Talk:Elimination Initiative

Requested 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 to Elimination Initiative per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 22:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Elimination Initiative of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and of Congenital Syphilis in Latin America and the Caribbean → Regional Initiative for the Elimination of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and Congenital Syphilis in Latin America and the Caribbean — This is the correct name of the campaign. We tried to create the article at an earlier time and for some reason the title got blacklisted. Shayer 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsure. Both titles seem unlikely to be the common name. I notice the facebook page [1] is just called Elimination Initiative, which seems a far more likely name for the Wikipedia article as well. The official name isn't necessarily the correct article title under official Wikipedia policy. No vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe But Elimination Initiative is absolutely meaningless. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. There has to be some kind of shorthand being used to refer to this campaign. I can't view the Facebook page right now, but if this is being branded as the "Elimination Initiative", that would probably be the best title. I disagree that it's a meaningless name; if it's the popular term used to refer to this project (regardless if the phrase is generic enough to also refer to other projects), then it's as meaningful as any other brand. The question is, if I've heard of this topic and I wanted to look it up in Wikipedia, what would I type into the "Go" box in order to find it? (I also want to note that if we are completely unable to come up with something better, I would still strongly support at least moving it to the correct way-too-long title, as proposed in the original move request, rather than leaving it at the wrong way-too-long title because there was no consensus over which other title was best.) Propaniac (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since others have supported Elimination Initiative, I want to make it clear that I also support that title. Propaniac (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current and proposed titles are ugly. Call it Elimination Initiative. That's what PAHO calls it, and that's what the logo says:[2]. Fences&Windows 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Elimination Initiative" will need a disambiguator. In the world there are many initiatives to try to eliminate many things. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If there's nothing else on Wikipedia called Elimination Initiative, then I don't see why we'd need a disambiguator. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There appear to be three other articles on Wikipedia that mention an "Elimination Initiative," so in theory we could create a disambiguation page at Elimination Initiative and link to this article at Elimination Initiative (HIV and syphilis) or something like that, and then link to the three other articles, but the other mentions seem so minor that I don't think it's warranted. If there is no disambiguation page, or if we create a dab page at Elimination Initiative (disambiguation) but designate this article as the primary topic, then there should be no disambiguator used in this article title. Propaniac (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In particular: Stroke Belt, Alan Cranston, and Tetanus. I checked out of curiosity, and posted the result here in case others were curious. I agree that they're quite minor, though it's not totally clear what a typical reader searching "elimination initiative" is looking for. I think it's fair to assume that this is the primary topic until and unless one of the others arises as a sought-for search term for something else. I don't suppose I'm "involved" just for having commented here? I'll give it a few hours - someone can complain or beat me to it, or else I'll do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was closed by a non admin as no consensus; I have reversed it because it seems clear to me that this doesn't fall within the boundaries described at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. The closing editor also seemed to be under the mistaken impression that a Requested Move discussion cannot form a consensus to move to a title other than the one originally suggested. Propaniac (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair, but I didn't see anything that would give me an impression that anyone was in support of the requested move. Just trying to help. WP:RM has a massive backlog going back for weeks. Hopefully some admins will use their tools to clear some of it up soon, so users like myself won't feel the need to pick up some of the slack. Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think anybody supports the requested move, either (although I did voice support of that title over the current one, which should be uncontroversial), but I think there is a consensus in favor of Elimination Initiative and if there is one, we don't need to start a new discussion just to make it official. (Although experience would indicate this will probably just get relisted anyway, despite my feeling that's unnecessary and unhelpful.) I know there's a backlog and sometimes I work on it, too, but the guidelines seem to me fairly clear about what non-admins can do. Propaniac (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is support to move the title to Elimination Initiative, but that is not why I closed the discussion. The requested move was for another name (to long for me to rewrite), and it was that request that recieved no support. If I had closed the discussion in favor of Elimination Initiative, then that, I believe would have gone beyond the scope of non-admin closures. The closure was solely based on the lack of support of the requested title, and nothing more.

As a side note, I reworded part of your comment above, as you orignially referd to me as an admin. I just added the word "non" in front, as I believe that is what you really meant.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right about the latter; thanks for fixing my typo. But as I said earlier, it is perfectly legitimate for a move discussion to come to a consensus in favor of a title that was not the one originally proposed. It happens all the time, and does not require that a new discussion be started to "officially" support the other title. Propaniac (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, go right ahead and change it to the new title. I personally won't oppose it, but for the record, I'm not taking sides. The worst that will happen is that someone may oppose the new name, and change it back. That at least will get the ball rolling, although I think that there is enough support for a page move to Elimination Inititative.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has these mentions of elimination initiatives:
- The Elimination Initiative of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and of Congenital Syphilis in Latin America and the Caribbean.
- Stroke Belt#Public health initiatives to reduce stroke incidence in the region mentions the Stroke Belt Elimination Initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
- Alan Cranston#Retirement and death mentions the Nuclear Weapon Elimination Initiative of the State of the World Forum.
- Tetanus#Signs and symptoms has a reference whose text mentions the Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination Initiative.
  - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were discussed above, in case you missed it. Propaniac (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elimination Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204113126/http://www.theglobalfund.org/documents/replenishment/2010/Global_Fund_2010_Innovation_and_Impact_en.pdf to http://www.theglobalfund.org/documents/replenishment/2010/Global_Fund_2010_Innovation_and_Impact_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]