Talk:War on terror

Cats

Hello @Aocloyalist: Why remove these? Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "global war on terrorism" in prose

Skitash, Per MOS:CAPS we do not cap a word of phrase unless this is consistently done in sources. The ngram here indicates this is not the case. We do not give particular weight to official sources. Furthermore, per MOS:EXPABBR we do not capitalise a term when it is used to introduce an initialism - though some styles do. By the evidence of usage we should not be capitalising this term. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if we renamed the article Global War on Terrorism (as in, the proper noun referring to the actual US-led operation), whether that would eliminate this problem. Uncapitalised "war on terror" looks really weird, but understand if there is no appetite to dredge this argument up yet again. But I also dont think the ngram is a good indicator of what we should use, as all it really shows is people don’t tend to use capitalisation when they type. Yr Enw (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS, we avoid unnecessary caps and determine what is necessary by looking at usage - across a wide sample of sources. If people don’t tend to use capitalisation when they type [this], then capitalisation is not necessary. Changing the article title would not change how we should capitalise global war on terror. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to the ngram point again, isn’t our guide reliable sources as opposed to search engine typing habits? Yr Enw (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The criteria given in MOS:CAPS is essentially statistical in nature and the typing habits used in sources. Ngrams draw on a large sample set of sources and is free from observer selection bias. It is often used as a tool to determine appropriate capitalisation on WP. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Notified at WT:MOSCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised this isn't uppercased more in the NGram. It seems so obviously an artificially chosen name for a US-led government initiative that I would be tempted to not only use uppercase but also to put in quote marks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and don’t find the above ngram data convincing enough to follow for this, because sooner or later we will end up not capitalising anything, simply coz people tend not to when using search engines Yr Enw (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to infobox

Gehirnstein, you would re-add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the infobox with this edit despite it being contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE because their addition is not supported by the body of the article. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points from the article. Regardless of your opinion, there is nothing in the article to tell the reader why Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi should be in the infobox as a key or significant commander/leader. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your argument but in the long term, he will be mentoined in the article as well as Donald Trump ect. They are way to important figures not to be mentoined, especially Baghdadi. Gehirnstein (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Gehirnstein, the guidance is quite clear. You are crystalballing what the article might look like in the future. Baghdadi died five years ago. You are welcome to edit the article in a way that evidences why Baghdadi would be considered a key or significant commander/leader - and not just a passing mention dropped in and out of context. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand thank you and I might do it in the future if I find the time :) Gehirnstein (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the leader of ISIS clearly is not a major figure in the war on terror. How could anyone think that. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of combatants/agents involved in this campaign on both sides and among them how many leaders? Hundreds, thousands, more? Each group involved has had one or several commander in chiefs who could be on that list. There has to be criteria to keep the list reasonable. Basically, did something notable enough to get a mention in the summary article is that criteria. Sarcastic remarks is not going to change that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit links

The infobox is hard to edit from the pages it's on. Can we add {{navbar}} or the like please? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)