Talk:Standard linear solid model

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Requested move[edit]

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.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Linear Solid model → Standard linear solid model –

WP does not normally cap models, laws, principles, etc. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles, not to mention the article text throughout. Tony (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems pretty straight forward MOS:CAPS.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Backed up by this Google Books search. Dohn joe (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; my only concern is that the sentence-cased title makes it unclear whether "solid" is a noun modified by "linear" or if it's an adjective modifying "model". Powers ^T 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Powers, the ambiguity would be best cleared up if it was hyphenated appropriately when used as an adjective, as in standard-linear-solid model, as nobody does, or as "standard linear-solid model" as this paper does. I would have presumed the former, given many sources that call it the SLS model, but what do I know? [This book] speaks of "the model of the standard linear solid (SLS)", so I think I was right and the guy with one hyphen had a slightly different interpretation of the concept. Maybe it doesn't matter enough, as the semantic difference is unimportant here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the semantic difference unimportant? (And I find it puzzling that a huge advocate of capitalize-only-when-necessary favors a more expansive view of when to use hyphens!) Powers ^T 16:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. I'm just noting the sources treat the difference as unimportant. Whether they use a model of standard solid, or a standard model of a solid, they don't really seem to care. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 5 August 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.