Talk:University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

Requested move 1

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences → Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences – "Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences" is the correct name. KeepOpera (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Is there actually any evidence for this, or is it just based on the common Chinese habit of missing off the definite article when translating into English? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2012 (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 2

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no move. --  tariq abjotu  05:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences → University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

– As shows, it seems "University of Chinese Academy of Sciences" is a correct name. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC) KeepOpera (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: At first glance, the suggestion seems ungrammatical. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Rationale seems unrelated to Wikipedia policy on article titles. Please familiarise yourself with it before raising any more RMs. Andrewa (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, but it seems you opposition is only for opposition. Your suggestion about reading policy is no use, because you don't mention the specific clause related with your opposition. --KeepOpera (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: No, it is the responsibility of the proposer to relate the rationale to the policy. You have not done this above nor in other RMs you have raised, in fact there is some doubt in my mind as to whether you have bothered to read the policy at all. If this suspicion is correct, then please do so. This is the third time you have been asked nicely, noting that the lead of WP:RM reads in part Please read our article titling policy and our guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move (my emphasis). Or if you have read the policy and based your request on it, then I'm fascinated. I think you may have missed the intent of the policy completely. Andrewa (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support The proposed form is indeed ungrammatical, but it's the actual name, and it's more common from a quick Google search. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the actual search you did? Just so we neither reinvent the wheel nor misunderstand your point? Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (1,510,000) and (818,000) Hardly resounding, hence the qualified support. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Google books is even closer, 5,450 vs 3,010 (your results may vary). No change of vote, I think we should use English under the circumstances. Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, both forms are in English. It's more a matter of "use proper English," which is much more subjective. But I hope any potential closers aren't letting my vote hold things up. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As per my comment in the previous RM above. This is a common Chinese habit and poor grammar due to language differences should not be perpetuated on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Necrothesp. This is a common Chinese to English translation error. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2013 (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.