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.
Why did you use small fonts that are not considerate of our visually impaired readers? Why do you use acronyms (PS and MoFAIC) that are not friendly to our readers? Why do you insert acronyms that are not otherwise used in the article? (That's very bad writing.) Why do you cite blogs in contravention of Wikipedia policy? Why did you delete "when" tags without providing the missing data? Why do you automatically delete Wikilinks that will have a red font? AfricaTanz (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
AfricaTanz, MoFAIC is the ministry's acronym as stated on their website - I do not understand why you're against it; please see this article: Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom). The PS acronym is linked to the Permanent Secretary article. Its use is similar to the CEO acronym used in a company's infobox. I wasn't the one to cite the blog! Get your facts right before accusing someone. It was there since Jan '13 - i only updated it's citation info. Besides, some of the article's content is from the blog (that you are against) e.g. the list of ministers. It seems you have a penchant for adding tags. I do not have the missing data and I believe it's fine as it. I have retained the red links as per your suggestion. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Do not use acronyms without definining what they are. I have already said why. I do not understand why you do not understand my very simple explanation. You restored a citation to the blog after I deleted it. Therefore, it is now YOUR citation. By restoring it, you take responsibility for it. If other data in the article is dependent on that blog, I will delete it along with the blog citation. Whether I have a "penchant" for adding tags is another example of your ongoing incivility. The tags are available to be used. Don't delete them without fixing the problem noted by the tags. AfricaTanz (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
Congratulations! You finally understood that you need to have a clear consensus for your page moves, instead of unilaterally doing them. Good luck in trying to get to that consensus... As for the subject, just remember that the Tanzanian Ministry of East African Cooperation refers to itself in exactly that way on its own website. They clearly don't think Cooperation is grammatically incorrect. --Sundostund (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The proof will be in the pudding. Give the incivility a rest, if you can. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Move to Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Tanzania) - while it's rather bizarre that Tanzanian ministries disagree with each other on the spelling of "cooperation", that is indeed the case, and unlike the Ministry of East African Cooperation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation does use a hyphen. That said, we should use parenthetical disambiguation, following near-universal precedent: Compare Category:Foreign affairs ministries. Ministries are not "geographic names" and thus aren't covered by the comma-separated disambiguation rule at WP:NCDAB. Huon (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I support Huon's proposal. There's nothing we can do about the inconsistency with respect to the hyphen except pick one variant (the most commonly used, if possible) and stick with it. But for our own disambiguation the parenthetical form is more consistent with other articles such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation (Spain). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
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.