Talk:First battle of Lyman

map

shouldn't the Map for the table be an old map from around its capture? this map is fitting of the second battle when it was lost/liberated but says almost nothing about how it ended up in Russian hands. AnAustralianHistoryBuff (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2023

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: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

---

• First Battle of Lyman → First battle of Lyman
• Second Battle of Lyman → Second battle of Lyman

– Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we use sentence case in article titles and only capitalise words after the first if they are consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources. Sources cited for both articles are substantially news sources. In Google searches of news sources for First Battle of Lyman, Second Battle of Lyman and Battle of Lyman, there are almost no such sources for the search terms, let alone such sources that capitalise battle. These are descriptive names that do not rise to the threshold set in WP:P&G requiring capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per standard titling for battles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there is a specific guideline about battle capitalization, please do link to it. Absent that, I support these moves. I'll gladly review any linked guidelines and reconsider. ~TPW 14:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME: Use commonly recognizable names Parham wiki (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

About moving…

Soooo I just saw the above discussion only after moving the two pages and correcting things along those lines. I find myself in an awkward position…the local consensus previously determined seems to go against a broader and recognized convention…

@True Pagan Warrior, I am not aware of a current WP guideline, but if you ask the people at MILHIST they will all tell you that it’s a universal convention in the English-speaking world. This is what @Necrothesp was talking about.

@Cinderella157, I hear your arguments…but if RS don’t give it a name, perhaps the presumption would be to follow the convention?

And consider this…wouldn’t we have to do the same about all the battles to which we’ve given descriptive names motu proprio?

Although, I do see the sense in not giving a name that smells faintly of OR. But half the time the precise scope is OR anyway.

I think this speaks to our continued problems delineating the scope of individual battles in our coverage of a conflict largely consisting of positional warfare along a continuous front.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Through WP:AT, the prevailing guidance is WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. The general guidance at MOS:CAPS states: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. MOS:CAPS also has MOS:MILTERMS, which gives specific advice: Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources ... MOS:MIL also addresses capitalisation: The general rule from MOS:CAPS is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized in Wikipedia. Descriptive names (noun phrases) are common names. Battle of X is a descriptive name. It is not a true proper name. One will see the names of battles capitalised but this is more a term of art for emphasis or distinction and a result of WP:SSF. Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not cap for emphasis or distinction. There is also a misperception that if part of a name is normally capitalised (eg a location name), then this confers capitalisation on the full name phrase.

As evidenced in the move discussion, there are virtually no sources that use these names, let alone capitalise them. These names are essentially Wiki constructs. They are not accepted names that are consistently capped in sources. The prevailing guidance tells us that these should not be capitalised. The local consensus to lowercase the title is a reflection of the broader community consensus on this matter. RadioactiveBoulevardier, I do believe that the recent moves should be reverted. You might also see that most of the articles about the invasion reflect this consensus. I will acknowledge that I have had a hand in this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If the designations "first battle..." and "second battle..." are WP:OR, wouldn't it make the most sense to move the pages to Battle of Lyman (May 2022) and Battle of Lyman (September–October 2022) respectively? This would resolve the capitalization dispute and be more neutral. HappyWith (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but a better solution might be to merge First battle of Lyman into Battle of Donbas (2022), leaving Second battle of Lyman as the only Battle of Lyman. First battle of Lyman doesn't have much substance to it at all, and lately there has been consensus to merge similarly bare articles. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Would agree with the alternative but naming as Battle for Lyman. Some detail of the first "battle" could be merged into the backgrond too. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that a WP:COMMONNAME case could be made for "battle for Lyman" over "battle of Lyman", based on my preliminary review of search results, though neither name is in particularly wide use. There is also the option of merging Second battle of Lyman into 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive, with which it shares a big overlap in content. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything that reduces/rationalises these no recognised name events of questionable independent notability is a good thing. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Then my preference is to merge First battle of Lyman to Battle of Donbas (2022) and merge Second battle of Lyman to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Going down this path is fine. You are doing a good job. I believe we have similar views on the overall issue. I was just throwing up some thoughts, not road blocks. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)