Talk:Self-denying Ordinance

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A little confusing...[edit]

"A second Self-denying Ordinance was agreed to on April 3, 1645, whereby all the persons concerned were to resign, but without prejudice to their reappointment."

Does anyone else feel that this is a little confusing? Maybe I'm being a little dense but I wouldn't consider myself a stupid person and as Wikipedia is for all surely there are going to be other people confused by this..

Help! I have no idea what is meant by this line. Timbokid (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the definition?[edit]

I, a non-lawyer, came here looking to be enlightened as to what a self-denying ordinance was - only to be given an example of one with no definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacBoyUK (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 June 2010 MacBoyUK (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-denying Ordinance → Self-denying ordinance –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE. The term is used generically in this article: it's a common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the title and the item within the article should be downcased. The sources are mixed, but where caps are used, mostly the D is capped too: Self-Denying Ordinance. It shows that usage is mixed, so I believe it's appropriate to go with sources that do downcase, as WP is used to doing. Most tellingly, usage is mixed even within the article text, with all downcased in at least one instance. $Tony (talk)$ 15:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Self-Denying Ordinance. This is a proper name for a legistative act. The article needs to be split with the French material being moved to a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support. If it's about a (small) class of self-denying ordinances, it should be lowercase. If it's split into separate articles about each act, they would be each capitalized, although the current cap variation "Self-denying Ordinance" appears to be more common in the first couple of pages of Google Books results when talking about a specific act. But either way the lede(s) should be reworked. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per generic sense logic. The "S-d O" capitalisation would seem preferred for, at least, (the?) British ordinance, but having the generic sense lower case would distinguish and better serve comprehension. ENeville (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]