Talk:60th Mechanized Brigade

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Requested move 22 August 2025

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

60th Mechanized Brigade → 60th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine)60th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) – There are 42 mechanized Ukrainian brigades and they are all listed at: "number" Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine). A user unilaterally moved this one brigade to a title without the (Ukraine). Please revert and bring the brigade back in line with the other Ukrainian brigades. noclador (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Ukraine has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pppery. There are no other uses of the term "60th Mechanized Brigade" on Wikipedia, so adding the (Ukraine) qualifier goes against article title policy per WP:QUALIFIER. All such similar articles should exist at the [ordinal] Mechanized Brigade base names, unless another country has a unit with the same name. Hatnotes can address confusion with any similarly named units. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2025 (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.

Regarding the requested move

[edit]

@Mdewman6, @Pppery: The WP:QUALIFIER and WP:MISPLACED policies you cited in opposition to the proposed page move would seem to be contradicted by local consensus/guidance in the topic area. See MOS:MILUNITNAME:

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).

Courtesy ping for @Noclador. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 12:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to be relevant for the discussion at Talk:108th Territorial Defense Brigade#Requested move 22 August 2025. Courtesy ping to @TROPtastic as well. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 12:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
60th Mixed Brigade, 60th Brigade (United Kingdom), 60th Indian Infantry Brigade, 60th Motorized Infantry Brigade (People's Republic of China) and also the US Army had a 60th Brigade in WWI, but somehow the Ukrainian 60th Mechanized Brigade is an exception to the need to have a disambiguation... noclador (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 101st Airborne Division (among others, including the 60th Mixed Brigade you cited) is not disambiguated, so clearly the "local guidance" isn't sufficient to cover all cases. TROPtastic (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy ping. It seems like 108th Territorial Defense Brigade was moved to 108th Territorial Defense Brigade (Ukraine) by @Professor Penguino without discussion and despite the agreement on the talk page about the relevance of WP:QUALIFIER and WP:MISPLACED.
The problem is that MOS:MILUNITNAME hinges on the definition of "reasonably" in "In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces ... the units should be generally preemptively disambiguated." I don't know why 101st Airborne Division does not need to be disambiguated while 108th Territorial Defense Brigade (Ukraine) does, given that both force concepts can be used by other countries and neither has a unit with the same name from another country. Unless someone has evidence that other countries have operated Territorial Defense Brigades and a 60th Mechanized Brigade, this looks like a very subjective interpretation of the "reasonably expected" guideline. TROPtastic (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just jump in and say that if the consensus is against it, I'm fine with my move being reversed. Just for clarity's sake, this topic was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ukrainian brigades. Sincerely, Professor Penguino (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. I wasn't aware there was a parallel discussion in that wiki project about these names. It probably would have been good to mention involved editors there, since some of us may not be involved in the Military history WikiProject and would have expected move notices to be placed on the relevant pages, but we'll make the best of things now. TROPtastic (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move of 108th Territorial Defense Brigade because it was a cut and paste move, which is not allowed. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. trout Self-trout. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikilawyering view is that this aspect of MOS:MILUNITNAME (part of a guideline) conflicts with WP:QUALIFIER (part of WP:AT policy) by encouraging "premptive disambiguation". Regardless, the part that states ...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). makes no sense, as creating a disambiguation page at the base name with one entry is incorrect per guidance at WP:ONEBLUE and WP:G14. Redirecting the base name to the disambiguated title also makes little sense to me per WP:MISPLACED. The only other option would be to redirect a base name like 60th Mechanized Brigade to 60th Brigade, which would generally be policy and guideline compliant, except that in my opinion, since it has a unique base name, it doesn't need parenthetical disambiguation per WP:SMALLDETAILS, and disambiguation should instead be provided via a hatnote to the disambiguation page, rather than assuming a majority or even non-trivial amount of users typing "60th Mechanized Brigade" wants some other entry at the dab page instead of the Ukraine unit. I'll make a comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history about the current text. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#Proposal_to_remove_call_for_preemptive_disambiguation_from_MOS:MILUNITNAME. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]