Talk:Air data inertial reference unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded parameter from the project template call on this page to remove this image request.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)



Air Data Inertial Reference UnitAir data inertial reference unit

It's just a piece of equipment, generic. 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. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Tony (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is all right capitalised as that is the common name for a physical piece of equipment and it would just look wrong to readers in lower case. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Milborne, it is generic, though, isn't it? The article text says it's used on "various" aircraft, miliatry and civilian, from the A320 to the Boeing 777. And there are three of them that make up a "system". Doesn't seem to be the patented product of a particular company (is it?). Methinks it's been capped just because there's an acronym. No less than IEEE doesn't cap it, for example, here. More here. Sure, a lot of web pages do, but the fact that key ones don't says something, and we haven't even got to books yet (which tend to cap less). Tony (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – plenty of books and scholarly papers use lower case. The upper case is common in introducing the acronym, but it is not WP style to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Contrarian support. I can understand how we got a capitalised title, since the acronym is so common... hey, wait a minute... doesn't that mean ADIRU is the commonname? bobrayner (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
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.