Talk:Nuclear Safety Commission

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested Move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 move. Mvjs Talking 09:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one Nuclear Safety Commission, for instance there's the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Nuclear Safety Commission should be changed to a disambig page. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Move Why is this even being debated? There's no indication of controversy. I'm tempted to be bold and do it myself but I'm too afraid of getting my wrist slapped. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I think this should not be a speedy. It's not completely simple, the United States Atomic Energy Commission was always known as the AEC (see Atomic Energy Commission) despite there being, for example, an Australian Atomic Energy Commission at the same time. Best to go through the process so as to reduce the likelihood of having to go through it again at a later date. Andrewa (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support And just be WP:BOLD and someone move the page and build a dab. 70.51.10.188 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was BOLD (bold is bolded) went ahead and moved it to Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission and changed this to a disambig page. Andrewa, these are things specifically called "Nuclear Safety Commission"- but I have put a confused dablink to point to Atomic Energy Commission. --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you don't think I suggested or would support the confused dablink! I gave the AEC as an example of how English works with similar organisations, and the fact that they're both nuclear was irrelevant. It just so happens I worked for one of them so I knew of the particular case, that's why I gave this particular example. No great harm in being bold like that, just unwise IMHO, it will probably be fine. Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.