Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should this policy proposal become a formal naming convention? --- Tbf69 P • T 17:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For conflicts and protests which are ongoing, but started prior to the current year, then the title should use an WP:ENDASH and present, in brackets (2015–present) at the end of the title. For example, Example-Example war (2015–present) or Example protests (2015–present). – When a protest comes to an end, the title would need to be updated not only in a page move, but also in all the see also sections linking to the article and wherever else full titles are quoted. The delay involved in making such updates would leave misleading titles all over the place. small jars tc 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this from

WP:CENT. This page is one editor's proposal without any apparent input or use by others. This only merits a community-wide discussion once it is clear that it has some degree of support by others. Sandstein 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Across Wikipedia, that sentence is de facto policy. Otherwise, conflicts and protests which cover multiple years would end up being updated every year. For example, a war that started in 2018 would have started with the title 2018 Example-Example war. In 2019, it would have been moved to 2018–2019 Example-Example war or Example-Example war (2018–2019). In 2020, it would have been moved to 2018–2020 Example-Example war or Example-Example war (2018–2020). And so on...

Generally most conflict and protest article titles become (2018–present) and then (2018–2023) once they've ended. Whilst this obviously causes the need for post-move cleanup (as you noted in Template:See also), the use of (2018–present) leads to overall less moves than updating every year, and therefore, less post-move cleanup. --- Tbf69 P • T 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence on euphemisms presupposes a consistent definition of war, which does not really exist. What is the hole in current guidelines this is seeking to fill? CMD (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the sentence on euphemisms, that could be changed before this becomes policy. As for the hole it's trying to fill, it's trying to prevent the unnecessary waste of time caused by the repeated

  WP:RMs on conflict and protest articles, which is caused by a lack of a naming convention on this subject. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I do not see the need to have a specific guideline for this. What's wrong with

  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  CAT:WNC, a naming convention about wars looks like it would be a useful addition. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Why do you expect people who can't understand simple English words like "invasion" (the invasion lasted a short time in 2022, but the war is still continuing) to suddenly stop starting silly move discussions because of even more policies that people are expected to know before editing Wikipedia. Start proposing that we should get rid of some policies and guidelines, rather than continually trying to add more.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong oppose. (
  _(talk) 20:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Firstly, please focus on this RfC. Anyway, look at

  CAT:WNC. This policy could clearly fit in there. --- Tbf69 P • T 20:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Your proposal is at most just an explanatory essay for

  _(talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose (invited by the bot) It's unthinkiable to try to turn this essay into a Policy. There may be some good ideas in there for addition to the appropriate guidelines / policies through the appropriate process for modifying those, by that's about it. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a good idea at this time. Gusfriend (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would we do this? What are the benefits, what's the problem this proposed rule looks to solve?—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While this seems like a fruitful topic for an essay, I'm not currently convinced that there's a need to establish it as policy. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Also, as a side note: per

  MOS:ENBETWEEN, constructions such as "Example–Example war" should use an en dash rather than a hyphen. I've gone through and made that update on the page, but just wanted to make a note of it here as well.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• No and appears it would result in requiring the page to be renamed in the future based on a ticking clock. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem.
  WP:CONSISTENT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As it currenty stands, this proposal would contradict
  WP:NCEVENTS instead of writing yet another policy. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]