Talk:Country Land and Business Association

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 11 June 2015

The following is a closed 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) 07:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country Land and Business Association → CLA – Organisation changed it's name from Country Land and Business Association to CLA. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Ehislop (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose This isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. Keep or move to CLA (British organisation). --BDD (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you probably meant well moving this page to CLA (Country Land and Business Association), but you shouldn't've done so. The point of a requested move is to build consensus for a new title; moving it on your own makes it look like you don't care about consensus, and that's a bad way to be around here. Be patient; we'll work something out. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehislop (talk) Apologies, I didn't mean any disrespect to the process. I just took on your comment and edited accordingly. What are your thoughts on CLA (Country Land and Business Association) as this conveys the name the organisation uses now as well as the name that it is registered under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehislop (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. Thanks for understanding. I don't think that's a very good title because it's redundant. When we use disambiguation, the idea is for the qualifier to say what the topic is (e.g., Akane (apple)) or something they're associated with (e.g., Mike Wise (American football). There are other articles on organizations called CLA, so just plain (organisation) won't do. Some other options, besides my suggestion, would be CLA (UK organisation), CLA (United Kingdom), or CLA (England and Wales). --BDD (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, moving to CLA is impossible; look how many things are known by that title. Moving to CLA (Country Land and Business Association) only makes sense if they are never ever referred to as "Country Land and Business Association". Even if that's true, I'm sure we can find a better way to refer to it than that. But generally, we prefer WP:NATURAL disambiguation--that means we have articles at mechanical fan versus fan (mechanical), we have wild turkey instead of turkey (wild bird), etc. Red Slash 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehislop (talk) I am not sure that CLA (United Kingdom) goes far enough as there are other organisations in the UK that use this acronym. This doesn't really differentiate between them. Also I'm not sure that they are active in the UK as a whole, just England and Wales. How about CLA (landowners organisation) or CLA (membership organisation)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehislop (talk • contribs) 08:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countrymatters (talk) CLA (landowners organisation) would be appropriate, or CLA (membership organisation for landowners) as this more frankly expresses what the org is. CLA (England and Wales) or CLA (British organisation) could relate to any number of other organisations in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countrymatters (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we any further to a consensus on this? My vote is still CLA (landowners organisation) or CLA (membership organisation)Ehislop (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) EHislop 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see your previous comments, Ehislop. What other organisations in the UK are called CLA? I don't see any listed at CLA. If they're not notable organisations, we don't need to worry about them. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose this is not the primary topic of the term CLA, there are a multitude of topics. As for some other name, CLA (UK organisation) would seem short enough. If there isn't any articles covering topics CLA in Scotland or NI, or other CLA in the rest of the UK, then it's fine. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Obviously not the primary topic. It's only changed its name for marketing reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of why, they no longer seem to use Country Land and Business Association so leaving it as is does not seem appropriate. Is there enough strength of feeling to go with [CLA (England and Wales)]] then as BDD suggested, seeing as from the disambiguation list they seem to be the only org listed that fits this? 80.168.61.206 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the bottom of their website. Since Country Land and Business Association is clearly still their actual name and CLA is merely an abbreviation I don't think it's worthwhile tying ourself in knots trying to figure out a new title having to disambiguate the abbreviation. Natural disambiguation is always the best disambiguation and the full name provides that. We have articles on many organisations that commonly use their abbreviations (see Royal Air Force or Special Air Service for two rather well-known examples; not many people call them anything other than the RAF or SAS), but we still title the articles using their actual name because (a) this is an encyclopaedia, and (b) it's easier than trying to disambiguate a common abbreviation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we always use official names, but I don't think it's accurate to say the longer form is "their actual name" or "the full name". It's an empty acronym. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the long version is still used on their website, so they clearly haven't actually changed their name (contrary to the nominator's claim). Why use parenthetical disambiguation (especially when there isn't an obvious disambiguator) when they have a perfectly good name that doesn't need disambiguation? It's pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2015 (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.