This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
CORE (research service) is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
COnnecting REpositories → CORE – The project has stopped using the acronym COnnecting REpositories since ~2017. Thus we would like to change the page title to its current name, CORE. After that we will also update the content of the page, as it is outdated. I work for CORE. Nancypontika (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.SITH(talk)14:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a malformed request. The proposed destination name is already occupied by something different, and the nominator has not suggested what to do about that. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for starting this discussion and my apologies for the malformed request. Is it possible that we (CORE) provide some alternative suggestions? And if yes, could we have a week to think about it, provided that it is not already taken? Thanks a lot. --2A02:C7D:8210:4F00:60DE:67C3:17D5:24BE (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC) --Nancypontika (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting note: relisting per request from nominator to allow them to come up with potential parenthetical disambiguators. SITH(talk)14:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with this as well. It seems like the organization is thinking of this article as an extension of their brand. We should not be looking to a committee of people from CORE to decide this article's name, or to determine its content. I'm glad that Nancypontika has disclosed their COI here, but based on their contribution history, it's hard to believe they're here to build an encyclopedia rather than to publicize their projects. Colin M (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"Claims to be" the world's largest aggregator[edit]
Saying "claims to be the world's largest aggregator"[1][2] is bias.
I moved the statement from the beginning since it was newly added anyway and just said that they say they are the largest.[3]GBFEE (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GBFEE: I wrote "claims to be" attempting to improve on "is" (since the source of the claim is CORE) without any conscious biased intent (I don't care who is largest), but I agree that your replacement "CORE says they are" is a big improvement by eliminating any bias that could be imputed by the reader, so thanks! (Should it say "CORE says it is"? I'm uncertain about that.) Biogeographist (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Biogeographist, no worries. I could see you were trying to reduce the prominence of a self-interest claim. The claim needs an independent source. I think you're right about using "it.[4] This use is consistent with the first sentence treating CORE that way. GBFEE (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support This all makes sense. The self-published and external sources seem to use the term CORE, so a move is justified. I think the first option, "research service", is best. CORE is already a disambiguation page with lots of other topics using that name. Blue Rasberry (talk)03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to "Connecting Repositories" With an entry at the "Core" disambiguation page. Certainly not the present formatting per MOS:TM. See also WP:AT and MOS:ACROTITLE on acronyms in article titles. A quick search indicates that the full name usually accompanies the acronym, so there is not a primary case to argue the acronym as the article title. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – better short acronym-like name than the weird styled one. And their main page doesn't mention "Connecting Repositories", even if that's where it originated. Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Susahnya membuka pikiran siswa terkait materi[edit]
