Jump to content

Talk:North Yemen civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:North Yemen Civil War)
Good articleNorth Yemen civil war has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 11, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 25, 2012, September 25, 2016, and September 25, 2022.
Current status: Good article

Copy Edit

[edit]
SilkPyjamas (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2024

[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. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Yemen Civil War → North Yemen civil war – Sources don't consistently capitalize "civil war" on this one, though there's a trend toward more capitalization since WP moved it to the currently capped title in 2006. Per MOS:CAPS then, we should use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other Yemen Civil Wars? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are. South Yemen civil war and a bunch of others listed at the disambig page Yemeni civil war. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The g-scholar results you link to support uppercasing, as do the n-grams. Citogenesis has nothing to do with this RM, and referring to Wikipedia influence is always OR and not applicable in RM discussions (maybe Wikipedia influenced the n-gram results, maybe not, no way to know for sure and just a guess). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The sample set in ngrams is relatively low (see also google books). Consequently, google scholar, with a much larger sample size is a more reliable indicator of usage. Looking across multiple search pages (eg here) the term is not consistently capped in sources and should not be capped here per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "here" is to page 6. Here is page 3. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Randy, but I am looking across multiple pages, not single pages in isolation. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the n-grams are so conclusive for uppercasing on this one that it really shouldn't even be a discussion. Selective page-pickings should not "trump" n-gram information here. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, I think this is a case of IDIDN'THEARTHAT. I was not selectively picking pages but taking an overall view across multiple pages. I don't know what part of that is so hard to understand. I have said it now three times. Secondly, I explained why ngrams are not the best source of data in this case. Thirdly, you are using an ngram that is not representing usage in prose. I know that you are fully aware that raw ngram data does not exclude uses such as citations and headings where titlecase is expected. One gets a significantly different result when context is added to an ngram by searching the North Yemen civil war (as DL did here) and a very different result if one just looks at the most recent data here. But there is a pretty small sample set and large fluctuations (eg signal to noise) which is why I am not relying on the ngram here. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain this n-gram result for 'the North Yemen Civil War', very much different than your and Dick's n-gram and much more consistent with the 'North Yemen Civil War' vs 'North Yemen civil war' n-gram. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Randy, a very different result if one just looks at the most recent data here - ie I was wanting to look at the raw data to see what it was doing on a year to year basis and more specifically what it looked like in the most recent year. Consequently, I applied a smoothing of zero whereas, you have used the default smoothing of three. But again, I am not relying on the ngtam data. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nominator's n-grams. A clear majority use capitalized forms. To head off the obligatory objections, yes, I do not use the strict standard of "any mixed use = lowercase", so "merely" having 80%+ capitalized usage is sufficient for me. Additionally, it is very possible that many of the lower cased forms are not the proper name form in the ngrams results. There needs to be a stronger case to break the status quo. SnowFire (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ngrams are clear: Capitalization is used substantially more often than lowercase form. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys should take another look. What the n-grams show, if you look carefully, is that it was uniformly lowercase "civil war" when the article was titled with uppercase "Civil War" back in 2005, and that even with WP's strong influence it's still not near consistently capitalized in sources, which is what MOS:CAPS guidance tells us to look for. Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, here are the n-grams. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, showing exactly what I said: all lowercase until after WP titled it uppercase, and not consistently capped since then. There's no way those n-grams support uppercase per MOS:CAPS.
  • Support While reliable sources might capitalize the term "civil war", as per WP:NCE and WP:LOWERCASE (as part of WP:AT this should be lower case. The only time we should really consider overlooking those is in the case of WP:DIFFCAPS but that does not appear to be the case here. TiggerJay (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per evidence given above and the n-gram suggests that the capitalisation is just circular reporting from the wikipedia related move. Theofunny (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uppercasing prevails to such an extent that this should have been withdrawn long ago. Original research and original theorizing about why uppercase is the common name has nothing to do with this RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its an evidence based trend not WP:OR. Theofunny (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your language is what is OR. Attributing anything to Wikipedia is pure guesswork, there could be hundreds of reasons why this has now become a full-uppercased proper name and should, of course, be treated as an uppercased proper name per sources and n-grams. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn -- you are WP:BLUDGEONING this RM, you do not add value to the consensus making process by responding to virtually every statement here that runs contrary to your own. TiggerJay (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When someone makes such an incorrect statement, clarification seems in order and to the point. Many of my posts are in response to direct questions. Lowercase editors come in a team to almost all of the strongly debated RM's, nothing wrong in pointing out that they sway from side to side depending on the quality of the n-grams. Sometimes obvious n-grams are accepted and at other times, when the n-grams go the other way, they find "reasons" like this often-used "Wikipedia based" OR which Theofunny then uses as a valid point when it is not. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are bludgeoning when you use the term n-grams in almost every response to a support !vote - I believe you've used that term 17 times alone. There is no need to continue bringing up the same argument to every single other person who disagrees with your assessment (effectively stating I am reading n-grams correctly, you are not -- and it is the only authoritative rational for article titles). Rather there are conflicting viewpoints on this discussion, as an attempt at finding consensus. Now what would possibly be helpful is a side discussion between both you and @Dicklyon as you both clearly cite n-grams with clear disagreement on what data to select and how to interpret that data. TiggerJay (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) (Struck "every single" term to satisfy Randy TiggerJay (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
"Every single other person"? I didn't reply to Tony's first swing at the ball. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to "almost every" as initially stated, but was not removed from the third sentence, you also did not reply to me since I brought up actual policies and not n-grams. TiggerJay (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Support—Randy, ngrams must be far more than a "trend". Overwhelming majority capping is required. Tony (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2024 (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.

Continuing discussion started by Randy Kryn on my user talk (two months ago, before my offline life kept me occupied) here to make it easier for those viewing this close. I used the threshold set by MOS:CAPS, a guideline that reflects sitewide consensus: consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources (italics original). I do not see consensus that this threshold has been met. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rotideypoc41352, the n-grams show near consistent uppercasing, as do the n-grams with 'the' added (uppercased 78%, much more than enough to be uppercased on Wikipedia), so consensus here was just opinion and went according to habitual casing comments. Dicklyon tried today to change the tag at North Yemen Civil War to say that uppercased 'North Yemen Civil War' was not a proper name (I moved it back to 'from other capitalization'). Looking at the n-grams and sources, would you say that uppercased 'North Yemen Civil War' is at least a proper name (which would mean uppercasing would be accurate)? Thanks, and I hope your wikivacation went well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the above discussion did not show consensus that the phrase is a proper noun. I don't have much more to say or any strong views on this, @Randy Kryn. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Yemen civil war collage

[edit]

Hello. I would like to know more about why my photo collage in the article about the North Yemen civil war is being removed and what rules it violates. Algirr (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Algirr, they violate WP:COLLAGE: where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Collages are otherwise discouraged. WP:LEADIMAGE uses the singular. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells un not to try to write the article in the infobox. Such collages are a photo essay and just another way of trying to write the article in the infobox. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Moreover, squeezed two abreast, they are too small to be easily seen and poorly contrasting images just become a blur. We are told not to force the infobox size (eg make it larger) for accessibility reasons. Captions then bloat the infobox further. There are multiple P&G based reasons for not having this collage. Your edit was challenged. Before readding, you should have gained a consensus for this change. You did not. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand anything. I didn't write an article in the infobox, I added photos. You can just as easily remove collages from all Wikipedia articles, but for some reason only mine violates some rights. Algirr (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
when I created this collage of photos I based it on other collages in other articles. The photos there were about the same as mine, or even smaller, but for some reason you didn't delete the collages there. Algirr (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't make them correct. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Algirr, while it is fine to add images, this should be in accordance with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and MOS:SANDWICH. I can see problems, particularly with the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't quite understand how my COLLAGE of photos in the infobox violates both of these points. I understand what the second point is mean, but it only applies to regular photos outside the infobox? Because it is simply impossible to set text between photos in the infobox (?). Algirr (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The collage would work well with this page if all the images are in public domain. Worries about sandwiching would only pertain to very narrow screens (the same situation as any other collage). If collages are allowed on Wikipedia, which they are, then a well-prepared one for this page is possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COLLAGE: where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. The use is permitted with a caveat. A photo essay in the infobox does not satisfy the caveat. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, all images of my collage is in public domain. I uploaded them from wikimedia. Algirr (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to images you are adding to the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, so it is okay. Algirr (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misunderstand my above comment. A collage would have to be almost perfect in terms of size, telling the story, accuracy, and topic relevance. Not an easy task to fulfill, and if Cinderella157 has concerns they are probably justified and should be addressed. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay... Algirr (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Algirr, the images you added here and in subsequent edits are a concern because of MOS:SANDWICH and possibly MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157, I'm not seeing sandwiching on my screen, if you notice any maybe just move an image or two (either to the same side of the page or down a paragraph). Algirr, in my opinion the collage seems well-done, although some editing of the caption would be in order. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there is an existing example of sandwiching before the recent additions here the recent addition of multiple images (this edit and subsequent) exacerbates this [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Yes, the images can be moved or removed by me. But as Algirr has added these images, I have indicated how the image placement does not comply with P&G so that they might determine how they could best amend their edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Algirr, ways to do that would be to place an image on the opposite side of the page or move them up or down a paragraph or two - but only if there is room, the image is fairly essential to the page, and the move would not cause further image-bunching issues. Thanks to Cinderella157 for keeping watch on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i fixed numbers 6 and 8, but I don't understand what is wrong in 5 and 7. It doesn't have sandwich Algirr (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sandwiching is where there is an image on the left and an image on the right and there is a portion of the text that is squeezed between the two images. None of your recent edits have actually remedied the issue of sandwiching even though the edit summary says that was the intent. I could fix this for you but you will probably not like how I fix it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and i fixed it. I don't see any text squeezed between two images. Maybe it is problem with your screen Algirr (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)I am using quite a standard PC set-up with a relatively small screen and standard (not small) fonts (Vector legacy 2010). I checked with vector 2022 and sandwiching is still evident. What are you using? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i use like chromebook Algirr (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That tells one nothing about screen size or WP preferences affecting font size. Particularly small screens on devices like ipads, combined with a relatively large font preference will make an article long and thin compared with more conventional PC displays. That might be why you don't see sandwiching but it is there. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do you mean if I am fix captions, nobody not delete it again? Algirr (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a photo essay (collage) is appropriate as a lead image in this instance. It does not meet the requirement of being necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand why Algirr (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the use of the collage "necessary" to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way? And what point would that be? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think yes, necessary, if we have oppurtunity Algirr (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what you mean "What point"? point it is illustrate connflict Algirr (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us to choose a representative image (singular). It does not tell us to create a photo essay that would go against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We can illustrate the conflict by appropriate placement of images throughout the article. Having the opportunity does not make it necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. Based on these words, for me it seems like collages are not allowed in Wikipedia at all. Algirr (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain to me, what is CORRECT here, for example. Or here, or here, or here. I really don't understand Algirr (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collages can be used on WP provided they are used in the way described and there is an example here. Of the examples you give, I don't see any of this WP:OTHERCONTENT being examples of good use. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean all what i sended to you is bad use? Algirr (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I see It's just a black photo of the same object from different sides. I hope it don't mean I need put into collage same photo from different sides? Algirr (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The collage you're trying to use provides no use other than aesthetics, that's what Cinderella157 is trying to say 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, photographs are used mainly for aesthetics, unless they are some kind of documents or something like that. I can say the same thing about one photo which this article have now. Algirr (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Yemen_civil_war&oldid=1279477030"