Talk:National Convention Centre Canberra

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. JPG-GR (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many National Convention Center/Centres around the world. The official website calls it National Convention Centre Canberra. The official name of the Olympic Green Convention Centre is National Convention Centre, which is used in the 2008 Olympics as a venue. This should be renamed to make way for a dab page. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. There are no other articles at present linked to this page. The site is well known in Australia as the National Convention Centre, and should be left alone as it is. You have failed to demonstrate in any way that any other site is even in existence to compete. Like as is at present, if there is another page that rates in a minor way with that name, then put it as a line at the top of the article, don't waste a disambig page just for the sake of it. The Olympic Green Convention Centre is what the centre in Beijing is known as at present, and should be left like that. JRG (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] 700 GoogleNews hits for Canberra , [2] 1400 do not directly reference Canberra. [3] 17000 google hits for Canberra, [4] 39000 do not reference Canberra. The Canberra website is "www.nccc.com.au", there are *3* c's www.ncc.com.au seems to be a squatter. There's an NCC in Dublin, which is in an English speaking country. Using an alternate google search ("center"), there are 573,000 ghits [5] not referencing Canberra, and 10,000 ghits [6] with it.

For Beijing there are [7] 82,000ghits at "center" and 5000ghits [8] at "centre". While I do not argue that the Beijing site should be primary, I see no reason the Canberra one should not sit at its rightful name, National Convention Centre Canberra, and have a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE replace it at the primary address, since it does not appear to be primary across the WORLD.

Note that "Olympic Green Convention Cent(re/er)" does not elicit many google hits, and appears to be a rarely used name [9] "center" 1200 ghits + [10] "centre" 3500 ghits...

70.51.11.210 (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

'There are no other articles at present linked to this page.' is not a case for there not to be a DAB page. It is a case that editors are paying attention and working to avoid bad internal links. 'The site is well known in Australia as the National Convention Centre' is also not a reason to avoid a dab page. I suspect that the same can be said about all of the other national convention centers which could make the same claim for their country. Bottom line is that there is no primary use, other then for the generic form, and no assertion here that there is one for a specific center. Also the web page content is copyrighted by National Convention Centre Canberra so that is strong support for that being the name this article is under. Fixes the DAB question and allows the articles to exist under existing naming conventions without name space conflicts. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no need for a dab page with only two entries; see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation links. A hatnote on this article is appropriate. Station1 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment there are *more* than two articles. I was using Beijing as a prime example of how Canberra is not primary usage. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I did a simple google search on "National Convention Centre", and just on the first page, there are already 6 National Convention Centressssss: one in Canberra, one in Doha, one in Dublin, one in Beijing, one in Hanoi, and one in Bangkok. No one has a precedence to take the primary topic, neither does Canberra. --supernorton 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly this needs to be a disambiguation page. It has been established that this name is used for many convention centers. The phrase is also used generically in the encyclopedia. The question might be that one of these is the primary use, but is that proved? A better solution would be a dab page with the generic use as the primary use explained in the introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually just rename and then redirect to National Convention Center which is a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Cool. Let's note the difference: National Convention Centre (BrE, now occupied by NCC Canberra) and National Convention Center (AmE, now a dab page). This situation conflicts with the guideline stating that pages with variants of spelling of the same word should be redirected to the same dab page. --supernorton 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from RM:

Disagree. The name is well known in Australia. Please leave it where it is. Put a disambig line at the top of the article if you have a problem with it. JRG (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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.