Talk:European single market
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European single market article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| On 24 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from European Single Market to European single market. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Margaret Thatcher Contribution
There seems to be no mention of Mrs Margaret Thatcher in the article which is highly unusual for a website purporting to be a encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 24 June 2022
- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Capitalization across sources found to be not consistent enough to capitalize each word in this term. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
European Single Market → European single market – No consistent capitalization in RS, see NGRAMS or Google Scholar results. (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support The OPs evidence strongly indicates that the title does not meet the threshold for capitalisation per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support per strong evidence of mixed case in sources, in light of P&G cited by Cinderella above. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: while it appears the EU/EC doesn't even capitalize, they don't seem to have a consistent style manual for that entire page (particularly egregious is the "European standards" menu). Academic journals (or articles – not sure if journals enforce a standard on this) seem to go either way as Buidhe pointed out. (Book excerpts as well). WP's own article on SEM's origin isn't even consistent. (The text of the act itself is ref 4 in the article and never says "single market" as a phrase, so that doesn't help.) There's also the term "ESM" that I occasionally hear, I think perhaps from The Economist podcast? WP:MOS:CAPS wants a substantial majority of RS for caps, and that burden doesn't appear to be getting met, but to analyze thoroughly one should check whether the RS are significantly biased by subject (newsmedia, academia, or gov/ngo, say), recency, and region. But it's late for me. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"Internal market" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Internal market has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 13 § Internal market until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Internal market (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)