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. Editors agree that in this case MOS:CAPS supports capitalisation (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global War Party → Global war party – Per MOS:CAPS GnocchiFan (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not seeing what part of MOS:CAPS speaks to the move as suggested. The section on proper names suggests to go with what would be most familiar to users [from other sources], and most of the sources in this document appear to capitalize the term. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The conspiracy theory argues that "Global War Party" is the name of an organization, so MOS:CAPS (specifically the section at MOS:INSTITUTIONS) would instead support keeping it capitalized. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  what about quotation marks? Zlad! (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not, at least in the title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah not in the article, but what about the rest of the article? Zlad! (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This topic seems a bit special, and I'm not sure I can provide a confident answer, but some relevant comments can perhaps be found at WP:FRINGE, MOS:CONFORM and MOS:SCAREQUOTES. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Georgian officials should explain how does an organization name themselves that.

  So are they stupid? Are they revealing their ideology to others?!

  I believe it's what Georgian officials call their imaginary enemies. Not what those call themselves. Aminabzz (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah it doesn't take a genius to realize this is all in their heads. Zlad! (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think it should be capitalized, however I am unsure whether it should be left as just Global War Party, or 'Global War Party', or "Global War Party". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlad! (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:TSC, we shouldn't use quotation marks in the title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah obviously, I'm just asking which of the three should we use.

  Global War Party

  'Global War Party'

  "Global War Party" Zlad! (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As other people said also, this is a proper name and capitalized. It does not make sense otherwise because I don't think there's such thing as "war party" outside of this conspiracy cabal, at least not what this means in Georgian language. In Georgian in this context "partia" does not have many meanings beside political party or organization.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Notice that quite a few of the cited sources use lowercase. It's a concept, not a proper name of anything. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Although there is a mixed use of capitals/non-capitals and indeed one could think this is more of a mental (warped) "concept" rather than an actual name, the English language government outlet Agenda.ge and other English languaged outlets do use the capitalized version, such as OC-Media and Civil Georgia. Not to mention the Government of Georgia itself in released statements (however, it is fair to note that in transcripts of press briefings, the lower case variant is used). I would consider this proposed move a WP:AINT. --Labrang (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—Who's going to cap "Moon landing" conspiracy? Tony (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But moon landing is not fictional organization, it is just an event, so not very good for comparison.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Not a proper name; there is no such actual party by this name, and it is not the title of a published work, but a random conspiracy theory about and term of denigration toward a generalized class of ideological enemies, which makes it exactly the same as "the swamp", "libtards", "godless communists", "republicrats", "right wingnuts", "the steal", and other bullshitty labeling. Random WP:FRINGE topics, including conspiracy-theoretical nonsense, are not capitalized "flat earth", "Jeffrey Eppstein didn't kill himself", "Obama truthers", "the Moon landing was faked", "the CIA killed JFK", "healing power of crystals", etc., etc., etc. Beliefs in general are not capitalized. This must be lower-cased per MOS:CAPS (including MOS:DOCTCAPS) and WP:NCCAPS. See MOS:CAPS's lead in particular: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia (emphasis in original). This term is routinely given in lower-case in source material, and most capitalizations of it are in the context of quoting statements of pushers of the conspiracy theory (and are usually in "scare quotes" as 'Global War Party' or "Global War Party", indicating that the writers are using the term in a tongue-in-cheek manner) [1]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "there is no such actual party by this name", but well according to conspiracy it is an actual party, there is no other meaning in how this word is used in local language.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• do you support using ' ' or " " or neither and just lowercase? Zlad! (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This is an overreactive reading of policy. Wikipedia doesn't refuse to capitalize Loch Ness Monster just because it doesn't exist. 122141510 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The subject is a conspiracy party about a supposed organization -- if it was being used to refer to a general concept of people in favor of war in would be one thing, but it is describing a specific entity. That the entity does not actually exist is not relevant when it comes to the titling guidelines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This whole debate is getting ridiculous. It's clearly not the name of an organization. Waqar💬 15:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]