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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan → NATO Air Training Command – Afghanistan – After "boldly" correcting the page's title (if such a minor move can be considered bold?), the move was reverted by Servite et contribuere. Rather than start an edit war, I figured it best to start a discussion with him to understand why he had done so; the reason given seems pretty flimsy to me, and to be frank he seems to be a somewhat disruptive editor, plus he hasn't replied to my reply, so to avoid any further issues and get it settled, I am opening this RM.

As far as the actual reason for moving the page, the en-dash with spaces either side is a pretty standard U.S./NATO format (Operation Enduring Freedom – Caribbean and Central America, Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa, Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara, Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, United States Space Forces – Space, NATO Training Mission – Iraq: I would have included NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan, but I actually moved that page at basically the same time as this one). For sources for this title specifically, we have this one, this one, and this one; I will also point out this one, which is inconsistent, but actually speaks to a wider point that I wish more editors would realise, that privates (and indeed higher ranked soldiers, sailors, etc., including officers) in public affairs (or any other part of the military) aren't necessarily going to know or care about the *exact* styling/spacing/whatever, even in official documentation, so don't *always* take them as the final word. (I realise one could argue that undermines the whole RM, but whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) Cheers, RadiculousJ (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The suggested title is the way to express what is being described with proper orthography. Some off-Wikipedia sources are more oriented toward those who have a more limited capability for typing and rendering or who don't recognize the distinction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This appears to be the correct name. I just didn't know what was correct at the time. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also RadiculousJ whilst using he/him/his (Or He/Him/His or HE/HIM/HIS) are correct pronouns; they/them/theirs should be used when you don't know someone's pronouns as it is best not to assume personal details of users Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate the support, if you didn't know whether it was right or not, why did you revert it, rather than just starting a discussion or RM? Also, I wasn't assuming anything, you literally have "he" and "his" on your user page. RadiculousJ (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RadiculousJ Actually, I take back the "I didn't know comments". I know remember, and I actually thought I was reverting it to the correct version at the time. My bad Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]