Talk:Guerra Grande

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Redirect or disambig?

Some editor's have noted that Guerra Grande can refer to 3, or possibly even more, different wars. The page currently redirects to Uruguayan Civil War. Should it stay that way or be changed to a disambiguation page? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional literature on the subject (from the English and Spanish perspectives) has "Guerra Grande" encompassing the conflicts WP currently denotes as the "Uruguayan Civil War" and "Platine War".

In Paraguay, however, "Guerra Grande" is another name for what English historiography calls the War of the Triple Alliance. In Cuba, "Guerra Grande" is also used for what English historiography calls the Ten Years' War.

Ideally, based on English historigraphy, the current "Platine War" article should be renamed as the "Guerra Grande". Nevertheless, there should be a "Guerra Grande (disambiguation)" page where the term can link to other conflicts. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There are references in which other conflicts are described as a Guerra Grande that, although less frequently used, might eventually be added to a list, were the redirect changed to disambiguation. • Astynax ^talk 17:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Since "Guerra Grande" in English literature defines the "Uruguayan Civil War" and Brazilian POV "Platine War", the best option would be to have an article called "Guerra Grande (Disambiguation)" in order to mention the other conflicts called in their native countries the "Guerra Grande" (and which English literature does not support). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you so certain that that war is the primary topic for Guerra Grande? If not, it might makes sense to call that conflict Guerra Grande (18?? to 18??). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that my word is not enough, we can do a Google Books analysis (again, controlling for English-only results):

"Guerra Grande" and "Uruguay" ([1]): 3,110 hits.
"Guerra Grande" and "Argentina" ([2]): 1,460 hits.
"Guerra Grande" and "Cuba" ([3]): 1,320 hits.
"Guerra Grande" and "Paraguay" ([4]): 1,060 hits.

Based on the results, I am 100% certain that the term "Guerra Grande" (in English historiography) applies as a primary topic to the conflict going in the Uruguay-Argentina area.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, while we're sharing ideas, perhaps another good option would be to have an article separate from "Platine War" and "Uruguayan Civil War" for the "Guerra Grande". The first two articles would focus on particular aspects of the "Guerra Grande" (One focuses on the Uruguayan situation, the other on the Brazil-Argentina conflict), while the "Guerra Grande" article would encompass the greater aspect of both matters. The problem with that would be that it could become a content fork. It would simply be easier (and a better fit with the correct English historical literature) to rename either "Platine War" or "Uruguayan Civil War" to the "Guerra Grande," and then merge them. However, if everyone is happier with the second option (having three separate articles), I am willing to go for that route as well. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your search results show differences in commonality of the terms, but no overwhelming differences. Based on that, I'd say Guerra Grande has no primary topic. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A difference of about 2,000 (which is around 60-100% more than the other search results) does indicate a primary topic concerning Uruguay. This difference grows even bigger when taking into account Argentina. Regards.

The results remain quite large when excluding terms such as "Triple" (2780), and "Paraguayan" (2750), in order to avoid confusion with the War of the Triple Alliance (aka "Paraguayan War").

But, surely, if you think 1000 to 1700 extra book results mean nothing, then I guess you must be quite a fast reader. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! I wasn't aware that MarshalN20 is the resident especialist in armed conflicts such as the Platine War and the Paraguayan War. Things you learn in life... --Lecen (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your childish sarcasm is not necessary, and further shows you have a tooth to pick in this matter rather than actually care about what the literature in English presents. I am not a specialist, but rather a real historian (and not a lawyer). You won't get anything out of this by continuing to treat encyclopedic discussions as if we were in a courtroom. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. The articles I wrote not only are Featured Articles but also none of them suffer of endless discussions over content, or has tags, etc... As far as I know, you and your friends, Cambalachero and WeeMonstersomething, have turned War of the Pacific and Falklands War into a complete chaos. There is "British POV" and "Chilean POV", here it's "Brazilian POV". Endless discussions, accusations, insults, ANI threats, warning tags, move discussions, etc... Perhaps it's all just a coincidence that the articles I contribute are stable and yours are pure anarchy? Seems this lawyer is doing a pretty good job. --Lecen (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think anybody outside Wikipedia really cares that you "wrote" those articles? This is a voluntary project; the work you do is no more notable on the outside world than the work done by the occassional vandal (and even they get more publicity, as shown by the success of the "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" campaign). You're quite welcome for whatever kind words you found on my prior statement. For my part, I don't appreciate any of your false accusations and insults (as I am sure neither WCM or Cambalachero would appreciate them). If you think those little FA stars are a ticket for continual intimidation, you have a better chance of getting something out of the stickers children get for answering a simple arithmetic question. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you're very polite. --Lecen (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]