This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany 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:
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.
Support. While I note the point that has been raised about
WP:CODENAME, it also seems to be the case that
WP:CODENAME's guidance mainly applies to combat operations. For instance, the guideline mentions that operational codenames only represent[] one side's planning; but Operation Desert seems to have been a domestic effort to produce synthetic oil, so there isn't really an "other side" whose planning is being left out. (Indeed, when checking the categories for non-combat military operations in
the US,
Australia, and
India, it becomes apparent that operational titles – while far from universal – are reasonably widespread for such cases.) Thus, I think retaining the operational title is worthwhile here.In addition to the above, I think the
WP:CRITERIA favor the original proposal. Removing the disambiguator improves on naturalness and concision, without sacrificing precision or recognizability.
ModernDayTrilobite (
talk •
contribs)
15:17, 5 September 2023 (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.