This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
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.
Support, not per nom, but per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS: nearly every independent reliable source capitalizes this; in a fairly long trawl through news about this, I only found two exceptions [1],[2], and the first may just be search keywords not prose. When independent reliable sources in English near-uniformly capitalize something, then WP will also do so. That's the standard (see lead of MOS:CAPS). Not 'I can find a few sources that capitalize it', which is the first reason the nomination above is faulty. (RMs like this are not helped by showing a few examples of capitalization.) The second reason is the nom's "This was a rather large scandal and, I believe, is therefore a proper name" reasoning, which shows no awareness of what a proper name actually is, and really boils down to 'capitalize it because I think it's important' reasoning, which is against MOS:SIGCAPS. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.