Talk:Korean Decimal Classification

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 24 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Korean decimal classification to Korean Decimal Classification. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

The KDC seems awfully similar to the Dewey Decimal Classification system. Maybe its a (slight) variant. In that case would it help to merge this article into the larger and well-developed one.Bless sins (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2024

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. Consensus seems to be on the borderline here. My reading suggests more stronger arguments for moving, than against. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean decimal classification → Korean Decimal Classification – bringing the title in line with titles of similar classification systems and with the usage within the article itself Literally Satan (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2409:408C:1398:B1E2:0:0:2984:58A4 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone already executed this move. Perhaps that should be reverted until the discussion is completed. Note that there was a move in the opposite direction at 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC) by Tony1, so this is potentially controversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Classification have been capitalized without change or any proposals for change since they were created in 2001. Just because some of the words are descriptive doesn't mean it is not the proper name of a system. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – n-gram stats show that it's at least 1/3 lowercase in sources, far from "consistently capitalized", so defaulting to lowercase per MOS:CAPS make sense. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose for now. Need to provide evidence of consistently capitalized or proper name of system. What other similar seeming titles do doesn't strongly matter. seefooddiet (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Libraries has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In going through GScholar results [1], which are better for specialized material about this, over 95% of sources (and of a sort that actually know what they're talking about) capitalize this, whether in reference to the spec/standard or the government program/initiative to standardized on it. This tracks: standards and bodies are almost always proper names. It would also be more WP:CONSISTENT to capitalize this along with the rest of such systems/specs. Dicklyon didn't link his n-gram, so here's one, constrained to the years in which this system has existed [2] . It shows consistent capitalization except for blips during 1987–96 and 2003–10, with lowercase usage essentially disppearing (in corpus-index books) by 2016; these lowercase blips might be explained by the phrase having some other referent that we don't know about. If you prefix it with "the" to weed out possible references to "a" or "any" Korean decimal classification of "something", then all of a sudden all hits are capitalized [3]. Also, the lowercase blips could be explained by the great infrequency of this term in indexed books (see the far-left n-gram column); it may reflect the prefenence of literally a single publisher. This term appears much more frequently in journals than in books, and is consistently capitalized in them. A GBooks search lets us see the content of a lot of books, and again it's consistently uppercased [4] (except in US Library of Congress publications, which have it as "Korean decimal Classification", which is nuts). But many of these are the same sources as found in the GScholar search. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to support, robust evidence here seefooddiet (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.