Talk:Battle of Chornobyl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 28 July 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. Rough consensus to move to Battle of Chornobyl. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Czarnobyl (1920) → Battle of Czarnobyl

We don't have any articles with the name, for example, Battle of Czarnobyl (1852). The only English-language source in the article spells it Chernobyl. Per WP:TITLEDAB, Since the article on the Russian occupation of Chernobyl is called Capture of Chernobyl, these names are better, as in Battle of Mariupol (2014), Battle of Mariupol (1919) and Siege of Mariupol. Parham wiki (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The only English-language source in the article spells it Chernobyl. Instead of a random foreign spelling (Polish) which there is no reason to use, if we are to use natural disambiguation, we should move this to Battle of Chornobyl, using the actual current name which sources are starting to use more. Or this can be moved to Battle of Chernobyl (1920), or Battle of Chornobyl (1920). —Michael Z. 21:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Battle of Chernobyl. Since the article on the Russian occupation of Chernobyl is called Capture of Chernobyl, this is a better name, as in Battle of Mariupol (2014), Battle of Mariupol (1919) and Siege of Mariupol. Parham wiki (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose — The Battle of Chernobyl page history (i.e. talk page) must be preserved as a redirect to the Capture of Chernobyl. In this news article from Forbes, it is said, “But for Ukraine, the Battle of Chernobyl (as Wikipedia is already calling it), wasn't just about protecting a strategic corridor or preventing another nuclear accident; Chernobyl is a powerful symbol of how Ukraine fared under decades of Soviet – Russian, essentially – negligence and exploitation.” The Forbes article was written prior to the vote to the “Capture of Chernobyl”. For that reason, the talk page history must be preserved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeatherWriter: Your argument does not match WP:TITLEDAB. Parham wiki (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parham wiki: Why does WP:TITLEDAB apply here? If I am understanding correctly, the requested move is to move Battle of Czarnobyl (1920) over to the Battle of Chernobyl name, which is currently a disambiguation page. I presented evidence which shows a reliable secondary source referred to the Capture of Chernobyl in 2022 as the “Battle of Chernobyl”, and mentioned the Wikipedia article known as “Battle of Chernobyl”, which was the previous name for the current Capture of Chernobyl article. If I understand WP:TITLEDAB correctly, number 1 says, If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies and number 2 says, If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated. I would actually say an article as detailed as the current Capture of Chernobyl article (i.e. 47 references) and a mention to the 2022 event by Forbes as the “Battle of Chernobyl”, which also mentioned the Wikipedia article, would be the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the 1920 event, which, at the time of writing this, has 1 RS reference cited. So, could you provide more evidence to say why the 1920 article would be the primary source in this instance, given we do have a media article referenced above that refers to the “Battle of Chernobyl” for the 2022 article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. By renaming this article, Battle of Chernobyl will be renamed Battle of Chernobyl (disambiguation).
    2. The name of this article should not be "(1920)" until the title of the article Capture of Chernobyl is changed to Battle of Chernobyl (2022) (Is the article Siege of Mariupol called Siege of Mariupol (2022) because of Battle of Mariupol (1919)?).
    Parham wiki (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes more sense now. Thanks for explaining that. However, I’m still not necessarily sold on the idea to make “Battle of Chernobyl” a disambiguation page. For instance, I believe the Battle of Chernobyl should remain a redirect to the Capture of Chernobyl (2022 article). The 1920 article and the 2022 article can be linked similar to how 2013 El Reno tornado is linked used the About template to the lesser known 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado. The main reason I believe that is because the Forbes article referenced the Wikipedia article “Battle of Chernobyl” directly for the 2022 article. I don’t believe the 1920 article (which might not really even pass WP:N right now if I was being honest) could be considered primary enough to need a disambiguation page, rather than a simple about template link-up. The names are not duplicate as well, which means a disambiguation page would be more like an extra step readers have to do since logically (i.e. number of references in each article), the 2022 instance is what would be search for the most. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. side note, the Battle of Chernobyl is currently a disambiguation page, which use to be a redirect. My strong oppose to the new page move above is also a strong vote to resetting the disambiguation page back as a redirect for the same reason. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Michael Z. Moving Czarnobyl to Battle of Chornobyl appears to be the best option because sources using that title more often. But I do not support moving Battle of Chernobyl to end in a dab because the relatively recent capture could easily be searched up as the "Battle or Chernobyl". The Night Watch (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Chornobyl&oldid=1205829709"