Battle of Honey Springs

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: Not moved. Consensus is that it's unlikely Bragg will continue to be the common name. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Fort Liberty → Fort Bragg – Procedural request (see also last RM discussion). The page has been moved without discussion, we cannot immediately assess whether the [just effected] new official name is in common usage, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES the title should stick to the old name till the new name is broadly taken up by sources. Gotitbro (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, its still going to be referred to as Fort Bragg currently in parlance so should be kept at that name until it is proved otherwise the new name has been taken up by the media and public. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The train has already left the station; the money has been spent to change the signs. The renaming is official.^[2] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Older references about events need to reflect Bragg while events going forward need to reflect Liberty. 2600:1004:B04C:6C0E:449C:14DF:C725:2DFD (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official acts" have nothing to do with article titles, see WP:COMMONNAME.XavierGreen (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is the current official name of a city, as well as a military base. If it is not in common use sooner or later it will be. Moving the article to the old name would only create confusion. --Yeagvr (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Official names do not decide article titles; WP:COMMONNAMEs do. And "if it is not in common use, sooner or later it will be" is inappropriate per WP:CRYSTALBALL – it can always be moved when that day comes. DecafPotato (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The name of the installation has been changed. The case is closed. I don't think "Liberty" was the best of the new names by a long shot, but we don't have to agree with everything.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. How is there not a link to disambiguation? People are going to go here as long as they remember the old name. And there might be some not going here for that reason at all. So I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:COMMONNAME.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. See Yeagvr's rationale. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Keep new legal name.Naraht (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - Per the RM cited by nom (closed as not moved).estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my oppose rationale in the previous (reverse) RM: keep at Fort Liberty. News media clearly is just going to use the new name (Joe and Jill Biden will make two stops in North Carolina this week. Here's what we know., FORT LIBERTY — The Marines will be back in town for their semi-annual field artillery exercise at the newly redesignated Fort Liberty, officials said in a news release Friday., Questions raised about changing street names off the Fort Liberty post). I can't find any sources published since the rename that have Fort Bragg as the primary name and even the ones in the previous months make it clear they're just waiting for the name change to begin using Liberty. Some casual usage will remain using Fort Bragg but not enough to justify going against reliable sources plus official name means keep at new name. And as WP:COMMONNAME name says When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Even if we think there isn't a single, obvious name I think Fort Liberty is the best title at this point in time. If we look at WP:OFFICIALNAMES#Practicality, I don't think any of the concerns listed there applies: Obscurity it's not/will be not an obscure name; Competing authorities there is a single official name; Changes to names the US military is not quick to change names so there's likely decades (or longer) until it gets renamed again (if ever); and Propaganda this is the closest one but renaming to remove a Confederate general's name isn't really propaganda. The hat note about the redirect plus the mention in the lead eliminates any confusion. Skynxnex (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Supoort sorry, but who gives a sh¡t if "money has been spent on signs", which has absolutely nothing to do with WP naming rules, or if the new name if now "legal"... so what? Is the new, legal, expensive name the name which is most commonly used in sources to refer to the article subject? That is something in the WP naming rules that we would use to determine an article name. Furthermore, this was a bold move that is now contested, the page should be moved back until a proper RM is carried out. (imo) - wolf 03:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WE should wait at least until WP:COMMONNAME is established, sorry, but who gives a sh¡t if "money has been spent on signs", … … or if the new name if now "legal"... so what? The legal status, money spent, official dictates have nothing to do with WP naming policies. Pincrete (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As with Willis Tower or Kolkata, the fact that some might stubbornly continue to use the old name (whether for nostalgia or political reasons) is irrelevant. An encyclopedia should use the name that will be in actual, common usage on signage, maps, etc. Wikipedia isn't useful to our readers if we use a title that is objectively incorrect because some people use the old name. agtx 12:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As you're "opposing per wp:commonname", can you quote a section of that policy that supports your !vote? As you may have noticed, people have been citing commonname to support this request, so it's not clear how it supports your opposition to it. Otherwise, you should perhaps cite another policy or guideline that actually supports your entry here, or else it will have little weight as far a consensus is concerned. If you are opposed to commonname itself, then I suggest you take that up on the talk page of that policy, or an appropriate project page. - wolf 13:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not who you are replying to but I partly used WP:COMMONNAME in my oppose of a change away from Fort Liberty; I didn't cite it above but the WP:NAMECHANGES section of common name says we give far more weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. In my searches on Google News, for example, nearly all sources use Fort Liberty as the primary name since the rename, ignoring the links I shared above and that are only about the base rename, here's a sampling: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (and not a RS but an independent press release [6]; an article about students trying to change the name of the HS to match [7]); the only article I can find that uses Bragg as the primary name in what may be a reliable source (but it's not a traditional news outlet): [8]. Skynxnex (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But all your sources are news clips about the name change (eg: the first three are about the first baby born there... since the name change). Of course your going to find news articles reporting on the name change... it was news. But for other sources; eg: non-news articles, books, gov't reports, etc., it will take time for the new name to catch up and establish itself (esp. without a "formerly known as..." tag attached). It will happen, people just need to be patient. As for "...the only article I can find that uses Bragg...", how hard did you look? A quick Google search for "fort liberty" comes back with 539k hits, while "fort bragg" comes back with 11.8 million. Right now, Bragg is a little more "common" than Liberty (by about 2200%). - wolf 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had meant to bind since the rename to the only article I can find that uses Bragg as the primary name as well when trying to apply WP:NAMECHANGES (of course I knew there is more a single article ever published with Bragg as the primary name). I was looking at things published approximately in the past week we give more weight to what sources are using after renames. Have you found any other reliable sources published since the change that has Fort Bragg as the primary name? The links above are not solely "announcing" the official name change, even if some are notable now due to the change. (Re: the baby; it's the same event but three distinct news sources using Liberty as the primary name.) In my memory of past renames, articles using "Y, formerly named X," generally count toward changing (here's some more [9], [10]).

I was curious if other things are following it and it appears that institutions of higher education that have branches connected to Fort Liberty have begun changing their names: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]; incomplete change [20] (job title changed but not other parts). (As you point out, there hasn't been time for scholarly publications or books to actually have published under the new name, but I did find one 2023 master's thesis which used Fort Liberty [21].)

There's WP:NODEADLINE but I do not see how changing the article title back improves the encyclopedia for our readers.

In doing more research, there was a recent MR started on May 14 to move Fort Cavazos back to Fort Hood; it was closed as not moved and was started "just" four few days later than this one, in terms of when the name changed happened: Talk:Fort Cavazos#Requested move 14 May 2023. Skynxnex (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page shouldn't have been arbitrarily moved, without discussion, in the first place. There was a previous RM that failed, that is still on this talk page, and therefore another RM should've been posted instead. Even now, the page should be moved back as a challenged/controversial move and this RM should actually be to determine if the page is to be moved from the original name to the new name, not the other way around. This is all backwards. I know Liberty is the new, official name, and the page will be moved to it eventually, but we should be following established practices to do so. (imo) - wolf 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well... my understanding is that undiscussed moves that someone wants to undo should either be just moved back or, if technically unable to do so, make a technical move request per WP:RMUM. I read this MR as someone being unsure if the move should be reverted and decided to start a discussion about if the page should moved back or not instead, which would supersede any technical request or other undiscussed move. Skynxnex (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A) So we agree. B) The OP seems pretty certain to me, but I wouldn't presume to speak for them.

That said, doing all this backwards doesn't address the problem that a 'no-consensus' result creates. - wolf 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a citation for the remaining redesignation days; the post exchanges knew the dates.^[1] It should be possible to rationalize the wp:rm process for fort Polk (13 June 2023), fort A.P. Hill (25 August 2023), and fort Gordon (27 October 2023). I initiated the wp:rm for Fort Polk, and moved the 19th Century Fort Johnson. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that if the wp:rm moves are discussed in the seven day period before the redesignation dates, (for example if a move request for Fort AP Hill to Fort Walker were to be initiated on 18 August 2023, or if a move request for Fort Gordon to Fort Eisenhower were to be initiated on 20 October 2023) then in the absence of controversy, the moves could then occur on the redesignation dates. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 8th and 9th Army post redesignation dates are 25 August and 27 October 2023.^[1] This presents an opportunity for the Wikipedia:Closing discussions procedure (as well as the WP:RMCI) to be debugged beginning 13 June 2023. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of "trust the page move process" there appears to be the possibility that after 11 June 2023, an appropriate editor will be able to validly close this move request with 1) not moved, 2) moved, or 3) neither (meaning the current page name stands). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion but briefly: A) we don't quite agree; I think undiscussed moves can be fine; B) if they just wanted to revert an undiscussed moved, it they could have moved it back or requested a technical move. So, per WP:NOTBURO I'm not sure what the point is of using editors' time for two full move requests when, as you say, the page will be moved to it eventually. Skynxnex (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oy... And yet you bludgeon away anyway.

"'A) we don't quite agree..." - And I am truly shocked at that. Anyway, as I already said; heaven forbid something is done the correct way, but it seems political correctness trumps rules amd established practice - again. (and with that, I think we're done here, unless you have some must-have-last-word kinda thing) Have a nice day - wolf 05:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Fort Polk move request. This is an opportunity to debug the WP:RMCI (I just found the Wikipedia:Simple RM closing instructions). The dates for vanilla moves would be 13 June 2023, 25 August 2023, and 27 October 2023. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Evidence would need to be provided that Fort Bragg continues to be the WP:COMMONNAME in news sources, etc, following the recent rennaming. This hasn't been provided, and it doesn't seem at all likely. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:TOOSOON because the GOP promises to rename it to Bragg, if they win the Presidency in 2024.[22] Of course who wins in 2024 is CRYSTAL, however this move will be very difficult to implement technically due to contextual issues, it will be a lot of manual work. It will pay to wait another 18 months or so to make sure we are on solid ground rather than spinning wheels on the whims of near-term politics. If the GOP looses, it's very unlikely they would be able to rename it beyond 2024. -- GreenC 01:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article's name should reflect the current name of the base with a redirect for the former name. This change was made by the U.S. Army and is not a fly-by-night decision that is going to revert. Rublamb (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]