Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)

Requested move 1 October 2024

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed – Yes, on spelling Gerona, per sources. Negative on the plural in the disambig title; move the disambig to Siege of Gerona, since the third is not obviously primary and simple disambiguation seems better. Neutral on Battle vs Siege for the first, but yes drop the unneeded year if Battle. And thanks, Mdewman6, for taking this on. I agree that we should find something better than what we've got now, and I don't have a lot invested in a particular outcome, but those are my opinions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all as proposed, but support moves of all. The "battle" of 1808 is indeed usually called a siege. But all three sieges should be disambiguated another way, since they are not the first, second and third sieges of Girona in history, but only of the Peninsular War. (See ca:Setge de Girona and the now expanded dab page.) As for spelling, the dab page should use Girona like the city, but the Napoleonic articles can use whichever. My preferred moves would be:

But there are other ways to disambiguate. Srnec (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objections to that, but a couple of comments. First, our disambig pages usually disambiguate between articles with similar names, more than redlinked topics that might be mentioned in other wikis or other articles, as you've made it now. Second, the "First, Second, Third" naming is used in some sources, e.g. Napier's History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, several volumes; I don't know if it's "common", but it's at least sourced, so a plausible natural disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uff da. The proposal is opening a can of worms while opening a pandora's box... I first note that I was the primary author of Third siege of Girona. The easy one that is the redirect should be to "Siege", singular, rather than plural since it is a disambiguation page rather than a list. As recent edits show, Girona is a city of 1000 sieges. So what's the problem? There seems to be a perennial pressure to change the names of articles pertaining to Catalonia over to Spanish names - c.f., Empúries/Ampuries, and its talk page, or vice versa. Firstly, if consistency is the aim, is the goal to change all such articles on Wikipedia over to the Spanish spelling? Girona to Gerona, for example, L'Escala to the Spanish equivalent, and the names within the articles? Its a problem because it relates to the quite sensitive issues of Catalan culture and defense of the Catalan language in Catalonia and Spain these days - these are real hot button issues. (I had to check that none of the present editors in this Discussion were Spanish nationalists; Spanish Civil War issues are still actively discussed and "fought" over on the Francisco Franco pages.) It was noted that the predominance of sources were to the Spanish spelling. There are at least two reasons for that. First, Spanish speakers are much more numerous than Catalan speakers, and second, at various times the Catalan language has been vigorously and brutally suppressed. It strikes me that pressures to remove or downplay the Catalan spelling is partly a consequence of both of these points. Regarding sources, while I understand that standard, I also question blindly following that standard as an immutable rule. By that logic one could argue that since sources in American English are more numerous than British English, Wikipedia should use most often use American English for articles. But we don't do that; rather articles that are begun in one of those Englishes remain in that English. Would not a similar principle apply here? Others have argued "Spanish law" and so forth, but at the end of the day, this is the "English language" Wikipedia. I could go on, but I'll conclude with what was the compelling thought for me: we should do what is best for our English readers. Who are the primary readers of articles pertaining to Catalonia? The answer is tourists, seems to me, and indeed I wrote "Third Siege of Girona" with tourists in mind. In Catalonia, local spelling and preference is Catalan; a tourist newly arrived in Catalonia, steeped on the Spanish spellings, would perhaps be a bit confused - let's make the tourists happy, let's respect local preference, and leave Catalonian articles in Catalan spelling. I was also contemplating maps this morning - unless one bought a map of Spain in Spain/Spanish, generally maps give the Catalan spelling - certainly any map of the region bought in an English speaking country (seems to me). In short, oppose the proposed name changes. Bdushaw (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript Regarding battle/siege - I am uncertain, but my sense is that such usage corresponds to common usage within the Catalan culture. Not consistent perhaps, but perhaps that is the way it is. The Third Siege was certainly the main event, called that because it was preceded by the battle (?) and Second Siege from the year before. I find myself puzzled as to why the Original Proposer is motivated to "regularize" these articles. Bdushaw (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]