Talk:First battle of Öland (1564)

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)

Requested move 13 November 2024

• First battle of Öland (1564) → First Battle of Öland (1564)
• First battle of Tembien → First Battle of Tembien
• Second battle of Tembien → Second Battle of Tembien
• First battle of Dongola → First Battle of Dongola
• Second battle of Dongola → Second Battle of Dongola
• Fourth battle of Dongola → Fourth Battle of Dongola
• First battle of Solskjel → First Battle of Solskjel
• Second battle of Solskjel → Second Battle of Solskjel
• First battle of Chamkaur → First Battle of Chamkaur
• Second battle of Bàu Bàng → Second Battle of Bàu Bàng
• Second battle of Przasnysz → Second Battle of Przasnysz
• Second battle of Khan Yunis → Second Battle of Khan Yunis
• Third battle of Khan Yunis → Third Battle of Khan Yunis

– 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)

• 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)

I sympathize; lowercasing would involve renaming about 475 articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what's hard. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus that it's the right thing to do might be hard. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

PadFoot2008, pinging individual editors to this discussion can reasonably be seen as WP:CANVASSING unless reasonable reason is given as to why these editors (and only these editors) were pinged. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose—Padfoot, no no no: a majority of instances in RSs is not enough. It must be overwhelming usage, according to MOSCAPS. Tony (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wrong venue This RM potentially creates by default an exception to the prevailing P&G with multiple ramifications - particularly inconsistencies between various related P&G where none presently exist as well as inconsistencies between article titles and content. It is to effect, a change from sentence case titling to titlecase titling - a matter that is well enshrined in P&G. WP:CT/MOS applies to WP:AT and the MOS but does not extent to individual RMs. Per WP:ARBATC: A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus. Per WP:RMCLOSE, there is no minimum level of participation and the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Consequently, it is not appropriate to use an RM as a de facto means of changing article title P&G.

It is appropriate to use a multi-RM for capitalisation of a word phrase within very closely related articles and the decision will be based on identical evidence for each affected page. An example of this would be the capitalisation of singles and doubles in articles about the Wimbledon Championships for each year (see Talk:Wimbledon Championships#Requested move 2 November 2021). In other cases, the word patten may be similar but the subject articles are only broadly related. The rational may be similar but in each case the evidence for the individually affected articles is assessed on its own merits (see Talk:Eurasian plate#Requested move 6 October 2024). Talk:First Battle of Panipat#Requested move 25 October 2024 was of the latter type and was quite reasonable because a case was made by the nom based on individual merit within the prevailing P&G for each of the affected articles. This RM should also be of the latter type but the case made by the nom here is not based upon the individual merit of the affected articles (or the other 400 odd articles) but a de facto change to P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENT is Wikipedia policy. It is part of WP:AT, and so is WP:CRITERIA, which says "The title [should be] consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." We currently have about 97% consistency among similar article titles, with these 13 being the remaining 3%. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support, consistency works for this one. Not getting definitive n-grams on the nominated articles that I've checked, most of which say there are no results to plot. So given the choice between "no results" and Wikipedia consistency, policy applies. Good find by BarrelProof, and thanks for moving this forward. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)