Talk:Construction Troops

It has been proposed in this section that Construction Troops be renamed and moved to Military construction formations. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Construction Troops → Military construction formations – "Construction Troops" doesn't seem to be a proper noun in this case so shouldn't be rendered in title case grapesurgeon (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

As a side note this article is largely unsourced and possibly has scope overlap with other existing articles... Needs a chunk of work to fix grapesurgeon (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as nominated. A "formation" technically means a group of units (usually a brigade or higher); units being the smaller, usually homogeneous, groupings (usually regiments or battalions and smaller). Military construction troops would be fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be ok with that grapesurgeon (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. grapesurgeon (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support sentence case: I'm not sure how this article is distinct from Sapper or Combat engineer, but that's not the question here. Either way it should be in sentence case as this is not a proper noun. Construction troops makes sense to me. As troops are generally military, I don't see a need to specify military construction troops. SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I think a merge/deletion discussion is probably in order after this. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)