere description, as would be, e.g., "battle off" (for naval engagements). Srnec (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: The more I follow this conversation the more I'm starting to think neither option is fully WP:NDESC... I think we should just be be as Romans in Rome. I really don't see any practical benefit to the average user or visitor to Wikipedia besides semantic implications that are vaguely sourced at best both ways. I feel like changing it to "Battle for", even if it were to be technically more correct, which I'm neutral on (on its own), it would be burdensome to readers; especially those not as familiar with the English language since everything they come across will pretty much state "Battle of <x>". This in itself might even create the implication or indication to some that the article is politically motivated at first sight, which is something we of course don't want. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The precise benefit is to avoid WP:OR and WP:CITOGENESIS. We really should not be imposing names not used in RS that have a likelihood to slip into proper names. RandomCanadian's assertion that it is just a manner of speech is unconvincing. It is careless speech, and poor titling. Unfortunately, not uncommon. I've seen ridiculous cases done here by Wiki editors, calling things "Battle of X" which were never called that - and sometimes were not even battles! I remember having had to reverse instances of, say, a pirate capturing an unarmed civilian vessel from being dignified with the the title of "Battle of Somalia"! Or a guy stealing an elephant cargo boat being titled "Battle of the Elephants"! I've seen plenty of obscure attacks, raids, skirmishes, even one-sided massacres of civilians, get lazily called "Battle of" here on Wikipedia by overenthusiastic editors. This is all really bad practice, and should not be encouraged.
Moreover, RandomCanadian is not even giving relevant examples. If you think things are only called "Battle of x", it is only because you are only recalling names of engagements (or series of engagements) historians have already settled on calling a "Battle of x". But they do not characterize every engagement that way, but tend to use it more sparingly. The Battle of Verdun is a well-established name in RS. But practically no RS will refer to the engagement at Fort Vaux as the "Battle of Fort Vaux", but only as the "battle for Fort Vaux".
Everything listed above are individual engagements, defined by the area for which control is being fought over. They may be subordinate parts of larger battles, sieges or just skirmishes hardly worth the name. It's not for us to guess which name will stick. "Battle for" is perfectly fine as a descriptive title, fits the area names we are using (i.e. after what is being fought over) and doesn't run the danger of imposing made-up Wiki-names on the world. Let us leave it to external sources and historians to name them. Walrasiad (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad: Thanks for your insight. I do agree that overzealous editing can lead to skewed and problematic impressions. However, I also think that your negative experiences surrounding this could be influencing your view on this particular matter. That's not to assume bad faith though so please don't take it as such. As far as I'm aware it still holds true that most RS report most of the battles in the requested moves in the format "Battle of", although I admit I haven't done any deep research regarding the subject matter. If you have any ngrams or other convincing evidence that points to the contrary I'd definitely be in favor of that. As it stands I still think that WP:CONSISTENT demands we use "Battle of", particularly with regards to the recognizability aspect of it. I've gone through CAT:NAME and could not find any existing naming convention (pertaining to Wikipedia specifically) and I do not know where we'd go to construct such a convention but we might want to do so, as I feel this conversation has extended beyond a normal move request and instead could/should be applied to a vast number of battles or conflicts. I'll ask around at the Village Pump to see if I can find anything, or any more experienced editors can of course tell us, I don't mind. Or they could just tell me it's a bad idea (and why preferably if so haha)
/rant ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 20:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amadeus1999, all of the nominated moves have links to searches of news source attached (noting that the articles are only supported by news sources). Few if any give hits for actual usage of the search term and if they do, there is certainly not sufficient (one or two actual uses) to assert a WP:COMMONNAME. That is why they have been nominated. There simply isn't ngram evidence because it is too recent and ngrams are based on books. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dislike mass-nominations like this becuase what might apply to one article, might not apply to another. There are 24 battles, 21 of which took place during the past month or so, during the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, while the other 3 are from earlier in the Russo-Ukrainian War, 2 from 2014 & the other from 2017 (cmiiw). I respect Cinderella157 as they been contributing to MILHIST for a long time now. That said, I'm not sure why they feel a need to change these names, when A) it goes agaisnst an obviously well-established convention here for the naming format of battles, and B) it being so recent, we don't really know what version will become established in sources. Not just what newspapers are reporting now, but which format recognized historians will be using when they start writing books about the invasion, and war, and teaching about them in university courses. The war is not even over yet, (or the invasion for that matter).

    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)[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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kherson&oldid=1088630186"