Talk:British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War

Requested move

 * 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: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War → ? – I know the current title is meant to be precise to what the article says. However, what about titles, like United States in World War I and History of the United Kingdom during World War I? Can the title change into United Kingdom in Sierra Leone Civil War or (Great) Britain in Sierra Leone Civil War? --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Title matches Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There seems no case for this move in terms of WP:AT or any more specific guideline, just a vague speculation about an article title pattern that doesn't even seem accurate. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The title is quite clear. British is the usual adjective for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Only the nationalists of northern Ireland would deny themsleves the adjective.  We might drop the word "military" from the title as redundant.  If I remember correctly the first troops deployed were Royal Marines (who are technically naval troops, not military), but that is hardly a material issue.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agreed that you don't need "military"; intervention in a war is clear enough. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it's not (I put quite a lot of though into the title). "British intervention" would encompass political and diplomatic intervention, whereas this article is about the deployment of armed forces. The political and diplomatic involvement wasn't an intervention because it was a continuation of the involvement the British have had in Sierra Leone for over 200 years (even after its independence in the 1960s), and would be better suited to Sierra Leone–United Kingdom relations (an article I intend to write at some point). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:59, 6 January 2013 (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.