"

__TOC__

 Current events 

Might we want either a temporary hatnote or a ""see also"" for the present humanitarian crisis? I came here expecting to find a link to that article, wherever it may be, and couldn't find any. -  | Talk 

.  (moult with my mallards) 

A lot of this coverage is over at Cyclone Nargis.  Sadly, there just isn't a lot of information out there since access to the country is so tightly controlled, and even the assessment teams on the ground probably don't have the information we'd expect to see.  

 Name 

in the article, some parts say Burma, and some say Myanmar.

I think we should calll it Myanmar, since it may not be recognized by many countries, but that is the official (inter)national name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs)  

Please read the tag at the top of the page.  The name is under dispute.  

 Moved the Page Move Protection tag to talk page 

There isn't really a need for the tag to be on the article itself. As was successfully argued regarding the ""dispute tag"" previously, the tag itself doesn't help the article, and it being on the talk page achieves the same end.  

Having a warning on the front page shows that the article is in a state of flux.  Anyone who isn't particularly wiki-savvy wouldn't realize that there is an ongoing dispute and that the current version may well change in the near future.  The ""non-endorsement"" of the current name of the article is a reasonable point to make.  I don't particularly care for either name, but making it look stable when it's unclear is kind of misleading to the reader.  

You're not making a lot of sense. The first sentence of the article notes the naming of the country. I believe you were involved with the discussion regarding the ""Dispute"" tag, and it came to the point where the only sensible solution was to have it on the talk page. The same applies with this tag. It has nothing to do with honesty and I'd be insulted if I didn't assume good faith. Please reconsider your reversion, the last thing I want is an edit war of any sort.  

Look at the discussion on this page regarding the name dispute tag.  I wouldn't say that there was a consensus that removing the tag was the only ""sensible solution"".
The statement is true and not misleading.  Neither staying nor moving are WP:SNOWBALL.
Protection tags are usually on the front page of the article.  See WP:PROTECT#Other_notes for talk page templates.
The tag deflects mastodons: Having the tag on the article itself sends a clear message to people who might just assume that the name is wrong and move it.
The tag shows that the current name of the article is not a consensus statement: Not having the tag implies to a casual reader that the current name is appropriate (not the current consensus because there is no consensus).
It seems kind of redundant to you or me since we've been staring at it for the last couple of weeks, but to someone who is not already involved it shows that the article is not stable.  I mean, I really don't care that much, but why is it so critical to take it off?    

Because disputes regarding page moves aren't what the user should be reading.  "