 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
It's an Invitation to Tender (ITT) in the UK public sector. Secretlondon ( talk) 06:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that /info/en/?search=Invitation_for_bid , /info/en/?search=Call_for_bids and /info/en/?search=Request_for_tender should be merged in /info/en/?search=Call_for_bids . "Call for bids" gives 369 000 Google results, whilst "Invitation for bid" gives only 345 000.
In addition, /info/en/?search=Tendering is redirected to /info/en/?search=Procurement, and it ought to be redirected to /info/en/?search=Call_for_bids
But /info/en/?search=Request_for_quotation , /info/en/?search=Request_for_proposal and other pages on this type of requests should be left alone, because they are different methods which can be used within a call for bids. It is important that the articles on these particular methods to be short, because this allows to spot the differences more easily. -- Alvarosinde ( talk) 11:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Noted this proposal on header of both Request for tender and Call for bids. Agree with proposal, both articles cover the same ground. Both could be improved in the course of the merger.
- Agree that Request for proposal and Request for quotation should be left alone for reasons stated by Alvarosinde above.
- Suggest Invitation to tender, currently a redirect page, would be the best article title after the merger has been done. - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 10:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of any further discussion I am going to go ahead with the proposed merger under article name " Invitation to tender". - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
-- User:Haraldmmueller 11:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
It's an Invitation to Tender (ITT) in the UK public sector. Secretlondon ( talk) 06:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that /info/en/?search=Invitation_for_bid , /info/en/?search=Call_for_bids and /info/en/?search=Request_for_tender should be merged in /info/en/?search=Call_for_bids . "Call for bids" gives 369 000 Google results, whilst "Invitation for bid" gives only 345 000.
In addition, /info/en/?search=Tendering is redirected to /info/en/?search=Procurement, and it ought to be redirected to /info/en/?search=Call_for_bids
But /info/en/?search=Request_for_quotation , /info/en/?search=Request_for_proposal and other pages on this type of requests should be left alone, because they are different methods which can be used within a call for bids. It is important that the articles on these particular methods to be short, because this allows to spot the differences more easily. -- Alvarosinde ( talk) 11:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Noted this proposal on header of both Request for tender and Call for bids. Agree with proposal, both articles cover the same ground. Both could be improved in the course of the merger.
- Agree that Request for proposal and Request for quotation should be left alone for reasons stated by Alvarosinde above.
- Suggest Invitation to tender, currently a redirect page, would be the best article title after the merger has been done. - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 10:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of any further discussion I am going to go ahead with the proposed merger under article name " Invitation to tender". - BobKilcoyne ( talk) 16:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
-- User:Haraldmmueller 11:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)