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. ~80% support and policy based agreements. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANU – Museum of the Jewish People → Anu – Museum of the Jewish People – This is not an acronym, it a Latin-alphabet transliteration of אנו anu 'we' (i.e. the first-person plural nominative pronoun). This is just typical over-capitalization for marketing/branding/signification, against MOS:SIGCAPS, MOS:TM, WP:NCCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support—If "ANU" refers to the Australian National University, fine. But it doesn't. It's not an abbreviation. Tony (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. not an abbreviation. Eladkarmel (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Pure all-caps marketing stylization. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I remain baffled by the desire to make up new titles in opposition to the editors who actually created the article and thus should be deferred to as knowing the title of what they're talking about. No analysis has been done of what this museum is called in reliable sources, and the nominator admits that WP:ABOUTSELF argues for ANU in ANU's own website. Fine, I'll check: 2023 article from the NYT, uses "ANU" only. 2023 article from the BBC, uses ANU only. This should not be moved unless some reliable source, somewhere shows usage of "Anu", and even then it should at least be contested mix usage and not one wild outlier. When there has larger scrutiny, the wider community routinely defers to both ABOUTSELF, hence bell hooks and the like, as well as the overwhelming consensus of sources, hence Star Trek Into Darkness. Names and titles are not English text; they're not "ours", they're owned by the person or organization themselves. "Fixing" capitalization is just as ridiculous as "fixing" spelling of a name. We can set whatever crazy rules we like for our own text we write, but let's not assume we know better than the New York Times and the BBC about what the name of this museum is. SnowFire (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SnowFire. Cannot find RSes using lowercase. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clearer on the relevant policies here, a closer look at the three the proposer cites: MOS:SIGCAPS is about running text, not proper names; WP:NCCAPS has no specific advice here and points to MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS (which itself points to MOS:TM); and MOS:TM says examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources ... Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources ... When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. No sources using the sentence case version have been presented. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is a very clear Wikipedia guideline to not capitalize purely stylistic trademarks. Otherwise we would have things like TIME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Time" is routinely used by RSes. The first results of searches for "time magazine" + some RS: Time, Time, Time. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom an MOS:ALLCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. (Also, I wasn't aware that creating an article entitled someone to any deference...about anything) Primergrey (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]