Talk:Frogman Corps (Denmark)

Requested move 17 June 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Frogman Corps (Denmark).Near-unanimous consensus.Icewhiz pretty well defends against the editor(s) supporting the original proposal.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Danish Frogmen Corps → Frogman Corps – The Danish name is Frømandskorpset and in English it is Frogman Corps. The official Facebook page uses that name "This is the official Facebook site of the Danish Naval Special Warfare Group (Frogman Corps)". Frømands translates to Frogman in English. Whilst, Frogmen (plural) in Danish is Frømænd not how the Danish name starts. Frogman Corps is a redirect made in 2006 to the general Frogman article so can be used. I know of no other unit that uses the terms Corps and Frogman together other than the Danish unit. There is no need to include Danish in the name. The Danish Army special forces unit Hunter Corps for example is titled Hunter Corps without Danish in the title. Melbguy05 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Rationale looks OK to me. Tending to support move if there is no good reason not to do so. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 03:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Support move in principle: I can find three relevant redirects:

• Frogman Corps which presently redirects to Frogman
• Frogman Corps (Denmark) which redirects to this article, Danish Frogmen Corps
• Frømandskorpset which redirects to this article, Danish Frogmen Corps

The rational is reasonable, and if there's no objection from the stewards of Frogman, the move should be made, without prejudice to the possibility that we may need disambiguation later on if another country creates a unit also called "Frogman Corps". --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment. If there ever is a requirement to disambiguate, Frogman Corps (Denmark) would be better anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for objection, the title is different and correct and is not the topic of Frogman. At present I am probably the only person doing any major constructive work on Frogman. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but I know this is one of the topics that Anthony has invested a lot of time in, so it's best to check with him that he doesn't foresee any problems that we might have missed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. There is no rush. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a WikiProject Military history article too, I will leave a message on their talk page. They may be more familiar with military unit name conventions. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Many nations have variously-named frogman units: see List of military diving units. "Frogman Corps" without the nation's name is not specific enough. And, Norway's frogman unit is named Marinejegerkommandoen, but it was formerly named Froskemanskorpset. Many people likely know that nation X has a frogman unit without knowing that unit's official name; a somewhat similar example is that the riot police mentioned in the text section Grenfell Tower fire#Fire and casualties in England, were inaccurately called SWAT (a USA police term) in a message thanking them that someone put on a public whiteboard there. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed Many countries had frogmen units (though typically much smaller than a corps - just as the Danish is much smaller (150 men)). There are other uses of "Frogman Corps" that do not refer to the Danish unit (in fact, a google-books search shows many such references in the first page) - e.g. [1], US [2] Israel, [3] Sweden, [4] Dominican, [5] Roman. This has to have Denmark or Danish in the name - particularly due to the insignificance of the Danish unit overall (which has not been involved in any major war (and even when sent on minor deployments - not as frogmen), small size - the Danish company-sized unit might not even pass muster at AFD).Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• G'day, just dropping in here from Milhist. Per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, the most appropriate name would be one with the optional national disambiguation in parentheses, as "Frogman Corps" is too generic (lacks the precision that WP:TITLE requires). If the common name in reliable sources for this unit in English is "Frogman Corps", then this article should be at Frogman Corps (Denmark). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, I thought something like WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME might exist, but couldn't find it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Frogman Corps (Denmark)--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to Frogman Corps (Denmark) complies with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. --Melbguy05 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to [[Frogman Corps (Denmark}]] per MILMOS. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom - this is in line with standard naming conventions, and would minimise possible confusion. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Frogman Corps (Denmark). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Frogman Corps (Denmark). Just to be certain: if this gains most support, should we assume that we leave the redirect Frogman Corps pointing to Frogman? --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  I would lean to disambig that one.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  It might be more useful to link to List of military diving units, as by including 'corps' in the search string, the user would almost certainly be looking for a military unit, and that article should eventually list them all, so makes an ideal disambiguation for Frogman corps. At present, Frogman has a rather vague article scope and there are a lot of uncited claims and poor quality references. As a result, a user is unlikely to find any relevant military unit mentioned there. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - I agree with the rationale given by the nominator, move is in accordance with our standard naming conventions. Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support original proposal - i.e. move to Frogman Corps. I originally closed this as moved per nom, but following a note on my talk page it seems consensus is not so clear, so instead I will add a support vote for the nom. Specifically, it looks to me like the Danish version is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Frogman Corps". A simple Google search shows that almost all the links for the term are relating to the Danish one, so by common usage it is the PTOPIC. Given that, there is no need to include "(Denmark)" in the page name, per WP:CONCISE. Regarding readers who may be looking for the military diving forces of other countries, there is a hatnote to List of military diving units. None of the other entries on that list are called the "Frogman Corps", hence why there is no competition for the name. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I moved this to Frogman Corps (Denmark) because it seemed to me that that was the clear consensus here, and was consistent with Frogman Corps being too generic and lacking the precision required by WP:TITLE. Concision does not take precedence over precision. I'll step back from this, having moved it once, but to clarify, I support Frogman Corps (Denmark). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Analysis:

1. There appears to be clear consensus for a move. No-one opposes a move. The favoured options are Frogman Corps and Frogman Corps (Denmark).
2. The case for Frogman Corps is that it is currently the primary topic, and needs no disambiguation. This may be true as no-one has come up with a counterexample.
   • this is clearly supported by: Amakuru
3. The case for Frogman Corps (Denmark) is that in line with MILMOS, this class of topic is usually disambiguated by using the country name, and that there are several units which are loosely referred to as Frogman Corps, and the Danish one is a translation of the real name, so some ambiguity would exist without the country name.
   • this is clearly supported by: Melbguy05, Pbsouthwood, Necrothesp, Peacemaker67, RexxS, Anotherclown and Nick-D
   • Clearly preferred to Frogman Corps but not convinced that the topic is notable Icewhiz
   • Clearly preferred to Frogman Corps as alternative, not clear whether the move is supported, but clearly not opposed, by Anthony Appleyard
4. There appears to be a reasonable argument, without any opposition other than the case for the primary topic, to a redirect of Frogman Corps to List of military diving units if it is not made the target of the move.

Have I missed anything? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see support for Frogman Corps - I've voice opposition for it (besides questioning the possible notability) - It conflicts with other units and general usage of the term (which refers to other countries). There is strong support for Frogman Corps (Denmark) - multiple support votes - for this particular name.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• The word "Denmark" needs to occur in the title; leaving it out is too unspecific. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard: @Icewhiz: I don't get the insistence on including "(Denmark)" in the title, to be honest. To be clear, this is the only unit in the world that is actually called the "Frogman Corps", and even if the term does very occasionally appear in books referring to Israel or the US, the term "Frogman Corps" appears nowhere in the articles for those units; they are not usually called "Frogman Corps": (see Shayetet 13, United States military divers). There is simply no need to disambiguate, and per WP:CONCISE we really shouldn't disambiguate. For the few users who do end up on this page when they actually intended a different country's corps, the hatnote will take them straight to the list and they can select. If the consensus is against me then so be it, but the suggested name really is counter to our usual naming practice.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  There are multiple other uses of "Frogman Crops" - e.g. [6], US [7] Israel, [8] Sweden, [9] Dominican, [10] Roman. This is a common name. There were units with the exact same . For the same reason we wouldn't name an article "Marine Corps", "Infantry Corps", or "Tank Corps" for a specific country. As per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME - In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version). - in this case the name has already been used in the past by multiple countries, and there is no reason a different country couldn't create the same name again. In this case - they aren't even numerically designated - it is a unit type + corps - it has to be country disambiguated - it is just about the worst possible ambiguous name (for multiple countries).Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  And here's a contemporary usage of this for Republic of China Marine Corps's Frogmen in English - [11] A lieutenant colonel from the Marine's elite frogmen corps was reprimanded for bragging about having spent NT$130,000 (S$5,622.50) buying his own equipment and weaponry to replace the military-issued gear. He said the military-issued gear was not up to his standards in terms of protection and performance..Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I have some sympathy with the view that if this article were titled "Frogman Corps", it would have to be moved to "Frogman Corps (Denmark)" as soon as another article was created for the frogman corps of another country. The problem with that analysis is that in reality, this article was created in 2005 and in the intervening 12 years no other article has been written that we would need to disambiguate. Anyway, I'd be just as happy with either title (as both are considerably better than the current one), and I've supported both options, but I hope that others can accept that Amakuru's view is perfectly reasonable, given our conventions on disambiguation in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've dropped a note on Harry Mitchell's talk page asking him to do a close for us – he's an admin experienced in closing debates and with a MILHIST background, so I hope everyone will respect whatever his conclusions are. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.