Talk:Reference date (United States business cycles)/Archive 1

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference date → Reference date (United States business cycles) — Relisted. @harej 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not the most common use of the term "reference date", should redirect to epoch (reference date). Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) IMO reference date should redirect to epoch (reference date), as "reference date" is the plain English term for epoch. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename oppose retarget, instead create a disambiguation page after the rename. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was about to close this and then read the article itself. It seems to me that reference date is a concept that is associated primarily with business cycles and so, perhaps, the article should be at Reference date (business cycle). Neither Reference date (economics) nor Reference date (business) are precise enough because the ignore the cycle aspect of the term. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename, prefer a simple redirect and hatnote at Epoch (reference date) than a Reference date disambiguation page. Since there are just the two pages to disambiguate, a disambiguation page is unnecessary (WP:Disambiguation). There is also Accounting reference date, the financial year end date in the UK, but I've only seen the full term "accounting reference date" used with that meaning; if that's true then there's no need to disambiguate it. Reference date (United States business cycles) is overly specific though; Reference date (business) is probably sufficient. -kotra (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kotra, except doesn't this have more to do with economics than business? Business cycle's lead seems to so indicate. I suggest Reference date (economics) as this is more of an economics concept than a business concept.--chaser (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I made ... (business) a redirect as well to cover our bases.--chaser (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.