![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why we're not using "EUR-Lex": Per
MOS:CAPS and
MOS:ABBR. "Eur" is a truncation abbreviation like "Calif[ornia]" and "Mex[ico]", not an acronym or initialism. "EUR" is just capitalization for emphasis, like "SONY TEN" for
Sony Ten. The fact that the EU likes to do it is a
WP:OFFICIALNAME thing; WP doesn't follow the EU's style manual. European writers tend to mimic this officialese style, but it's not consistent in reliable sources, and the use of the simple "Eur-Lex" is common:
"EU legislation stored in the Eur-Lex database"
[1], "Eur-Lex: Access to European Union Law"
[2], "Eur-Lex 2013"
[3], "databases used for this purpose include Eur-Lex, ..."
[4], "All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union"
[5]
[6], "documents from the EU's Eur-Lex website"
[7], "sections can be retrieved from the Eur-Lex website"
[8]
[9], "administrative publications that can be found in the Eur-Lex (former CELEX) database"
[10], "The documents were downloaded from the Eur-Lex website"
[11], "data calculated from the Federal Law Gazette and Eur-Lex"
[12], "See generally Eur-Lex, Process and Players, 1.1.3"
[13], "To quote from the Eur-lex website ..."
[14], etc. etc.
This isn't even language-specific:
"Kilder: Den Store Danske of Eur-lex"
[15]
[16], "La possibilità di rivedere i trattati istitutivi, spiega ‘Eur-Lex’, è fondamentale per l’Unione europea (UE)"
[17], "Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne : article 86 - Eur-Lex"
[18], "В официальном журнале Евросоюза Eur-Lex в субботу"
[19], "über Eur-Lex, einfache Suche mit Jahr und Nummer"
[20], "el portal jurídico plurilingüe «Eur-lex» de la Unión Europea"
[21], etc.
And other stylizations show up, e.g. "EUR-LEX" [22] [23] [24], while sources are sometimes inconsistent even in the same document ("Eur-Lex, 1999 ... EUR-Lex, 1992" [25]).
When the reliable sources do not consistently apply an unusual stylization (including extraneous capitalization), Wikipedia does not either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Eur-Lex →
EUR-Lex – The
very significant majority of English-language reliable texts use EUR-Lex. While the prose presented above does list some sources, Google Ngrams shows that there are signficantly more sources using capitalised EUR than non-capitalised Eur.
MOS:CAPS explicitly says that words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia
, which is the case here. Beyond that, EUR-Lex is a
proper noun, not a common noun, meaning that standard sentence capitalisation doesn't necessarily apply in the same way as described in
WP:NCCAPS, amongst other policies. There also doesn't seem to be any evidence that I could see that EUR is short for European, as the above suggests - it could very easily be an abbreviation for European Union Regulation.
WP:OFFICIALNAME also is relevant here - in all other European Union sources, as well as on the EUR-Lex website proper, the site is referred to as EUR-Lex only (
Publications Office of the European Union,
N-Lex,
Court of Justice of the European Union,
European Parliament Observatory (see footer)...).
ItsPugle (please use {{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 05:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why we're not using "EUR-Lex": Per
MOS:CAPS and
MOS:ABBR. "Eur" is a truncation abbreviation like "Calif[ornia]" and "Mex[ico]", not an acronym or initialism. "EUR" is just capitalization for emphasis, like "SONY TEN" for
Sony Ten. The fact that the EU likes to do it is a
WP:OFFICIALNAME thing; WP doesn't follow the EU's style manual. European writers tend to mimic this officialese style, but it's not consistent in reliable sources, and the use of the simple "Eur-Lex" is common:
"EU legislation stored in the Eur-Lex database"
[1], "Eur-Lex: Access to European Union Law"
[2], "Eur-Lex 2013"
[3], "databases used for this purpose include Eur-Lex, ..."
[4], "All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union"
[5]
[6], "documents from the EU's Eur-Lex website"
[7], "sections can be retrieved from the Eur-Lex website"
[8]
[9], "administrative publications that can be found in the Eur-Lex (former CELEX) database"
[10], "The documents were downloaded from the Eur-Lex website"
[11], "data calculated from the Federal Law Gazette and Eur-Lex"
[12], "See generally Eur-Lex, Process and Players, 1.1.3"
[13], "To quote from the Eur-lex website ..."
[14], etc. etc.
This isn't even language-specific:
"Kilder: Den Store Danske of Eur-lex"
[15]
[16], "La possibilità di rivedere i trattati istitutivi, spiega ‘Eur-Lex’, è fondamentale per l’Unione europea (UE)"
[17], "Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne : article 86 - Eur-Lex"
[18], "В официальном журнале Евросоюза Eur-Lex в субботу"
[19], "über Eur-Lex, einfache Suche mit Jahr und Nummer"
[20], "el portal jurídico plurilingüe «Eur-lex» de la Unión Europea"
[21], etc.
And other stylizations show up, e.g. "EUR-LEX" [22] [23] [24], while sources are sometimes inconsistent even in the same document ("Eur-Lex, 1999 ... EUR-Lex, 1992" [25]).
When the reliable sources do not consistently apply an unusual stylization (including extraneous capitalization), Wikipedia does not either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Eur-Lex →
EUR-Lex – The
very significant majority of English-language reliable texts use EUR-Lex. While the prose presented above does list some sources, Google Ngrams shows that there are signficantly more sources using capitalised EUR than non-capitalised Eur.
MOS:CAPS explicitly says that words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia
, which is the case here. Beyond that, EUR-Lex is a
proper noun, not a common noun, meaning that standard sentence capitalisation doesn't necessarily apply in the same way as described in
WP:NCCAPS, amongst other policies. There also doesn't seem to be any evidence that I could see that EUR is short for European, as the above suggests - it could very easily be an abbreviation for European Union Regulation.
WP:OFFICIALNAME also is relevant here - in all other European Union sources, as well as on the EUR-Lex website proper, the site is referred to as EUR-Lex only (
Publications Office of the European Union,
N-Lex,
Court of Justice of the European Union,
European Parliament Observatory (see footer)...).
ItsPugle (please use {{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply) 05:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)