Talk:EUR-Lex

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Over-capitalization

Why we're not using "EUR-Lex": Per

WP:OFFICIALNAME thing; WP doesn't follow the EU's style manual. European writers tend to mimic this officialese style, but it's not consistent in reliable sources, and the use of the simple "Eur-Lex" is common:
"EU legislation stored in the Eur-Lex database" [1], "Eur-Lex: Access to European Union Law" [2], "Eur-Lex 2013" [3], "databases used for this purpose include Eur-Lex, ..." [4], "All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union" [5][6], "documents from the EU's Eur-Lex website" [7], "sections can be retrieved from the Eur-Lex website" [8][9], "administrative publications that can be found in the Eur-Lex (former CELEX) database" [10], "The documents were downloaded from the Eur-Lex website" [11], "data calculated from the Federal Law Gazette and Eur-Lex" [12], "See generally Eur-Lex, Process and Players, 1.1.3" [13], "To quote from the Eur-lex website ..." [14]

, etc. etc.

This isn't even language-specific:
"Kilder: Den Store Danske of Eur-lex"[15][16], "La possibilità di rivedere i trattati istitutivi, spiega ‘Eur-Lex’, è fondamentale per l’Unione europea (UE)" [17], "Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne : article 86 - Eur-Lex" [18], "В официальном журнале Евросоюза Eur-Lex в субботу" [19], "über Eur-Lex, einfache Suche mit Jahr und Nummer" [20], "el portal jurídico plurilingüe «Eur-lex» de la Unión Europea" [21], etc.

And other stylizations show up, e.g. "EUR-LEX" [22][23][24], while sources are sometimes inconsistent even in the same document ("Eur-Lex, 1999 ... EUR-Lex, 1992" [25]).

When the reliable sources do not consistently apply an unusual stylization (including extraneous capitalization), Wikipedia does not either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 August 2020

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 05:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Support per nom. This seems to be another case of Wikipedia inventing its own capitalization for a proper name that's consistently capitalized by both the holder and other news sources, which is something we shouldn't modify. SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2020 (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.