Talk:Short-range device

Requested move 24 November 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short-range devices → Short Range Device – Preserve case, this is the proper name of a service designated in a technical standard, not a generic phrase that would be lower cased in Wikip house style Wtshymanski (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Requested rename (move) back to original correct capitalized title. No discussion of this renaming. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is about the devices, not the standards document (and the lead should be corrected to reflect that, by rewriting the lead sentence to be about the devices and mentioning the document later). Even if it were about the spec itself and the devices were covered at another article, the suggested name would still be wrong, since the title of the standard is Short Range Devices not Short Range Device. The nominator is confusing various things, including topic scope, handling of titles of works, and what WP:SINGULAR actually applies to. With regard to the devices, the hyphenation of the compound adjective is standard, formal English and what is expected by MOS:HYPHEN; we would not remove it. (We wouldn't add it, though, to the title of an article that was actually about the specification, since its real-world title doesn't include one; such an omission is fairly common in technical writing in English.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This goes against WP:NCCAPS. It is not a proper noun because the article is much more generalized than that. I also agree with all of SMcCandlish's points. – voidxor 18:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment : Articles about other subjects can have other titles. This article says it's about the devices described in CEPT ECC 70-03; the title page of that docuemnt sys it's about Short Range Devices. A particular class of devices governed by this regulation, not that Channel 14 walkie-talkie you had as a kid. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I see nothing in ERC Recommendation 70-03 to suggest that there is a proper name here, or a service. It doesn't even cap consistently. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think it should be as it was before November 23, when it was renamed. It needs the S at the end of devices. It was only about the standard, that's after all where the name of the article comes from. Below I introduce a requested move to the original name, as it was before November 23.

Robijn (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 26 November 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Short-range device instead. Taking into account the oppose arguments both in this request and the request before it, moving to an all-word-capitalized title would violate NCCAPS. Other oppose arguments indicate moving this title to singular per SINGULAR. On those accords, I'm inclined to close this discussion per SNOW and BOLD. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short-range devices → Short Range Devices – Rename to how it was before November 23. The article was about the standard, and of course consequently devices that adhere to it. Not the other way around, because then it could have been called "low-power transceivers" or something similar, and it would not have started with a link to the standard. There is nothing specific to tell about short-range devices anyway, it completely depends on their purpose (and there are many, as mentioned in the article). The person that moved it didn't understand the concept. Who was that anyway, to do this without dicussing it?

The standard starts with the following titling:

ERC Recommendation
70-03

Relating to the use of Short Range Devices (SRD)

So my suggestion is to rename it back to how it was, before November 23, including an S at the end. Robijn (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and move to Short-range device, per MOS:CAPS / WP:NCCAPS and per WP:SINGULAR, respectively. We just went over this a few days ago. This article is about the devices, not the specification. The title of the standard is given in title case because it's a publication and their titles are usually in title case. That's why it's called title case. This doesn't magically transmute to capitalization of the devices. Retain the hyphen per MOS:HYPHEN and basic English usage. WP doesn't care if ECC gets it right in the title of their "Recommendation". If this article were about the document, with a separate article about the devices, we'd call it "Short Range Devices" without modifying the title. But the document isn't actually notable in its own right. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 12:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate WHY you think the article is about the devices and not about the standard? I tried to explain my view already. Further I think this is the title of a work, and according to MOS:CAPS / WP:NCCAPS that should use title case. WP:SINGULAR notices in chapter "Article title format" that "words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text", which would be the case for an article. Finally, someone rewrote the first paragraph in the last couple of days, so that it now reads more like a categorization of a device, than a reference to the standard. But then the article should have a completely different name, short-range devices is a terrible name for a categorization as it is very unambiguous.Robijn (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is intended to refer to a specific standard, and that is ERC Recommendation 70-03, its title seems to be "Relating to the use of Short Range Devices (SRD)", not "Short Range Devices". Perhaps the title should be ERC Recommendation 70-03? Sometimes we use the title of a work as the title of a Wikipedia article about the work, but "Relating to the use of Short Range Devices (SRD)" seems more awkward than "ERC Recommendation 70-03". Also, I notice that three of the seven citations in the article include the phrase "short-range devices" (with hyphenation and without capitalisation) in their titles, and the ETSI reference uses "short range devices" (without capitalisation) in its abstract, and ERC Rec. 70-03 itself uses "short range device" and "short range devices" in lowercase in many places within its text. It seems to primarily only use "Short Range Devices" when defining the abbreviation (SRD), which seems to be what is occurring in its title. It seems clear that the term is not a proper noun. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are right, it's terrible style. But the title of the article to which it refers is what it is, we cannot modify it. People working in this field know this abbreviation SRD. That is, the European standard, so these specific frequencies and their prescribed way of using them, not being applicable to USA or elsewhere. The abbreviation SRD therefor does not have much to do with short-range devices in general (whatever that may mean). If you wanna know more lookup LPD and ISM too. (LPD is redirecting to SRD, which is incorrect because SRD is a European standard and LPD an international one) Robijn (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—I find the arguments above for downcasing compelling. If you want caps, I suggest narrowing the scope of the main text and using the official title of the EU "standard". And yes, SMcCandlish is right: our guidelines prefer singular over plural for article titles. Tony (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and agree that lowercase singular is the most consistent with WP style, and perfectly appropriate for this article. It's perfectly common in sources to use the singular lowercase form, yes even in the context of "70-03": [1], [2], [3], [4]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.