Talk:137th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

137th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) → 137th Division – WP:TWODAB primary per WP:SMALLDETAILS BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). No such user (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Nobody's going to guess which army this one belongs for. No such user (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to guess. Hatnotes are cheap; {{About}} exists. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's call it b71945d5-66db-4088-b886-d9fd151c4521 then. Guaranteed to be unique, and hatnotes are cheap.
  WP:RECOGNIZABILITY states that The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Not even experts on WW2 Japanese military history would recognize it's a Japanese division out of context. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a Japanese Imperial Army history book. No such user (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per NSU. Completely agree. Gonnym (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per NSU. The Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Syrians, and Soviets have all had a 137th Division that had a rifle/infantry role. WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is part of the MOS and provides guidance on this. Specifically, it states that pre-emptive disambiguation of similarly named formations is the way to go, and frankly, MILMOS has served Wikipedia well for a lot of years and I see no reason to walk it back. If enough editors disagree, then start a centralised conversation about it at the Village Pump, don't go move formation articles unilaterally or create RMs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Not the nominator) Thank you for citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Units, formations, and bases. I had been unaware of that, and you provided important context for evaluating nominator's argument above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per NSU. Too generic. And no primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]