Jump to content

Talk:Fort Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nominationb

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Date, size, refs, copyvio check, ok. Waiting for QPQ. There is one minor tone issue I tagged in text, and I disagree that this is B-class (too short, not using any of the numerous Polish media sources), but the latter issue is not a DYK problem. I do have however a problem with the hook; military bases nowadays are not "fortresses", the hook should not confuse readers like this. Please reformulated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I think the hook could be improved. What do you think about:
  • ALT2: ... that US diplomats asked Poland not to name their new military base Fort Trump lest it be perceived as a vanity project and not a serious military proposal? Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- putting this on hold for now, as the article has been nominated for AFD. If that is closed as keep, it can be re-approved at that time. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

insert correct icon for a nomination on hold. Flibirigit (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFD closed as no consensus. Yoninah (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've come here from the DYK talk discussion, hope you don't mind? And giving it a full re-review. I've been swayed by some of the comments at that talk that this should run, ideally, as soon as possible even though the party conventions have already passed and IMO we're in election season - too close before the election shouldn't happen and someone rightly pointed out the aftermath of this particular one could go on for a while, leaving this nom in limbo. With that in mind, alt2 is the more suitable hook. While there are neutrality concerns about mentioning the name Trump being seen as unserious, this was coming from the US, so it seems fair - and the less connection to Trump (where he is explicit in alt0 and alt1) the better it is neutrality-wise. The fact is cited in the article, though the google books page isn't showing for me (?) so taken on good faith. New enough and long enough at time of proposal and QPQ done. Article seems satis in terms of NPOV and no evident OR or copyvio, though there may be gaps (or just unknowns?) about the proposed project. So I'm approving ALT2 only, and ping @BlueMoonset and Cwmhiraeth: re. promotion ASAP. Kingsif (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not B-class

[edit]

Ping User:Robinvp11 and User:Hawkeye7. I agree with Robinvp11 who said "I don't think there's enough here to even be a C". Any objections to restoring his assessment, Hawkeye7? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go right ahead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am changing it to start then due to failing b2 (coverage). It is too short. Missing topics I see in Polish sources include for example criticism of this by Polish opposition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 September 2020

[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: not moved due to consensus. (non-admin closure) ~~~~

Fort Trump → Proposed U.S. military base in Poland – The proposal for a U.S. military base in Poland is a separate and distinct question from what the name of such a base would be. The proposed name, "Fort Trump", has already been rejected as little more than a joke name, and against the interests of the United States. I propose retitling this article to focus on the serious aspect of whether the U.S. will in fact substantially extend its military footprint to Poland, and relegate the one-off joke about naming it for a particular politician to a subsection, until such time as an official name is announced by the military. BD2412 T 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on the same rational that rejected a proposed redirect at AfD. The topic "Proposed U.S. military base in Poland" encompasses several different proposals, not simply the so-called "Fort Trump" proposal, meaning this can't simply be renamed or moved without introducing a major inaccuracy into the encyclopedia by suggesting this is the only such proposal. The AfD found that the specific name "Fort Trump" was widely and presently used in media to refer to a specific proposal and there was substantial coverage of that specific proposal versus alternate proposals for other U.S. military bases in Poland which is a more expansive topic. And that, our readers are likely to search for the specific name "Fort Trump" based on the current trend of media coverage and its tendency to invoke that name to refer to this project and to differentiate it from other proposals.
"has already been rejected as little more than a joke name, and against the interests of the United States" We generally don't edit Wikipedia articles to align them with the interests of the United States. The interests of the U.S. Government are, or should be, irrelevant to how we title content. Chetsford (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not intended to align with the interests of the United States, merely to reflect that the name itself has been rejected, and though a U.S. military base may be constructed in Poland, it will be named something else. BD2412 T 20:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"it will be named something else" Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we aren't able to say that. The only information we have is that the U.S. government has requested a different name. Like the U.S. Government does not control content on WP, it also does not control geographic names in Poland. In any case, this specific proposal is still known as the "Fort Trump proposal" regardless of any future name, as previously discussed in the AfD where it was noted that this is the description media use to refer to the project in absence of an alternative name like Project Panther Strike or Operation 9028 or whatever. Ergo, it's the term readers will search. Further, a rename or move would introduce intentional inaccuracy and confusion into the article by suggesting this is the only proposed U.S. military base in Poland as opposed to one specific and unique proposal. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What other proposed U.S. military bases in Poland do we have an article on? BD2412 T 20:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it would be confusing if we don't have articles on other proposals and renamed this specific proposal "proposed U.S. military base in Poland" as it would suggest this is the only such proposal, thereby introducing an intentional inaccuracy into the encyclopedia. Chetsford (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the name was no joke, but the idea was. If anything actually gets built, it deserves a separate article. This article's subject is different from any future military base; this article deals with one of the many failed or folded schemes tagged with the name "Trump". The interests of some country or other could not be less relevant. GPinkerton (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Proposed military base" isn't good enough. "Fort Trump" was supposed to be a division-strength permanent garrison. That proposal is dead, and any future new American bases will be completely different to the Fort Trump flop. Existing deployments at Poznan, Lask, Redzikowo, and Orzysz might be expanded or supplemented in due time, but that's a separate issue. The Fort Trump divisional HQ is a historical proposal which is notable in its own right and has no chance of coming to pass. GPinkerton (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fort_Trump&oldid=1207408578"