Talk:Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems

Copyvio?
If portions of the article are a copyvio, the offending text should be removed, but the non-offending parts should be kept, and if necessary marked as a stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The acronym LAAS-CNRS should remain
It is a big mistake to have removed the acronym LAAS-CNRS.

"Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems" is rather ambiguous ; there might be dozens of such laboratories on Earth !

CNRS is a well known acronym for a big French institution for research.

I suggest (LAAS-CNRS, Toulouse) as a title for the institution. Euroflux (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a name is ambiguous, a hatnote can be placed on top of the page or a disambiguation page can be made. Often-used abbreviations can be made into redirects. Moving the article to a complicated name that is an unlikely search term is doing a disservice to our readers. Please read Manual of Style/Titles for more information. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this institution is known as LAAS, or LAAS-CNRS, like NASA, CNES, or FBI ; you can see it on the website ! Once again, the link given by you has nothing to do with the subject ! You create your own weird "rules" und you try to make believe that your rules are WP-rules giving a false link. WP "rules" are made to help people and it is written that good common sense is better than any WP real or invented "rule". One person like you on Wikipedia can discourage many potential high level contributors with a stupid application of fake rules. By the way, have you ever written an article of your own on Wikipedia ? Have you been able to write something else than stubs or "redirects" ? You spend your time changing other peoples' article names as if you wanted to make believe that you "write" articles... Why can't you produce something of your own ? Euroflux (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The title you gave to this article is against guidelines. f you have a problem with that (or with my editing), take it somewhere else. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you never demonstrate what you say, which is rather surprising for somebody who claims to be a scientist. You say that my title is against the guidelines but you do not explain why ! You give links which have nothing to do with the subject ! Could you please explain in a few words and in plain English why "my" title - in reality the original title not given by me - is against the guidelines ? Are you able to demonstrate it ? Euroflux (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I gave the wrong link above. Article titles is what I meant. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)