Talk:MISCA

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Africa: Central African Republic

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Central African Republic portal This article is supported by WikiProject Central African Republic.

Military history: African

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Page title

The official name of this article should be that of what the groups is called. Bear in mind GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for a move. Also per BRD, the move to the short form was reverted so please come here.

For the record the "african-led" title is not mine(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

WP:BRD is a helpful essay, but it isn't a license to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

As explained at WP:COMMONNAME (to which I linked when performing the move), "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

In this instance, English-language reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the subject as "MISCA".

Search term	Google News results, as of 04:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
MISCA	about 11,800
International Support Mission in the Central African Republic (with or without "African-led" appended)	about 143

Had you read WP:GOOGLEHITS before citing it, you'd have seen the explanation that a Google News search is not the same as a Google Web search. —David Levy 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless your ONLY evidentce is google. Google is not an arbiter.

You dimiss some criteria but cite others. Perhaps wait for discussion on consensus as the BOLD move was REVERTEFD and CONSENSUS avoids aedit wars.(Lihaas (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Nevertheless your ONLY evidentce is google. Google is not an arbiter.

Again, as explained on the page that you cited, Google News search ≠ Google Web search. It's a news aggregator, not a general search engine.

You dimiss some criteria but cite others.

What criteria have I dismissed?

Perhaps wait for discussion on consensus as the BOLD move was REVERTEFD and CONSENSUS avoids aedit wars.

Again, WP:BRD is a helpful essay, but it doesn't supersede Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've pointed to Wikipedia:Article titles (a policy) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations (a guideline). You, conversely, have noted that "many UN groups have spelt out name" and argued that we should use the "official name". These rationales have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and, in fact, are directly contradicted). —David Levy 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chadian & Burundi troops fire on each other, Dec 23, 2013.

According to the Burundians, after the skirmish the Chadian troops then freed the ex-Seleka members the Burundian were disarming.

The French have also accused the Chadians of siding w/ the ex-Seleka members.

http://news.yahoo.com/burundi-chad-peacekeepers-exchange-fire-c-africa-072041232.html [AFP] "The Chadian troops within the 3,700 MISCA African force are accused by the force commanders and by French troops deployed in Bangui of siding with the ex-Seleka rebels the force it is supposed to disarm." -=-=- 74.60.161.158 (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> UN: Chad soldiers killed 30 in CAR Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]