Talk:Therapeutic use exemption

Title change

The title should be changed to remove the "s" at the end and make it non-plural. I plan to do that in the next few days.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I will also be capitalizing all three words in the title since this is the practice followed in the article and in most mentions of the phrase online that I found through a google search. It is also the practice followed by WADA which is where the phrase originated from I believe.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2022

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: Consensus for noncapitalized and singular use, per the manual of style. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Therapeutic use exemptions → Therapeutic Use Exemption – Therapeutic use exemptions should be capitalized and non-plural as discussed at Talk:Therapeutic use exemptions. Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jamesy0627144, Graham11, and BarrelProof: Pinging participants of the WP:RMTR discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have doubts that this would meet MOS:CAPS. Graham (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you clarify what part of MOS:CAPS you have doubts about? What about points mentioned on talk page regarding results of google search and convention used by organization that originated the term?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Specifically I'm not sure whether it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources [emphasis in original]". We have to be wary of relying solely on "official" usage or exclusively usage in specialized sources lest we fall into the specialized-style fallacy. So I'd be more comfortable if this was reviewed by multiple editors through an RM process before being moved. Graham (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the sort of thing we would be very reluctant to capitalize on Wikipedia. It's definitely not a proper noun and looks like WP:SIGCAPS to me. A proper discussion is needed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it's definitely not a proper noun and looks like WP:SIGCAPS, specialized-style fallacy and not necessary per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is not a proper noun. The proposal seems to be a clear case of WP:SIGCAPS – i.e. capitalization as a way of trying to indicate that a term is special or official in some way. It is also not consistently capitalized that way in independent reliable sources, per a scan of scholarly works in Google Scholar. Wikipedia policies and guidelines say to use lowercase in such instances. However, I support moving it to singular form per WP:SINGULAR. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose capitalization per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS (this is not a proper name), but support singular per WP:PLURAL, WP:SINGULAR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose capitalizing but support moving to the singular title (i.e. Therapeutic use exemption). My perusal of reliable sources indicates that while some certainly do capitalize, the capitalized version is not so prevalent as to satisfy the MOS:CAPS threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose caps per my above Support singular. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.