Battle of Old Fort Wayne

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: Not moved - No consensus There doesn't appear to be a consensus for the move. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Libyan Armed Forces → Armed forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• National Liberation Army (Libya) → Libyan Armed Forces
• Libyan Army → Libyan Army (1969–2011)

– Relisted Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC) The war is all but over - anti-Gaddafi forces control 99 percent of the country. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has ceased to exist, and its armed forces have been replaced by the National Liberation Army. Gaddafi's army has all but ceased to exist. Therefore, I propose that these pages be moved to reflect that. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - What I expect to happen during the transitional period is that the armed elements nominally under the aegis of the NTC will be reorganized and reincorporated into a regular military. At that time, I suggest we continue to maintain the current National Liberation Army (Libya) article as historical, and simply update the other two articles to reflect Libya's new reality. I don't think there's enough Gaddafi-specific content to warrant a new page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: no consensus to move -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya → Libyan National Army
• Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) → Libyan Air Force
• Libyan Army (1951–2011) → Libyan Ground Forces

– Libyan Air Force and armed forces article were moved without any prior discussion. Libyan army article was moved without any consensus (1 pro, 1 against), not backed by sources (none provided on discussion page) by the will of one user (not the nominator and not administrator). Sources for current (post-war) name are United Nations webpage New York Times VOA or TIME. As for ground forces, name goes back to pre-NTC Libya [1] [2] [3] [4] and post war era [5] [6] [7]. Interestingly enough Libyan Navy article remained as it was. Bottom line, those three articles were moved against wikipedia policy (either without any discussion, although this was everything but technical move, or with discussion where consensus wasnt reached) ie against WP:RMCI, the "new" names are sourced EllsworthSK (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the arguments I presented here: Talk:Libyan_Army_(1951–2011)#Proposed_move. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Move back to 2010 locations -- Libya is a nation, whose government has been repalaced in a revolution. The disbandment of the armed forces is likely to prove to be a temporary event, and they will be reconstituted in due course. The defeat and death of Ghadaffi and the disbandment of the forces under his command should eventually be the occasion for starting a new section in the continuing article. This is the English WP. "Jamahiriya" is not an English word. The title containing it is suitable to be a redirect, but the article should not be there. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it yourself: there has been a disbandment of the armed forces. Their position is now being taken over by new, rebel-led armed forces. The two should not be described as if they're one and the same. "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is the commonly used name for the Gaddafi-era state, so the thing about jamahiriya not being an English word is a non-argument. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Check out Iraqi army wiki page and you will see the same thing. Or Afghan National Army article where proper army did not exist for more than a decade. Spanish army has little to do with 15th century Spanish army as well, yet we don´t change it. It is reorganization and restruction. What you are reffering to is "current form" which should rightly be dated to 2011. And commonly used? Yes. But before that it was Libyan Arab Republic and Libyan Kingdom/United Kingdom of Libya as well. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. 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: procedurally closed. Mergers are outside the scope of RM, please try WP:PM or perhaps creating a WP:RFC. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya → Libyan National Army
• Libyan Army (1951–2011) → Libyan Ground Forces
• Libyan Air Force (1951–2011) → Libyan Air Force

– Yes, it is opened once again. So, beside the arguments made above (move without consensus especially) we are dealing with simple WP:CFORK as we have several articles now dealing with same organization. Also, as we can see on example of Military of Iraq, Afghan National Army, Military of Rwanda and dozen other military organization of state which went through civil war and the ruling regime was consequently overthrown who is in charge does not matter. There is no need for two articles dealing with military of this-or-that state, the fact that armed forces were officially defeated can be very well mentioned in the history section (as in case of Iraq and Afghanistan). EllsworthSK (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close Mergers are not handled by WP:RM
  1. AFLAJ and LNA are two existing articles, so cannot be "moved" under this process. Either you need to formulate a different proposal, as to where LNA then ends up, or you need to set up a proposed merger ( see WP:PM )
  2. LAF 51-11 and LAF are two existing articles, so cannot be "moved" under this process. Etierh you need to formulate a different proposal, as to where LAF then ends up, or you need to set up a proposed merger (see WP:PM)

  76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this some sort of joke, EllsworthSK? Let me remind you that you are the one who created the content forks.

• The article Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is the original article, created on 25 February 2002. The article Libyan National Army, to which you want the former to become a redirect, was created by you on 15 May 2012. Your article was even deleted once for being a content fork.
• Same goes for Libyan Army (1951–2011), which is the original article (created 24 April 2007), and your article Libyan Ground Forces which was deleted for being a content fork.
• And, of course, Libyan Air Force (1951–2011), which is the original article (created 18 November 2006) and Libyan Air Force, which you created as a verbatim content fork of the former article (see here).

So it's quite disingenious of you to now propose an article move, based on the claim that what are demonstrably the original articles are content forks. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.