# Talk:North Yemen civil war

SilkPyjamas (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing discussion started by Randy Kryn on my user talk (two months ago, before my offline life kept me occupied) here to make it easier for those viewing this close. I used the threshold set by MOS:CAPS, a guideline that reflects sitewide consensus: consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources (italics original). I do not see consensus that this threshold has been met. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Rotideypoc41352, the n-grams show near consistent uppercasing, as do the n-grams with 'the' added (uppercased 78%, much more than enough to be uppercased on Wikipedia), so consensus here was just opinion and went according to habitual casing comments. Dicklyon tried today to change the tag at North Yemen Civil War to say that uppercased 'North Yemen Civil War' was not a proper name (I moved it back to 'from other capitalization'). Looking at the n-grams and sources, would you say that uppercased 'North Yemen Civil War' is at least a proper name (which would mean uppercasing would be accurate)? Thanks, and I hope your wikivacation went well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
To me, the above discussion did not show consensus that the phrase is a proper noun. I don't have much more to say or any strong views on this, @Randy Kryn. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Rotideypoc41352, you may want to check out MOS:MILTERMS, which requests that Wikipedia uppercase such names when they are "usually" used while keeping this n-gram in mind. At a minimum a new RM should be presented with MOS:MILTERMS as a central basis for returning the proper uppercasing to the page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
i.e. per MOS:MILTERMS: "Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources". Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
That use of "usually" does not seem well supported by the general MOS:CAPS guidance that says only to capitalize when consistent in sources, which is a higher standard than "usually". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
It refers to specific topics that commonsense uppercases if usually uppercased in sources (major wars, successful revolutions, etc.), such as this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Whether participants of a new RM will find MOS:MILTERMS persuasive is an open question. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to know more about why my photo collage in the article about the North Yemen civil war is being removed and what rules it violates. Algirr (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Algirr, they violate WP:COLLAGE: where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Collages are otherwise discouraged. WP:LEADIMAGE uses the singular. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells un not to try to write the article in the infobox. Such collages are a photo essay and just another way of trying to write the article in the infobox. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Moreover, squeezed two abreast, they are too small to be easily seen and poorly contrasting images just become a blur. We are told not to force the infobox size (eg make it larger) for accessibility reasons. Captions then bloat the infobox further. There are multiple P&G based reasons for not having this collage. Your edit was challenged. Before readding, you should have gained a consensus for this change. You did not. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I didn't understand anything. I didn't write an article in the infobox, I added photos. You can just as easily remove collages from all Wikipedia articles, but for some reason only mine violates some rights. Algirr (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
when I created this collage of photos I based it on other collages in other articles. The photos there were about the same as mine, or even smaller, but for some reason you didn't delete the collages there. Algirr (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't make them correct. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Algirr, while it is fine to add images, this should be in accordance with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and MOS:SANDWICH. I can see problems, particularly with the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't quite understand how my COLLAGE of photos in the infobox violates both of these points. I understand what the second point is mean, but it only applies to regular photos outside the infobox? Because it is simply impossible to set text between photos in the infobox (?). Algirr (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
The collage would work well with this page if all the images are in public domain. Worries about sandwiching would only pertain to very narrow screens (the same situation as any other collage). If collages are allowed on Wikipedia, which they are, then a well-prepared one for this page is possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:COLLAGE: where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. The use is permitted with a caveat. A photo essay in the infobox does not satisfy the caveat. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
So, all images of my collage is in public domain. I uploaded them from wikimedia.  Algirr (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I am referring to images you are adding to the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
oh, so it is okay. Algirr (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand my above comment. A collage would have to be almost perfect in terms of size, telling the story, accuracy, and topic relevance. Not an easy task to fulfill, and if Cinderella157 has concerns they are probably justified and should be addressed. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, okay... Algirr (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Algirr, the images you added here and in subsequent edits are a concern because of MOS:SANDWICH and possibly MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Cinderella157, I'm not seeing sandwiching on my screen, if you notice any maybe just move an image or two (either to the same side of the page or down a paragraph). Algirr, in my opinion the collage seems well-done, although some editing of the caption would be in order. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
While there is an existing example of sandwiching before the recent additions here the recent addition of multiple images (this edit and subsequent) exacerbates this [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Yes, the images can be moved or removed by me. But as Algirr has added these images, I have indicated how the image placement does not comply with P&G so that they might determine how they could best amend their edits. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Algirr, ways to do that would be to place an image on the opposite side of the page or move them up or down a paragraph or two - but only if there is room, the image is fairly essential to the page, and the move would not cause further image-bunching issues. Thanks to Cinderella157 for keeping watch on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
i fixed numbers 6 and 8, but I don't understand what is wrong in 5 and 7. It doesn't have sandwich Algirr (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Sandwiching is where there is an image on the left and an image on the right and there is a portion of the text that is squeezed between the two images. None of your recent edits have actually remedied the issue of sandwiching even though the edit summary says that was the intent. I could fix this for you but you will probably not like how I fix it. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I understand and i fixed it. I don't see any text squeezed between two images. Maybe it is problem with your screen Algirr (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)I am using quite a standard PC set-up with a relatively small screen and standard (not small) fonts (Vector legacy 2010). I checked with vector 2022 and sandwiching is still evident. What are you using? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
i use like chromebook Algirr (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
That tells one nothing about screen size or WP preferences affecting font size. Particularly small screens on devices like ipads, combined with a relatively large font preference will make an article long and thin compared with more conventional PC displays. That might be why you don't see sandwiching but it is there. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
So do you mean if I am fix captions, nobody not delete it again? Algirr (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that a photo essay (collage) is appropriate as a lead image in this instance. It does not meet the requirement of being necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
i don't understand why Algirr (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Is the use of the collage "necessary" to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way? And what point would that be? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
i think yes, necessary, if we have oppurtunity Algirr (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
what you mean "What point"? point it is illustrate connflict Algirr (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us to choose a representative image (singular). It does not tell us to create a photo essay that would go against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We can illustrate the conflict by appropriate placement of images throughout the article. Having the opportunity does not make it necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I still don't get it. Based on these words, for me it seems like collages are not allowed in Wikipedia at all. Algirr (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Please, explain to me, what is CORRECT here, for example. Or here, or here, or here. I really don't understand Algirr (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Collages can be used on WP provided they are used in the way described and there is an example here. Of the examples you give, I don't see any of this WP:OTHERCONTENT being examples of good use. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
You mean all what i  sended to you is bad use? Algirr (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
What I see It's just a black photo of the same object from different sides.  I hope it don't mean I need put into collage same photo from different sides? Algirr (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
 The collage you're trying to use provides no use other than aesthetics, that's what Cinderella157 is trying to say 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Actually, photographs are used mainly for aesthetics, unless they are some kind of documents or something like that. I can say the same thing about one photo which this article have now. Algirr (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague 
There is a strong causal relationship between the September 26 Revolution and the civil war in North Yemen. This analysis of that relationship is accurate and based on a deep understanding of Yemeni history, and it answers the question: Why should the title of the article be changed from "North Yemen civil war" to "Yemeni September 26 Revolution"?
First: The cause of the war
The declaration of the revolution, the overthrow of the monarchy, and the change of the state's name from the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen to the Yemen Arab Republic on September 26, 1962, were the main reasons for the outbreak of the 8 years long civil war in North Yemen, not the other way around. Therefore, the September 26, 1962 Revolution was the pivotal event that led to the outbreak of the civil war that lasted for several years. 
Second: Importance of changing the Title:
- The title "Yemeni September 26 Revolution" accurately reflects the essence of the event and its impact on Yemen, highlighting the revolution as the main cause of the civil war.
- This title aligns with the historical and objective understanding of the event, reflecting the common naming in Yemen and the Arab world for this significant historical event.
Third: Historical and objective Impacts:
- The Yemeni Revolution on September 26, 1962, was a turning point in modern Yemeni history, leading to the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the republican system.
- The continuation of the civil war until 1970 highlights the significant challenges faced by the revolution and the new system in consolidating their footing and ensuring political stability.
Fourth: Political and Social Significance:
- The victory of the revolutionaries and the consolidation of the republican system in the end reflect the strength of the revolutionary movement and the radical change it brought about in Yemeni society.
- These events are considered a fundamental part of modern Yemeni history, and their impacts are still evident in the current political and social landscape of Yemen.
Therefore, it is more accurate for the main title of this article to be the " Yemeni September 26 Revolution" as it accurately reflects the essence of the event and its great importance from both historical and objective perspectives. It also expresses the causal relationship between the revolution as a pivotal event and the civil war as a subsequent event.
I hope that my suggestion will receive your interest, your understanding, and your support to change the title of the article based on the foregoing. 
Regards 
مها علي القاسمي (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, per the search of google scholar I linked [9], this is only capitalised about half the time (or perhaps less) in prose. While you cite about 80% capitalisation in ngrams, this is for the term without contextualisation for use in prose. Per this ngram, there is insufficient ngram data to determine contexts and to eliminate expected title case uses. This is a case where ngrams do not resolve the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cinderella157. Not really understanding. The n-gram I meant was this one, which shows that the uppercased name has become the common casing of this name. The n-gram you linked to included asterisks. Take away the asterisks and you get this. How are the n-grams not evidential for this wording? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
There's this n-gram using the word 'the'. And here's another with the asterisk removed and adding the word 'the'. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Not going to get into a back-and-forth discussion with you. You say n-grams don't count, I say that they almost always have before, and will leave it at that. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
The asterisk is a wildcard. It will display words that follow the search term. Adding the to the ngram does not reasonably exclude titlecase uses but adding was (eg 26 September revolution was) would exclude titlecase uses. However, there are no uses in the corpus for 26 September revolution was [10] or for any other words following 26 September revolution. The corpus doesn't have enough samples for this phrase to allow us to see how it would be capped in prose. That it why it is not useful in this case. We have been involved in a number of discussions where these issues have been raised before. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)