Talk:Conduit (convention)

Possible ref
Here's a possible ref for the article: City Weekly coverage of CONduit 19 (archive). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: move the page to Conduit (convention), per the discussion below, which showed a consensus for moving the page. Although there was approximately equal support for retaining caps and for moving to lowercase, it was pointed out that this is indeed a trademark, so opting for lowercase here per WP:MOS-TM; this form also makes the problem of WP:DIFFCAPS moot. If a further move is desired, please initiate a new discussion. Dekimasu よ! 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

CONduit → Conduit (convention) – Or CONduit (convention)? Capitalization alone is not enough, no matter what WP:DIFFCAPS says. I wonder if MOS:TM applies, even if it broadly applies to anything, not specifically for article titles. George Ho (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support change and suggest CONduit sci-fi convention or CONduit, sci-fi convention. The word convention has multiple meanings and is helped by its own disambiguation. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  01:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sci-fi" is just extra. Why is it necessary when there are no other conventions? --George Ho (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to Conduit (convention) per MOS:TM (this is still a trademark) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support CONduit (convention). Capitalization seems distinctive and important enough to keep rather than being pure stylization.  Agree with nom otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Conduit (convention) – per MOS:TM and the fact that it appears as "Conduit" in reliable sources, such as ref 7 in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support including a disambiguation but Oppose changing the capitalization to Conduit. The overwhelming majority of reliable sourcing and 100% of the official sourcing uses CONduit -- we have every indication that this is the full and legal name of the subject and not stylization. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:49, 13 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.