Talk:Elsevier Biobase

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Elsevier Biobase is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

title discussion

The correct title for this database is here [1]. Moving the page here appears to be incorrect. Also these do not appear to be two differenct databases. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personally, I disagree--the short form is the usual name by which it is known. See the way it is listed at the distributors of the dbase, Dialog, and STN; the publisher's own listings &references : e.g. [2], other publishers, e.g. [3] as well as listings by libraries, e.g. [4] . DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG that seems to solve the puzzle. There is one of your links that does not use the short form [5]. But it appears that a superior majority of listings use the short form. So I guess the speedy delete may proceed. As usual DGG drops in with a defining response. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears to me that Elsevier BIOBASE, and BIOBASE are two different databases. Is this correct? Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've renamed the German company to BIOBASE (Company) and expanded a disam note for each. Strange that there was not trademark litigation over this--it would appear to me a clear case of conflict. The histories of each are quite complicated, and the articles need expansion in different directions. Most of the parts of the Elsevier one were earlier published by Cambridge Scientific; I co-authored a long review of that version. I knew one of the parts of the German one when it was published by Incyte. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier BIOBASE → Elsevier Biobase – Per MOS:TMRULES: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". Ground Zero | t 22:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Ground Zero | t 22:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User:Ground Zero, nom support is implied. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As far as I can tell it's not an acronym, so support per MoS. benmoore 14:38, 15 October 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.