Talk:First Nigerian Republic

Nigeria Top‑importance

	Nigeria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria 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.NigeriaWikipedia:WikiProject NigeriaTemplate:WikiProject NigeriaNigeria articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unbalanced

This article is prejudiced against the North. further more it espouses the authors opinions without giving reliable citations. --Alaminalpha (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TafawaABalewa.JPG

Image:TafawaABalewa.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Awolowo-Obafemi.JPG

The image Image:Awolowo-Obafemi.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPGA

I don't see any mention of the UPGA under political parties or elsewhere on the page. Before I add anything, I thought I'd post here and see if anyone had thoughts on this (I've seen some say that the UPGA shouldn't be considered a political party). Rjhatl (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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. Two weeks of listing, three opposes with valid reasons, and only the proposer in support. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– In French First Republic, moving French First Republic to First French Republic was opposed, where the argument was "the Nth Republic" was a single term and "French" was a disambiguator. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC) --Article editor (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Article editor (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Uncertain~~Oppose (edit: opinion firmed up). First, the discussion at French First Republic was not a clear consensus in favor of this particular grammatical interpretation; it was a 'no consensus' decision. I'm unsure whether it is wise (or even a reason) for moving page titles based on a 'no consensus' close. If that discussion had reached a firm result on the issue, it could be one (of many) criteria used in this discussion, but without clear direction it seems largely unhelpful. Also, there's no inherent reason these sets of pages (French and Nigerian) would have to be consistent in usage (what possible accuracy or educational gains would there be in making the pages parallel?). Second, that grammatical interpretation is far from definitive: it is as correct to say First Nigerian Republic as it is to say Nigerian First Republic, maybe we prefer one over the other based on Wikiguidelines--but no consensus seems to have formed on the issue (see point #1). I prefer the current order b/c I think it is nicer sounding to have "First" modify "Nigerian Republic" then to have "Nigerian" modify "First Republic". But, they are largely equal, I think. Third, usage appears to be mixed on sources but doesn't appear clear to me (looking at google books, it appears to cut about 60-40% in favor of "Nigerian X Republic"). So in general, seems to be a mixed bag with no clear direction one way or the other. So what exactly is gained (in terms of accuracy or educational value of the page) with a change? AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The only argument put forth above in favour of these moves seems pointy to me. Andrewa (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't meant to be pointy. I don't actually care which word order we have a consensus on, but I do want to have a consensus. --Article editor (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you want to have a coherent usage across pages that have no relation to one another? I can understand wanting coherent usage across similar pages (all the Nigerian pages should certainly use a similar order), but what is gained by the project in making sure that all "Country nth Republic" pages are the same? AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This would be promoting a standard terminology, which is something we try to avoid doing. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the rationale given is very weak, it was the opinion of one editor, not a whole coterie. The primacy of "Fooian Nth Republic" or "Nth Fooian Republic" really depends on the context and as mentioned above there appears to be no consensus amongst sources. Green Giant (talk) 00:37, 6 November 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Nigerian Republic. 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:

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) 13:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Nigerian Republic. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090520144349/http%3A//www.ng.total.com/01_about_nigeria/0103_history.htm to http://www.ng.total.com/01_about_nigeria/0103_history.htm

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) 13:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]