The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone LNG → GLNG —

• This page describes GLNG, which is a different project to Gladstone LNG. GLNG is run by Santos, while Gladstone LNG is run by Arrow Energy. Both names are registered trademarks. JeremyMilne (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this should go for a full WP:RM discussion. It seems that Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas is a better title. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that in longer term, Gladstone LNG should be disambiguation page as there are around seven LNG projects in Gladstone area. However, as of now, I oppose both above-mentioned proposals for following reasons:

1. It is true that the joint venture name and a trademark owned by Santos is GLNG. At the same time, this article is not about the company or trade mark–it is about the LNG plant project. Santos itself calls the project Gladstone LNG at their website.[1].
2. Also other sources calls this plant project usually Gladstone LNG, notwithstanding the fact that different project was proposed by Arrows-owned Gladstone LNG Pty. Ltd.. By Google search for Gladstone LNG, the GLNG project gets the biggest number of hits. It also seems to be a common name for this project.
3. At this moment, only one of seven Gladstone LNG projects has an article in Wikipedia, so there is no need for disambiguation right now.
4. Although Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas is in line with naming convention, it is not the project name.

Beagel (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been BOLD and moved it anyway. My reasoning is:
  1. A search on Google Books/Scholar/News/News Archive/Web did show "Gladstone LNG" as a project with Arrow - but as a proposed one - an announcement 2 days ago in the Business Spectator shows that Arrow are looking for funding - so it may or may not actually happen.
  2. The official website of this one only ever seems to refer to it as GLNG. Although the santos website linked to above calls it "Gladstone LNG", it is in the context of "The Gladstone LNG project" (i.e. the LNG project at Gladstone, Australia). On the official website itself, it is always called GLNG.

Another reason is:

• 1. When I tried to open this page, I got an error. I mistakenly thought that this showed that the page did not exist, and so no one had commented on the proposed move. (I'm now thinking it was one of those glitches we sometimes see with WMF projects!) - I am contacting Beagel to apologise for not reading their comments and leaving a comment here.

If a new article is created about the Arrow project, then the redirect can be changed to a disamb page. If anyone has any objections, feel free to overturn the redirect - just drop me a note on my talk page letting me know -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:53, 3 February 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moved to Gladstone LNG. Ucucha 17:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLNG → ? — Beagel (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I understand how that happened that the page was moved less than two days after discussion started without a clear consensus, I think that the best name should be found for this and for all other future Gladstone LNG articles. Therefore, I will be BOLD also from my side and reopen the discussion.

Arguments supporting name GLNG:

• This is how the project company is called and how the project company calls the project.
• By Google Scholar there is one result for GLNG+Santos. Four results for "Gladstone LNG" is for Arrow-led project while 1 result is about Santos-led project in parallel with GLNG and Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas.
• GLNG is a registered trade mark by the project company.

Arguments against GLNG:

• GLNG is an acronym which has different meanings. Although right now there is no other article or redirect with this letter combination, it still confusing. For example, if we talk about LNG, this acronym sometimes refers to Golar LNG (it is even listed at NASDAQ under ticker GLNG).
• As all LNG projects in Gladstone are projects about future facilities, it is quite natural that there is no so much articles available by Google Scholar. Search results by Google are following:

  "Gladstone LNG" + Santos - Arrow: about 23,500 results

  "Gladstone LNG" + Arrow: 5110 results

  GLNG + Santos: 11,300 results

Google News results:

• "Gladstone LNG" + Santos - Arrow: 52 results

  "Gladstone LNG" + Arrow: 5 result

  GLNG + Santo: 18 results

Google News Archive results:

• "Gladstone LNG" + Santos - Arrow: 133 results

  "Gladstone LNG" + Arrow: 64 result

  GLNG + Santo: 77 results

This shows clearly, that "Gladstone LNG" refers more commonly to Santos-led project than to Arrow-led project. It also shows that "Gladstone LNG" prevails over GLNG as a common name of the Santos-led project.

• Most of the references in this article talks about Gladstone LNG and not about GLNG.
• The article is about the LNG plant not about the company, so there is something wrong with using Glastone LNG in the meaning of the LNG plant in Gladstone.

Considering what could be possible name options, I see the following:

• Notwithstanding above-said, remain the name GLNG
• Move back to Gladstone LNG. When article about some other LNG project in Gladstone will created return to the discuss on leave it as Gladstone LNG and create Gladstone LNG (disambiguation) to list other projects.
• Rename this article as Gladstone LNG (GLNG) or Gladstone LNG (Santos). The arrow-led project will be in this case e.g. Gladstone LNG (Arrow).
• Rename it Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas as one of proposals in the previous discussion.

I hope to hear your thoughts which one of these options would be most correct to use for this article. Beagel (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Gladstone LNG is better than GLNG and the second option above should be followed. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think (having read you analysis again, and thought some more about it), that Gladstone LNG would be better. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:44, 6 February 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.