Talk:Conduit (convention)

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Possible ref

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's a possible ref for the article: City Weekly coverage of CONduit 19 (archive). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

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 the page to Conduit (convention), per the discussion below, which showed a consensus for moving the page. Although there was approximately equal support for retaining caps and for moving to lowercase, it was pointed out that this is indeed a trademark, so opting for lowercase here per WP:MOS-TM; this form also makes the problem of WP:DIFFCAPS moot. If a further move is desired, please initiate a new discussion. Dekimasuよ! 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

CONduit → Conduit (convention) – Or CONduit (convention)? Capitalization alone is not enough, no matter what WP:DIFFCAPS says. I wonder if MOS:TM applies, even if it broadly applies to anything, not specifically for article titles. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Support change and suggest CONduit sci-fi convention or CONduit, sci-fi convention. The word convention has multiple meanings and is helped by its own disambiguation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Sci-fi" is just extra. Why is it necessary when there are no other conventions? --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rename to Conduit (convention) per MOS:TM (this is still a trademark) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Support CONduit (convention). Capitalization seems distinctive and important enough to keep rather than being pure stylization. Agree with nom otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Support Conduit (convention) – per MOS:TM and the fact that it appears as "Conduit" in reliable sources, such as ref 7 in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Support including a disambiguation but Oppose changing the capitalization to Conduit. The overwhelming majority of reliable sourcing and 100% of the official sourcing uses CONduit -- we have every indication that this is the full and legal name of the subject and not stylization. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:49, 13 October 2014 (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.

Add topic