Talk:Military Administration in France

More than one military administration in France

This has to point to a dab page because there has been several different Military Administration in France not just the German military administration in occupied France during World War II

For example:

• the military administration (1815-1818) under the command of the Duke of Wellington.
• The Italian military administration in occupied France during World War II

to name but two others. So a redirect to Military occupation of France is better than to a specific article. -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that one is correct. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Although, now that I think ohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_Administration_in_France&action=edit&section=1#editformf it, while there have been several "military administration in France" (and should rightly point to military occupation of France if created), there has been only one "Military Administration in France", and any reader looking for that in the searchbox or an editor wp:pipelinking from an article will much more probably than not be referring to the WWII one. This is a straightforward case of wp:primarytopic. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, that is Bold revet discuss, not bold revert, revert. Every military occupation has and administration. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, you reverted without discussing the reasons I brought up, just handwaving at BRD. You skipped the discussion step. Now if you had addressed my arguments, or made some new ones of your own, then you would have been within your right to revert at the same time. Anyway, I have a feeling this discussion will not be constructive, and I don't care about a lousy redirect, and I have better things to do, like improving the content of the MAF article. Regards, ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

For change to take place there has to be consensus (the whole point of BRD), it is not make a point revert, make another point revert etc. I place the first comment here on the 4th, So it was not as if it was in response to your comment, instead you made a change of the redirect without reading the talk page. This is not an article so primary does not apply, particularly when the proposed target of the redirect is a descriptive page title (in this case "German military administration in occupied France during World War II"). It is a descriptive page title to differentiate it from other military administrations/occupations. As to the primary meaning, it very much depends upon which period of history one is interested in as to "... editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles", (WP:CRITERIA) as it is likely that if one is writing an article on the First World War the "military administration in France" will seem like a natural link to use (particularly if one is unaware of other occupations), this is also true for Napoleonic occupations as well. It the page redirects to a dab page, then bots will pick up the error if someone links to it not realising that it could refer to multiple occupations, something that does not happen if it redirects to an article. I do not see the capitalisation as significant as it is likely to be capitalised in any era if it is thought to be a proper noun. -- PBS (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)