User talk:P.T. Aufrette

First Nagorno-Karabakh War

Hi P.T. Aufrette, in your move request you argued that the First was needed as a disambiguator. Given that is the case, is there a reason you are editing across articles to insert "First" as part of a proper name? CMD (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: The page Nagorno-Karabakh War should now point to a disambiguation page, as I argued in the successful Requested Move. But I haven't changed it just yet, because articles using the old link should first be edited to point directly to the new title, instead of sending the user to a disambiguation page. That is what I'm doing now. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I am looking at each link on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes a more appropriate link is Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is an overview of all the wars and clashes. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any specific edit you disagree with, and if so, what would be your suggestion? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be not to use "First Nagorno-Karabak War" as a proper name, because it isn't one. This specifically applies to most if not all of your recent edits. Further, you're replacing already disambiguated instances, such as "1991-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War", with "First Nagorno-Karabakh War", and I don't understand the reasoning behind that either. CMD (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis:The simplest way to link to a page is just to use the page's actual title. The problem with disambiguations involving years is the disagreement over exactly which year the war can be considered to have started. Over various Wikipedia pages I have seen 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992. There were initial conflicts and then the bona-fide warfare broke out when the Soviet Union collapsed. So it may be simpler just to use a year-neutral version. But in many cases I did leave the years intact in my more recent edits. I still have trouble understanding your "proper name" objection. In the policies and guidelines pages, titles that differ only by capitalization are considered equivalent to one another except for specific cases like Ice Cube vs. Ice cube or Iron Maiden vs. Iron maiden (to use actual examples cited there) where, for example, some artist or work adopted a common term as a proper name or title, and the different capitalizations actually refer to entirely different things. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not using the term in titles, you are using the term as a proper noun within prose in sentences. You are treating a disambiguating adjective as part of the actual name of the event. CMD (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be useful to know how you are determining which link is most appropriate. Changes like this one change the meaning of the sentence, contradicting the source at hand. CMD (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Martyrs' Day" holiday is not just for the first war with Armenians, it also marks the "Black January" event which was a crackdown by the central Soviet government. The name of the holiday, according to the Black January article, is literally "the Day of the Nationwide Sorrow". The Google translation of the the Azeri Wikipedia article cross-linked with Public holidays in Azerbaijan gives the name as "National Day of Mourning" and it also says: "Article 106 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan states: Every year, January 20 - the day of commemoration of the martyrs who died for the independence and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan - is a day of national mourning." Based on that, it seems clear that those deemed martyrs of the recent war will also be commemorated. I changed the link to the "overall conflict" page rather than routinely linking to the page for the first war only. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point, I will make a greater effort to retain or adapt original link text rather than just replacing with the page title. But at least where the original link is simply Nagorno-Karabakh War I do feel the most sensible thing to do is to replace it with First Nagorno-Karabakh War. We may disagree, but at some point the disagreement risks devolving into "relitigating" the Move Request discussion. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Changes to the article text should not be based on them, especially when there is a reliable source already in place on the text being changed. On the use of "First" in prose, it is not the same as the move request. You are inserting the new article title as a proper noun in hundreds of articles, without any sources supporting this. CMD (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis:The Azeri Wikipedia excerpt I gave literally cites Article 106 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. That is surely an unimpeachable source. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, kindly do not revert back to linking to the disambiguation page, as you did here. A better way to proceed would have been to preserve the correct page link: 1988-1994 [[First Nagorno-Karabakh War|Nagorno-Karabakh War]] . -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my actions are a logical consequence of the Requested Move outcome. You are making the same "proper noun" argument as you did in the discussion there, and I did address it at length with my own counterarguments there, which I don't wish to repeat here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, citing Wikipedia is not unimpeachable. This is specifically mentioned at WP:RSPRIMARY. The Azerbaijani Labor Code would itself, also be a primary source. And at least in that specific case, there was already a source on the page in question. In the RM, you specifically argued that the change was as a descriptive title, comparing it to the 2020 article with "just a normal application of WP:DESCRIPDIS". Your current edits are not treating it as a descriptive title. On better ways to proceed, I did make changes at a later point, and if that sort of formulation is better why are you instead treating the new title as a proper noun? CMD (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am making edits by hand, rather than mechanically. That does not preclude making other changes in passing, or alternative edits. I look at the context, and in cases where linking to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a better choice, as it was in the example above, then I can choose to make that edit like any other ordinary edit, as a modification to the original link created by a previous editor. I don't agree that your formulations are better, I'm merely saying you should take care not to break the link to the actual page and inadvertently substitute back the old link that points to what will very soon be a disambiguation page. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my formulation, you used it in early edits such as this one. It's unreasonable to ask others to fix the edits where you are spreading what based on the sources mentioned in the RM is a novel term throughout hundreds of articles. CMD (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it needs "fixing" at all. If the title of a Wikipedia article is "Quick Brown Fox", then it seems absurd to claim that the plain verbatim link [[Quick Brown Fox]] can never appear as such in any text in Wikipedia. What rule can you cite to justify such a claim? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]