Talk:VIP RAF Voyager

Requested move 14 May 2023

 * 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. 

VIP RAF Voyager → Royal Air Force VIP Voyager – 'VIP RAF Voyager' is both ambiguous, and not consistent with British English grammar and sentence construction. Not everyone knows what 'RAF' means (especially non-military and non-English speakers). Furthermore, Royal Air Force VIP Voyager was originally chosen as the (correct) title of this subject in 2015, but was rapidly (and IMO, unjustly) converted into a redirect (into a generic and inappropriate article). I presume an Admin will be needed to merge edit histories?&#32;Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting a lot of articles begin with "RAF" - Special:PrefixIndex/RAF - but I agree the order is unusual in the correct title. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:PrefixIndex/RAF contains a huge amount of redirects, and misspellings - so the prefix index probably should not be used as the authoritative source! The simple fact that the original article (turned into a redirect) deemed the need to use 'Royal Air Force' in the title should not be overlooked, especially as the creating editor is experienced in creating and editing articles about the British military.  Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That page does show redirects in italics at least. List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force is perhaps more authoritative in terms of RAF aircraft specifically, which makes me wonder why not just VIP Voyager for the sake of WP:CONCISE? I'm not seeing many aircraft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Royal+Air+Force which aren't redirects either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The original article name from 2015 doesn't inherently carry much weight to me, as need to assess it against current practices, not from the best part of a decade ago. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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.