Talk:Suburban multiple unit

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news51072.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 22:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 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: not moved (non-admin closure)   CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  06:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Suburban multiple unit → Suburban Multiple Unit – Currently the Queensland Rail rolling stock articles are named in a combination of upper and lower case format. Official name per operator Queensland Rail is to capitalise all words (Suburban Multiple Unit) vs (Suburban multiple unit) while many secondary sources use the SMU acronym.

The Manual of style section on trademarks states editors should choose among styles already in common use (not invent new ones) and, among those, use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. Can't find any examples of Suburban multiple unit being used other than on Wikipedia, so propose article be renamed Suburban Multiple Unit. Primetime44 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:CAPS and per WP:CONSISTENT with other similar articles, especially the obvious Electric multiple unit. This is a things, not a thing, so this is a common-noun phrase not a proper name.  Cf. all the zillion prior RMs of ocean vessel classes, music genres, roadway types, non-trademarked sports and games and dances (and classes thereof), etc., etc., etc.  The fact than an "official" source prefers to capitalize is meaningless (this is almost always the case is in the bureaucratese of government agencies/ministries, and in the marketing-style materials of manufacturers; both styles rampantly overcapitalize for emphasis, which is against the first rule of MOS:CAPS. It simply isn't an encyclopedic writing style.  And there isn't anything magically special about Queensland. PS: No, do not use "mixed" case; this should appear as "suburban multiple unit" in mid-sentence, not "Suburban multiple unit".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SMcCandlish, who nails it. Tony (talk)  09:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:CAPS and WP:CONSISTENT per the reasoning of SmCandlish. Coastie43 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Completely at odds with MOS:CAPS. Shem (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2020 (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.