Talk:222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: National / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 15 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment (BOD) to 222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 15 November 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago22 comments13 people in discussion

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: moved. There is a general consensus that the acronyms are to be taken out from the page titles, therefore moving per nom. For specific cases that were raised during the discussion or other cases requiring further modifications to the titles, further moves can be appropriately made without prejudice. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

(everything after this point was added later)

– "Name (Acronym)" is not how Wikipedia articles are titled. This should be uncontroversial, but I'm filing a requested move just because mass actions are often better discussed first. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another thing to note is that a lot of these articles are extremely low-quality for reasons other than their title and could use some love. But that is unrelated to fixing the title to comply with Wikipedia's style standards. I chose to put this discussion on the talk page of the first article that wasn't so low-quality I could see myself nominating it for deletion, which wasn't until five entries in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Strong support per nom. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support – I can't think of a reason why the acronym should be included in the title. It will feature in the opening line of the lead anyway. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support - I agree with Deeday-UK. Newwhist (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support all. 162 etc. (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support This format is pointless—blindlynx 20:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support Also made a change to a Spanish-language proposed title to add a missing accent. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
No objection. The accent was also missing in the original title. As I said, these pages could use some love, and that one specifically has had no human edits since 2015. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support all to match the proper English Wikipedia naming guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Comment – To clarify what I said earlier, the acronym should be mentioned in the opening line of the lead. If it's not, then it should be added as part of the article move. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support per nom. Completely non-standard. However, I would change to:

Not proper names. Also:

per WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

No objection to any of the above changes, except for "The Update Framework (TUF)", which I would argue is a proper name; the article is about a specific update framework, not the general concept of update frameworks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Pppery on TUF. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comment - Joint Special Forces Selection (JSFS) was a move last month from United Kingdom Special Forces Selection based on one source. In Talk:Joint Special Forces Selection (JSFS)#Move discussion in progress, I propose moving:
- Joint Special Forces Selection (JSFS) → UK Joint Special Forces Selection

--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

No objection. Also note various midstream changes to the RM (Removing "NCCC Malls" following an undiscussed move away from the name (acronym) title, and removing "Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Browser Usage" because that's what it's actually called. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support, seems straightforward. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) needs to be hyphenated. Should probably be Multi-role support ship (Malaysia) or something similar as the article is specific to the country. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. This requested move was trying to reaffirm a general principle, not pick the optimal title for each article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Given it appears to be an official designation, then it should only be hyphenated if the Malaysian navy hyphenates it. It's not our job to correct the grammar in official titles. Otherwise we'd be inserting hyphens into all those lieutenant colonels, major generals and vice admirals for starters (as they correctly used to have, but which have fallen out of use in recent years)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Comment - It seems to me best to move forward in two steps. Step one: as has been stated, this proposal is for the removal of the acronym. Do that as a global change. Step two: then if any of the titles need further corrections/improvements, do so separately for each article on its own merits by editors most knowledgeable about the article. Any attempt to do the steps in one move will result in a great ball of confusion. Newwhist (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic