WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Own Risk and Solvency Assessment edit

Don't forget about Own Risk and Solvency Assesment - the insurance equivalence of ICAAP (Internal Capital Adequacy Assesment Process). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.51.164 (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 10 January 2017 edit

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply


– This disambiguation page should be divided into Orsa and ORSA. Furthermore, Swedish Orsa cannot be the primary topic, because it is much smaller than Belarussian Orša. Propositum (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Support both moves; no primarytopic. But don't split the disambig page; keep ORSA entries at Orsa. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support both moves, But likewise don't split the dab page; keep ORSA entries at Orsa. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per the above, retaining a single disambiguation page for both "ORSA" and "Orsa" titles. bd2412 T 02:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Support both, but do not split, per all of the above.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Closing comment: I think there is a clear and valid consensus, unanimous in fact on the move proposals and consistent with policy. But I am concerned that nobody has questioned the rationale Swedish Orsa cannot be the primary topic, because it is much smaller than Belarussian Orša. That seems to me to be invalid on several grounds. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2017 (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.