Talk:Columbus Association for the Performing Arts

Title

It would have been helpful if a discussion had been opened before changing the title of the article. The organization discussed here is at all times known as "CAPA" and this is how users will look for it. It's other official name, Columbus Association for the Performing Arts, is now used secondarily because the group has operated in cities other than Columbus. Including "Columbus Association for the Performing Arts" in the title seemed essential, however, because there are so many other names that use the word or acronym CAPA. Strongly suggest returning to the original title even though it is long. Markhh (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions tell us to avoid abbreviations unless the organization is exclusively known by the acronym. There are over 3k google hits on "Columbus Association for the Performing Arts" so it's widely known as this name. CAPA is a likely search team and Columbus Association for the Performing Arts has been included on the disambiguation page at CAPA (a number of organizations use this acronym).--RadioFan (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the title should read "Columbus Association for the Performing Arts (CAPA)" but I believe the original would be best. Markhh (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also doesn't work because parenthesis are generally used on Wikipedia titles to disambiguate between articles with identical titles, which isn't the case here. The intro to the article already includes the CAPA acronym so it should be clear to readers that the acronym is sometimes used to identify it.--RadioFan (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay your arguments are good. In general I do prefer full names to acronyms. CAPA, however really does only call itself by the acronym, burying the name "Columbus Association..." deep inside its website. But I think htis will be fine. Searchers will be able to find it through the disambiguation page and most readers will probably find it through links from associated articles. Markhh (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

The creator of this article has stated on their talk page that they are a volunteer for this organization. I've asked them to detail their connection a bit more but the article itself doesn't have POV problems so I dont think there are serious COI issues, especially if all the information can be backedup with 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. I once did volunteer work with the group in the 1970s and early 80s. I have had no association with the group since then other than that of an interested citizen. Markhh (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]