Talk:Specific-pathogen-free

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veterinary medicine Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine 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.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Specific Pathogen Free → Specific-pathogen-free – It is a common name and means free of specific pathogens. I suggest move to the more correct and more used form. Rv Av Dv Cv (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Support: Basic English language usage; we hyphenate compound adjectives and do not capitalize things that aren't proper names. Will also match usage in article, including of related phrases like "pathogen-free" more generally. This is a case where I would not argue for a noun form of the article title, as we usually do, because "specific-pathogen freedom" (regardless of capitalization or hyphenation) isn't commonly used, and this article is about the application of the concept in a particular way (e.g. adjectivally to animal models), not about the history of the concept (a noun focus). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Support – using an adjective-phrase title is unusal, but I don't see an alternative in this case, as there is no corresponding noun-phrase form that would be recognizable. Reviewing sources shows the typical variation of usage, with one or both hyphens sometimes dropped, but including them both clarifies the intended parse and meaning, so for the general reader we really need to use those. And the upper case is just silly. This should have just been moved, since it's hard to imagine much controversy about correct punctuation and case. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (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