Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)
Please refactor like a monkey on speed...
from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive1
Unless I'm missing something, isn't the naming a bit premature? Just because it's very likely to happen doesn't mean we can pretend it has. - Khendon 10:36 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Surely you cannot doubt the combined forces... of the tarot, crystal ball, the I Ching and the countless confirmatory organs of divination relied on by Miss Cleo?!?!?!? How boring and dull to wait for something to happen before you report it, when you can predict it and scoop all the other wikipedias!!</sarcasm> -- Someone else 10:53 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
S.E. actually has a point, Khendon. As of Monday 3/17/03 the "plan" to invade was upgraded from a possible scenario into a fairly stern threat. I'd say "prospective invasion" was fair at this point, although I still have hopes that Bush will listen to Rev. Moon and call it off. Violence cannot make peace; only God's parental love can reconcile warring brothers. --Uncle Ed 19:06 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
- However, it may turn out to be a US-UK-Australian-Turkish invasion of Iraq, or some such combination. ( 19:12 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
Then we can simply rename it Invasion of Iraq or if there have been too many invasions, Invasion of Iraq (2003). Perhaps at some point we should re-organize or re-title some of these articles, though, because I've lost count of how many there are discussing the prospect or possibility or plan for a US-led invasion of Iraq, in the aftermath of 9/11.
- regime change, should be regime change in Iraq
- US plan to invade Iraq redirects to 2003 invasion of Iraq
See also:
--Uncle Ed
This may be moot as of tomorrow, but I strongly agree that this article's title is premature. -- Zoe
- I think it should be renamed (maybe to Military buildup for the 2003 invasion of Iraq) and a new page created if the actual invasion takes place. ( 12:42 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
- How about US preparations for the invasion of Iraq ( 23:41 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
I think we need two separate article:
- preparations and discussion prior to the invasion, and
- the courese of the actual invasion
For one thing, there are 46 (I counted 'em) REDIRECT's to U.S. plan to invade Iraq, which is currently a redirect page to US invasion of Iraq. --Uncle Ed 16:23 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
The invasion is not entirely a "US invasion" as British forces are also involved. Is there a way to rename the article that won't seem to "hide" the US initiative, leadership and responsibility for the invasion?
- 2003 invasion of Iraq is certainly neutral and factual, but seems a bit vague
- US-led invasion of Iraq ??
--Uncle Ed
The latter seems fine to me; I don't think there's any disputation that it's a US-led operation. - Khendon
end from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive1
from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2
Um, what the hell is going on? What's this new US-led invasion article? Is someone planning a big useful reorganisation, or just messing things up? Someone please clarify... --AW
- I would move this article back to US plan to invade Iraq, but the existing redirect there has some history preventing it. ( 17:53 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
- But this article isn't about the plan, it's about the invasion. We now have two articles about the same thing, which isn't helpful. And the one you've just created is just a subset of this one. --AW
- That's easily fixed: modify this article so it again reflects the plan. That's what it's about mostly. Move the stuff about the actual invasion to the new article.
- I disagree. I think it's best to have an overarching article like this which can discuss the invasion in totam - the preparations, the international situation, the course of the invasion itself, the ramifications...either that or split it into quite a lot of different articles. Two - a "plans" article and an "invasion" article - doesn't look like a good structure to me. --AW
- I think there's scope for a separate article for the events leading to the invasion, that can be summarised and linked from the invasion page. There's too much to cover for one article. However Iraq_disarmament_crisis also exists ( 18:04 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
- That's not the same as a page merely for invasion plans, though. Maybe something like "Events leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq"? --AW
- Events is a little vague. I suggested US preparations for the invasion of Iraq earlier?
- No, because you describe it as "a separate article for the events leading to the invasion". This is surely broader than "US preparations". The point is that if there's going to be a split like this, the pre-invasion article has to cover stuff like the UN diplomacy, which doesn't come under the heading of "US preparations". --AW
- Perhaps simply renaming is not a good plan. Some of the current article is just speculation about the likely course of the invasion and can probably be deleted. There is a description of military forces that could be moved to an article devoted to such things. There are already separate articles about Weapons of Mass Destruction that could take some of the material here. ( 19:01 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
- I suggest instead moving it to US-led invasion of Iraq and trying to fix up these points. ( 19:37 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
- OK, can we please come up with an unambiguous plan? Let me propose:
An article limited to a pure description of the actual invasion - not what happened before it or political controversy, just the military invasion itself. This can be "US-led invasion of Iraq" or "2003 invasion of Iraq" (this actually strikes me as a better title - this is an encyclopaedia, there may be other US-led invasions of Iraq people want to discuss. 2003 invasion is less ambiguous).
The other stuff from this page can be rolled into other articles, possibly - the "disarmament crisis" articles and the WMD article, perhaps. Any others? Whatever, let's get it done quickly, I have a bunch of stuff about the actual invasion and nowhere to put it at the moment. --AW
So, is there any objection to renaming this article to 2003 invasion of Iraq? ( 11:43 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
- Nope, I was planning on doing this sometime today. It may leave redirect chains, though, that'll need checking. --AW
- Could you precisely tell in which articles you moved 90% of the content of this articel ?
Almost all of it went to Preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq. There is also important relevant stuff at Iraq disarmament crisis, United Nations actions regarding Iraq, Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction and Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq. I think all the important stuff that used to be here is covered between those pages. I'll add them to the "also see" section on this page. --AW
OK, I've shunted most of the deleted stuff over to Preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq. I think there's some stuff I didn't put there that probably belongs in one of the UN articles instead, will have a look at that now. I propose this article be renamed 2003 invasion of Iraq, because as I stated above, it's much less ambiguous than US invasion of Iraq. --AW
- once again, why didnot you create a new article, and moved the old one ?
end from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2
from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq
This entry should be named "U.S. invasion of Iraq". See the Talk:2001 U.S. Attack on Afghanistan. This is an equivalently U.S.-dominated campaign, if not more so. --The Cunctator
- There are around 20 countries actively involved in the war. -- Zoe
- British forces in particular have been doing a hell of a lot in the war, and sustaining a lot of casualties.. it seems silly to leave them out just because you want to make it look like the U.S. is "going it alone." There is a coalition whether you like it or not.
- I've read some media reports from some of the other coalition countries that are sending troops or ships that have been irritated that the U.S. media is frequently downplaying their role.
Sure, there are various countries involved in the war, but there were in Afghanistan as well. The thing is, most of the initiative and actions are being handled by the Americans, whereas Eritrea is mainly in this for moral support (or something like that). Perhaps someone can point to some source explaining where the other coalition members have been filling in more than just supportive roles?
Poland has announced they have forces on the ground in Iraq. Denmark has a submarine off the coast. Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania have WMD-sniffing equipment in Kuwait. Australia and the UK have forces involved in battle and have had casualties.
- Yup, and I've heard several countries that were sending in medical personel as well.. not combat forces, but definitely in danger. I think Polish commandos are also searching ships off the coast of Iraq.. finding mines and weapons and even taking some prisoners.
- After extensive research, I have put together a list of nations that support and oppose the invasion: Coalition of the willing .Kingturtle 06:02 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
- Do those who support this name think U.S. invasion of Afghanistan should be moved? See coalition of the willing to give a good measure of the nature of the alliance. By any measure this is an invasion planned, led, and dominated by the United States in political, military, and economic terms. --The Cunctator
Whatever you call it I know which conflict you mean and that is what a title is for. History will decide on the final name or names. Meanwhile don't get bogged down in polemics Ping
end from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq
Start a discussion about improving the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Iraq war) page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Iraq war)" page.
