This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Consensus against move. (
non-admin closure) –
Ammarpad (
talk) 20:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It's not a proper name. What is required is a grasp of the complex of relations between 1) various ontological categories, 2) proper names, and 3) best-practice English-language capitalisation conventions. The verdict on BFO – in WP practice and more widely – would depend on its status as the name for a theory in academic philosophy versus its status as a business name (or quasi-business name). And when in doubt, downcase—that's the WP maxim.
Tony(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per
MOS:ISMCAPS and
WP:NCCAPS. This is a common-noun phrase. The anon's testy
WP:ILIKEIT position, unclear on what
proper name actually means (this is a descriptive phrase, not a name) is just the usual "[[WP:SSF|specialized-style fallacy", i.e. "capitalize it because some journals and other writing between specialists likes to do that". If we accepted that kind of reason, then nearly everything on WP would be capitalized, because almost all specialities and special interests like to over-capitalize things in their area as a form of emphasis, and nearly everything is subject to at least one specialization. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:30, 12 June 2018 (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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Consensus against move. (
non-admin closure) –
Ammarpad (
talk) 20:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It's not a proper name. What is required is a grasp of the complex of relations between 1) various ontological categories, 2) proper names, and 3) best-practice English-language capitalisation conventions. The verdict on BFO – in WP practice and more widely – would depend on its status as the name for a theory in academic philosophy versus its status as a business name (or quasi-business name). And when in doubt, downcase—that's the WP maxim.
Tony(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per
MOS:ISMCAPS and
WP:NCCAPS. This is a common-noun phrase. The anon's testy
WP:ILIKEIT position, unclear on what
proper name actually means (this is a descriptive phrase, not a name) is just the usual "[[WP:SSF|specialized-style fallacy", i.e. "capitalize it because some journals and other writing between specialists likes to do that". If we accepted that kind of reason, then nearly everything on WP would be capitalized, because almost all specialities and special interests like to over-capitalize things in their area as a form of emphasis, and nearly everything is subject to at least one specialization. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:30, 12 June 2018 (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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.