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.
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 articles
in what way does Wikipedia:naming conventions have to do with this??? The US Military/Army has changed a units name on December 2, 2005: the new unit name is: Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne). so: what is your argument? Don't you want to put the unit under its current and correct name?? --noclador (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised at that question, as you've been around since 2005. Wikipedia:naming conventions is the official Wikipedia policy that serves as the primary reference point in deciding article names.
Yes, of course I want the article to have its correct name. My argument is simply that, in terms of Wikipedia policy, this isn't automatically the official name of the unit. I know that many people think that it should be, and there have been many proposals to make this Wikipedia policy, but they've all been rejected so far. Please read Wikipedia:official names if you haven't already, as this is exactly the issue it addresses. Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The name of the unit needs to be changed because it has been redesignated. However, WP:MILHIST has maintained a pretty standard naming convention of the unit's name and nation, so the article needs to be renamed Special Operations Sustainment Brigade (United States) until it receives a number (I think it will become the 528th Sustainment Brigade at some point in the future). MILHIST policy on unit names has generally been not to include their modifiers, so "(Airborne)" and other such modifiers are referenced in the article, but not in the title. See any of my GAs for confirmation. -Ed!(talk) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Wikipedia:naming conventions policy, but this does not apply in this case. Over the last years the Army has renamed almost all its units (i.e all Sustainment Brigades are new - see Transformation of the United States Army). All this changes have been included into the respective articles, as with he new name a new standardized structure was introduced. Even though some of the new Sustainment brigades were once Divisions, Logistic Brigades, Area Support Groups, Field Artillery Brigades, Corps Materiel Management Centers, Corps Support Groups or Division Support Commands they are now all under their current name. We (= the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history) also changed the article names of the Divisions that have been reduced to brigades during the Transformation of the Army National Guard. Furthermore the Operations Support Command does not exist since over 3,5 years, a Command is something very different from a brigade, there is no commonly known name (only military experts and Army members know of the unit - and you can be sure they all use "Sustainment Brigade" today!) + all three rationals given, why a we should prefer a common name do not apply here: this is the only name that will ever be used from now on by the single relevant authority (US Military) and the name wont change for at least a decade. To sum this superfluous discussion up: a) the correct name is Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne) b) as Ed pointed out it should be moved to Special Operations Sustainment Brigade (United States) to keep in line with the other Sustainment Brigades c) I will move the page to Special Operations Sustainment Brigade (United States) in 3 hours, if no one disagrees and thus end this superfluous discussion. --noclador (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The requested move process should run its normal course. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly exceptions to the general policy at WP:NC, but these should all be listed there and documented as Wikipedia naming conventions in their own right. It sounds like (regardless of the outcome of this particularl proposal) the Wikiproject should put this on their to-do list, unless there's one there aleady that I've missed, in which case we should link to it from this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page to Special Operations Sustainment Brigade (United States). There was a partial agreement above that this is the most appropriate title, and the only opposer gave no possible alternative title. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
