This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.
As per Wikipedia guidelines, I'm declaring an interest. I've just expanded the entry and am letting you know that I work for NIWA as a science writer. I have abided by the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in editing this entry. In particular, I have stuck to factual information and have cited sources. YDdraig (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
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 Not moved
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC holds that when a certain name is used for an article, the content of the article should be the primary meaning of that term for English-speaking users:
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
It is evident that 'NIWA' is more commonly used than the fully-spelled-out name of the institute among those who know what it is and wish to refer to it. However, the wishes of the institute and its followers don't take precedence over the PRIMARYTOPIC rule. The institute chooses to make use of an abbreviation for itself that people elsewhere in the English-speaking world use to refer to other things, some of which receive a lot more page views than our article on the institute. For instance the Niwa clan article gets 14 views a day, while the institute gets only 2 views per day. I'm closing this with a reform that I proposed on the talk page of one of the supporters of the move, User:Gadfium. The reform is:
give 'NIWA' to the water institute by creating a redirect,
keep 'Niwa' as the dab page for the other meanings of Niwa, while
put a hatnote on the water institute linking to the DAB.
Obviously this reform is subject to further discussion if people are not happy with it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about this. The official name is clear . Stuartyeates (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The move request concerns the common name (WP:COMMONNAME), not the official name. +mt 05:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - was just looking for the NIWA article and didn't even know what the abbreviation stands for. Schwede66 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Support, NIWA appears to be almost universally used.-gadfium 01:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Administrator note: While NIWA may be the most common name for this organization, what evidence is there that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?--Aervanath (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
While there are numerous entities with the name 'Niwa', the only other with with the fully capitalised name 'NIWA' seems to be the non-notable 'Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance'.-gadfium 05:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: this move request is only for upper-case NIWA (not for Niwa, which doesn't appear to have a primary topic). There is generally 3× or more user traffic (using http://stats.grok.se/ comparing the past few months) toward the research institute article rather than the Nintendo article. Of the incoming links to NIWA, only one article links to the research institute (all other links are to non-article spaces). The first item from a Google search is for the research institute. +mt 19:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose According WP:TITLEFORMAT abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser). I don't think NIWA is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation. See also WP:ACRONYMTITLE. -- SchreyP(messages) 13:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Support. Never heard anyone use the full name. Moriori (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2011 (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.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.