Talk:University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Tariqabjotu in topic Requested move 2

File:CAS-LOGO-small.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

edit
 

An image used in this article, File:CAS-LOGO-small.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 1

edit
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)Reply



Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of SciencesGraduate 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)Reply

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

edit
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. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply


– As [1] shows, it seems "University of Chinese Academy of Sciences" is a correct name. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 18:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC) KeepOpera (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • 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)Reply
    • 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
      • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
"University of Chinese Academy of Sciences" -wikipedia (1,510,000) and "University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences" -wikipedia (818,000) Hardly resounding, hence the qualified support. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.