Talk:Best current practice
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Best current practice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Best Current Practice → Best current practice –
Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commerical term, the article title should be downcased. WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of most related article titles. Tony (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. It's lower case, or so says the Gower Handbook of Management Development. Kauffner (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. The article refers to the general concept (but also mentions the specific use in the IETF, which, on its own, is a proper noun). — Dgtsyb (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, best considered as an ordinary descriptive term, not a proper name. NoeticaTea? 01:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Jojalozzo 02:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
List of BCPs
[edit]@190.8.79.154: Hi, you recently added a long table to this article. After I reverted it, two tables were re-added.
I appreciate your effort, but I really don't think this belongs to this artcile, or on Wikipedia in the first place, per WP:NOT. Perhaps it could conceivably live as a separate article like List of best current practices. But even if this list is exhaustive currently, I doubt there will be enough interest to maintain and keep it that way, while it would divert attention away from Wikipedia's main goals.
Did you compile all this information yourself or is it just copy-paste from some other webpage? -- intgr [talk] 12:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)