Talk:Open Computer Forensics Architecture

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Requested move

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 not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Computer Forensics Architecture → Open computer forensics architecture –

Looks like another one that's upcased just because it's abbreviated (OCFA in this case).

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("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. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. $Tony (talk)$ 12:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the proper name of a specific infrastructure in Holland. It's not a generic name of a certain type of infrastructure. WP:MOSCAPS says to capitalize proper manes. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see this now. Withdrawing RM. $Tony (talk)$ 14:25, 25 December 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.

Agree with deletion

There are huge numbers of articles in which there has been utterly no attempt to provide sourcing. A year ... time's up. $Tony (talk)$ 07:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]