Talk:Standard linear solid model

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Linear Solid model → Standard linear solid model –

WP does not normally cap models, laws, principles, etc. 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. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles, not to mention the article text throughout. Tony (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems pretty straight forward MOS:CAPS.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Backed up by this Google Books search. Dohn joe (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; my only concern is that the sentence-cased title makes it unclear whether "solid" is a noun modified by "linear" or if it's an adjective modifying "model". Powers ^T 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Powers, the ambiguity would be best cleared up if it was hyphenated appropriately when used as an adjective, as in standard-linear-solid model, as nobody does, or as "standard linear-solid model" as this paper does. I would have presumed the former, given many sources that call it the SLS model, but what do I know? [This book] speaks of "the model of the standard linear solid (SLS)", so I think I was right and the guy with one hyphen had a slightly different interpretation of the concept. Maybe it doesn't matter enough, as the semantic difference is unimportant here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the semantic difference unimportant? (And I find it puzzling that a huge advocate of capitalize-only-when-necessary favors a more expansive view of when to use hyphens!) Powers ^T 16:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. I'm just noting the sources treat the difference as unimportant. Whether they use a model of standard solid, or a standard model of a solid, they don't really seem to care. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.