Talk:Territorial Defense (Yugoslavia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Yugoslavia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Territorial Defense (Yugoslavia) is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


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 to "Territorial Defense (Yugoslavia)". There are other forces using the name Teritorijalna obrana so the disambiguation is needed unless primary use can be shown. Primary use has not been shown. DrKiernan (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Territorial Defense Forces (Yugoslavia)Territorial Defense – Requesting technical move over redirect to more common & more accurate title, with no need of disambig (in fact the current title also doesn't need disambiguation). -- Director (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That is completely wrong and unnecessary: Territorial Defense Forces ≠ Territorial Defense. The problem here is that whosoever created these articles arbitrarily added "Force" or "Forces" where these are not necessary nor accurate. The name was "Territorial Defense" (Teritorijalna obrana), not "Territorial Defense Force(s)" ("Teritorijalne obrambene snage").
  • Territorial Defense Forces (Poland) - sure, these are the "Territorial Defense Forces", the name is different from the Yugoslav "Territorial Defense". If that's the only instance of a formation known by that name, we can do away with "..(Poland)". If not, its none of our concern - its a different name.
  • The Territorial Defense (TO) was subdivided into six parts, one for each of the six Yugoslav republics. These are parts of this same organization. All Yugoslav TOs should bear the name "Territorial Defense ([Yugoslav republic])", not "Territorial Defense Forces ([Yugoslav republic])". This central article about the organization as a whole, should go by simply "Territorial Defense". The current name is just absurdly over-complicated.
So if there are other units known as the "Territorial Defense", we may need disambig brackets "(Yugoslavia)". If there are none (which seems to be the case) - we don't need them. In either case we don't need the silly add-on "Forces" which was probably added for "romantic flare". We just need a disclaimer template on top of the article pointing people towards the Polish formation with a different name. -- Director (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer Territorial Defense (Yugoslavia) (just remove the inaccurate "forces"). I prefer to have some "preemptive" disambiguation in cases like this. Yes, maybe only Yugoslavia, of all the world, had something which was titled "Territorial Defense" but the collocation sounds just too common and ambiguous to uniquely associate it with Yugoslavia. In terms of WP:AT, it lacks recognizability, and some precision as well. Indeed, a Google search for "territorial defense" -wikipedia -wiki as first hits shows that the phrase is a broad concept in military theory [1] and even in animal behavior studies [2]. Opinions vary on this topic, but this is maybe a good test for a broader policy. No such user (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"Preemptive disambiguation"? Nsu, I requested this move over a redirect. That's been there for four years. We have no concept articles, this is the only topic on the project that corresponds with "Territorial Defense". Nsu, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you don't add disambiguation brackets unless there are actually other articles that correspond to the same name. I'm not saying we won't need an {{About}} template for the Polish Defense Forces, but that's all I see. -- Director (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not realize it was a redirect. Nonetheless, someone has contested your request, I stalked you :), and we're having this debate now, so I'm questioning if that should have been a redirect at all.
Background: there was a wider debate somewhere (ca. 2 years ago, and I don't really recall where exactly, and I don't know whether it had a conclusion), what is the naming convention for pages which are country-specific but have generic-sounding name. Like, <searching>, National pension plan, Transport Board or, like here, territorial defense (note redlink in lowercase). My attitude is that some disambiguation (country name, for example) in those cases is desirable, even if there is no other item with this exact title, as it provides minimal context and least astonishment for the innocent searcher (when I type "Transport Bo...", I get as a first suggestion Transport Board, a quite obscure article is an article about an 18th century British Navy organization). That is just my opinion, and I'll gladly withdraw if it goes against some guideline. WP:DABCONCEPT is kind of near, but does not address this problem directly. No such user (talk)
But on what policy-relevant grounds are we introducing disambig brackets?? I say again, for four years now Territorial Defense brought people here. -- Director (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Because it's a generic phrase which could mean anything in any number of countries (e.g. Slovenian Territorial Defence). Generic phrases do need disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It really isn't. Its not particularly "generic", and no, it can't mean much of anything besides this formation and its subdivisions. -- Director (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's generic. "Territorial defense" means the defence of one's territory. It could apply to any military forces in the world. The fact it's capitalised is irrelevant. Nobody looking at "Territorial Defense" is going to think it specifically refers to a particular branch of the Yugoslavian armed forces. That's why it needs disambiguating. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Aside from that, there are only the Polish "Territorial Defense Forces", which can easily be handled with a {{distinguish}} template.
Honestly, though, Territorial Defense redirected here since time immemorial. And if a move were possible without an admin request, none of you folks would even notice this obscure neck of the woods. Now, with all the Wikilawyering going on, we're likely to end up with an excessively elaborate title. -- Director (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
So I want to express our collective sincere gratitude for your turning our attention to the issue :). No such user (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Right.. You're welcome :) -- Director (talk) 11:54, 30 January 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.