Forum:CT Archive/Revising nomenclature of battle articles

Recently we had a conversation going over in the Senate Hall regarding how our articles for battles are titled, and it went well enough that I thought I'd bring up a CT on it.

The sparknotes version:
 * Far too many of our battle articles are either arbitrarily conjecturally titled 'first,' 'second,' (etc) or else have an arbitrary/inconsistent conflict parenthesis tacked on the end
 * It would be better if we could make these more uniform and remove conjecture

Proposal: Battle articles, when not otherwise uniquely named, should be titled simply as "Battle of x" with the year in which they took place in parentheses on the end. This will allow us to simplify the naming process for battle articles so that they're both easier to create and easier to find later, excise conjectural naming, and make the titling policy more uniform across the board.

Example: For instance, battles of Dathomir...
 * Battle of Dathomir (3 ABY) would replace the conjectural First Battle of Dathomir (Galactic Civil War) title &mdash; this was never titled "First" at any point, and having it such is unnecessary conjecture that can be corrected
 * Battle of Dathomir (8 ABY) would replace Battle of Dathomir (Zsinj campaign) &mdash; the Zsinj campaign is part of the Galactic Civil War, so naming by conflict only doesn't work

Exceptions to be approached on a case-by-case basis, but offhand a couple examples:
 * Specifically named instances, such as First Battle of Ruusan (and the other six, etc) should remain as-is, apprending a year only if there's another conflict with an identical name
 * Multiple conflicts at the same location in the same year,such as the first and second Battles of Harte Secur, could potentially be problematic&mdash;though no moreso than they are currently

Adopt

 * 1) As proposer. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:41, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 23:13, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Discuss
Potentially this sort of thing could be adapted to fit other sorts of articles as well, but I'd like to keep the focus narrowed to this particular subject for the purposes of this CT. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 18:41, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest an additional contingency guideline for naming. Sometimes we can only place a battle according to its conflict when we don't know the year it took place in. It would be best to allow for the conflict to be used as the parenthetical descriptor in absence of a year. We would then have a preferred order for choosing the parenthetical descriptor: try to name the article by year first, and by conflict second in the absence of a year. Even "Battle of Planet (Galactic Civil War)" is infinitely better than "Fourth Battle of Planet." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:57, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. If we don't know its year, the conflict it's under is probably the best identifier to include in the title. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 19:04, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another guideline we might want on record. I dunno if it's ever happened or ever will happen, but what about a battle that was on the same planet in the same year but was part of a different conflict? Should that be at "Battle of [Planet] ([Year], [Conflict])?" Arranged that order to emphasize the year like this CT wants to do. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 22:10, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 22:35, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's logical. I was forced to create a similar circumstance for all of these fellows. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:54, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * That disambig is awesome. xD Arrite. I can support this, with additions we in the peanut gallery think up. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 23:13, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about two conflicts on the same planet, same year, same conflict? eg, Second Battle of Orinda and Third Battle of Orinda are both part of the Galactic Civil War's Orinda campaign and are both in 12 ABY. I think we could go two ways on this one: "First Battle of Orinda (12 ABY)" and "Second Battle of Orinda (12 ABY)," or "Battle of Orinda (first, 12 ABY)" and "Battle of Orinda (second, 12 ABY)." The latter sounds a bit awkward but seems to fit better with the spirit of this CT. Menkooroo (talk) 23:19, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thought. I'd say putting the number in the parentheses would be the least conjectural option, but putting the number after the year would probably be better. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 23:21, January 30, 2013 (UTC)