This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: criterion met
Grammar and style: criterion met
Supporting materials: criterion not met
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I have just rolled back, partially, this edit by Gaia Octavia Agrippa. UK Space Command "sits" in the organizational hierarchy of the British Armed Forces under the Chief of the Air Staff; there should be no thought whatsoever of removing all mention of UK Space Command from the Royal Air Force page. Buckshot06(talk) 07:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
United Kingdom Space Command → UK Space Command – "UK Space Command" is clearly the common name, having over 11,000 ghits -Wikipedia, per about 1,400 for "United Kingdom Space Command". This is also the format most often used on UK govt websites, such as https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-space-command . BilCat (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC) I closed but then reverted close per request on my talk page for more discussion, so now… — Relisting.В²C☎ 21:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case changing from United Kingdom to UK does not enhance recognizability (the reason for COMMONNAME). Per WP:TITLEFORMAT "Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." A user is likely to recognize UK or United Kingdom equally well rendering this a non-issue in this case. A quick google search for me brings up 9,390 results for "UK Space Command" and 2,130 results for "United Kingdom Space Command," (to contrast I get 368,000 results for "US Space Command" and 81,300 results for "United States Space Command" however I do not belive that WPCOMMONNAME is an issue at that article). I am uncertain that this is enough to establish common name since UK Space Command could very well be used as a shortened version in article titles after United Kingdom Space Command is first mentioned in articles. There is also some internal inconsistency on similarly titled pages on Wikipedia, as we have UK Space Agency but United Kingdom Special Forces. The decision of UK or United Kingdom in article titles probably is something that should be standardized across the board, rather than piecemeal for individual articles.Garuda28 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Expanding abbreviations is usually the best idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is guidance under WP:CRITERIA, and therein under Naturalness we can see we should prefer the name that people search for. Here's some evidence. UK Space Command is orders of magnitude the more common search term. Chumpih. (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As is UK instead of United Kingdom itself! And USA instead of United States. And RAF instead of Royal Air Force. These are not hard and fast rules. Generally on Wikipedia we have always preferred abbreviations to be expanded, common name or no. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is "we have always preferred abbreviations to be expanded, common name or no" in accordance with this bit of the MOS? Chumpih. (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which has absolutely nothing to do with article titles! It deals with content only. This is the guideline you actually want. In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. [italics mine] No, clearly doesn't apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Interesting: under that guideline it talks about "African Journal of AIDS Research", as opposed to "African Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Research". Chumpih. (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, not even the head article (HIV/AIDS) has the acronym expanded, though. Rublov (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contradiction is blatant. Perhaps initialisms in titles are indeed OK? Chumpih. (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction whatsoever. AIDS is pretty much exclusively known by that acronym and not by its full title. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is not pretty much exclusively known as the UK. UK Space Command is an abbreviation of the full title. African Journal of AIDS Research is the actual title of the publication. No contradictions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But even the UK Government refers to this as "UK space command". Evidence. As already shown, it's the common search term so Naturalness is satisfied. Is there evidence that it's commonly called "United Kingdom Space Command"? Chumpih. (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the same as almost everyone referring to the Royal Air Force as the RAF or the United States Air Force as the USAF? Yet we don't use those abbreviations for our article titles. Because, as I said, in an encyclopaedia it is almost always better to expand abbreviations, with the exception of some very well-known acronyms, usually those actually pronounced as words (AIDS, NATO, Laser, etc). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no evidence to suggest that it's commonly called "United Kingdom Space Command". Understood. Chumpih. (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a lot in it, but I think in the extended discussion above the point is well discussed and well made. There is certainly no clear advantage in going to the shorter form. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.svg)
