Talk:Presenter first (software approach)

MVP[edit]

For more details about MVP design pattern and C#2.0 case study visit [1]

Aviade 09:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "MVP Example by Brian Marick incorporating Presenter First" Link is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.209.33 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2008 (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: No consensus to move to new title, majority of sources support opposition to WP:CAPS in this case. Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter First → Presenter first – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CAPS ("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. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. $Tony (talk)$ 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It doesn't have to be a proprietary or commercial term to be a proper noun. Every instance I see in a quick review of this article, the linked sources, and a Google search capitalizes the term, e.g. "Presenter First is often applied in graphical user interface applications," and I see no reason why it should be otherwise. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like theories, theorums, laws, etc, WP generally avoids capitalisation done for the sake of it. Presenter first is bolded in its first occurrence, and in another text might well be italicised on first occurrence; thereafter, it shouldn't be eye-poking to the reader. Can you present a case as to why the caps should be used, against the practice in sibling articles? Tony (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because as far as I can tell, every single source capitalizes it as a proper noun. I really don't know what other articles you're referring to for comparison--perhaps you could provide some specific examples--but I would guess that those topics are not commonly treated as proper nouns. (I also don't follow what you mean by your second sentence.) Capitalizing the topic in the same way as reliable sources capitalize it is not "capitalizing for the sake of it", any more than titling an article Marxism instead of Marksism is "using x's for the sake of it." Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a protocol or proprietary concept or process: just "an approach". Approaches, laws, rules, theories are normally downcased on WP and in other sources.

and more. I didn't have to go that far into my google search for these. $Tony (talk)$ 12:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are blog posts and comments. The first two are inconsistent and clearly informal in how they capitalize it, and the third hyphenates it as "presenter-first." These do not negate the evidence that sources capitalizing the term as a proper noun are clearly more prevalent. A term does not need to be proprietary to be a proper noun; it needs to refer to a unique entity, as this article appears to be discussing the unique approach known as Presenter First and not a group of approaches generically known as presenter first approaches. It is possible that this is the only approach that is known as a proper noun; the fact that other approaches are referred to generically is irrelevant to whether this approach is referred to generically. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2011 (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.