Jump to content

Talk:Bmibaby/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

BMIbaby & BMI baby

I found articles at both BMIbaby and BMI Baby, so I merged the content here. This was the older article. The www.bmibaby.com site isn't responding, so I can't see what capitalisation is most appropriate.--gadfium 05:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merge from bmi regional

Is bmi regional the same as this? If so, then they should be merged. -- Bovineone 04:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, bmibaby is a low cost airline operating 737s, with their own AOC. bmi regional is a subsiduary of bmi (operating on bmi's AOC) operating with regional jets. wangi 14:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jersey

Should Jersey be put on the International Destination list? It is registered as "International" in Manchester Airport where bmibaby fly from?

The last time I flew from Manchester to Jersey I was sent through the domestic departures security check.
In terms of air travel, Jersey shares all the same regulations as any mainland destination with the exception of customs due to the island been VAT-free (hence you arrive through International Arrivals for customs purposes). You don't need a passport to fly to Jersey and nearly all carriers flying there class it as a domestic destination, and check-in times, frequent flyer points etc are all treated as domestic. --86.137.36.167 (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumours

Is it really necessary to flag up rumours? Why not stick that kind of stuff on Flyertalk or PPrune and concentrate here on facts.

Pronunciation

Should we include how the name is pronounced? I've always said bee-emm-eye-baby and I _think_ that's how I've heard it in airport and on-board announcements but I did catch a radio travel report the other day where the reader said be-my-baby which seems reasonable and the sort of thing the PR hacks would love. --Cavrdg 10:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should. Normal pronunciation is b-m-i-baby. /wangi 10:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I originally thought it was be-my-baby, and that it was a pun. However, it looks like the 'PR hacks' didn't think of it - it's just a coincidence. 144.32.130.132 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Alliance

Recent edits have added categories for BMIbaby being a Star Alliance member. Up to now Bmibaby has not been a member of the alliance, and the statement that just because it co-operates with the bmi Diamond Club that makes it a member of the alliance does not sound right. Can anybody cite anything that show it as proper member of the Star Alliance please. MilborneOne 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary I don't think it is a Star Alliance member. As you say, this has probably come about due to confusion with them now participating with the bmi Diamond Club and offering frequent flyer rewards and redemptions on flights, but it most certainly isn't a Star Alliance member nor can other Star Alliance frequent flyer schemes be used with bmibaby as far as I'm aware. --86.137.36.167 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

article name - again at "bmibaby"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. It is recommended that the article name be left at Bmibaby by removing {{lowercase}} from both the article and the talk page, although within the article "bmibaby" may be used throughout. It is a violation of WP:MOSTM to use all lowercase article names. However, it is noted that editor preference is to break this rule, and hopefully this lack of clarity will not lead to an edit war. If it does, since no actual page move is involved, it is recommended that it be resolved through an RFC or mediation. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the article back under the name "bmibaby" and reverted the redirect changes to match this, since the article consistently uses "bmibaby" as the name of the airline, which is also what the airline itself uses (see its official website). I hope this is not considered controversial, just housekeeping. --Mareklug talk 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As Bmibaby is a name, it should be capitalised. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Dropping in from requested moves. Due to technical restrictions, articles must start with a capital letter. However, you can stick a {{DISPLAYTITLE|bmibaby}} on the page and it will correct the article's title within the page— make sure to get consensus to do so, however. --slakr\ talk / 07:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose the article be moved back to the name "bmibaby". Yes it is a name, but look at the bmibaby website the company clearly says 'bmibaby' now 'Bmibaby' so the article name should be lowercase no capitals. Zaps93 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The website doesn't appear to use capital letters at all. I see no reason to move the article, so Oppose. TJ Spyke 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a move to BMIBaby assuming the name of the company is read that way (i.e., Be-em-aye baby IPA: [ˈbiˈɛmˈaɪˈbeɪbɪ]). Read this section of WP:MOSTM carefully. Both the letter and intent of this are that the title can be read clearly by a general audience that might not know the pronunciation of a the name. The first letter of proper names should be capitalised; If letters are read as initials, they should be capitalised; other letters should not be. Wikipedia is not an advertising partner for this or any other company and using trademark typography is not needed. — AjaxSmack 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a move to BMIBaby. "Bmibaby" as a 3-syllable word is pronounceable, if awkwardly. The "bmi" part seems to be an acronym for "British Midland PLC". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment if you check the bmibaby entry on the CAA website [1] it is all lower case - a look at the registered trademarks is also interesting [2]. MilborneOne (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
MilborneOne is certainly right. This page should move if it is even recognised as 'bmibaby' by the government. Isn't wikipedia suppose to say true facts about things and having 'Bmibaby' is not true therefor it should be changed to 'bmibaby'. Thank You Zaps93 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is technically impossible, because Wikipedia doesn't support such a format. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment. {{lowercase}} at the beginning of the article will display a lowercase letter, see eBay, for example. Technically the decision to use a lowercase first letter is a naming issue, although the actual "move" is simply a matter of adding the template lowercase to the beginning of the article. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, the beloved CAA seem to be inconsistent with their use of bmibaby vs Bmibaby (and BMI/bmi, BMI Regional/bmi regional). Take a look at these search results: [3]. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to bmibaby and oppose move to BMIBaby. Wikipedia should go with the official name, not with the most easily pronounceable one. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support move to bmibaby and oppose move to BMIBaby. Wikipedia has no right to restyle the airline's name. Website clearly shows all lower case[4]. It is a seperate airline to BMI, so that argument is not valid. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "No right"? Says who? As far as I know, Wikipedia is not beholden to any company's typographical policies. See Adidas or Craigslist for examples of companies that spell their names with all lowercase but have article titles with normal capitalisation. — AjaxSmack 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Technical note — should there be consensus to switch the name to "bmibaby," please see my note in the thread directly above this one. --slakr\ talk / 07:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to bmibaby. This is a company name, the fact that they decide to render it in lowercase lettering is irrelevant. This is an encylopdia and as such we use correct English and not pander to the stylistic preferences of the company. A note can be placed in the opening line regarding the styling of the name with lowercase, but that is all. Think about the effect of using lowercase for the name... a sentence would then begin with a lowercase letter, which again is inconsistent with correct English. Look at the examples of other companies given above, such as Adidas. As for the move to BMIBaby, I would Support this. The parent airline BMI is at BMI, not bmi, despite also using all lowercase. Thus as an acronym, the name and article title should actually be BMIbaby. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment to Nouse4aname. Obviously U.K. government means nothing to you. It's clearly shown as 'bmibaby' in lower case, not capital, along with bmi and bmi Regional. Now before you go changing it all back to capital letters, wait for this discussion for a move to close, then what ever is chosen will be used, so until then please leave in lowercase. Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually also to note, why does bmibaby have to be different to eBay? Tell me that. Zaps93 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support move to bmibaby. Good grief... is this what an alleged encyclopedia has come to? "Hello, company, we know you call yourselves 'bmibaby', all supporting evidence is 'bmibaby'... but we're Wikipediots. WE know better what you should be called. Ok, so we've then an article using a non-existent name... but hey we know best." Minkythecat (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:MOSTM supports this move - as it's not IPod or Ipod, but iPod
  • I support some kind of move that introduces a capital letter, as both "BMIbaby" and "Bmibaby" exist in sources and are closer to standard English (in my opinion) than all-lowercase. For what it's worth, "official name" arguments really should have no merit here, unless we're going to also say that "official information" (i.e. press releases) should be used rather than what newspapers do. This is our encyclopedia, not the airline's, and our job is to serve our readers, not their marketing or branding departments. Croctotheface (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the move request because the article had the lowercase tag added, you cant actually move it for technical reasons Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey MilborneOne, would you agree that the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter should stay? I reackon so as eBay is exactly the same plus its the companys actual name using 'bmibaby'. Thank You. Zaps93 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not after more opinions, the comments above supported a move and as far as wikipedia is concerned that has taken place so this discussion has concluded. If you want to change the name to something else other than bmibaby then you really need to start a new topic. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how does the above discussion support a move to bmibaby? No wikipedia guideline or policy has been provided to support such a move, whereas WP:MOSTM clearly supports the use of Bmibaby. A move to BMIBaby was also suggested, also supported by wikipedia guidelines. There is no way that any conclusion can be drawn from the above discussion, and certainly no way any consensus can be ascertained. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia:Name#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
As Nouse4aname suggests I was premature in concluding the discussion (which is about the article title not about the use of lower/uppercase in the article itself). Then I accept that he/she should make the case for not adding the lowercase tag. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Against bmibaby

The template “lowercase” was primarily designed for use with mathematical constants (eg e (mathematical constant)) and not to allow us to use the stylistic preferences of trademark owners. For this reason, bmibaby should be correctly titled Bmibaby. This is supported by WP:MOSTM, which states:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners.

and also by Wikipedia:Name#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise, which states:

Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase…should have standard capitalization

The stylistic rendering of bmibaby as all lowercase can be dealt with in the opening line if required. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is more concerned with the use of correct English, rather than pandering to the stylistic preferences of trademark owners. As for the common name argument, this is for instances where the common name may be different to the official name, and is to ensure the article is located at the most logical location (eg. Bill Clinton over William Jefferson Clinton). Bmibaby and bmibaby are the same search term, and thus common name does not apply. We use correct capitalization, and do not alter that for anyone. That is the point to remember. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this really matters, but please see links below for evidence of common usage of Bmibaby (and also BMI, not bmi and BMI Regional not bmi regional):

Here is evidence that even BMIBaby is correct

The fact that some outlets use bmibaby and others use Bmibaby while yet others use BMIBaby is largely irrelevant. It does however show that there is no consistent use of one particular formatting, and thus no one method can be overwhelmingly declared to be the common name. For this reason wikipedia has its own house rules for capitalisation, which have been clearly stated above. Company names are capitalised regardless of the preferences of the trademark owner. Why this is so hard to understand, I do not know. There are countless examples of these rules being implemented in wikipedia (see Adidas, Craigslist, EasyJet, First Direct etc]]). I trust that this can finally be the end of this discussion, given the support presented for the consistent capitalisation. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the common name (WP:COMMONNAME) argument is being quoted to support the use of bmibaby over Bmibaby. First of all, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the use of lowercase lettering is by any means the common name, with all versions used throughout various reliable sources. Furthermore, it would seem that even if WP:COMMONNAME supported bmibaby, this would be in direct opposition to the policy of Wikipedia:Name#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise. So, with two policies apparently contradicting one another, which is correct? Well, reading the wording of WP:COMMONNAME shows that

Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things...

Now the important part here is the first part of the sentence "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication". Now clearly the policy here gives a different indication as to what the name should be, and thus COMMONNAME directs us to follow correct English capitalisation rules. Besides which, this does not matter as there is insufficient evidence to suggest that bmibaby is any more a common name that Bmibaby. This guideline primarily exists for where there are two different possible search terms (eg Bill Clinton vs William Jefferson Clinton) and explains which of the two search terms the article should be located at. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The links you supplied are utterly irrelevant. A company name, funnily enough, isn't determined by how newspapers refer to it. The company name is, gasp, the name of the company. If you can provide some evidence the company itself uses the terms you want, then great. I somehow suspect you won't be able to. Which thus means you want to cite "standards" for giving a company an incorrect name. How... encyclopedic. Minkythecat (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Correct, newspapers are usually rubbish at getting correct names, aircraft types and pictures correct. He is right, check the website and you will not find anything referring to the airline as 'BMIBaby' or 'Bmibaby' but instead you will find 'bmibaby'. So yes, this is encyclopedic. Zaps93 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you for real? These links are entirely relevant. They specifically state how to deal with company names that are styled with a lowercase letter (see Adidas for example.). This is an encyclopedia. Companies are free to style their name how they like, but when we refer to them in the encyclopedia, we capitalise the name, because that is what correct English tells us to to, and yes, gasp, what the wikipedia guidelines and policy explicitly state. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Or are you referring to the links to BBC etc? If so, then you are partially correct, they are not entirely relevant. What is relevant is what wikipedia policy states on the matter (which I have summarised above). The point of the links I provided was to prove that BMI and Bmibaby are not always referred to as bmi or bmibaby in reliable sources, thus the WP:COMMONNAME argument cannot apply here. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Also to poke a hole in your theory, I was reading WP:MOSTM and I found this
  • avoid: EBay is where he bought his IPod.
  • instead, use: eBay is where he bought his iPod.

This therefor shows that bmibaby is relevant, bmi is ok, and bmi Regional. Zaps93 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. eBay and iPod are given as two named and explicit exceptions to the guideline WP:MOSTM and the naming policy Wikipedia:Name#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise. Everything else is covered by these guidelines and policies. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Supporting bmibaby

  • I support bmibaby due to the fact that it can be used at the start of the company name if the company is starting with a lowercase or an uppercase. Evidence of this here eBay, they use the lowercase technique. Of course wikipedia states it should be Bmibaby but wikipedia also states that all articles must be true and not false facts, due to this bmibaby is the true name, the name of the airline, the name government recognises it and the name that the British public recognises. I'm not saying you are wrong, but what I am saying is that wikipedia must show the true name of bmibaby not the false, misleading name 'Bmibaby'. If there is a discussion area in WP:MOSTM to have it so that company names start with lowercase in real world then I would put my point there. What I'm trying to say is please understand that people need to know the true facts about the airline and that they actually are called bmibaby as uppercase is false information about the airline and wikipedia uses true information. Thanks, Zaps93 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Please state specifically which wikipedia policy or guideline supports the use of bmibaby over Bmibaby, not just your own opinion. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, please state which Wikipedia rule that you claim supports the lowercase version. See WP:MOSTM: Wikipedia does not support special typographical features designed to make a tradename conspicuous for advertisory reasons. I am a Wikipedia administrator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:MOSTM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter states that as B-M-I are pronounced as seperate letters in bmibaby, then the name should indeed be lower case. It is comparable to the examples given, eBay and iPod. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Not at all. In those cases there is only a single letter pronounced as a separate entity, whereas here there are three. See above for the proposal for BMIBaby, which addresses the pronounciation of all three letters separately. eBay and iPod have been accepted into general English usage, whereas bmibaby has not. The overwhelming weight of wikipedia guideline and policy favours the use of Bmibaby, BMI and BMI Regional. I think this discussion has been exhausted now surely? Nouse4aname (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite what it says in the guideline it appears reasonable widespread to use the lowercase template on many hundreds of tradename articles including the following airlines airBaltic, airblue, buzz (airline), transavia.com, dauair, easyJet Switzerland, airtransse and it was used on easyjet until Nouse4aname removed it yesterday. So I would suggest that it is common practice and the guideline really needs looking at not this article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, other articles do it so this one should too. It is not the guideline/policy that is at fault here, but its implementation. These articles can be changed in due course to reflect the correct use of the policy, plenty of articles exits that correctly do not use the lowercase template despite the name being formatted as such. The policy is quite clear that we use standard English capitalisation, and not pander to the stylistic preferences of a company's logo. Nouse4aname (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and it should be followed except where common sense warrants an exception". Common sense would indicate that the principle for iPod is the same as for bmibaby. Minkythecat (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How? They are not the same. eBay and iPod are allowed because the second letter is capitalised instead of the first. So are you proposing bMibaby? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You also ignore the naming policy here, which clearly states to ignore any special formatting or styling of names or brands. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I can see the "common sense" point isn't going to fly ( pun intended ). Minkythecat (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Evidently not by some, as common sense would indicate following guidelines and policies that have been extensively discussed and agreed upon... The reason why iPod and eBay are allowed is explicitly stated in the guideline and policy, and clearly does not apply to Bmibaby. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
They are allowed as they meet the criteria. They are, gasp, examples. Or are you stupid enough to believe they are the only examples that matches, eh? Still, I think we've now grasped you need to have everything written down, in triplicate and must obey by every "rule". 16:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:Civil before you call me stupid again, and then read again why iPod and eBay are allowed. They have a one letter lowercase prefix. Bmibaby does not have any prefix. It is a name that has been styled in lowercase, but under correct English is capitalised. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Try reading. You were not called stupid; I enquired if you were. Big difference, kiddo. Now, "baby" is a word. "bmi" is an acronym used as a prefix in the company name. I realise it's a difficult point to grasp, but you're boldly stating "it only says one therefore it can only ever be one". I'm taking the far more logical, common sense view that the spirit of the policy / guideline is not being infringed by it being "bmibaby". I know you've a history of edit warring which makes the blind dogmatism... interesting. Minkythecat (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure?

OK, so there comes a time when one side must admit defeat, and I feel that time is now. No compelling evidence has been presented to support the use of bmi over BMI, bmibaby over Bmibaby or bmi regional over BMI regional. Wikipedia policy and guideline is quite clear on the matter however, and supports the full capitalisation of these names as both article titles and throughout the body of text. The fact that other articles incorrectly use the lowercase template is irrelevant, and they will be corrected. eBay and iPod are explicit exceptions to the rule and do not support the argument for lowercase as explained ad nauseum above. I will wait a day or so longer, but then I am going to restore the pages to the capitalised versions and expect not to be reverted. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And you've gained consensus here? Have you really? "expect not to be reverted"... how arrogant a statement to make. eBay and iPod are NOT explicit exceptions, they are two EXAMPLES of where exceptions are to be made. There's little difference between the words as they are pronounced... i pod, e bay, b m i baby. Minkythecat (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
What you expect? Nouse4aname like to have his own way! He's already be banned twice for edit wars, so look what he doing now, same thing again! pathetic! OPEN YOUR EYES Nouse4aname and realise its bmibaby! Not your favoured BMIBaby. Zaps93 (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is not gained by counting votes, but by weighing up the arguments for and against. Bmibaby is supported by policy and guidelines - bmibaby is not. iPod and eBay are exceptions because the second letter is capitalised. Which letter do you propose we capitalise in bmibaby, other than the initial "B"? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The eBay and iPod examples are covered by "Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules" (emphasis added). Now, does Bmibaby start with a one-letter lowercase prefix? No. Therefore standard capitalisation rules apply. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Should it also add then "oh, and two, three etc letter lowercase prefixes for those pedants who, if they acted this way at school, probably found their heads flushed in the toilets"? Minkythecat (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Constructive argument. Well done. Read WP:Civil again please. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." We are trying to improve WP by reflecting the airline's real name as designated by the airline. Your rule prevents us from doing that. Therefore, we are to ignore it. Overwhelming support enforces our case. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The TIME and ROLEX appoint doesn't apply here. It's a differnt style and noone is implying that the company's name is BMIBABY. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy prevents us from improving Wikipedia because it wants us to use an incorrect style. The company decides its name, not Wikipedia. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A company can decide its name but not English usage. Ignoring all rules does not improve the encyclopedia because "bmibaby" does not reasonably show how to read the word and does not reflect usage (outside the company's own promotional materials). If you want to ignore rules, why not ignore arbitrary corporate diktats on English spelling instead. — AjaxSmack 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure again

Could all users please simply indicate their preference taking into account the above points raised. We aim to close this argument and bring about a decision. Please sign under the following heading with your simple reason - please do not debate under this section (All previous participants notified of this poll survey. — AjaxSmack 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)):

Move to bmibaby

I actually wrote an essay about this line of argument: WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE. The guideline exists to say "render nonstandard trademarks in standard English." You are essentially arguing that the guideline should be ignored wherever it would be applied, as you seem to believe that it is never correct to render nonstandard trademarks in standard English. You are not proposing an exception to the guideline based on this being an exceptional case; you are saying the guideline and the consensus behind it should be ignored because you think it's wrong. Croctotheface (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - As the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority has the airline designated as bmibaby dont you think that that is how it should be placed? awkwardwalker (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkwardwalker (talk • contribs)
  • Support. Wiki must be true to its readers and faithfully present information as it exists, not how someone wants it to be because of pov. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to BMIBaby

Move to Bmibaby

  • Support seems to be what WP:MOSTM supports, and there is no difference between this name and bmibaby, except this one is technically correct, and the lowercase is software replaced with an uppercase B all the time anyways, so it's not a real option. ({{lowercase}} is not a move request, the article remains at the capital B location in both cases) 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I don't mean to disregard Alex's vision for this section to be a streamlined space, but I think it's rather striking that every single editor who supports all-lowercase is invoking IAR, and not only invoking it, they seem to be misinterpreting it as some kind of directive that rules MUST be ignored at all times. The comment that seems to suggest that "turning Wikipedia into an encyclopedia" is a bad thing also troubles me greatly, considering that this IS an encyclopedia and that editors should strive to make it the best possible encyclopedia it can be. As I said above about "official name" arguments, if we are to privilege what the company wants over what independent sources do and what serves our readers best, then we need to reject reliable independent sources and only use press releases, as they are "official information." Croctotheface (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be better satisfied if WP:IAR could be justified vis-à-vis other articles which adhere to this section of WP:MOSTM such as Adidas (adidas), Craigslist (craigslist), Time (TIME), or Realtor (REALTOR®). WP:IAR is not even currently being advocated for this airline's parent, BMI (bmi). — AjaxSmack 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that if say a newspaper says "BMI Baby" that then trumps the companies name? The name the company is registered as at Company House on official documentation? Really? The "press releases" meme is precisely that - nobody is advocating a company POV puff article. Just getting the name correct. Minkythecat (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So just because Wikipedia needs to give some kind of indication on the pronunciation, it decides to fabricate a name? Let's change London to Lundun then shall we? If its pronunciation you're worried about, IPA can be added to the article. We are also not talking about Adidas or any other company, nor are we POV pushing. We are trying to give an article its proper name as given by its company - that's why we can ignore all rules. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone point to the wiki rule that says we cannot faithfully and accurately spell the registered name of a company unless it starts with a capital letter? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It really sounds like you're not listening to what I said. The notion that "official name"/"faithfully" (apparently faithful to the company, not to our readers) and on and on should be the deciding factor here flies in the face of the notion that this encyclopedia exists for the benefit of our readers, not the company. It's jarring to have proper names spelled without a capital; it's more difficult to read. Furthermore, I suspect that the full "official" name of this company could be something like "bmibaby(TM), a subsidiary of BMI, LLC." Would it not be more "official" and "faithful" to type that entire phrase out every single time? If you're willing to abbreviate it for the sake of making things easier on the reader, why are you unwilling to capitalize, as several news organizations have chosen to do?
For the sake of our readers, our practice as described in MOSTM is to standardize odd stylistic decisions when such styles exist in the sources. This is an important point, too: we don't "fabricate" as an editor above suggested; the company's name is rendered several ways in the sources, and our job as editors is to decide which one is best to use in our encyclopedia. Using lowercase instead of title case is a stylistic/typographic matter, not a matter of the name. The alternative rule that you seem to be proposing is "do whatever the company wants." Think about how that rule would work if we applied it to ANYTHING else, like article content. Company press releases are "official sources"; they are "faithful" to what the company says about itself. Croctotheface (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

right

Get off the grass. The first duty we have to our readers is to be accurate. What on earth are you trying to say with "the company's name is rendered several ways in the sources". There is one clear authority on how it is rendered, and you can see it at right. If the company says its name is bmibaby, then that's what it is, and your other "sources" are well and truly trumped. Note that BusinessWeek has no problem with all lowercase. I am still waiting for someone to point to the wiki rule that says we cannot faithfully and accurately spell the registered name of a company unless it starts with a capital letter. I might add too that your response here has convinced me to support bmibaby. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope you one day learn that it's possible to make an argument without attacking someone with an uncivil remark. If you somehow lack the capacity to understand the very plain language of WP:MOSTM, that is not my problem. It says that trademarks, such as company names, should be capitalized, regardless of what the trademark owner does. Croctotheface (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope you one day learn that WP:MOSTM is subject to the following -- "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy" and "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.", both of which are stated on WP:IAR. If you somehow lack the capacity to understand the very plain language of WP:IAR, that is not my problem. Hope that isn't an attack. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
IAR is not a blank check. If you think it is, you misunderstand IAR. Croctotheface (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Because firms using unusual typographical features in their names are trying to make those names conspicuous for advertizing, and Wikipedia is not a servant of anybody's advertizing department. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So you're happy to go with an incorrect name because you feel it's advertising? Should the company change it's name to appease you? Minkythecat (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No-one is trying to advertise anything! You could then say eBay is used instead of Ebay as a marketing tool, but we allow that. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry just had to point out that the fact that tens of thousands of products and services have articles on wikipedia I dont think a fairly minor point like the case of the lettering is making wikipedia a servant of anybodies advertising department. And whatever the outcome of this discussion the large image of bmibaby (all in lowercase) in the infobox will still be present. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
His point is that the reason that companies choose to use nonstandard typography such as this is for marketing/branding/advertising. They do this because nonstandard styles are eye-catching; they tend to attract more attention from the reader than styles rendered in title case as regular old names. The reader is better served if he is NOT distracted in this way. The notion of "real name" or "official name" or whatever else can easily be solved by referring to the nonstandard typography in the article lead. If the concern is really for what's "official," shouldn't we always reproduce "Inc" or "LLC" or "a wholly-owned but independently managed subsidiary of" as well? They are part of the legal name as well, no? Croctotheface (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How in God's name is bmibaby more distracting than BMIbaby or Bmibaby? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I haven't consulted any religious texts, but it's more jarring because proper names start with capital letters. Croctotheface (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, seems to be a lot of wand waving and policy-wonking... For the parent airline there is a good argument that BMI should be used because it's fairly clear that the lowercase bmi is a branding exercise. Likewise for bmi Regional. However bmibaby has never been know as anything else, it has never had the BMI capitalised in anyway. The company name is "bmibaby" and I don't think it is refered to as BMIBaby anywhere. By using BMIBaby a selection of guidelines would be being put ahead of common usage - and isn't the overriding point of our naming guidelines to reflect common names? /wangi (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And lets also remember we're not here to be guardians of the English language... /wangi (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about some kind of abstract notion of "guarding" the language; it's about using a style that best serves our readers. Would you agree that a company that regarded writing its name in a huge font or a collection of different colors "official" should not be indulged? That said, if you want to present evidence that "bmibaby" is so overwhelmingly prevalent in sources that it is in effect the standard way to render the name, I think that's at least a reasonable argument under the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not getting dragged into this too much - it should be obvious from my comment that I see merit in "BMI" rather than "bmi"; however in the case of "bmibaby" the clear common use is the lowercase rendering - it just so happens that is also the official name, the name used with the CAA and also the airline themself for branding. Remember WP:NAME - "Use the most easily recognized name: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. ". Thanks/wangi (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The above arguments are all interesting but I'm still waiting to see if anyone can tell me why WP:IAR applies to this article but not others that mentioned in this section of WP:MOSTM such as Adidas (adidas), or Craigslist (craigslist) or BMI (bmi) itself. Well? — AjaxSmack 02:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Adidas Logo.svg File:BMI logo.svg

Read this

I do not care what you name the page; however, once again, you cannot move the page to "bmibaby." It is impossible to do from a technical standpoint. You can move the page to BMIBaby, and you can make the page appear as "bmibaby" by placing {{lowercase}} on the page while it is named Bmibaby it if there is consensus for it; however, you cannot actually move the page to "bmibaby." Article records in the database must always begin with a capital letter.

Please see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter for more information.

--slakr\ talk / 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I have requested a third opinion. Please do not argue in this section until an outside editor has commented on the situation. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sum up: Dispute on whether to rename as bmibaby or BMIBbaby. Main arguement for BMIBaby is that as B-M-I are pronounced as seperate letters, it should be reflected. Main argument for bmibaby is that's how the airline itself is named[7].

I know you're try to help, but that's not really the purpose of Third Opinion. There are many editors discussing this issue on this page; Third Opinion is meant for when a very small (as in normally 2) editors are at loggerheads. /wangi (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand that but there is pretty much an equally amount of editors on both sides and we're getting nowhere fast. A 3O can do no harm. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Consider that I'm only here because of a note left on my talk page. I'm a third opinion, reluctantly discussing the issue. /wangi (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
But bmibaby is technically impossible on Wikipedia, so it's not a true option, it's only a markup hack, the real name remains at Bmibaby. It's not even a move request, since the page doesn't need to be moved to add {{lowercase}}. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Starting sentence with lowercase

There are several sentences in the article that start with "bmibaby". It should be noted that this is not recommended. It is recommended that each such sentence be re-arranged to start with an upper case letter. See the example at WP:MOSTM. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, the whole Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy supports this. The discussion clearly show's we move the page to bmibaby. So when this is done this discussion should be closes until the company changes' their coporate image or name. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading people opinion I agree the page cannot be moved but in response to this the page should have {{lowercase}} added at the top to allow it to look as such. Best Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
So we agree that the page is not to be moved but {{lowercase}} is applied? Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, due to the fact a 'Move to bmibaby' was chosen most but this cannot be done, {{lowercase}} should be applied. So yes, this is decided. Regards Zaps93 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
To support this, there were 8 - Move to bmibaby, 5 Move to BMIBaby. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, read the closing comments. The recommendation was to leave it at Bmibaby but to use bmibaby throughout the article (the only other option suggested was to move to BMIBaby). WP:IAR is not a license to ignore every rule, but more like if you show up at the airport and there is a big zigzag roped off place for a queue, but no one in it, you don't have to zigzag but can just go straight to the counter. There was no consensus, and there was significant and well reasoned opposition to using {{lowercase}}. I would recommend trying it without {{lowercase}}. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


The fact is that Wikipedia:Name#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise directs us to use the capitalised version of the name for the article title. This is wikipedia policy, to which WP:IAR does not apply - we cannot simply ignore policy when we feel like it. As for the use throughout the article, "editor preference" has no impact on this. WP:MOSTM is quite clear as to how a trademark that is rendered with no capital letters should be presented "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized". Now for those of you trying to invoke WP:IAR, you cannot just say, we can ignore all rules so we should. You must provide valid reasoning why we should ignore community consensus in this situation, whereas apply it in other situations exactly like this, for example Adidas, Craigslist, First Direct and even another airline Air Europe. Counting votes for and against a particular style, particularly when the numbers are so close (8 to 5 is hardly a majority), means nothing. "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons". The fact that the company style their logo in lowercase is dealt with by stating this in the opening sentence and showing the logo in the infobox. From thereon in, the name should be capitalised under correct English. The assertion that the CAA use bmibaby, so we should too is nonsense. They are inconsistent with their usage of the styling (see these search results [8]). Different outlets have different house rules for formatting such names. Wikipedia's house rule is to capitalise the name. WP:IAR cannot be applied just because you disagree. You must explain how applying these well-discussed and agreed upon policies and guidelines is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and thus how ignoring these rules will improve the encyclopedia. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern

I am also a little concerned with User:Joey_Boeing_777 and User:Zaps93. The overlap in these editors contibutions is rather intriguing. Both are Welsh. Both primarily edit airline related articles. Joey_Boeing's last edit (prior to contributing to the above discussion) was Feb 14 2009 [9]. Zaps93 registered on this same date [10]. Now I am making no accusations, but these coincidences concern me a little, given both editor's participation in the "vote" above. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Either file a sockpuppet report or retract your attempt to poison the well. Minkythecat (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. I am waiting for Zaps or Joey to explain the situation. I feel no need to go rushing to file a sockpuppet report if there is an innocent explanation. Surely you can accept that the coincidences I have described may raise a few eyebrows? Nouse4aname (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Then contact them on their talk pages if you want an explanation - although it's arrogant to expect them to have to explain anything to you. You feel no need to file a report yet feel the need to express your concerns whilst "making no accustions". Interesting. Minkythecat (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No need to contact me, I have no idea who Joey is, yes I'm Welsh and so is he/she. The matter of fact is there are thousands of people who use wikipedia therefor more than 1 person can be Welsh. So stop saying I have two accounts as it is not true, I personally have never seen a reason to own two. So try contacting Joey and see if he/she replies as I am certainly a different person. Best Regards. Just too add aswell, it seems you are trying to get at me now just because I wanted to name an airline page the proper name of the airline, in this case bmibaby, if this is the case I ask of you to call it a truce, I will admit I went abit too far but the matter of fact is, I only want to give the readers a true name. Thank You, Zaps93 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary

To attempt to summarise the arguments so far, I am going to arrange them in list format here. Please don't add discussion in between points on the list! Nouse4aname (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bmibaby

bmibaby

For God's sake, I thought we came to a sensible decision. No rename but use {{lowercase}}. Can't we just leave it? It wasn't my preferred option but it's a good compromise. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because that is not the decision that was reached. Try reading above...

Um, read the closing comments. The recommendation was to leave it at Bmibaby but to use bmibaby throughout the article (the only other option suggested was to move to BMIBaby). WP:IAR is not a license to ignore every rule, but more like if you show up at the airport and there is a big zigzag roped off place for a queue, but no one in it, you don't have to zigzag but can just go straight to the counter. There was no consensus, and there was significant and well reasoned opposition to using {{lowercase}}. I would recommend trying it without {{lowercase}}. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't rename the page to include a lowercase initial letter, that's why the lowercase template could be used. However the suggestion was that the article title should remain at Bmibaby (no lowercase templated) but use lowercase in the main body. This however was no formal closure and the use of bmibaby in the article is still up for debate. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than starting another circular debate perhaps the compromise should be the use of {{lowercase}} for the article title and use standard english rules in the article (correct capitalisation in sentences etc). MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
So you propose the use of Bmibaby throughout the article, regardlessof where it occurs in a sentence? But with the article title located at bmibaby (ie, Bmibaby with the lowercase template). Sorry to reword what you said, just want to be absolutely clear! Nouse4aname (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is correct I thought that would be a reasonable compromise. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that's pretty good and fair. Correct grammar will be preserved in sentences, but the article title will show the airline's preferred formatting. I'd agree to that. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fine compromise, too. The main problem with weird styles like all lowercase is the effect they have on the prose/text. The article title isn't really wrapped up in any of that. Croctotheface (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well there seems to be no opposition to this proposal, so I suggest we go with it. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, you can do whatever you want. The point is just don't edit war over it, but the recommendation is the opposite, use Bmibaby for the article title and use bmibaby throughout the article, just being careful not to start any sentences with it. Frankly you are going to get a lot less complaints that way. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's besides the point. The above compromise addresses the issue of using standard English capitalisation in the mainbody of the text, which is the primary concern. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:04, 23

March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bmibaby/Archive_1&oldid=1090475231"