Talk:National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: onconsensus Ground Zero | t 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research → National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (US)
• National Commission for Human Development → National Commission for Human Development (Pakistan)
• National Commission for Minorities → National Commission for Minorities (India)

– According to No such user in my previous similar move request about NCCA (Phils) that this fails the "Recognizability" criterion in WP:AT. Kindly check the archived discussion about this. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC) j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 05:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation was originally listed in this move but this was removed because the page is a redirect to Rettig Report. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 05:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-conditional, in the first instance end the name (US) and not (USA), agree that national organizations are associated with nations. Gregkaye (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is okay for that. As long as it is moved. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 08:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. The current names already meet the guidelines for titles in the Manual of Style. It is not a standard practice to add the name of the country in the title for articles about government offices. This kind of renaming would not just be about these three offices, but would affect the title of every government office for which Wikipedia has an article. There may be reasons for doing this, and this has been proposed before as in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies), but this is not a move to take lightly and without a lot of discussion and comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, especially for the first. There isn't any consensus to preemptively disambiguate titles for government offices. I might support doing so for less unique/recognisable names, as the second two might be. However, I'd like a good argument for why the first agency does not have a unique name, perhaps citing another country's agency with the same or an extremely similar name. Anyway, if we do add the disambiguation to this article it should be "(United States)". —innotata 22:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No need to disambiguate for disambiguation's sake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's Comment Kindly take time to read Talk:National Commission for Culture and the Arts (Philippines) and look at @No such user:'s response. (unless if you already read the comment) If you think that they (the one that I listed) meet the guidelines for title, why did he oppose my previous request? If there is a basis, feel free to respond below. Anyway, I understand your views and no arguments that I will express. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 00:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.