Talk:18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/officer-careers/4119.aspx
  • In 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment on 2011-05-25 02:29:45, 404 File Not Found
  • In 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment on 2011-06-02 00:08:54, 404 File Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title

@Dormskirk: this article was re-titled from "18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment" to "18th Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)" by Coldstreamer20 on 10 November 2021. The correct sourced designation is "18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment". Coldstreamer20 replied when I asked why it had been re-titled User Talk:Coldstreamer20#Moved 18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment, 651 Squadron AAC and 1 ISR Wing edits that moving was discussed at Talk:3rd Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)#3rd Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)#Name change. The new title is not the correct designation and needs to be changed. Either a revert over now what is a re-direct to "18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment". Given 18 (UKSF) Sig Regt's unique designation incorporating (UKSF) I'm not sure it needs WP:DISAMBIG with (United Kingdom). However, happy to go with disambiguation with a title such as "18th (UKSF) Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)" if that is the preference of other editors.--Melbguy05 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I see your point. We do try to achieve consistent disambiguation by way of suffixes. That said I can see the case for natural disambiguation here. I suggest you seek a consensus using the proposed move process at WP:RMCM. Dormskirk (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Melbguy05 if you're so adamant about changing the name, I would recommend it becomes 18th (UKSF) Signal Regiment than. I don't think there is a need to spell out 'United Kingdom Special Forces' for the designation here. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 14:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC):

@Dormskirk: Coldstreamer20 has recommended that it be reverted. Do you still suggest that I create a controversial move discussion?--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming no other objections, I am fine for you to revert it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

+1 Support that decision, in-case I didn't make that clear, sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Coldstreamer20, feel free to chat here or see my made pages! 17:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)