This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gen:Lock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: MOVED Opposes based on the fact that official sources used "gen:LOCK" were downweighted/discarded as they went against guidelines ( MOS:TMRULES): "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"." Nor is "intended artistic representation" a policy/guideline based argument against the move. The consensus is thus for moving. ( non-admin closure) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Gen:LOCK → Gen:Lock – "LOCK" is not an acronym/initialism, so it should be lowercase per the guidelines at MOS:TMRULES. This also has use outside of Wikipedia; all articles from Variety use this capitalization. IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a handful of cases from first two pages of results:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30] ff., etc., etc.
There are literally several thousand of these, and the results are consistent. This is one of our most common types of move, and most of them are done manually/speedily, so the thousands that have gone to discussion are just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most common reversions of undiscussed move is also to undo over-capitalization to mimic trademark stylization. See also
WP:OFFICIALNAME and
MOS:TITLES: WP just does not care how "official" something is. LittleBigPlanet is
camelcase and we do use that for trademarks, virtually any time it is used in one, because this has become conventional English since the rise of the Internet. OVERCAPITALIZATION TO MARKETING-SCREAM AT EVERYONE has not. Variances from the consistent treatment of article titles are extremely rare;
xkcd is one such exception, as is
iPod/
iPhone/
iOS, and
k.d. lang. They're exceptions because a) they're (allegedly – see below) very difficult to find in any other form – and not just in one genre of writing but across all of them; and b) the community is slightly more tolerant of all-lowercase than all-caps because it does not have a "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! NOW DAMMIT!" PoV-pushing effect. Actually, even the k.d. lang case is iffy and probably needs to be revisited; it's regularly spelled "K. D. Lang" (with or without the initials-space) in non-entertainment publications like The New York Times.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
After watching the series, reading the episode descriptions, comparing them to the episode descriptions of other TV series, I find them acceptable in length and content. While some series have shorter descriptions, there are many with similar length. I find more correct details an advantage over less and sometimes less accurate information.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gen:Lock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: MOVED Opposes based on the fact that official sources used "gen:LOCK" were downweighted/discarded as they went against guidelines ( MOS:TMRULES): "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"." Nor is "intended artistic representation" a policy/guideline based argument against the move. The consensus is thus for moving. ( non-admin closure) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Gen:LOCK → Gen:Lock – "LOCK" is not an acronym/initialism, so it should be lowercase per the guidelines at MOS:TMRULES. This also has use outside of Wikipedia; all articles from Variety use this capitalization. IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a handful of cases from first two pages of results:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28],
[29],
[30] ff., etc., etc.
There are literally several thousand of these, and the results are consistent. This is one of our most common types of move, and most of them are done manually/speedily, so the thousands that have gone to discussion are just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most common reversions of undiscussed move is also to undo over-capitalization to mimic trademark stylization. See also
WP:OFFICIALNAME and
MOS:TITLES: WP just does not care how "official" something is. LittleBigPlanet is
camelcase and we do use that for trademarks, virtually any time it is used in one, because this has become conventional English since the rise of the Internet. OVERCAPITALIZATION TO MARKETING-SCREAM AT EVERYONE has not. Variances from the consistent treatment of article titles are extremely rare;
xkcd is one such exception, as is
iPod/
iPhone/
iOS, and
k.d. lang. They're exceptions because a) they're (allegedly – see below) very difficult to find in any other form – and not just in one genre of writing but across all of them; and b) the community is slightly more tolerant of all-lowercase than all-caps because it does not have a "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! NOW DAMMIT!" PoV-pushing effect. Actually, even the k.d. lang case is iffy and probably needs to be revisited; it's regularly spelled "K. D. Lang" (with or without the initials-space) in non-entertainment publications like The New York Times.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
After watching the series, reading the episode descriptions, comparing them to the episode descriptions of other TV series, I find them acceptable in length and content. While some series have shorter descriptions, there are many with similar length. I find more correct details an advantage over less and sometimes less accurate information.