Talk:Military brat/Archive 1

message: Should the "brat" disambiguation page link directly to the page "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" instead of this page?  It seems strange to have this extra disambiguation page, with the US subculture page being so much more complete than this one.  Jeffhoy 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen arguments for keeping and retiring it... I'm indifferent as to keeping it.  It is kind of a waste, but at the same time this is too specific.Balloonman 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is almost useless.  It should be merged with the "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" page.  BeboGuitar 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but then you get the whiners who say the U.S. article is too U.S.-centered (duh) and they ask, "Aren't there military brats outside of the U.S.?"  To which we all say, "Yes, but as BMan has explained to excess, there is no research on them, only on the U.S. ones."  And then they fire back, "Well there should at least be a page for non-U.S. military brats to show that it's not unique to the U.S!"  Hence the pointless article you see here. --ScreaminEagle 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the Linguistic Reclamation section deals with that.  Yes, it is definately a term of endearment in the military community, but it has to documentable.  You'd be surprised at how many people think it's an insult (see the discussions on the the subject.)  Non-brats want to change it to something "less objectionable" or "less derogatory" because some mythical person might find the term insulting... and sue Wikipedia for libel/slander if used against an individual.  Yes, it's pointless, but it's true.Balloonman 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, this is the generic version of the term.  The more in depth version is the (U.S. Subculture) page.Balloonman 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retire page?

message: Are references neceessary in a disambig page? I would suggest rolling back to the page before the unreferenced tag. References will go in the respective article pages. --Rifleman 82 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Despite conjecture about how "Military brat" might be used to describe people outside of the scope of the U.S. subculture, supporting evidence has not been produced to justify a separate article. In fact, the only reference to non-U.S. military brats occurs in  "Military brat (U.S. subculture)". Meanwhile, the ostensibly generic "Military brat" article lists the U.S. branches of armed service as if they were also generic. This isn't a worldwide view. This is just confusing. Pretense at a worldwide view without follow-up doesn't counter systemic bias: It is bias. 
I've edited this page to redirect to Military brat (U.S. subculture). If references can be produced to show that the "military brat" phenomenon is indeed global, and that the term is notably used to refer to non-U.S. populations, perhaps a separate article is justified. If it can be shown that the term is substantially as likely to be applied to a non-U.S. case as to a U.S. case, then the present arrangement, with the U.S. subculture disambiguated as particular, is justified. If not, perhaps Military brat (U.S. subculture) can be merged back into Military brat and this matter put to rest. --Shunpiker 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under normal Wikipedia usage there is absolutely no need to use a parenthetical disambiguator if there is only a single article under the main title. Therefore I have moved it back. If separate articles are created about military brats in other countries then it can be moved, but for now there is no need. -- Necrothesp 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under normal is a key phrase.  The challenge is that this article is clearly not written for the generic military brat, it is written based upon an area where a fair amount of research has been conducted---US Military Brats.  Scholarly research has not been done on generic non-US brats (as is documented in the article) so the article has to clearly identify itself as a US-centric article.  Per Wikipedia policy there are exceptions to all rules and based upon the history of this article and the extensive discussions surrounding this subject, I would suggest this is clearly a case for an exception.  Attempts have been made on and off again to have a Stub at Military Brat.  Those stubs are often deleted and redirected to the more comprehensive article.  Personally, I would have no problem with an article here---but they do get deleted because they usually don't amount to much of anything.  Due to the fact that no research has been done on non-US brats, it would be a stub.  I do beleive it was careless/premature for you to make a move on a subject where extensive discussion has already occured.  This is especially true as quick glance at either talk page would reveal said discussion.  There has been discussion here, at (US subculture), both FAC's, and at the military history review---consensus on repeated discussions over hte past two years was to label this with the (U.S. subculture)Balloonman 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting to [[Military brat (U.S. subculture)]] 

message: This page move has two issues. First is was performed without apparent recent prior discussion, despite the title being extensively discussed previously. Second, it failed to move the talk page. Gimmetrow 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page move is going to be an issue; the article title was seriously discussed many times at FAC, and I don't know why it was moved without discussion or consensus.  I think an admin is going to have to undo the mess.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a mess; the articlehistory and FAC is no longer associated with the article, and we have a featured article stub.  Will the person who did this move please read all of the featured article files and undo this ?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no admin is needed for this move. It's reversed now. Gimmetrow 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  However, I don't know if military brat had any edit history except the redirect. From the discussion above, it may have. Gimmetrow 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul654 is looking at if; goodness, I wish people would *discuss* before moves (second time this week an admin has done this).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If memory serves (that's a big if), the article was originally at military brat, there was a big fat brouhaha at FAC about the article only applying to the US culture, the article was moved to the US subculture page, and this was made a dab page. I thought it was a big to-do about nothing, but a big to-do it was, so moving the article with no  discussion was premature. If there's a problem with the title, it should be sorted out with discussion (and certainly without orphaning the talk page and FAC article history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that sounds about right. The article ended up where it was because the content was specific to one culture, and a more general title generated complaints. Some of that debate can be read above. Gimmetrow 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave a note for Balloonman et al.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This all fails and failed to take into account normal Wikipedia policy and the fact that a disambiguated article title was needlessly redirected to from a perfectly good non-disambiguated article title. The simple fact is that it should never have been moved in the first place. The term is not purely a US one - whether the article deals primarily with the US "subculture" or not is irrelevant to the title of the article. As long as this is the only article on Wikipedia on military brats it should stay where it is. The problems were caused by a needless move which seems to have been undertaken by editors unfamiliar with normal naming procedures. If people want to move it back, might I suggest that a separate "Military brat" article is created with all the non-US material transferred to that and the pages that link to military brat examined to see which should specifically link to the American page and which are non-US specific. -- Necrothesp 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care where it ends up but 1) you can't disassociate a featured article from its talk page and articlehistory, and 2) I suggest waiting for the regular editors to surface and help figure this out.  Gimmetrow and I only get involved because the partial move really messed up archives and history on featured articles, which we watch for  and WP:FA archives.  When ya'll figure it out, please do it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See response above.  Previous discussion reached the consensus that despite there not being a "Military Brat" page, that the disambig was necessary in this case.  It is, per wikipolicy, an exception to the rules.Balloonman 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2007 page move