Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Revising nomenclature of battle articles
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. 1358 (Talk) 18:08, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Recently we had a conversation going over in the Senate Hall regarding how our articles for battles are titled, and it went well enough that I thought I'd bring up a CT on it.
The sparknotes version:
- Far too many of our battle articles are either arbitrarily conjecturally titled 'first,' 'second,' (etc) or else have an arbitrary/inconsistent conflict parenthesis tacked on the end
- It would be better if we could make these more uniform and remove conjectural numbers
Proposal: Battle articles, when not otherwise uniquely named, should be titled simply as "Battle of x" with the year in which they took place in parentheses on the end. This will allow us to simplify the naming process for battle articles so that they're both easier to create and easier to find later, excise conjectural naming, and make the titling policy more uniform across the board. Please note that this proposal is concerned simply with better title formatting—not with removing the {{Conjecture}} template.
Example: For instance, battles of Dathomir...
- Battle of Dathomir (3 ABY) would replace the conjectural Ground Battle on Dathomir title — this was never titled "First" at any point, and having it such is unnecessary conjecture that can be corrected
- Battle of Dathomir (8 ABY) would replace Battle of Dathomir (Hunt for Zsinj) — the Zsinj campaign is part of the Galactic Civil War, so naming by conflict only doesn't work
IN ADDITION: Proposal also includes the following contingencies, as per discussion
- In the event that a specific year for a battle is unavailable, the name of the overall conflict should take the place of the year in the article title's parentheses
- In the event of two battles in the same place in the same year, conjectural "First," "Second," etc are not to be used in the main title. Rather, they are to be added to the parentheses (ie: Battle of Orinda (12 ABY, second)
- In the eventuality that two battles at the same place occur in the same year, but are part of different overall conflicts, the overall conflict of each should be placed in the parentheses in the same way that "first" and "second" are specified in the example above. Ie: Battle of Same Planet (3680 BBY, Kanz Disorders) and Battle of Same Planet (3680 BBY, Great Galactic War)
Exceptions to be approached on a case-by-case basis, but offhand a couple examples:
- Specifically named instances, such as First Battle of Ruusan (and the other six, etc) should remain as-is, apprending a year only if there's another conflict with an identical name
- Multiple conflicts at the same location in the same year,such as the first and second Battles of Harte Secur, could potentially be problematic—though no moreso than they are currently
Adopt
- As proposer. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:41, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- NaruHina Talk
23:13, January 30, 2013 (UTC) - Makes sense. —MJ— Holocomm 02:44, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I almost feel obligated to since my example from the SH thread was used in this CT :P In all seriousness I am in agreement with this proposal. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 05:14, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- Gulomi Jomesh (talk) 11:57, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- With the included revisions, I believe this covers all of my concerns. jSarek (talk) 14:25, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. Corellian Premier
The Force will be with you always 15:50, February 2, 2013 (UTC) - —Silly Dan (talk) 16:09, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Seems logical. ~Savage
16:58, February 4, 2013 (UTC) - Rokkur Shen (talk) 03:24, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:48, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
Reject (maintain status quo)
- I'm opposing this now only on the grounds that I want to see this pass with all of the contingencies included that have been discussed below. I am very much in favor of this entire proposal, but it doesn't seem practical to me to codify this singular clause piecemeal and then not include everything else. Once these are added to the proposal, I will gladly support. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:25, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I was voting under the assumption that these suggestions would be added to the CT as we went on. I continue expect them to be written in; otherwise, I'm with Tope. NaruHina Talk
08:21, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
As per Tope. Rokkur Shen (talk) 11:33, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I was voting under the assumption that these suggestions would be added to the CT as we went on. I continue expect them to be written in; otherwise, I'm with Tope. NaruHina Talk
- JangFett (Talk) 16:25, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with one of the driving ideas behind the CT, which is to crack down against attributing "first"/"second" descriptors that should not be a part of conjectural titles, but I don't agree with the result itself. There are some cases in which the year is the best to use for disambiguation, but there are other times when other details, like the nature of the attack itself—particularly in the absence of a known year—are more specific and useful to use than the year, i.e. Battle of Kamino (Tipoca City assault) and Battle of Kamino (Separatist–Mandalorian invasion). And I also feel that the conflict/war additionally works well as a tool for disambiguation in most cases, because I find it more relevant (again, in most cases) to why the battle took place, other than when exactly it took place. I don't believe that strictly using the year site-wide as disambiguation is best for the site's needs. My opposition is also due to a factor that is admittedly out of our control, which is canon itself, particularly for The Clone Wars. This is not meant to sound melodramatic, but with the little we know about how that timeline is ultimately going to be revised, I'm not in favor of seeing an inevitable slew of uses of "(c. 22 BBY)," "(c. 21 BBY)," etc. when they're almost definitely going to get locked down in a few years—and then all of the articles would have to be moved again, to "(22 BBY)" and "(21 BBY)." To me, that's intentionally making a mess that we can't control into an even bigger mess. I would be more in favor of this CT in about four or five years once the dust around The Clone Wars has settled. I would support it currently if it were primarily about avoiding ordinal markers in conjectural titles, but I can't agree with the mass-usage of years as disambiguation. CC7567 (talk) 03:27, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
- After thinking about it, per CC. Menkooroo (talk) 02:52, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Per CC Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:38, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
- While it does have benefits, I think it'd mostly make things more confusing since we don't know the precise dates of every battle. Cade Calrayn 18:51, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Per CC, although I agree with the spirit of this CT, as it would be nicer to see greater consistency in the approach to naming battle articles. --Jinzler (talk) 11:47, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Per CC.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 00:54, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Discuss
Potentially this sort of thing could be adapted to fit other sorts of articles as well, but I'd like to keep the focus narrowed to this particular subject for the purposes of this CT. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:41, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest an additional contingency guideline for naming. Sometimes we can only place a battle according to its conflict when we don't know the year it took place in. It would be best to allow for the conflict to be used as the parenthetical descriptor in absence of a year. We would then have a preferred order for choosing the parenthetical descriptor: try to name the article by year first, and by conflict second in the absence of a year. Even "Battle of Planet (Galactic Civil War)" is infinitely better than "Fourth Battle of Planet." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:57, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. If we don't know its year, the conflict it's under is probably the best identifier to include in the title. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 19:04, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Yet another guideline we might want on record. I dunno if it's ever happened or ever will happen, but what about a battle that was on the same planet in the same year but was part of a different conflict? Should that be at "Battle of [Planet] ([Year], [Conflict])?" Arranged that order to emphasize the year like this CT wants to do. NaruHina Talk 22:10, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 22:35, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- That's logical. I was forced to create a similar circumstance for all of these fellows. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:54, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- What about two conflicts on the same planet, same year, same conflict? eg, Second Battle of Orinda and Third Battle of Orinda are both part of the Galactic Civil War's Orinda campaign and are both in 12 ABY. I think we could go two ways on this one: "First Battle of Orinda (12 ABY)" and "Second Battle of Orinda (12 ABY)," or "Battle of Orinda (first, 12 ABY)" and "Battle of Orinda (second, 12 ABY)." The latter sounds a bit awkward but seems to fit better with the spirit of this CT. Menkooroo (talk) 23:19, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Good thought. I'd say putting the number in the parentheses would be the least conjectural option, but putting the number after the year would probably be better. NaruHina Talk 23:21, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- So "Battle of Orinda (12 ABY, first)" and "Battle of Orinda (12 ABY, second)." Yeah, that does sound better. Solid. Menkooroo (talk) 23:24, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- I like this approach for establishing the naming convention but am reluctant to support the excising of {{Conjecture}}} tags. Establishing a new naming convention is beneficial but without tags such as the {{Conjecture}}} canon information is not as discernible to first time users or casual visitors. At the end of the day, titles are still conjectural titles until published in an officially licensed product. The Wook ain't just for us-in-the-know after all. Rokkur Shen (talk) 03:57, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with this 100%. Even a better formatted conjectural title is still a conjectural title. These articles will still need these tags on them unless their titles can be confirmed as canonical. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:04, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, I see nothing in the proposal that even mentions the {{Conjecture}} template. The only use of "conjecture" I see above is as an ordinary word (i.e. the meanings here). —MJ— War Room 04:08, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed this myself until Rokkur's comment here, and upon rereading the proposal I found this to be a little alarming in this new light: "It would be better if we could make these more uniform and remove conjecture." Perhaps I am simply misinterpreting, but it sort of seems to suggest we would make conjectural titles more uniform (but no less conjectural) and then remove the conjecture tags. I'd like to be wrong here. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I interpreted it as removing the conjecture of "First", "Second", etc. from the titles. —MJ— Council Chambers 04:17, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed this myself until Rokkur's comment here, and upon rereading the proposal I found this to be a little alarming in this new light: "It would be better if we could make these more uniform and remove conjecture." Perhaps I am simply misinterpreting, but it sort of seems to suggest we would make conjectural titles more uniform (but no less conjectural) and then remove the conjecture tags. I'd like to be wrong here. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, I see nothing in the proposal that even mentions the {{Conjecture}} template. The only use of "conjecture" I see above is as an ordinary word (i.e. the meanings here). —MJ— War Room 04:08, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with this 100%. Even a better formatted conjectural title is still a conjectural title. These articles will still need these tags on them unless their titles can be confirmed as canonical. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:04, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I like this approach for establishing the naming convention but am reluctant to support the excising of {{Conjecture}}} tags. Establishing a new naming convention is beneficial but without tags such as the {{Conjecture}}} canon information is not as discernible to first time users or casual visitors. At the end of the day, titles are still conjectural titles until published in an officially licensed product. The Wook ain't just for us-in-the-know after all. Rokkur Shen (talk) 03:57, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- So "Battle of Orinda (12 ABY, first)" and "Battle of Orinda (12 ABY, second)." Yeah, that does sound better. Solid. Menkooroo (talk) 23:24, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Good thought. I'd say putting the number in the parentheses would be the least conjectural option, but putting the number after the year would probably be better. NaruHina Talk
- What about battles that don't have a specific year, only a "circa" one—say, would the Battle of Felucia (Clone Wars) be okay where it is, or should it be moved to Battle of Felucia (c. 21 BBY) (which will definitely require moving once the year is later identified)? (There isn't a conflict with the Battle of Felucia of 19 BBY, as that's by far the most referred to by that name, but it's still a question.) Should a specific year be required for use in the parenthetical disambiguation, or do approximate years count as well? CC7567 (talk) 21:16, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- To make sure I'm interpreting/understanding this right, would this CT require the Battle of Kamino (Tipoca City assault) to become Battle of Kamino (c. 22 BBY), and Battle of Kamino (Separatist–Mandalorian invasion) to become Battle of Kamino (20 BBY)? Also, perhaps Battle of Ryloth (Clone Wars) to be moved to Battle of Ryloth (22 BBY), and Battle of Ryloth (Outer Rim Sieges) to Battle of Ryloth (20 BBY)? CC7567 (talk) 05:23, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're reading it right. Unified, consistent article titling rather than willy-nilly whatever-strikes-the-editor's-fancy. Regarding circas: I would be in 100% agreement with the titles of the redlinks in your bullet above. Whether you end up choosing to vote for or against, you've nailed the intent of the CT as proposed. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:41, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- What a mess. I could see plenty of "c." titled TCW articles. JangFett (Talk) 15:27, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. It's a 3 year war amongst 26,000 years of SW history. At worst, it'll be a temporary problem till they peg down proper dates, meanwhile everything else gets to be spiffy'd up :D — DigiFluid(Whine here) 17:27, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- What a mess. I could see plenty of "c." titled TCW articles. JangFett (Talk) 15:27, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you're reading it right. Unified, consistent article titling rather than willy-nilly whatever-strikes-the-editor's-fancy. Regarding circas: I would be in 100% agreement with the titles of the redlinks in your bullet above. Whether you end up choosing to vote for or against, you've nailed the intent of the CT as proposed. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:41, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- To make sure I'm interpreting/understanding this right, would this CT require the Battle of Kamino (Tipoca City assault) to become Battle of Kamino (c. 22 BBY), and Battle of Kamino (Separatist–Mandalorian invasion) to become Battle of Kamino (20 BBY)? Also, perhaps Battle of Ryloth (Clone Wars) to be moved to Battle of Ryloth (22 BBY), and Battle of Ryloth (Outer Rim Sieges) to Battle of Ryloth (20 BBY)? CC7567 (talk) 05:23, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
REVISION (Jan 31 2013)
All those who have voted already, please note that the items discussed above have been added to the proposal in order to assuage concerns and further refine proposal. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:34, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, two of the three of them have been. :P NaruHina Talk 19:40, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
- And apparently I'm blind, because it took me the better part of a day to figure out what I'd missed ;) — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:50, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
- So do the additions to the proposal affect articles like the Harte Secur battles? Not that I'll change my vote but I wanted to be sure. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 09:46, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Code-8, wouldn't it just be the same case as the Orinda example above? Corellian PremierThe Force will be with you always 17:27, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Code-8, wouldn't it just be the same case as the Orinda example above? Corellian Premier
- So do the additions to the proposal affect articles like the Harte Secur battles? Not that I'll change my vote but I wanted to be sure. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 09:46, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- And apparently I'm blind, because it took me the better part of a day to figure out what I'd missed ;) — DigiFluid(Whine here) 13:50, February 1, 2013 (UTC)