Talk:List of Victorian Government infrastructure plans, proposals and studies
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Robertsky in topic Requested move 9 January 2023
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | On 9 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of Victoria Government Infrastructure Plans, Proposals and Studies to List of Victorian Government infrastructure plans, proposals and studies. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 9 January 2023
edit- 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. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
List of Victoria Government Infrastructure Plans, Proposals and Studies → List of Victorian Government infrastructure plans, proposals and studies – This is not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalised with the exception of Victoria Government. I have also changed "Victoria Government" to "Victorian Government" as it seems to be better that way according to the lead of Victoria State Government. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support- I agree with these reasons. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)- Support- Capatilization is not appropriate for words proposal and studies here NotOrrio (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Also the article needs a good going over for its over-capitalization of lots of things esp. in headings. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: No it doesn't? The headings' capitalisation looks fine to me. Granted, there are a few other capitalisation issues, such as "PRINCIPLE 1", "PRINCIPLE 2", etc, but not in the headings. Steelkamp (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see support in the cited sourced for the headings ending in "Plan" and "Report" being proper names. If it's there, fine; I haven't looked too hard yet. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: No it doesn't? The headings' capitalisation looks fine to me. Granted, there are a few other capitalisation issues, such as "PRINCIPLE 1", "PRINCIPLE 2", etc, but not in the headings. Steelkamp (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
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.