Talk:North Yemen civil war#Requested move 28 November 2024

: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)

----

:North Yemen Civil War → {{no redirect|North Yemen civil war}} – Sources don't consistently capitalize "civil war" on this one, though there's a [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1970&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=1&case_insensitive=true 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)

:Are there other Yemen Civil Wars? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

::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)

• Oppose, n-gram sources not only "trend" uppercase, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1962&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true they easily pass substantial uppercasing as the most common name in English]. This was a long-term major conflict which, like most civil wars of its size and duration on Wikipedia, goes by its uppercased common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per randy. Tho I propose renaming it to the 26 September Revolution Abo Yemen✉ 06:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• :{{u|Abo Yemen}}, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=26+September+Revolution%2C26+September+revolution%2CNorth+Yemen+Civil+War%2CNorth+Yemen+civil+war&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Here are the n-grams for casing of North Yemen Civil War compared to 26 September Revolution], again showing an obvious predominance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::Indeed, the n-grams provide pretty stark evidence that [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=26+September+Revolution%2C26+September+revolution%2CNorth+Yemen+Civil+War%2CNorth+Yemen+civil+war&year_start=1960&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=1&case_insensitive=false sources didn't cap this until a few years after Wikipedia did]. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::that sucks Abo Yemen✉ 07:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, please note that this is a Good article, which means it has already gone through a process which retained the uppercasing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Except at Talk:North Yemen Civil War/GA1#GA_Review you can see it was given a "?" in relation to WP:MOS. It looks to me like nobody has yet considered style compliance on this article or its title. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::Because the title is obviously fine and uppercasing is greatly predominate? Changing the casings of Good articles maybe shouldn't be done lightly, which this example seems to be doing to a proven uppercased proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::There is no policy principle on which that idea is based, and it is actually directly against several of them (especially WP:EDITING, WP:OWN, and WP:CONLEVEL. Having a GA (or FA) sticker does not magically make any article immune from routine guideline and policy compliance changes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::That argument might make sense if it was moved without consensus, but this is exactly the correct way to go about this, showing that the idea is not being done lightly. TiggerJay (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note – lowercase is not unusual for civil wars. See for example these articles (none of these are redirects):
• Sri Lankan civil war
• Caesar's civil war
• Liberators' civil war
• Sulla's civil war
• Göktürk civil war
• Syrian civil war
• Tripolitanian civil war
• South Yemen civil war
• Marian civil war
• Hasmonean civil war
• East Timorese civil war
• : And many more should be lowercase, as they're not consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::None of those have any bearing on the long-term uppercasing of the topic being discussed. Uppercasing is obvious in this case, probably not in the ones you list above (checked a few and the n-grams that exist - many of the topics have no n-grams to plot - seem about equal, not the case for North Yemen Civil War). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::Even if a particular case were "about equal" that means "lower-case on Wikipedia" because it fails our "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" test. And you know this. We've been over this many, many, many times.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support—the evidence is just above. Tony (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: The n-gram shows the capitalized version being more prevalent than the non-capitalized version. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Totally irrelevant. "More prevalent" (i.e. a bit of a majority of usage) is not WP's standard, it is {{tq|only words and phrases that are {{em|consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources}} are capitalized in Wikipedia}} (emphasis in original).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Not consistently capitalized in independent, reliable sources. And to the extent there is some capitalization the evidence strongly suggests it was picked up from WP itself; i.e. this is is WP:CITOGENESIS. See also GScholar results [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22the+North+Yemen+Civil+War%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5], which are better than both Ngrams and GBooks searches (we have more certainty with regard to both source quality and context of usage, e.g. running text versus a title-case title/heading/caption/table header). The usage swings wildly from "North Yemen Civil War" to "North Yemen civil war", with even some weird "North Yemen Civil war" in the middle. It is {{em|literally disproven}} that independent RS consistently treat this a proper name by capitalizing it. Contrast this with results for Vietnam War [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22the+Vietnam+War%22&btnG=], American Civil War [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22the+American+Civil+War%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5], and World War II [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22World+War+II%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5], terms for which lower-case usage in quality sources is virtually non-existent (other than "American civil war" occurred in a handful of sentence-case article titles, probably the result of an automated script, as the running text in each of these cases had "American Civil War").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

::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)

• 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 [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=50&q=%22North+Yemen+Civil+War%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 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)

::Your "here" is to page 6. [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=20&q=%22North+Yemen+Civil+War%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Here is page 3]. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Yes Randy, but I am looking across multiple pages, not single pages in isolation. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::::[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 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)

:::::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 [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1970&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=1&case_insensitive=true here]) and a very different result if one just looks at the most recent data [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1970&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0&case_insensitive=true 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)

::::::[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+North+Yemen+civil+war&year_start=1962&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true 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 [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1962&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true 'North Yemen Civil War' vs 'North Yemen civil war' n-gram]. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Simple Randy, {{tq|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)

• 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)
• Oppose Ngrams are clear: Capitalization is used substantially more often than lowercase form. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• :You guys should take another look. What [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+North+Yemen+Civil+War&year_start=1962&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0&case_insensitive=true 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)
• ::Again, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+North+Yemen+civil+war&year_start=1962&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true here are the n-grams]. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::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)

: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)

::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)

:::Its an evidence based trend not WP:OR. Theofunny (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::@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)

::::::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)

:::::::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))

::::::::"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)

:::::::::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)

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

• :{{u|Tony1}}, 20 days later you come around to vote again? Excusable though, as this RM has gone on very far past its due date. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::@Randy Kryn this is just funny lol Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support again per Tony. Gives Randy another chance to say something. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• :nah at this point we should add a {{Humor}} tag to this rm Abo Yemen✉ 05:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)