Talk:Geneva Conference

message: Does anyone notice that this is under Genova Conference instead of Geneva Conference? Wiwaxia 15:51, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That fact should be noted on the page, and a link created. I just checked, and the text was not placed at Wikisource. ☮ Eclecticology 17:25, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
It looks as though this mostly should be treated as a disambiguation page which leads to various pages in the format Geneva Conference (year) ☮ Eclecticology 17:25, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
The item "An international conference, Geneva Conference (1954), to restore peace in Indochina and Korea, April through July 1954." contains a link to "Geneva Conference (1954)" where there is no mention to talks about Korea. Is this page incorrect or is the "Geneva Conference (1954)" page incomplete? CWPappas 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

message: I reverted to the last version that was a DAB page - see WP:MOSDAB. That removes incorrect items and style issues (including a ref and categories). Some items added since may (or may not) be suitable here, but the important point is to decide on whether a list (e.g. a WP:SIA) is notable, and the appropriate name for that list - may be something like "List of conferences in Geneva". To create that, sources will be needed (per any article), so I've started the discussion here to prevent more incorrect edits to this dab page. I would have thought it not a notable subject, but I may be wrong. Widefox; talk 17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: List of diplomatic conferences in Geneva would reduce the scope to something notable, helpful and of encyclopaedic value. I am not convinced that a separate disambiguation page for :Geneva Conference would be worth keeping. Perhaps that could be redirected to the list, in which case we should move this page in order to keep the edit history intact. – Fayenatic London 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) There's no mention of the ambiguous term in the article per WP:DABMENTION / "Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title" for this entry  , so not an obvious dab entry. We could list all conferences in Geneva but that wouldn't be a dab page (see list above). For now, these entries can be put in the see also. Widefox; talk 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

text:  Yes, it's not clear to me if there's any useful dab at all, but also for a list article sources are needed. Widefox; talk 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at the entries again, yes this should stay as a dab and any (new) list should be separate and included as an entry say the see also section. I may move some of the partial title matches to the see also, but until then I've marked as cleanup required. Widefox; talk 18:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . Although "Conference", "Summit", "Accord" are somewhat synonymous, if we adhere strictly to what might "reasonably" (see above), then they are see also items that may also be worth listing in any list article or possibly moving to it. Widefox; talk 22:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added 2 but agree that a separate page would be better. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. MOSDAB frowns upon categories that aren't generated from the template(s). Although I often remove them, you may feel that the Diplomatic conferences in Switzerland should be reinserted. Once a list is there, I'd be in favour of moving them both to that. Widefox; talk 09:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab page