Talk:Financial Management Standard

Article name
From the history of the article:
 * 01:35, 17 September 2011 Tony1 (moved Financial Management Standard to Financial Management Standard (Queensland))
 * 00:47, 23 September 2011 PBS (moved Financial Management Standard (Queensland) to Financial Management Standard over redirect: Reverted the move, no need for the dab extension and not usually added to legislation (see the talk at WP:AT#Article specificity)

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles neither O/W or I think that there is a need to use pre-emptive disambiguation on article about legislation.

I think it would however be a good idea to move the article to Financial Management Standard 1997 as the year is usually included in article titles about legislation and the formal short name of an act usually includes it. -- PBS (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there is another use of "Financial Management Standard" in WP that makes this use not primary, adding any additional precision to the title would contradict the widely supported "avoid over-precision" guidance at WP:PRECISE. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have undone the reversion of the original move. It was done without consideration of the obvious needs of readers. The topic is clearly confined to Queensland, so the broad and generic appearance of "Financial Management Standard" does not serve well to indicate the topic. It is misleading. It is deceptive. Interpreting provisions at WP:TITLE in a legalistic way, against the interests of readers, is a perversion of their intent. Please don't do that. N oetica Tea? 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have undone your reversion as having no basis in current practices or guidelines. There is currently no expectation that article titles need to define their context; especially where there is no other article with the title. Requiring that article titles telegraph their scope and/or context is a radical change to current practices. older ≠ wiser 11:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)