Talk:Semantic grid

Untitled

I think that this page should update ,in order to describe more information about Semantic Grid.For example, its' uagages, hurdle, tools ,etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.1.25.114 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 June 2008

Requested move

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: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Grid → Semantic grid –

Rampant and inconsistent capitalisation here. Why semantic data model in the opening sentence, then? And other items are upcased by link to articles that are downcased. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles.

Oh, and ngram is striking on this one. relisted -Mike Cline (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC) $Tony (talk)$ 08:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's about a specific project called the Semantic Grid, not about semantic grids in general (whatever they are). Cf. Semantic Web. (By using the plural in the n-grams, you force them to be those few which are indeed about any kind of semantic grids in general, as shown by the non-negligible fraction of occurrences in the early 1970s, long before any computer grid, which obviously can't have much to do with the topic with the article. That's like using this to justify using a lowercase t in the article about the country in Eurasia. Try using the singular instead.) ― A. di M. 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a proper noun, and see ngram in the singular, even more striking (similar to A. di M. 's result above but I thought even clearer). Andrewa (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't generally favor moving articles on non-notable topics, or where I can't discern what the topic is supposed to be. If there were a source cited to establish notability, it might be more clear whether the topic is "an approach" as the article now says, or "a project" as A. di M. says, or nothing at all. And beware of n-gram abuse; see these books. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

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. 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Grid → Semantic grid – Even the Semantic Grid Research Group does not capitalize it. See their summary. The fact that caps have become more popular in recent years does not make it a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization," and if official usage is uncapitalized, we'd only really depart from that if it were a MOS:TM issue, which this isn't. No doubt the Semantic Web suggests the capitalized form, but we need not reproduce an erroneous form just because some people use it. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2013 (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.