Talk:Southern Air Command (India)

Requested move 26 April 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per clear consensus in the discussion. Additionally, the points brought up by opposers are stronger than the supporters. &mdash; Music1201  talk  06:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Southern Air Command (India) → Southern Air Command – As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. |Southern_Air_Command_SAAF|Southern_Air_Command Page statistics show that this is what they are searching for. The other commands are long defunct. Filpro (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would tentatively endorse some move. It is apparent looking at the page statistics that the Indian Southern Air Command is far more notable. The South African one is now defunct. That said, how does Indian Southern Air Command sound? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think its important to keep the nation in the title for military units. For example, simply looking up "Marine Corps" or "Marines" brings up an article about marines as a type of unit - NOT the United States Marine Corps, which is viewed far more than both the "Marines" article and the articles of other nations' Marine units. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think it would be the best it was kept at it's actual and official name and since it's the only article with the exact name. Examples include: Air Combat Command. No one is using Air Combat Command (United States), why should we for India? Filpro (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says '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).' Now we have SAC (India), SAC (South Africa), possibly one in 1939-40 France, possibly more in Europe and South America. This means that preemptively disambiguated when the article is created is the part of the rule to follow. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. By the evidence, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among existing articles. The dab page can just go to Southern Air Command (disambiguation).--Cúchullain t/ c 13:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being defunct couldn't be less relevant to an article's notability if it tried. Not well-known enough to be primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Should most likely follow the lead to open its own page with no disambiguation to connect to --  Dono  talk   01:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My reasons for opposing this move are located on .  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   04:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:MILMOS and my arguments above, just in case my position is not clear. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not well known enough to be primary topic. Dab here is useful.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:06, 29 May 2016 (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.