Talk:2 Military Police Regiment/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2 Military Police Regiment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

2 Military Police Unit (Canada)

This talk page is being set up to facilitate discussion on the 2 Military Police Unit (Canada) page on Wikipedia.--Armymp (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to 2 Military Police Regiment (Canada), and the other page similarly. Both the change to "Regiment" and the disambiguation seem to be sensible and accurate titles, consistent with Wikipedia practices regarding such articles. - GTBacchus^(talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2 Military Police Unit → 2 Military Police Regiment – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Army Military Police units were designated as Regiments on 1 April 2011. The following internet site provides scant details: http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/cfpm-gpfc/cfp-ggp/lfmp-pmft-eng.asp 00214MPO (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

3 Military Police Unit → 3 Military Police Regiment

Survey

Comment this seems to be insufficiently distinct to make it clear what country these belong two. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment more appropriate would be 2 Military Police Regiment (Canada) and 3 Military Police Regiment (Canada), would be in favour of these moves. NtheP (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: What are you thinking these pages need disambiguation from? It doesn't need to be clear from the title that these regiments are from Canada unless there is confusion with another article. DigitalC (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Canada isn't the only country with military police regiments. We have articles on military police of other countries which document their units within. Each of the generic titles should be a dismabiguation page for every country's units. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    - As above, disambiguating the country is futureproofing the articles for the time when articles on military police regiments from other countries are created. NtheP (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Again, which article do you think this page needs disambiguation from? We don't futureproof articles with DABs. DigitalC (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the guideline of the MilHist Project Units, formations, and bases: "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)." GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose mainly in order to suggest formally closing this move request, which seems misguided on several grounds. The article has been at 2 Military Police Unit (Canada) since 2008 [1]. No case is made above for going from Unit to Regiment, which is the substance of this move request. See WP:AT, Wikipedia:official names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history) for some guidance on making a case and raise a new move request if you think one can be made. No consensus seems likely on removing the disambiguator, but I'd oppose that too, on the grounds that without it the title would be ambiguous to the vast majority of English speakers, which is also the recommendation of the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Support this is in full conformance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME: 'When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used;' Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.