Talk:Registered battlefield
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | On 31 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Registered Battlefields (UK) to Registered battlefield. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Untitled
editThis page (hopefully) complements the page on the Inventory of Historic battlefields which deals with Scottish sites. If anyone has more information about Welsh and Northern Irish historic battlefield sites that would be welcome. Suggest that we only place historic, rather than modern sites on this page. FGLawson (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Emotive Language
editThe lede of this article is strongly emotive. This is the current text:
"Battlefields are the final resting place for thousands of unknown soldiers, both nobles and commoners, whose lives were sacrificed in the making of the history of their country. These historic assets are an intrinsic part of a nation’s identity and consciousness. They inspire strong emotions and live on in stories, poetry and music."
Talking about the 'sacrifice' of lives, specifically in 'making of the history of their country', the role of the battlefields as 'assets' which are 'intrinsic parts of a nation's identity and consciousness' and the 'strong emotions' they inspire is... a bit much. I propose that this be rewritten to be less emotive. Here's a proposed rewrite, probably not very good, but an attempt:
"Registered Battlefields in the UK are battlefields recognised as having specific historic or cultural significance. They are recognised as such by conservationist organisations for a variety of reasons, including protecting them from development that may threaten historic buildings, items, or topography."
Thoughts? 125.253.107.65 (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to make this change, but please do revert and comment here if you disagree. My reasoning for going ahead and implementing this is that I think it's probable that this section will just be my comment if I sit and do nothing. 125.253.107.65 (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 31 May 2023
edit- 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Registered Battlefields (UK) → Registered battlefield – WP:AT / WP:LOWERCASE, MOS:CAPS / MOS:SIGCAPS, WP:SINGULAR, and apparent unnecessary disambiguation. Similar cases related to the National Heritage List for England, i.e. Listed building and Scheduled monument, use sentence case, singular, undisambiguated titles. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Seriously is UK the only country in the world to register its battlefields? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- If there are other countries that register their battlefields, list their buildings, or schedule their monuments, then by all means let's disambiguate the articles about them (or merge those discussions into a single article that covers all the countries). As far as I know, Wikipedia only discusses the use of these terms in the UK. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think the U.S. registers Civil War and Revolutionary War battlefields as NRHP-listed sites and "National Monument"s (classification, not a sculpture) and "National Park"s; and Canada has the National Battlefields Commission -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, perhaps, but I don't think those are commonly referred to as "registered battlefields". They seem more likely to be referred to as "NRHP-listed battlefields" or "historic battlefields" or "battlefields designated as national monuments". Even when searching from within the United States, a search for the phrase "registered battlefield(s)" exclusively produces results that are about the UK, and predominantly England. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think the U.S. registers Civil War and Revolutionary War battlefields as NRHP-listed sites and "National Monument"s (classification, not a sculpture) and "National Park"s; and Canada has the National Battlefields Commission -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- If there are other countries that register their battlefields, list their buildings, or schedule their monuments, then by all means let's disambiguate the articles about them (or merge those discussions into a single article that covers all the countries). As far as I know, Wikipedia only discusses the use of these terms in the UK. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, but GBooks shows caps In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a mixture in those results (with lowercase instances in the first two pages of results in Bloody Meadows, England's Villages, Making Successful Planning Applications, and Oxford's Dictionary of Agriculture and Land Management – ignoring instances that seem to be outside of the UK). The Google Ngram viewer reports that it finds insufficient data for the singular form, regardless of caps, and lowercase-only for the plural (here). — BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, GBook results for the current plural form are here, and prefixed by "the" to avoid section headings and the start of sentences here. — BarrelProof (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I concur with BarrelProof above that the GBooks results show mixed usage, a lot of it lower-case. Also, the capitalised form doesn't even rate at all in n-grams [1]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)