Talk:Close-quarters battle
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Swatjester in topic Consistency
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Close-quarters battle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Consistency
editAs the article is titled Close-Quarters Combat, I'm going to change all the CQB to CQC throughout. At current count, there are 31 uses of CQC and only 14 of CQB (including the redirect info, which won't change). If there are any issues, please let me know...otherwise, I'm going to jump right in.
It seems most uses of CQB were added by AdoTang back in 2023, January and April. I'll tag him, so he can add his comments. AdoTang
WesT (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- For consistency, the article should change all usage to CQB and the page should be moved back to CQB -- the initial move was poorly discussed 14 years ago, and the rationales were simply not supported. Per WP:COMMONTERM we should be using common terminology. CQB is the preferred term by the U.S. and most other militaries. CQC is a synonym that, outside of the context of being used inappropriately in the Metal Gear games which bloat it's Google search results, otherwise has much less official and common usage. The article was originally CQB, and the merge 14 years ago simply didn't achieve anything remotely considering a consensus that it should have changed to CQC. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)