Talk:Registered apprenticeship
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | On 10 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Registered Apprenticeship to Registered apprenticeship. The result of the discussion was moved. |
COI
editThis article was written in 2011 by AlejandroDaJ, an employee of the U.S. Department of Labor. (See note at the bottom of this document.)
At the moment, it cites only DOL documents and is virtually unchanged from the original submission. Much of the language in the article is promotional in nature, especially in the "Program benefits and requirements" section. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 10 September 2022
edit- 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Registered Apprenticeship → Registered apprenticeship – See recent RM discussions at Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer/Archives/2022#Requested move 26 August 2022 and Talk:Registered nurse certified in neonatal intensive care. The case where someone is trying to use capitalization to indicate some kind of "officialness" or special meaning or certified job title is a common controversy around here, and it is not hard to find examples of article titles that use such capitalizations. But I think there is basically no support for that in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, at least unless it can be shown that a term is consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources. Declarations by authorities, such as governments or certifying institutions, are usually not persuasive. Ngram evidence shows the lowercase term is more common. Examples of sources that do not capitalize this term (outside of headlines, which tend to be "title-capped" in many sources) include this and this. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, MOS:JOBTITLES, MOS:CAPS more generally and evidence by nom. I see no good reason why this should be capped. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support per MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:SIGCAPS. This is a great example of capitalization for signification. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support per reasoned arguments relative to guidelines above. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom and above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)