Talk:Convention and visitor bureau

	Society portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move?

Convention and visitor bureau → Convention and Visitor Bureau — It is a proper noun, commonly abbr. (CVB), like Destination Marketing Organisation (DMO) — Funandtrvl (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page Convention and visitor bureau starts "A convention and visitor bureau (CVB) is a ..." as if there are several or many convention and visitor bureaus, i.e. a type of organization with a generic type name, and not one single organization with a proper name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not a proper name; it is a description of a class of organisation. No need to capitalise per WP:CAPS (and why is Destination Marketing Organisation capitalised for that matter?). --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with the above - the phrase is not used as a proper name in this article. Station1 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common business habit to capitalize names of things to make them seem more important. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points, I'm removing the name change request and will propose that Destination Marketing Organisation be renamed with the lower case letters (and probably the U.S. spelling, instead of U.K.), as that is what confused me in the first place. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tag

I removed a tag about merging this article with Destination marketing organization, since I couldn't find any discussion about such a proposal. (All I found was stuff about spelling and capitalization.) The two articles probably should be merged, but I don't know how to start such a discussion. --Lou Sander (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure I understand why you removed the tag. Do you agree or disagree that the two articles should be merged? --Macrakis (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]