Talk:Rare (conservation organization)

Requested move 14 September 2015

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)

---

Rare organization → Rare – 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)

• 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)

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)

• Oppose move to Rare (not even sure that the video game developer is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) but would support move to Rare (conservation organization). Zarcadia (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Rare (conservation organization) per nom, IP 209.211.131.181, and Zarcadia. Also move Rare to Rare (company) or Rare (video game company) unless some very strong evidence of primary topic status is shown. "Rare" is such a common term that the current company topic name seems improper. See, e.g., how Rarity is handled. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, "rare" indicates "scarce" or "scarcity". How did the primary get to be named after a company? Move primary to "scarcity" or similar. Randy Kryn 00:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Rare" is a general topic and so Rare, by itself, should go to Rare (disambiguation). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Currently Rare organization is about an international conservation organization, and Rare is about a British video game developer in Twycross, Leicestershire, England. Move Rare to Rare (videogame developer), and move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Alternate move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare, move Rare to Rare (video game company) move Rare organization to Rare (conservation organization) ; since all companies and bands are a type of organization, and this organization could be a non-profit company; -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Alternate as IP proposal above, move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare, move Rare to Rare (video game company) move Rare organization to Rare (conservation organization) verbatim as IP, most sensible solutions. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Rare (conservation organization) Yes, I totally agree with everyone above. As well as the move Rare to Rare (video game company) to distinguish the two. "Rare" is a common term that the current company under that title would indeed not make sense. 14:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Bditcheva (talk)

• Comment - I also agree that this page here should be Rare (conservation organization) or Rare (organization). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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)

NPOV

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)

@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)

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)