Talk:Battle of the River Plate

River name

While noting 128.125.252.127's point that Rio de la Plata is more accurately translated as "Silver River", I'm reverting much of his recent edits as the accepted name in English is River Plate -- most particularly it is not acceptable to rename the movie and magazine article which are definitely entitled "Battle of the River Plate". Arwel 07:01, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Which campaign?

Which campaign or theatre does this battle belong in? Battle of the Atlantic? Oberiko 15:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ship classification

I'm changing Duncharris' description of Graf Spee as a 'battleship' to simply 'ship' in the text, as technically, although pocket battleship was the term used in English at the time to describe them, the Panzerschiffe would more accurately be described as heavy cruisers, or perhaps as battlecruisers, as they lacked the heavy armour of true battleships (which indeed eventually proved fatal to Graf Spee). -- Arwel 14:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not mention the Spanish name?

@Roger 8 Roger, you're removing the Spanish name of the river (which I added), but so far you haven't explained why it shouldn't be included. I'm aware that "River Plate" is the correct historiographical name, but these days the river is better known by the Spanish name, as evidenced by the name of its article, which is set by consensus. Even if not, the two countries that border the river speak Spanish, so it's still relevant if nothing else.

You've mentioned No evidence supplied and unsupported, but how? There are references that have the Spanish name right in their titles! (Gotta and Perea). If you're referring to my claim, more commonly used today, that's in my edit summary, not in the article.

— W.andrea (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have moved this edit from my talk page to here which is probably more appropriate. In answer to it, and your post immediately above : -

Regarding your edit summary on Battle of the River Plate,

See wp:BRD. Your unsupported edit has been disputed. Your next step is to go to the talk page to try to get consensus, not to start an edit war.

I'm aware of WP:BRD, but it's a guideline, not a rule. I thought you just misunderstood my edit or reasoning, that's why I reverted. As I wrote on the article talk page just now, I don't see how it's unsupported or disputed.

Secondly, an edit summary should describe the changes being made in neutral language, so accusing someone of starting an edit war is inappropriate. Please read Edit summary dos and don'ts; see also What to avoid in edit summaries.

— W.andrea (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I realise the Spanish name for the river/estuary is often used in English but I don't think that is the point. The English name is also often used and I think it is the most often used. Regarding this battle it is the only one used. You never hear 'Battle of the Rio de la Plata'. To put the Spanish name in means it has to be used by a large number of English language sources, which regarding this battle it isn't. Being close to Spanish speaking countries is not relevant. I still think the correct next step after my revert was to raise it here.

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think [the English name] is the most often used.

It may very well be; I'm not an expert. But in my experience, I've only heard the Spanish name except in the context of this battle. So when I first heard about it I was wondering, "Is that the same thing as the Rio de la Plata?"

Regarding this battle it is the only one used. You never hear 'Battle of the Rio de la Plata'. To put the Spanish name in means it has to be used by a large number of English language sources, which regarding this battle it isn't.

Right, like I said, I'm aware that "River Plate" is the correct historiographical name.

I put the Spanish name in the context of the river, not the battle. I.e.,

... sighted Graf Spee off the estuary of the River Plate (Spanish: Río de la Plata) ...

and not something like

The Battle of the River Plate (Battle of the Río de la Plata) ...

Being close to Spanish speaking countries is not relevant.

How so?

— W.andrea (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

About 'how so', the reason for inserting a foreign name is because that name is used in a significant number of sources so confusion is therefore avoided, that is all. If an article is written in English then use the English language, it's quite simple I think. I realise this is very often misunderstood on WP and foreign language names are inserted at random whenever there is a vague connection between the article subject and a foreign language. For example, articles about the Falkland Islands can insert the name used in Spanish, Malvinas, because that name is often used in English language sources, not because it is the name mostly used by Argentina, or because there is a claim on the islands by Argentina, or because they are sort of close to South America. But, the Argentine name for Port Stanley is not used, because it is not used in English sources. Now, there is no confusion about what the river plate is, even if it is sometimes called rio de la plata. To use it in this article you will have to show that a very large number of the sources being used refer to it as 'rio de la plata', which I think is highly unlikely. I don't think you can pick and choose within an article. For this article river plate is used. An article about, say, the geography of the river might possibly insert 'rio de la plata' at the start if many of the sources refer to it as such, but that would only be for that article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To use it in this article you will have to show that a very large number of the sources being used refer to it as 'rio de la plata'

What policy says that? I've skimmed WP:PLACENAME and it doesn't seem that cut-and-dry.

Again, the article about the river is called Río de la Plata, not River Plate. That tells me that's the more common name today.

there is no confusion about what the river plate is

I literally just said I was confused about it.

I don't think you can pick and choose within an article. For this article river plate is used.

What do you mean "pick and choose"? I just want it mentioned once, that's all.

— W.andrea (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

@Roger 8 Roger, regarding your latest edit summary:

That's not the way it 's done. It stays off unless consensus says otherwise. No replies does not equal consensus.

What policy says that's not how it's done? Yes, WP:consensus says:

Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions

But on the other hand, WP:BRD says:

If discussion dies off, you can always go back and get yourself reverted again to find (or refind) other interested parties.

I believe I've brought up valid reasons to include the Spanish name so I'm trying to move things forward. But of course, your revert does demonstrate that you still care even if you haven't replied.

Maybe I should put my point another way: What harm is there in including the Spanish name? If I understand what you're saying, at worst it's noise, but it's only five words in a parenthetical, so what's the harm in that?

— W.andrea (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The harm is it's trivia and clutter that adds nothing notable to this article about the battle. There is no need to clarify anything that an averagely educated person doesn't understand. Why not add the German name of the battle? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the notion that including the Spanish name of the river is objectionable. I think this may be an example of a strict, mechanistic approach to concepts like "notability" leading to excluding things that are useful to the reader. Nobody will ever seriously propose adding the German name. The reason the Spanish name was added, rather than the German name, is self-evident. I say, go ahead and add it! Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

@Roger 8 Roger So you reverted again and cited MOS:GEO, but how does it justify removal? I can explain how it justifies inclusion if needed. — W.andrea (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Because sources about this incident refer to it as the river plate. mos:geo is only a guide and allows exceptions to the rule. The link directs to rio de la plata so it is clear what river it is if anyone is in doubt. Also, I don't think it is correct to add a translation in an article like that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what sources about the battle say, the Wikipedia article about the river uses the other name, and as MOS:GEO says,

A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article. An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context. In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in round brackets (parentheses) on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article.

Why should we make an exception here?

The link directs to rio de la plata so it is clear what river it is if anyone is in doubt.

See MOS:NOFORCELINK:

Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.

Also, I don't think it is correct to add a translation in an article like that.

It's not a translation. The Spanish name is naturalized in English. For example, if I google it, I get results about the river, while if I google "river plate", I only get results about a soccer team (Club Atlético River Plate) except the Wikipedia disambiguation page River Plate.

— W.andrea (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We've been through this before. For this event it is known as the river plate. You should find sources dealing with the battle and see how many of them call it rio de la plata v river plate. And, this article is in english so we write in english, not spanish. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, did you not read what I wrote? I already addressed both those points.

For this event it is known as the river plate. You should find sources dealing with the battle and see how many of them call it rio de la plata v river plate.

Regardless of what sources about the battle say, the Wikipedia article about the river uses the other name

this article is in english so we write in english, not spanish.

The Spanish name is naturalized in English.

Also, I just realized, you never explained how MOS:GEO justifies removal.

— W.andrea (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:GEO, A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). An exception may be made when there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context. The river has two names in English. Without checking, I assume 'rio de la plata' has gained in usage over the last 50 or so years and may even now be the more usual name, but it certainly is not the only name. It's use in this article is in context of the 1939 battle which uses river plate. I think at the time 'river plate' was probably the main name in English. So, in context, the river should be called river plate. It's Spanish name - that you used by refering to it as a spanish name - is not relevant, because, as you say, rio de la plata, has become anglicised/assimilated, to a noticeable extent at least, so we are dealing with two English names, not a spanish name and an english name. If anything should be added, IMO it should be once, after the first mention of 'river plate' (not in the battle name) and should say (also know as rio de la plata). That is all. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I already cited that paragraph:

... In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in round brackets (parentheses) on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article.

It's use in this article is in context of the 1939 battle which uses river plate.

I'm not disputing that, so you don't need to keep bringing it up. I'm aware of the historiography.

It's Spanish name ... is not relevant, because ... we are dealing with two English names

Again refer to MOS:GEO:

In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name

it should be once, after the first mention of 'river plate' (not in the battle name)

That's exactly how I did it.

should say (also know as rio de la plata)

That's effectively what (Spanish: Río de la Plata) accomplishes, while also saying that that's the name used in Spanish too.

W.andrea (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where this is going. I reverted because you added the Spanish name, not an alternative English name (the fact they are the same, less the diacritic does not excuse insertion for the wrong reason). River Plate is not an historical name, it is an alternative name still widely used. Again, please be specific and less casual with your analysis. If you want to add something constructive to this article I suggest getting, and reading, some quality books and adding some relevant cited detail. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a lot I want to say, but I don't think it'd be very constructive. We're getting bogged down. So, instead I made a new edit using the verbiage you suggested: (also know as rio de la plata) → (a.k.a. the Río de la Plata). — W.andrea (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)