Talk:Battle of Popasna

Dubious: "March 18" as beginning
The date is repeated without any citation. uncited claim, both Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia articles start on March 2 (and Ukrainian actually begins in 2014). 5.173.113.62 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes on the naming of this battle in RS (and lack thereof)
Out of curiosity, I performed a Google search for the exact strings "Battle of Popasna" and "Battle for Popasna" on 8 April 2024, and was slightly surprised how little I found in the way of RS. Below is most of it:

Kyiv Independent:

Washington Post:

Hollywood Reporter:

Ukrainian Pravda:

Al Jazeera:

The New Yorker:

Novaya Gazeta:

Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project:

Meduza:

The Guardian:

Espreso TV:

Not sure if WP:COMMONNAME has any application here given such low numbers overall. I welcome discussion on this topic. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * One could compare this with total news hits for fighting in and around Popsana, since we only/largely have NEWSORG sources (seach results for battle of Popasna that do not inclused the string battle of Popasna). I would agree that this is more a Wiki name than a COMMONNAME. What though, would you see as a possible consequence of this discussion? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Originally I sought to demonstrate how in many of the Ukraine battle articles, the terminology "battle of X" is seldom found in reliable sources, with the goal of opening a discussion on moves to more appropriate names.
 * However, I recently learned that MOS:MIL actually supports such article titles if no common name exists, see:
 * This policy would seem to be a major obstacle to any effort to change "battle of X" article titles, despite the problematic aspects of using such names, which have been identified by many editors including yourself. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This policy would seem to be a major obstacle to any effort to change "battle of X" article titles, despite the problematic aspects of using such names, which have been identified by many editors including yourself. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Almost all of these names for articles about fighting in various places are to some degree Wiki constructs, with battle of X or battle for X occasionally being used in NEWSORG sources, much as you observe above. Furthermore, they are not formally named to the extent that they would capitalise battle. MOS:MIL reads: ... the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" ... [emphasis added]. It does not mandate only battle of X. To my mind, battle for X is also used to describe battles in sources and would fall within the guidance. I also consider that it is probably the better option for fighting that is for the capture of a particular place, where it has not been formally named such that it would consistently capitalise Battle of X. My view is that battle of X tends to connote a formal name even when battle is no capitalised but battle for X is seen as more descriptive and does not have the same connotation. These are my views, for what they are worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your views regarding battle of's formal connotation are shared by a number of editors I've come across, which leads me to consider the merits of starting a discussion at MILHIST with the aim of establishing some sort of consensus on this, especially as it relates to ongoing and recent conflicts that lack formal scholarly analysis.
 * As it relates to Popasna and some potential other pages, do you think there is a case to be made for moves to battle for on any current policy grounds? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * While there is nothing to preclude battle for there is nothing that I see that would particularly favour it. One might argue that battle for is perhaps more accurate (a better description) and draw in WP:AT. It is not exactly a matter of WP:PRECISION since that is largely about sufficient detail to achieve disambiguation. The counter argument would be WP:CONSISTENT, which actually relates to naming patterns established by guidelines for particular subject areas. MOS:MIL may be construed as such a guideline but it does not preclude battle for and my recollection is that there are other battle for articles, though less than battle of. Of course, Battle of is the preferred formal naming. As there are many formally named battles, these dominate the battle of/battle for pool (sample set). There are some common misperception as to what the WP:CRITERIA actually mean because people read the one line descriptions without reading WP:AT more fully and the more detailed guidance it gives on the criteria. There is a perception that every fight is called battle of and that battle of X is a name, therefore it is a "proper name" that must be capitalised. Of course, the guidance at MOS:CAPS applies and we only cap if this is consistently done in sources. Nonetheless, this skews capitalisation. The reason battles in the invasion are almost all lowercase is largely my intervention. I have discussed the battle of/battle for issue sometime in the past but I can't remember exactly where. Having said that, it may be appropriate to test the waters again. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Having come across familiar arguments on proper names and descriptive names elsewhere on Wikipedia, I am interested in your stance on the prospect of removing battle of titles from article ledes.
 * Last October, out of concern that readers would interpret the editor-created descriptive name "2023 Israel–Hamas war" as an established proper name for the conflict, MOS:FIRST and MOS:REDUNDANCY's recommendations that a descriptive title need not appear in an article's first sentence were applied. The decision held, and the first sentence of the article has been some variation of An armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups has been taking place chiefly in and around the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023 to this day, with "Israel–Hamas war" nowhere to be found in the lede. See relevant edit summaries: 1, 2, and 3.
 * The Russian invasion of Ukraine article was brought up as an example where the the same thing had been done, and I believe that this solution may also have some applications for the Ukraine battle of articles. Similar concerns for the potential of citogenesis and the phrase battle of's connotations of formality were the focus of the 2022 requested move to battle for. MOS:REDUNDANCY's recommendation to use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article would also support removing the titles in order to avoid constructions like "the battle of Popasna was a battle in Popasna" or the less blatant, but in my view equally redundant "the battle of Popasna was a military engagement that took place in and around/for control over Popasna", which look a lot like the examples it advises against.
 * I welcome your thoughts on implementing this. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Haha, you found the discussion I was thinking of. I have not previously considered the issue of the first sentence that you describe but I think there is merit in the view. It is supported by P&G. It also addresses the citogenesis issue, which I do see as a real concern. We are not here to write history but to chronical the written history. It is a fine but very significant distinction. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)