Talk:GAVI

questions about the images of the princess/duchess
She is on the board of course. Does the daughter of the king of Spain, get as much attention as the royalty of England get? Does the image represent the organization? How about an image of her holding a baby that just got vaccinated, or just children waiting in line to be vaccinated?  D r e a m Focus  18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement rewriting of the article
An editor with no other edits outside this article seems to have rewritten it to sound like an ad. I have questioned him on his talk page, User_talk:Deepmike, but since he hasn't edited since that one day in March, he probably won't notice and respond. What new information is worth keeping in the article, and how should it be worded?  D r e a m Focus  10:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Move. No objections after 3 weeks and a relisting. Cúchullain t/ c 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance → GAVI – MOS:TM, WP:CONCISE, and WP:COMMONNAME: This organization started as "Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization", from which the straightforward abbreviation "GAVI" is naturally derived. The rest is MOS:TM decorative branding and something resembling a slogan. Nearly all of the citations in the article are self-published by the organization. Here is a news source published just a few days ago (by CNBC Africa) that uses "GAVI". And here is another one (from Reuters) and another (from AllAfrica). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412  T 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization? Is it so well known that people will recognize it by the acronym? We spell out Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation (although I grant that we do not spell out NASA or NATO). bd2412  T 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that is that the organization has apparently disavowed the unabbreviated form of its name. Two other examples of this phenomenon are KFC and AARP. Those articles use the uppercase strings. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection, then. bd2412  T 22:01, 1 June 2019 (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 move 8 December 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus that Gavi should remain a disambiguation page. There is not so strong consensus what to do with GAVI, but, per SMcCandlish's evidence, the all-caps acronym is still widely used by sources, and serves as the natural disambiguation. No such user (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

– official spelling Gjs238 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * GAVI → Gavi
 * Gavi → Gavi (disambiguation)


 * Oppose, no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DAB should stay at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a malformed request. The target title is occupied with non-redirecting content, and the proposer has not suggested what to do about that and has not addressed (or even mentioned) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question. Moreover, the proposer has referred to spelling, when the only difference proposed is capitalization, which is a matter of styling, not spelling. In the previous RM, several independent reliable sources were identified that use the current all-caps styling. The proposer has only referenced self-published styling, not independent reliable sources. MOS:TM should be considered. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLDly fixed malformed request per above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The way you fixed it is not necessarily what the proposer intended. The proposer does not seem to have even considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question and has thus made no suggestion to move the disambiguation page. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DAB should stay at base name. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Like scuba and radar, Gavi has out run its all cap acronym. This news search indicates the "Gavi" tends to be more common. As to whether it is the primary topic, this would seem to be a close run thing with Gavi (footballer). I don't think that anybody is particularly well served by the present distinction between "GAVI" and "Gavi". It is certainly not clear that the latter is a disambiguation page (ie explicit support for "Gavi (disambiguation)").  If the matter of the primary topic becomes a stumbling block, then, I might suggest "Gavi (alliance)" or "Gavi alliance" for this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that there are five towns and an island called "Gavi" is much more of an issue than the footballer. Towns and islands have obvious long-term significance. These places have probably been known as "Gavi" for hundreds of years, and will probably continue to be called "Gavi" for another hundred years. Footballers, not so much. The footballer article is obvious WP:RECENTISM. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose on both counts. There's no primary topic, and see MOS:TM: WP doesn't GaF what the official logo of something looks like (see in particular the Macy's example). This is an acronym, so it's GAVI. Contrary to Cinderella157 confused comment, this is  similar to radar and scuba, which have been assimilated into English as everyday words, something that has not happened to GAVI, which is an organization's proper-name acronym (like NASA and ANZAC), not a word. And yes there are publications that use "Nasa" and "Anzac"; WP is  among them and never will be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though GAVI is an acronym, the organisation now brands itself as "Gavi" and should be titled as such per MOS:TM? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Macy's brands itself "macy&starf;s" and WP doesn't care, nor do most other publishers. If GAVI were near-universally referred to as "Gavi" by reliable sources independent of the subject, we would care.  If "GAVI" is good for UNICEF [note: not "Unicef" or "unicef" despite their logo], Reuters, PubMed and the Global Public Health journal, The Economic Times/The Times of India, the Indonesian government, the journal Nature, The Stanford Journal of Public Health, BMC Infectious Diseases journal, and The Washington Post, then it's good for WP. Those are all just a smattering of picks from the first page of search results.  GAVI doesn't even consistently use "Gavi" itself at websites it maintains.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. No case has been made that this is the primary topic of Gavi, and it seems unlikely unless we succumb to recentism. There may however be a case above for moving to Gavi (organisation) or some similar disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"The Vaccine Fund"
What is the relationship between GAVI and "The Vaccine Fund"? https://www.vaccinealliance.org/reference/vaccinefund.html There is no mentioning of "The Vaccine Fund" in the article.  Manorainjan  12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the link provided, the Fund is described: The Vaccine Fund is a financial mechanism developed by GAVI to raise new resources for immunization and swiftly channel them to health systems in the world’s poorest countries. Since the partners of the Alliance provide direction and support, administrative costs are kept low – approximately 98% of Global Fund resources go directly to countries. It would be best to use secondary sources to develop a section on the Vaccine Fund, but in th meantime, I have made the site an External link. Zefr (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

AMC Neutrality Issues
I'm tagging the GAVI section for NPOV because it seems to largely read like a rehash of the MSF/Doctors Without Borders campaign, including heavy citation to MSF primary materials. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  18:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Foundation date
The side box says 2000 is the date of foundation, but this article says 1999. Which one is it? Forich (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)