Talk:Interurban multiple unit

Australia: Queensland / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Interurban multiple unit is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Stub‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Stub

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 21 January 2020 edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 06:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Interurban multiple unit → Interurban Multiple Unit – Currently the Queensland Rail rolling stock articles are named in a combination of upper and lower case format. Official name per operator Queensland Rail is to capitalise all words (Interurban Multiple Unit) vs (Interurban multiple unit) [1] while many secondary sources use the IMU acronym.

The Manual of style section on trademarks states editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones) and, among those, use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. Can't find any examples of Interurban multiple unit being used other than on Wikipedia, so propose article be renamed Interurban Multiple Unit. Primetime44 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oppose per MOS:CAPS and per WP:CONSISTENT with other similar articlea, especially the obvious Electric multiple unit. This is a class of things, not a thing, so this is a common-noun phrase not a proper name. Cf. all the zillion prior RMs of ocean vessel classes, music genres, roadway types, non-trademarked sports and games and dances (and classes thereof), etc., etc., etc. The fact than an "official" source prefers to capitalize is meaningless (this is almost always the case is in the bureaucratese of government agencies/ministries, and in the marketing-style materials of manufacturers; both styles rampantly overcapitalize for emphasis, which is against the first rule of MOS:CAPS. It simply isn't an encyclopedic writing style. And there isn't anything magically special about Queensland. PS: No, do not use "mixed" case; this should appear as "interurban multiple unit" in mid-sentence, not "Interurban multiple unit". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose—apologies for stalking SMcCandlish, but he's worth following when it comes to such style questions. Just ... no. Stop this institutional boosterism. Tony (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose As stated in the other two sister articles - MOS:CAPS and WP:CONSISTENT per the SmCandlish reasoning. Coastie43 (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Per suburban multiple unit, this proposal is at odds with MOS:CAPS. Shem (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2020 (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.

Add topic