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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemass Era → Lemass era –

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) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. How about "Korean war" next? Is the name self-explanatory? Is there only one era associated in any way with anything called Lemass? — Incidentally, though, either way the article could use a bit of evidence that the term is in common use. —Tamfang (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence of use, in books, which also verifies that it's not capitalized: [1]. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support The term is increasingly used by books covering the economic history of that time. and there is: Girvin, Brian (2005). The Lemass era: politics and society in the Ireland of Seán Lemass. Dublin: University College Dublin Press. ISBN 9781904558293. Lugnad (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Lugnad. Era is downcased in the title you provide as an example, in line with the move request. Could you review your post, please? Tony (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, named eras are proper nouns. Powers ^T 16:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian era, Elizabethan era, Spanish era. Tony (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdities, IMO. Named eras ought to be treated as any other proper noun, and I haven't seen any justification for why they wouldn't be. Same with named Laws (e.g., Murphy's Law). Powers ^T 18:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for your "should be"? Usage suggests that your logic is not shared by most, on either the eras or the laws. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this discussion is now going on here, at my User talk page, and at WT:MOSCAPS#Laws, comets, eras, and suchlike, I'd just as soon avoid repeating myself thrice over. Powers ^T 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why you started a third discussion? The only thing I can find on the other pages is your admission that you "don't understand". Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had just explained on my talk page what the basis for my "should be" was. Powers ^T 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If you oppose this move, please show evidence of published sources that capitalise "era" in the phrase, and show how these dominate the literature. Here's something to think about: a Googlebook search on "in the Lemass Era" OR "the Lemass Era was" OR "the Lemass Era and". This yields 17 hits, and the results page shows that all of them have only lower case for "era". Even when the book is referred to:

While Girvin and Murphy in The Lemass era accept the vital role that Lemass played ...

Noetica^Tea? 02:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – all books agree, quite unlike the situation with "the Korean war" strawman mentioned above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 13 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.