Talk:Siege of Najaf (1918)

Infobox

Koopinator, you reverted this edit with the edit summary: The infobox flag helps distinguish the british army from local pro-british factions, and you've also made other edits that generally made it worse (for one, removing the link to the section regarding rebel leadership. My edit was based on the guidance at MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE

1. The names of the sheiks were moved to the commanders section where they belong.
2. Listing the names of the anti-British sheiks as commanders makes the previously used links redundant.
3. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, we shouldn't be use links in the infobox to sections of the article where the TOC achieves the same purpose - ie Leading figures of the Rebels in the TOC is a clear direction to that section for the rebel commanders/leaders. The link for Najm al-Baqqal is a WP:EASTEREGG because it takes you to the same internal section and not an article about that person.
4. MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS generally advises against infobox flags but they are acceptable if they serve a useful purpose in a conflict infobox. In this case, there are three belligerents and two sides but only one flag was being used (noting that we shouldn't use sub-national flags even if they existed). In this case (and the context of the article), the two British named would not reasonably be confused as sheiks nor the named sheik to be British. Therefore, the use of the British flag serves no particularly useful purpose.

The reverted edit is consistent with prevailing P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

1. They are commanders - but they are also factions in their own right - something you would call a warlord.

2. Not really. The links point to ringleaders within Jam'iya al-Nahda al-Islamiya that are not sheiks. The sheikhs and Jam'iya al-Nahda al-Islamiya are two seperate factions.

4. Actually, there are four belligerents and two sides: The British Empire, Pro-British Sheikhs, Anti-British Sheikhs and Jam'iya al-Nahda al-Islamiya.

4.1 "In this case (and the context of the article), the two British named would not reasonably be confused as sheiks nor the named sheik to be British." - I disagree with this. Koopinator (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Notified at MilHist. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit difficult to comment on as there are several issues wrapped together. a) I do think INFOBOXFLAGS is clear and that they are not needed here to distinguish between the two sides. b) While INFOBOXPURPOSE is crystal clear on infobox links, in this particular unusual case I'd be fine IAR-ing it because the link leads to a mini-bio that is specifically about them. I figure we'd include a link if the content was in a separate article, e.g. like a "List of commanders in the siege of Najaf" or whatever.

A suggestion, if I may. Infoboxes are not the place where we want to get into too much detail. I would consider removing the names from the "Belligerents" section of the infobox like this. We would then let the article name and describe them in more detail. On a separate note—if we don't do that, is there a way to make it more clear in the infobox that Jam'iya al-Nahda al-Islamiya is an organization and not a person's name? And can someone wrap that in an appropriate {{lang}} for screen readers? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I am curious as to why we would not list the names of the sheiks in the infobox as commanders/leaders when those named are supported by the body of the article (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and four names does not exceed the recommended maximum of seven (per the template doc) and is therefore not considered excessive detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. Lists the anti-british sheikhs in the commanders section. Also addresses the problem of addressing a single pro-British in the plural. Koopinator (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: @The ed17: any objections to my latest proposal? Koopinator (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Simply stated, too much repetition. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. I still prefer my suggestion, albeit I wouldn't mind swapping "various" for your numbers. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)