Talk:36th Marine Brigade

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 20:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

---

36th Marine Brigade → 36th Marine Brigade (Ukraine) – To bring in line with all other Ukrainian brigades, which all include "(Ukraine)" in their title to identify their country of origin. noclador (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). noclador (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There are about 100 Ukrainian brigades and this is the only one without (Ukraine) in the title to identify its nation of origin. As there are also other countries with Marine brigades (i.e. the United States Marine Corps, South Korea, etc.) the country of origin should be in the title to correctly identify the unit. noclador (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be introducing unnecessary disambiguators for entities which don't exist under that name anywhere else in the world. The (Ukraine) is not part of the title, and would only be there if there were another 36th Marine Brigade that it conflicted with. Many of the "other brigades" mentioned are a result of recent page moves by the OP which can be reverted, so no need for this, and should also remove unnecessary disambiguators elsewhere where they exist.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - helpful to readers to have complete recognizable titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment I'm torn between being helpful as it's not obvious which country it's regarding, and being as WP:CONCISE as possible. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) was less helpful than I hoped, as it seems abandoned. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm heavily leaning towards the more concise the better though. WP:CONSISTENT is also a factor, but noting as Amakuru said, recent moves by the requestor. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as unnecessary disambiguation (which, surprisingly, isn't a guideline, but WP:CONCISE is.) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Noclador, this is clearly a contest requested and can't be processed here. Please open a full WP:RM by clicking on the "discuss" link if you wish to continue. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests to a full RM, as both supports and opposes have been raised. Further discussion is warranted here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:disambiguation has a specific purpose, which is not based on “WP:otherstuff has it.” If it were required, parenthetical disambiguation is the least desirable and the alternatives should be considered, per WP:NCDAB.  —Michael Z. 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Rather than just commenting above, I'm going to take a side and say this move isn't needed for the reasons above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguation. The article lead and the redirect prevent any confusion. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.