This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.
Well if you want to offer a different rationalisation now, then that will have to be considered on its own merits. Are you saying this is a wholly or primarily American concept? If so, the article should make this clear (and the rename would then be correct). --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact, looking at the article history, the text "Korea Tourism Organization" has existed there since the first version; since there is no clear "original" variety of English, harmonising to U.S. spelling is as good as to U.K. spelling in this instance. I would like again to emphasise that the justification given in the edit summary – "Moving to American English, in sync w/organization on Wikipedia" – is wholly incorrect; in general, any national variety of English may be used in an article title, regardless of previously existing articles, per WP:NC#National varieties of English. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not a differenct rationalization, "in sync with/organization" refers to being consistent with the spelling. Sorry that I seem to have touched a nerve. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I accept your assertion that this is what you meant. Even with your explanation, I find it extremely hard to interpret it that way, but there it is. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)