Talk:United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Not moved - it did not happen - in January 2005 :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC) - UN Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium &rarr; UNTAES – A more common name. -- Itai 14:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Addition: even if this article is not moved to UNTAES, it should probably be moved to United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium, which is the full name. -- Itai 00:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We redirect common abbreviations to proper titles, not the other way around.
 * "Transitional Administration for" is incorrect: the correct name is "Transitional Authority in". Tlongers (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. ADH (t&m) 20:01, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. ADH is wrong, there are plenty of examples where we host the article at an Acronym, e.g. BBC, FIFA, NATO. The current title is unwieldy. Jooler 20:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you plan on moving our UN-related articles, you may want to start with UNICEF, UNSCOM, UNHCR, and UNESCO, just to name a few. ADH (t&m) 22:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * A survey of Category:United Nations and its subcategories shows that ADH is generally correct, although there are exceptions - UNIFIL, UNAMIR, UNOMUR, UNPROFOR, UN/CEFACT, MINURSO and MONUC (although the names of the latter two are originally in French, so different rules may apply). The "UN" vs. "United Nation" question also applies, among others, to UN Economic and Social Council, UN Human Development Index, UN Secretariat, UN Security Council and UN Trusteeship Council. (In most articles "United Nations" is used, and these articles should probably be moved there.) In short, we're dealing with rather a large issue, which had probably best be discussed in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. -- Itai 12:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose; move to full title that Itai suggested and redirect. I think titles should reflect full name and redirects reflect misspellings, acronyms, variations, etc. Cburnett 23:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support That's a ridiculous name to expect anyone to type.  UNTAES is much more sensible and is likely to remain unique.  That's all the name one needs. A search on the current title gets me about 500 hits and a search on untaes gets me over 19,000.  That's its name. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A search for the full name gives me twice that many results. Naturally, it will be referred to by its initialism more often than not, as is the case with any abbreviation for a long-winded title&mdash;the rule we all know and obey is "spell out once, abbreviate further references."  This is what redirects are for.  ADH (t&m) 04:10, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there are about 1000 unique page hits for the full name and 19,000 unique page hits for the abbreviation. The rule on Wikipedia is to use the common name where not confusing, which on this evidence is still UNTAES.  I can show you NATO documents that refer to the organisation as UNTAES throughout.  Nobody is insane enough to try to type in the full name of this organisation in the find box, and expecting editors (who are supposed to avoid internal redirects) to type in the full name every time they link is also unreasonable.  So there is no reason to use its full, official name except in the text of the article. A redirect can be made for those few who ever do manage to type the full name in correctly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, what Austin said. Neutralitytalk 21:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, I dunno how Austin searches Google, but UNTAES is the clear winner compared to either version of the full name. -- Netoholic @ 04:45, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

"Administration for" vs. "Authority in"
I had written a full move rationale, but the software seems to have cut me off. Anyway, the only page I found Authority in is the front page of the old mission, but the UNSC Resolution as well as other pages of the mission use the other form. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The empty "Legacies" section
The "Legacies" section is empty. Should it be be removed?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)