Talk:Rare (conservation organization)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Sdav0 in topic NPOV

Requested move 14 September 2015

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: moved to Rare (conservation organization). The current title, Rare organization, is ambiguous and will be redirected to the dab page. Despite some good arguments to also disambiguate the video game company, I note that the page in question has not been notified and was in fact the subject of an RM to make it the primary topic only this year – to decide it should be moved would require a multi-move discussion at either Talk:Rare or Talk:Rare (disambiguation). Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply



Rare organizationRare – This page should just be called Rare, however another company of this name already exists. The two pages should not be merged, and I do not know how to handle the collision. I have temporarily named this page Rare organization, though that is a little clunky and strange. Bditcheva (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Support some move, but not the proposed one. This page title does not meet our page titling standards; however, there's no proposal here as to what should be done with the displaced article Rare, which unlike this one has actual sourcing. Moreover, in my opinion rare and rarity ought to be redirects to scarcity in any case. If there's a different proposal on the table I would probably support it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Per the below comments, I would support Rare (conservation organization) as an acceptable title. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2015 (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.

Requested maintenance template removal 23 October 2018

edit

As far as I can tell this page title no longer conflicts in the ways outlined back in 2015, and in the prior closed requested move review from 2015 all the users involved agreed to the move to Rare (conservation organization). Therefore it seems the maintenance template should be removed. --Zgrimshaw (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

NPOV

edit

There are several sections of this article that express the goals and aspirations of the organization in a non-neutral way. It seems likely that this language is based on the organization's own materials rather than derived from secondary sources discussing the organization. The lack of referencing for these sections makes it harder to be more specific. Should those sections just be removed? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calidum: In this edit you tagged the article for multiple problems, but don't seem to have added any discussion on the talk page. I think this is considered "drive-by tagging" and is discouraged behavior. I've attempted to supply some reasons for the NPOV tag, but I'd appreciate it if you joined in the discussion, since I may not have captured all of your issues correctly. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It appears as though the aspirational language mentioned above has been removed and the article is cited by secondary sources. Because the initial NPOV tag did not reference anything more specific, I would like to request that the maintenance template be removed. Sdav0 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply