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: Moved as requested.bd2412T 18:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
– We generally use the commonly recognised name of subjects for article titles, and I think we can accept it's good to avoid obfuscating officialese when it isn't actually commonly used, in this case changing the ordinals '2nd' and '3rd' to '2d' and '3d' as the U.S. military sometimes does. Every one of these units has an official website, and I've checked and seen that each one uses the normal English ordinal. Some of the units have photos of their hangars online, using the normal ordinals. So do the preponderance of online sources of every type, and most Google Books results. Taking this unit as an example, news media articles (I don't think style guides like nonstandard ordinals), USAF websites, military news articles, and industry sites all use the normal ordinal. According to Lineagegeek, the U.S. Air Force has a rule that units are officially called by these alternative ordinals… but if so it seems nobody actually follows this rule. (Although I see that some official Air Force histories and such do so, could anyone provide a citation for this rule actually being a thing?). Note: right now I'm just requesting this move for USAF fighter wings. I'll request this for other USAF and US Army articles if these get moved. —innotata 23:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a real stretch to say the difference between 3d and 3rd or between 2d and 3nd is "officalese." Either is easily recognizable. Since the encyclopedic sources use the version that is reflected in the current Wikipedia article names, there is no point in moving them. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how a preponderance of sources use the shortened ordinals: I checked the books cited through snippet view on Google Books, and of those I could find only the official Air Force histories use them. In total, there are twice as many results for normal ordinals (even after ignoring a few results for other countries' units) as for the shortened on Google Books. Yes, I realise this isn't the most important issue, but apart from the recognisability, we should have some degree of style guidance on Wikipedia, just like a newspaper or print encyclopedia—newspapers stick to normal ordinals. —innotata 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The military is not standardized in this respect. Units were created at different times/eras when different abbreviations were prevalent. Units often stay with the abbreviation used when the unit was first created. I would argue we should stick with the correct name for the unit rather than enforce our own standardization. Citing many sources where these units are called other things (like 3rd) usually just reflects the common prevalent abbreviation standards in contemporary English, they are mistakes that do not align with the correct unit name abbreviation which in these cases stems from the time these units were first formed/designated. - Atfyfe (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that addresses any of my concerns. We like to follow the commonly used name on Wikipedia, that's the grounds I'm basing this move request on. You haven't demonstrated that the normal English ordinals are not more commonly used. All that you've added, as far as I can tell, is that they might have been used officially in the past. I already got the message that shortened ordinals are official but we just don't slavishly follow official usage. Even if some usage is technically considered a "mistake", we may prefer it, as I would say is the case here. —innotata 05:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Support the moves. If the military consistently used the shortened ordinals, and reliable sources consistently used 2d and 3d, I'd say we should accept the slight confusion they cause and go with the shortened form. However the military is inconsistent and reliable sources generally don't use the shortened form. I think we could say that on Wikipedia, we will use the standard English language ordinals which will be understood by the most people. SchreiberBiketalk 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment @ innitata: I am NOT a fan of mass-moving one way or the other, I would normally advise against seeking this, and in fact started out that way but what I see favors support. Otr500 (talk)
Support moves: per nom. There is (and has been) Wikipedia consensus to follow the common name "if" there is no clear reason to deviate. Just the use of the "official" name is not reason enough as ordinal numbers has already established 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so forth. Ordinal indicator#English supports this, as well as MOS:ORDINAL. Otr500 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I hope there are plans on editing these articles on the list as well as others and not "just" a move to blanket change a lot of articles. As I mentioned-- I am not a fan of blanket renaming and I have a serious problem --EVEN -- if it is just considering the nomenclature of dropping a "n" or an "r". There is content and references (see above) for these articles that can improve them.
FIRST: The references I have seen do lead to the use of a more common "nd" or "rd" that may very well support consensus to move.
SECOND: I have added an "etymology section in 192d Fighter Wing with governmental nomenclature -- that shows acceptability of the use of both names from an "official" point of view. There needs to be consistency within an article but the use of both can be (and I think have been) shown to be interchangeable allowing use of both in the body. 192d Fighter Wing is consistent using "d" in the entire body of the article and I "think" the nomenclature will suffice to prove interchangeability. "PLEASE" if consensus results in a move let's not go for changing names just for the sake of doing it. We can make article improvements (hint) while this is on-going. Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If the changes go through, I'll take responsibility for editing the articles and making usage consistent. Thanks, SchreiberBiketalk 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
SchreiberBike I'm glad, you have more interest in these style issues and so on. Otr500 I agree with your points supporting my proposal, and I definitely agree on the fact that we can make improvements to articles as we go, whether to style or substance (although it's a lot of work). —innotata 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. I can understand a move to stick with official but most of these articles are just predominantly laying dormant, with all manner of attention needed, and a title gate keeper does not article improvements make.
@ SchreiberBike: My main concern---far more than just making edit changes to reflect a change from an official usage to a more common one --that could be just a "sometimes" more common--- is that some of the content and references listed (one unit losing planes to drones I think it was) be incorporated into the article also.
I removed copyvio content on one-- looked it over and didn't see any more--- so removed the tags. A same editor --and IF I am not mistaken it is the same one now banned-- made a lot of edits to like articles. The "Overview" sections of other articles may have copy/pasted material IF the same editor was involved. Possible WP:COPYVIO's needs immediate attention.
@ innotata: It will certainly be a lot of work. An article review would be a great place to start. Someone interested can grab one and look it over, check for copy/pasted crap and JUST GET IT OUT, and do a Google search and see if there is suitable content and references to add. If there is time to do only one aspect just note what was done on the talk page.
ALSO--- an Admins possible reluctance to make a drastic change to a list of "stable articles", that "may" result in collateral damage to other articles, might swing to approval "IF" there is active improvements during this time.
NOTE: IF this move is closed as no consensus, especially by a non-admin, please seek a reviewed if I am not on. I was not going to support a move, particularly --not a mass-move-- but the evidence is compelling---AND--- if there are editors that will step up then I think it is time. I was off today but worked 78 1/2 hours this pass week so don't want to get tied up and miss out. Thanks--- Otr500 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Support - The use of ordinal indicators for US military units isn't consistently applied in Wikipedia article names for the different branches: Army and Marine Corps article titles currently use 2nd/3rd and Air Force article titles use 2d/3d. For example 3rd Infantry Division (United States) (not 3d Infantry Division) and 3rd Marine Division (United States) (not 3d Marine Division) but Air Force 3d Operations Group. There has been some previous discussion of the naming of Army units (e.g. here ) and the consensus is for 2nd/3rd over 2d/3d. This convention should be applied to Air Force articles as it is to Army and Marine Corp articles. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Support I'd like to see ordinals done consistently across en WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, we should not make a MOS that says all ordinal indicators should be uniform,. rather in this instance, we should go with the unit's current official designation. We should include in the article if it was known by another designation, even it is simple as different ordinal indicators.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Official v Official and common: Current official designation !! Let's look at that.
The Air Force Instruction Publication (Air Force Instruction 38-101), here, Chapter 5; "Procedures for Naming and Numbering Units", figure 5.1 (Nomenclature), gives examples of naming units specifically using 2nd Bomb Wing, and section 5.4.2; "Unit Kind", 3rd Wing. Surely this can not be the same 3d Wing on Wikipedia as that would be in direct conflict with "official" Air Force nomenclature per the given example? This is a current (date of 28 September 2012) "official" Department of the Air Force publication. The first sentence states "By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force, this Air Force Guidance Memorandum immediately changes AFI 38-101. Compliance with this Memorandum is mandatory.". You really can't get a whole lot more "official" than that.
If a Wikipedia naming, that is the "more common name" in references, just happens to be a USAF accepted name, wherein lies the problem?.
Thoughts to ponder: Does anyone here think that the Air Force, that assigns National Guard unit naming per Section 5.3.4 of the Air Force Instruction Publication: -Reserves numbers 101 through 299 for Air National Guard units-, would not have serious, serious issues if the 132nd Fighter Wing (here), as well as others, was using a name in violation of Air Force naming regulations? In lieu of this I submit the "official", "technical", and "common" naming can be referred to with "nd" and "rd" for consistency. Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
While I think the arguments above have been adequately answered already, there's another aspect to this. To prefer the official name would be out of step with a great deal of existing and well-established policy and practice. This is not to be taken lightly. Even if unanswered good arguments were to be found to prefer the official name in these cases, they'd need to be very, very good to make an exception in this area. And as I said at the beginning, the arguments have already been well answered anyway. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Support. Existing policy and practice favours the common name, and there is a great deal of doubt as to the official status of the existing names in any case. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Question: While consensus might be hard to question what can be questioned is how long this should stay open? If a backlog is too long or something escaped through the cracks should it be listed at an admin notice board or is it assumed it will eventually be closed one day and everyone just keep waiting? Otr500 (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The backlog's a bit long, but, yes, all RMs will be closed. —innotata 08:20, 28 September 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'll start on editing the articles to be consistent with the titles later today. I'll add "also sometimes referred to as ....", or something like that, so that the shortened ordinal is used too. SchreiberBiketalk 00:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)