Talk:Spanish occupation of Tangier (1940–1945)

Requested move 2 May 2021

 * 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 to Spanish occupation of Tangier (1940–1945). (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Occupation of Tangier (1940–1945) → Spanish occupation of the Tangier International Zone – My move to this effect was reverted as "unclear" so I have opened a WP:RM discussion. I think the advantage of the new title is fairly clear, and there are three aspects to which it is a more appropriate WP:NDESC:
 * "Spanish occupation" seems an obvious component of a descriptive title. "Fooian occupation" is almost universal on other wikipedia articles, including eg German occupation of Norway, French occupation of Malta, or Italian occupation of Majorca.
 * Tangier International Zone is more precise. We have separate articles for Tangier and Tangier International Zone.
 * "(1940-1945)" is not necessary because there has only been one de jure occupation of Tangier. Colonial rule, while similar in some respects, is a fundamentally different concept from a military occupation which (theoretically) respects the continued sovereignty of the occupied state. Even if a disambiguation was needed, "during World War II" would be more appropriate per German occupation of Belgium during World War II. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Article titles should follow the usage of sources, not other articles. In the light of that, a change from Occupation of Tangier (1940–1945) → Spanish occupation of Tangier (1940–1945)" or "Tangier under Spanish occupation (1940–1945)" could be discussed. A change to Spanish occupation of the Tangier International Zone... cannot. You should not try to be smarter than sources. So please refer to them and not to ramblings about what makes more sense to you in particular. What the fuck do you mean by "de jure occupation"? This was not "de jure" anything. This occupation is not more de jure than others. During World War II is actually not more appropiate as sources because 1) it is factually more innacurate as World War II started in 1939 2) sources do not (usually) consider Spain to have entered that war (so that title is actually Wikipedia taking a side in some ways).--Asqueladd (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of me "rambling" or trying to be "smarter than the sources" although it is obviously polite of you to suggest it. It's a question of WP:NDESC. As for the two other points you raise: (i) I don't think you understand the meaning of de jure which does not imply endorsement and which merely refers to the fact that military occupation is defined by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and (ii) " during World War II" does not imply a judgment on Spanish neutrality and is perfectly neutral, as we accept at Sweden during World War II or even Spain during World War II.—Brigade Piron (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is less accurate, as WWII includes 1939 (and this event do not) and this event extended beyond September 1945.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "During" does not mean "throughout". The German occupation of Belgium during World War II lasted only 1940 to 1944, not 1939 to 1945. In any case, I am arguing that neither version is necessary in the title! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the convenience to apply the Spanish adjective. And it is supported by sources. Sources do not care about adding the convoluted Tangier International Zone, though, when presenting the content. We should not do it. The bracket is more accurate than "during World War II" anyway you see at it. It may be dropped but sources do not necessarily drop it, so there is that. In any case, isn't the city's article very wrong? I don't think this city was ever part of the Spanish protectorate from 1912 to 1924 as that article suggests. It remained disputed. Not to say that effective Spanish occupation of the actual territory within the bound of the "drawn lines" was not achieved in 1912, precisely...--Asqueladd (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed; support "Spanish occupation of Tangier (1940-1945)" or better "Spanish occupation of Tangier": per the WP:CRITERIA, article titles need to be concise, precise and recognisable (in addition to being attested in sources). "Tangier International Zone" is neither concise nor very recognisable to most readers (they would likely not even know which period it refers to). "Spanish occupation of Tangier (1940-1945)" might have a bit of an issue with the parenthetical for the years (is that really necessary disambiguation?), but it is concise, more precise and more recognisable to an unknowledgeable reader than the current title or the initial proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Spanish occupation of Tangier" is preferable to the current title. I'm not sure I understand your objection to TIZ as not "very recognisable" though? Tangier was (is) a city, while the TIZ was the polity. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2021 (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.