Talk:EUR-Lex

Over-capitalization
Why we're not using "EUR-Lex": Per MOS:CAPS and MOS:ABBR. "Eur" is a truncation abbreviation like "Calif[ornia]" and "Mex[ico]", not an acronym or initialism. "EUR" is just capitalization for emphasis, like "SONY TEN" for Sony Ten. The fact that the EU likes to do it is a WP:OFFICIALNAME thing; WP doesn't follow the EU's style manual. European writers tend to mimic this officialese style, but it's not consistent in reliable sources, and the use of the simple "Eur-Lex" is common: "EU legislation stored in the Eur-Lex database", "Eur-Lex: Access to European Union Law" , "Eur-Lex 2013" , "databases used for this purpose include Eur-Lex, ..." , "All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union", "documents from the EU's Eur-Lex website" , "sections can be retrieved from the Eur-Lex website" , "administrative publications that can be found in the Eur-Lex (former CELEX) database" , "The documents were downloaded from the Eur-Lex website" , "data calculated from the Federal Law Gazette and Eur-Lex" , "See generally Eur-Lex, Process and Players, 1.1.3" , "To quote from the Eur-lex website ..." , etc. etc.

This isn't even language-specific: "Kilder: Den Store Danske of Eur-lex", "La possibilità di rivedere i trattati istitutivi, spiega ‘Eur-Lex’, è fondamentale per l’Unione europea (UE)", "Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne : article 86 - Eur-Lex" , "В официальном журнале Евросоюза Eur-Lex в субботу" , "über Eur-Lex, einfache Suche mit Jahr und Nummer" , "el portal jurídico plurilingüe «Eur-lex» de la Unión Europea" , etc.

And other stylizations show up, e.g. "EUR-LEX", while sources are sometimes inconsistent even in the same document ("Eur-Lex, 1999 ... EUR-Lex, 1992" ).

When the reliable sources do not apply an unusual stylization (including extraneous capitalization), Wikipedia does not either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  13:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2020

 * 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. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Eur-Lex → EUR-Lex – The very significant majority of English-language reliable texts use EUR-Lex. While the prose presented above does list some sources, Google Ngrams shows that there are signficantly more sources using capitalised EUR than non-capitalised Eur. MOS:CAPS explicitly says that words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia, which is the case here. Beyond that, EUR-Lex is a proper noun, not a common noun, meaning that standard sentence capitalisation doesn't necessarily apply in the same way as described in WP:NCCAPS, amongst other policies. There also doesn't seem to be any evidence that I could see that EUR is short for European, as the above suggests - it could very easily be an abbreviation for European Union Regulation. WP:OFFICIALNAME also is relevant here - in all other European Union sources, as well as on the EUR-Lex website proper, the site is referred to as EUR-Lex only (Publications Office of the European Union, N-Lex, Court of Justice of the European Union, European Parliament Observatory (see footer)...). ItsPugle (please use&#32; on reply) 05:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. This seems to be another case of Wikipedia inventing its own capitalization for a proper name that's consistently capitalized by both the holder and other news sources, which is something we shouldn't modify.  SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.