Talk:Semantic knowledge management

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Knowledge Management → Semantic knowledge management –

This is an interesting one. Some books and sites do capitalise it in normal text, but some don't. Here, it's important to note that related wordings often occur, downcased; among these are knowledge engineering and knowledge management, "the rise of the semantic web technologies enables a new range of possibilities for agents dedicated to knowledge management", "... of database queries using the semantic information contained in the integrity constraints", and "The essential idea is to use semantic knowledge ...", and "Using semantic knowledge in NLP applications always improves their competence ...".

Later note: I see I neglected to provide the external links. If anyone wants them, I'll be pleased to go back to my google search results. $Tony (talk)$ 00:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. $Tony (talk)$ 07:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support downcasing of a generic term in an overcapitalised article – that this is generic is proven by existence of "semantic knowledge management systems". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lower case in this case accords most closely with established style guidelines, regardless of the usual inconsistencies that we find in "reliable sources". Remember why we have style guidelines. See current discussion here, by the way. Noetica^Tea? 00:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint – Tony, I'm glad my needling got you to look at sources for a change, but I don't understand your finding. I've looked at books and scholar artilces, and I ~~don't find a~~ find only a single one capitalizing this phrase in a sentence (the cited book with the topic as its title overcapitalizes this and lots of other stuff, while other books with this topic as title don't and all other books don't). No contest. Why are we even being bothered with it? It's a technical if you can't move it yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 7 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.