Talk:Facility condition index

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

requested move[edit]

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: closed Mike Cline (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facility Condition Index → Facility condition index –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. $Tony (talk)$ 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I proposed it for deletion instead, since it has been so blatantly wrong since day 1 (wrong definition in the lead), and is mostly unsourced junk of the top of someone's head. It does not appear to be a notable topic on its own, and could be covered in one line in some other article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I support deletion too, now you point it out. $Tony (talk)$ 10:46, 4 November 2011 (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.

Will delete after discussion clears RM listing[edit]

--Mike Cline (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's back[edit]

Undeleted on request of User:RobertGBrooks. So I worked on the case problems and such. The user who had it undeleted (Brooks) is a principle, so there's a WP:COI problem, and nothing but one primary ref that I found. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does look like a CoI. RobertGBrooks has only ever edited this page (and one other?), once each. I wonder whether his company, Applied Management Engineering, Inc, has a stake in this "index".

Tony (talk)

09:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they co-authored it and promote it as an approach. I took out some explicit talk about the company, but made a mistake in leaving the acronym AME in the article undefined. I'll look at what to do next... Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Col. Robert G Brooks. Just plain old Robert G Brooks. Please Google the FCI topic. It is nationally-used benchmark for educational and military facilities analysis. It is aprt of the accreditation process for k-12 schools. No, I am not with AME, but I was when the benchmark was developed — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGBrooks (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Robert C. Brooks. While this methodology may not be written about by second-party sources as frequently as we might prefer for Wikipedia, it is noteworthy simply through the degree to which it is used in various forms by a variety of jurisdictions and organization. User:HopsonRoad 02:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]