Talk:Diagonal Method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography 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.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Requested move[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Diagonal MethodDiagonal method – 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 upcased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match WP's formatting of laws, methods, rules, hypotheses, etc. Tony (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a proprietary term, Westhoff has registered it at the trademark office in the Netherlands, using capitalization. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how such an approach can be "registered" or patented; and the status of such a registration at a trademark office in the Netherlands is unclear. It's like registering the use of Perspective in paintings, or Cropping in photography. How can you stop people using it? If this really were a trademark, they'd be suing all over the place for failure to attribute (and I see no attribution in this WP article). There are frequent uses with lower case, just on a quick google search—and books are likely to downcase even more, given our experience. Here, for example, and here, and here, in Dutch no less. More—and note the diagonal method in all of these sources ... not any, but the one. Tony (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support downcasing, but maybe disambiguate – and maybe delete – since I find no registered trademark at uspto, nor any source that states it's a trademark, and since the method is described as a "rule of thumb"; it doesn't sound like a mark used in trade. I look at the history shows this article was previously created and re-created at the lower case title, but I PROD'd it and it returned to being a redirect and then a disambig page when the upper-case one came in. I'm not convinced that the notability issue has been resolved, since I can't find any actual coverage of this topic; Tony's links above are to forum posts and to different topics of the same name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. nl:Diagonaalmethode (fotografie) is the Dutch article and that is not showing a Proper Name. Yes, this was already deleted once, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method, but this is not the venue for deletion. It would be nice to have more references besides Westhoff himself, and it seems odd to have an "official site" for a generic topic. Hatnote to Cantor's diagonal argument. Per the deleted version, this topic is closely related to golden ratio and rule of thirds—perhaps it could be merged to the latter as a variant of that. Do a WP:history merge if possible. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support downcasing, per Wbm and Dicklyon, though I'd recommend holding off on a deletion discussion til later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Crisco. But what I really wanted to know was whether you think "(photography)" should be inserted into the title. That's the way I'm leaning, after Dick's comment. Tony (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      Right, I have no problem with adding "(photography)" to clearly disambiguate from Cantor's diagonal argument, as the dutch Wikipedia has already done. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2014 (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.