Talk:UEFA–CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding
(Redirected from Talk:UEFA-CONMEBOL Memorandum of understanding)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mellohi! in topic Requested move 29 June 2022
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Memorandum de Entendimiento UEFA-Conmebol from es.wikipedia. |
 | On 29 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to UEFA–CONMEBOL Memorandum of Understanding. The result of the discussion was Moved to UEFA–CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding. |
Requested move 29 June 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 to UEFA–CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding. Found to be a descriptive title and not a proper name, so "memorandum of understanding" was agreed to be lower-cased. As this memorandum was made between two entities, the hyphen is to be replaced with an en-dash as well. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
UEFA-CONMEBOL Memorandum of understanding → UEFA–CONMEBOL Memorandum of Understanding – Correct punctuation, the move is blacklisted for average users due to "Disallows moves with more than nine consecutive capital letters" Saksapoiss (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't "Memorandum" and "Understanding" be lowercase? — BarrelProof (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they could be, but it's debatable and needs a consensus, as the sources (see the references section) indicate that UEFA themselves use "Memorandum of Understanding" as a name for the actual agreement. -- Saksapoiss (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- But with "UEFA-CONMEBOL" in front of it, I think it should use lowercase, since that seems like a description of the document rather than its title. The cited sources are just using "Memorandum of Understanding", not "UEFA-CONMEBOL Memorandum of Understanding". Certainly, one shouldn't use a capital letter if the other one doesn't. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they could be, but it's debatable and needs a consensus, as the sources (see the references section) indicate that UEFA themselves use "Memorandum of Understanding" as a name for the actual agreement. -- Saksapoiss (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lowercase memorandum of understanding, definitely; it's a common descriptive term, not conceivably a proper name just because some people cap it for emphasis. This title does not appear as such in sources as far as I can tell; nor does even UEFA-CONMEBOL appear. It is an MoU between two orgs, and so that hyphen needs to be changed to an en-dash. UEFA–CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding is my counter-proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support UEFA–CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding per above discussion. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support: lower case, unless there's a document with "UEFA-CONMEBOL Memorandum of Understanding" at the top, in which case, that would be the proper noun. I can't imagine any case for capitalizing the "M" without capitalizing the "u" as it is now. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support UEFA–CONMEBOL memorandum of understanding per above. There is no reason to conclude memorandum of understanding is other than a descriptive term and no evidence that we should cap IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. If it is capped by the bodies involved, these are not independent sources and capitalisation for emphasis or significance would fall to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - ie we don't do that. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 14 July 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.