Talk:Basic access control

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basic access control → Basic Access Control –

• to match Extended Access ControlDohn joe (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why these should be capitalized. How about we move
  Extended access control instead?ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Extended Access Control and its Basic counterpart are specifications/protocols, not general concepts of types of access controls. They are capitalized in the cited sources and should remain so in the articles. flaming () 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That is not true; in the external references of the article on extended access control only the German government sources use uppercase, and that language's habit of uppercasing all nouns influences German writers' spelling habits in English and should definitely have no weight at all in this discussion. The "real English" sources in the article's external references (IBM, Columbia University, and the reputable German publisher Springer) capitalize neither "extended access control" nor "basic access control" at all or only inconsistently, so we should definitely stick to Wikipedia's MOS and not follow the habit seen in many technical texts of capitalizing almost every technical thing (device, concept, software, whatever), especially when it's also called by its abbreviation. This habit is not followed in most carefully edited technical texts and even less in books published by major publishers.--Espoo (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with Espoo. I note that John joe reverted my downcasing of
  extended access control a few days ago, despite the fact that the article was downcased before and then upcased over objection in March 20111. Tony (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Tony, please take the time to get your facts straight. Dpmuk reverted the page move - not me. And further, what objection was there in the previous discussion? No one in that discussion objected. Anthony Appleyard asked if it were a proper noun - but he never said he thought it wasn't, and he didn't object to the move, as far as I can tell. All I did was clean up a bit after someone else reverted your undiscussed page move which went against an apparent consensus from less than ten months ago. Dohn joe (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you removed the the parenthetical bit that gave the title a contextual sense; you didn't change the case. I think Anthony was expressing misgivings, wasn't he? Tony (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're confusing these two articles, Tony - I never moved the other one at all. Dohn joe (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – this book and this book and this book and this book and others show that caps are not needed for either term. Plenty of scholarly papers say the same. These are all in the context of biometric info on passports, accessed via these access standards. But the same terms are used (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not) for access to other sorts of data and devices, so some disambiguation would be useful. See these books for other uses. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 6 January 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.