Talk:War of the cities: Difference between revisions

Requested move 25 May 2025

War of the cities → War of the Cities – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SENTENCECASE CoconutOctopus talk 12:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support – moved without discussion less than a year ago. Clearly a proper name, not a name for the general phenomenon of urban warfare. Per MOS:MILTERMS, more commonly capitalized in sources than not. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Iraq, WikiProject Iran, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and MOS:MILTERMS. A survey of the first four pages of this and this google scholar search gives 21 results each for lowercase, from perusing snippets and titles that are clearly using sentence case. Note that not all results are usable in that usage of the term may not be clear from the title/snippet or is not seen at all, making the usable sample size less than 40 in each case. The results indicate that the lowercase usage in sources is actually more common. The uppercase form is not consistently or usually capitalised in sources that would lead us to use the uppercase form for the title. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cinderella157's analysis of source; plus these book n-gram stats showing that it's not nearly consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Moved without discussion by Cinderella here. This is a common action of them and Dicklyon. Dicklyon will probably show n-grams showing that a common word is used more often generically than it is used as a name. They have denied other proper names in the past.

These are people on a MOS mission, part of which is de-capitalize military terms which do not follow grammar, instead are used as proper names or common terms. Commonly an article is moved without discussion, then if somebody objects there is already an alliance in place to support the move.

I doubt that more than one even does anything questionable to Wikipedia, and the alliance is often correct. It is just an ongoing campaign which includes military terms and seems to have few exceptions. They have an advantage in numbers which is difficult to overcome with "new eyes" (been there, done that after "Undiscussed page move" section). Sammy D III (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit add comment: The title "Battle of the cities" is so vague as to be meaningless. I would also question if "Battle of the Cities" is any kind of Commonname, and if so, was it created by Wikipedia to start with? If this is a Wikipedia-generated Commonname it should be changed to anything else as soon as possible. Once again, Sammy D III (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)