For the discussion of the Close, see WP:Move review/Log/2019 June § Further debate - The close did not follow RMCI. |
For the discussion in the Move Review, see Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 June § Summary discussion. |
For the original responses to the summary, see WP:Move review/Log/2019 June § Summary discussion. |
The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move. The nominator submitted this move request just 11 weeks after the previous one and is reminded that the policy states: "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one."— Fuzheado
The result of the move request was: No consensus.— Fuzheado
WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest: "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request."
"same closer closing is not appropriate"(Born2cycle)
"It is not OK to close two contested RMs on the same page"(SmokeyJoe)
For the evaluation of each individual argument, see User:Aron Manning/737 Max RM § Discussion. |
The close did not evaluate the arguments, thus ignored the closing instructions WP:RMCI: "Consensus is determined [...] by evaluating [the] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly [...]."
The close comment "The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move."
shows the result is based on a head-count.
The previous close comment has no explanation for the "no consensus" at all: The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado
.
According to WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious"
. The close counted all the votes, failing to evaluate the arguments made. An evaluation shows, most votes are based on the false assumption: the correct name is the official. The intro of WP:OFFICIAL makes it clear this is not the case: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one."
Presented here is Evidence [...] limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
, as required by WP:MRV.
Claim: the opposing arguments, however numerous, do not make sound arguments for the "Boeing 737 MAX" title. This is explained here in general and with further detail in [the notes at each argument].
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one."These !votes contradict WP:TITLETM based on that false assumption. — WP:NHC:
"discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy"applies. — Marked with
"discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those based on personal opinion only"— Marked with
"discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
"discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
"discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
Some arguments are ambiguous in the RM, therefore it's categorization is also ambiguous. The [evaluation of individual arguments] can be discussed, and improvements suggested on the [associated talk page].
"Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks". "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)".— Marked with
"Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case".—
From among "styles already in use by independent reliable sources", "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."—
I could not find any opposing !vote, that makes a sound argument to oppose WP:TITLETM policy. Following WP:RMCI and WP:NHC, the resulting consensus is very different from the close that is reviewed. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Presented here is Evidence [...] limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion.
, as required by WP:MRV. This evidence shows most of the numerous opposing arguments made were logical fallacies, misunderstanding of policy, and false assumptions.
The supporting arguments (most notably DonFB's) clearly show that WP:TITLETM policy applies and explicitly instructs to use standard English capitalization ("Boeing 737 Max") for trademarks (it is a trademark: Uspto, archive): "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks [...]. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)"
.
The exemption to the policy "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark."
does not apply, as the prevalence of "MAX" cannot be demonstrated:
Although this list can be extended, it is clear at this point that the choice of sources to count cannot be made objectively, therefore "MAX" being more common cannot be demonstrated, leaving WP:TITLETM policy in full effect. For the same reason WP:COMMONNAME (referenced once, mistakenly in the context of the "official" source, not WP:IRS) does not apply.
The 2 guidelines also support this result. MOS:ALLCAPS: "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks"
, and MOS:TM: "editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."
There was and will be debate about WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline overruling WP:TITLETM policy. Those arguments are based on dubious claims, like:
WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline gives no instructions regarding marketing stylization / capitalization, nor states that WP:TITLETM should be ignored. It's focus is on a higher level: the structure and words included in the article title, not the writing style, therefore both WP:TITLETM and WP:NCAIRCRAFT can be applied at the same time without conflict. There are opinion-based counter-arguments to this.
As shown above, the policy and guidelines clearly favor the "Boeing 737 Max" title. Closing the MR with "no consensus" would just result in another Move Requests, until the policy is properly applied, thus wasting more time of wikipedians. Based on the sound arguments supporting the move and the lack thereof in opposing votes, consensus can be determined in favor of the move.
WP:RMCI: "the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere."
Source: Requested move discussion — 25 May 2019
The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move. The nominator submitted this move request just 11 weeks after the previous one and is reminded that the policy states: "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one." Fuzheado | Talk 10:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
– Per WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". Here is a non-exhaustive list of reliable sources that use the spelling "Max": BBC Bloomberg CNBC CNN The Guardian The Hill Los Angeles Times New York Times NPR Seattle PI Sydney Morning Herald The Times of London USA Today Washington Post Calidum 04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Note T WP:TITLETM
Note T WP:TITLETM
Note T The result was no result (no consensus), thus this is a logical fallacy.
Note A WP:ALLCAPS.
Note P,M personal preference. MAX is not uppercase max?
Note O,B,M,P,N 1.
"the correct way", "for me the official designation by the manufacturer should be used": WP:OFFICIAL:"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."2. There are ca. 13+ RS using standard English capitalization ("Max": The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...), and 9+ using official ("MAX"). 3. "737 MAX" is a trademark (Uspto, archive). WP:TITLETM policy explicitly instructs to use title case ("737 Max") for trademarks. The argument reads something else into TITLETM. 4. Personal preference. Designation is actually "737-?" - ref, designator is "B3?M" for "737 Max ?". 5. WP:NCAIRCRAFT ("the same reason as last time").
Note T,S WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM
Note M The WP:TITLETM exception requires
"the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.". Official sources are not independent reliable sources (misunderstanding of WP:TITLETM). There are two common usages "Max" and "MAX", in too many WP:IRS (9+ using "MAX", 13+ using "Max") to objectively say one is the most common, thus "Max"/"MAX" is not exempt from TITLETM.
Note T,S WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM
Note T,S WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note M,O 1. "Commonly recognizable name" is independent from the official name. WP:COMMONNAME:
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title"(misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME). 2. WP:OFFICIAL.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL
Note O WP:OFFICIAL / no reasoning.
Note S,A MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS
Note O WP:OFFICIAL
Note A,S MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:TM
Note O WP:OFFICIAL
Note M,B While prioritization of sources is not the concern of WP:TITLETM policy, it's clear about the exemption only applies if
"the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.". As there are numerous sources using both (roughly equal), and the choice of prioritized sources can tip the balance either way, it cannot be neutrally and objectively demonstrated that "MAX" is the most common usage, therefore the policy applies:"Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks [...]."This requires the use of standard English capitalization (title caps for proper names): "Boeing 737 Max". (The argument misinterprets WP:TITLETM.) * there are 13+ long-standing WP:IRS using "Max": (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...). * there are 9+ long-standing WP:IRS listed, using "MAX": Reuters, WSJ, Seattle Times, Aviation Week, The Economist, Al Jazeera, Forbes, Marketwatch, Time
* Aviation media is prioritized by some opposers. "MAX" is not most common usage in those either: * 2 using "Max": The Air Current, Aviation International News * 2 using "MAX": Aviation Week, Aviation Herald ("737 MAX" only in the article; uses designator "B78M" in the title)
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note N Good argument, but unsound: WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline says nothing about stylization / capitalization, however the WP:TITLETM policy is explicitly in favor of the standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max". WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline in 2011: Never stated that all caps stylization is preferable and WP:TITLETM policy should be ignored.
Note F,P 1. For WP:COMMONNAME "it's okay either way", as roughly the same number of WP:IRS uses both (9+ using "MAX", 13+ using "Max"). Non-decisive. 2. "should not be swayed by trademarking, etc. over policy" supports WP:TITLETM ("Boeing 737 Max") 3. "I think the use of MAX, [...], is better": Personal opinion contradicting previous arguments (logical fallacy). 4. "Boeing's headspace/marketing" implies WP:NCCAPS:
[...] "Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions are [...] drawing primarily upon academic style, not journalistic or marketing/business styles", and MOS:ALLCAPS:"Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks". 5. 2 arguments support the move, 1 is non-conclusive, 1 is logical fallacy. Why is this an "oppose" vote?
Note P no argument / personal preference.
Note P no argument / personal preference.
Note P no argument / personal preference.
Note T WP:TITLETM
Note O WP:OFFICIAL.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note O 1. WP:OFFICIAL. 2. No other guideline referred, but might suggest WP:COMMONNAME:
Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". 3. Which sources matter is personal preference. The sources listed only demonstrate one side, and lack reliability: official sources and airlines are not WP:IRS, blogs are frowned upon. Only Aviation Week (uses "MAX" in titles) and Aviation Herald (uses the designator "B78M" in titles, "737 MAX" in the article). 4. There are 2 aviation news sources (The Air Current, Aviation International News) and 11+ major, long-standing IRS (CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...), using the standard English capitalization "Max". Whether "Max" or "MAX" is more common, cannot be determined objectively. 5. WP:TITLETM policy clearly instructs to use the standard English capitalization (title case for proper names: "Boeing 737 Max").
unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". A cursory search on Google for the top 30 hits of "boeing 737 grounding" [2] shows independent sources do not have consensus on the name format. Because of this absence of independent media consensus, my vote is Neutral, however if the Support or Oppose side can demonstrate widespread use of "Max" or "MAX" in independent news sources respectively, their rationales would be justified.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note O 1. WP:OFFICIAL. 2. IBM is an acronym, "Max" is not,
"on Wikipedia, most acronyms are written in all capital letters"(MOS:CAPSACRS).
In opposition: (see #Unsound arguments above)
In support:
"Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks". "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)".
From among "styles already in use by independent reliable sources", "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."
"Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks",
"Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case".
Source: Requested move discussion — 11 March 2019
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado | Talk 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Boeing 737 MAX → Boeing 737 Max – MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 35 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. (I note that there was some prior discussion of this issue in 2012, although not a formal RM discussion, which is archived in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 1#Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Note S,A MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS
Note D,O Designation is actually "737-?" - ref, designator is "B3?M" for "737 Max ?". "737 MAX" is a trademark (Uspto, archive), WP:TITLETM applies to trademarks. WP:OFFICIAL says the article title is not necessarily the same as the official.
Note M,O "Boeing 737 Max" is capitalized with title case, as WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:PROPERNAME instructs. Neither says to stick with the official all caps stylization, thus "737 MAX" "is the proper name" cannot be deduced (fallacy). The rest is WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note T,S WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM
Note A Implies MOS:ALLCAPS:
"Avoid writing with all caps, [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case".
Note C+ Implies the indecisive WP:COMMONNAME policy: roughly the same number of WP:IRS use both "Max" and "MAX".
Note T WP:TITLETM
Note O,P "Correct name" is not defined in Wikipedia, this is personal preference or WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]."
Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.We are bound by that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Note B,P The Air Current, Aviation International News (aviation media sources) prefer "Max", Aviation Week prefers "MAX". Need to improve NPOV, only sources using "MAX" are represented.
Note M "Commonly recognizable name" is independent from the official name. WP:COMMONNAME:
"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title", misinterpreted.
Note B,P +1 for the original argument. 1. Both "MAX" and "Max" are common names, 13+ long-standing WP:IRS uses "Max" (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...), therefore the most common name cannot be determined objectively. 2. EasyJet is ok for WP:ALLCAPS, "MAX" is not. 3. Invoking WP:IAR is personal preference in a contentious case.
Note B,M They do. WSJ also uses the "Max" form, 13+ other major media outlets also use "Max" (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...).
demonstrably the most common(per WP:TITLETM, though that is not the only applicable guideline). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Note T WP:TITLETM
Note M "Warthog" is a nickname explicitly opposed by WP:NCAIRCRAFT. "Max" is not nickname, but standard English capitalization. Misinterpretation of the guideline.
Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions, Which of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or naming conventions are you relying on to support your "original argument"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Note F,M WP:TITLETM applies to trademarks (aka. marketing names), therefore this logic Supports "Boeing 737 Max" as per WP:TITLETM. This being an oppose vote is logical fallacy / misinterpretation of policy.
"I emailed Jon at FlightBlogger before he left. He told me the Boeing official name is MAX, not Max. Flight International's editors felt it should have been Max, and the writers all seem to disagree and wanted MAX. However many different sites waffle between the two. It is NOT an acroynm but I much prefer MAX to Max."- by JhanJensen 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: Disagreement from some sources (indecisive), and a personal preference.
Note S MOS:TM
Note S MOS:TM?
Note O,P WP:OFFICIAL. Note: changed his mind later (below), but that argument is striked out (not the "Support" though...). Confused. As good measure, this Oppose is counted, the Support is not...
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note Misinterpretation of WP:NCCAPS that says
[...] "Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions are [...] drawing primarily upon academic style, not journalistic or marketing/business styles". "737 Max" and "737 MAX" are both WP:PROPERNAME.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note T WP:TITLETM Thank you for showing how to apply the exact policy.
Note T WP:TITLETM
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note Changed his mind again. As good measure, the Oppose above is counted, but this Support is not....
Note: No need to demonstrate prevalence of "Max":
"follow standard English text formatting [...] unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common". See also MOS:ALLCAPS:"Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case [...].". This is a misinterpretation of the policy.
Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)" of the stated policy. That in this case means changing "Boeing 737 MAX" to "Boeing 737 Max" - no spelling change. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note T,S,O+ 1. WP:AT policy implies WP:TITLETM policy 2. WP:MOSTM/WP:MOSCAPS 3. WP:OFFICIAL applied properly.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.""decent number of reliable sources" in itself is not a deciding factor.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL.
Note M Official sources are not WP:IRS. The WP:TITLETM exception requires
"the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark."(737 MAX is a trademark: Uspto, archive). There are two common usages "Max" and "MAX" in too many sources to objectively compare.
Note P No argument (personal preference), just a negative remark that confuses WP:OFFICIALNAME with WP:PROPERNAME and misunderstands both:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.","Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English.".
Note T WP:TITLETM is the policy.
Note T as above.
Note O Which? WP:OFFICIAL is the most common.
Note T WP:TITLETM.
Note B,O,M The Air Current, Aviation International News (aviation media sources) prefer "Max", Aviation Week prefers "MAX". Need to improve NPOV, only sources using "MAX" are represented.
References
Note P+ Personal preference ("it looks better") and a very weak WP:COMMONNAME.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
Note N WP:NCAIRCRAFT is a guideline, not a policy. It says nothing about stylization / capitalization, only the "content" and structure of aircraft article titles. Whether "Max" qualifies as official name is debatable, but not the concern of WP:NCAIRCRAFT: It only opposes nicknames and "Boeing 737 Max" is not a nickname, but the capitalized (title case) official name, according to the policy WP:TITLETM, that applies to trademarks. Note: the aircraft designation is actually "737-?" - ref, designator is "B3?M" for "737 Max ?".
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."WP:COMMONNAME is hardly applicable as both "Max" and "MAX" are common in WP:IRS.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL
Note N Good argument, but WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline says nothing about stylization / capitalization, however the WP:TITLETM policy is explicitly in favor of the standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max". WP:NCAIRCRAFT does not say to ignore WP:TITLETM.
Note M,B No example, no proof. The exemption to WP:TITLETM only applies, if "MAX" is
"demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark", not "when the name of the aircraft has all caps" (misinterpretation of policy). The argument might imply that the all-caps "MAX" is the most common usage, thus the exemption, but this is not the case "demonstrably", as both usages "Max" and "MAX" are similarly common in WP:IRS (9+ using "MAX", 13+ using "Max").
Note D,N,B 1. The designation is actually "737-?" - ref, designator is "B3?M" for "737 Max ?". 2. The argument ignores the fact that "737 MAX" is a trademark (Uspto, archive), therefore WP:TITLETM policy clearly applies, whereas WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline says nothing about stylization / capitalization. 3. The argument gives undue weight to the debatably applicable guideline. Stating that 13+ long-standing WP:IRS using "Max" is a mistake (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...) suggests there is a strong bias towards the official stylization.
Note O WP:OFFICIAL:
"People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."Note: the designation is actually "737-?" - ref, designator is "B3?M" for "737 Max ?".
Congratulations Wikipedia editors! In less than a week, enough electronic symbols were exchanged on this important matter (should ax be capitalised in AX?) to make the bitcoin farms in China pale with envy! Right now there are two camps :
Right now I count similar forces in both camps. (52 oppose, 40 support)
Honestly it does not matter so much. Both are OK. The Boeing stylisation is a bit ugly, but it's its plane. The general media writing may replace it as the most common name but it will never be the certification name.
What is ugly, is the banner on top of the article and this too long, sterile discussion.
Aviation editors: let it be. Maybe we'll redo this discussion when things will be tamed.
New editors: let it be. Aviation editors will stay after you anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Source: Talk page discussion — 5 May 2012
It seems that we're in a "move war" over whether the "MAX" should be in all caps. In my opinion I think it should be, per WP:COMMONNAME. Having it be in not all caps just looks weird, considering that it really ought to be all caps. I encourage ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs) to explain his opinion here. —Compdude123 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus to have the "MAX" be all-caps, but I would like to see ProhibitOnions' response to the above comments. Thanks, Compdude123 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) should probably provide primary guidance, but doesn't seem to directly address the issue. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks therefore seems applicable here. The Wall Street Journal follows this convention: Boeing Tweaks Engine for New 737 Max, as does Puget Sound Business Journal: Expect more debate between A320neo and 737 Max as Boeing tries to catch up to Airbus in orders. Chicago Tribune did all caps in at least one article however, and this site does it both ways: http://www.737max.com/ – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The manufacturer website refers to the airplane as the capitalized form. I would assume that Boeing marketing would take care of having it written correctly on their public website: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/737max.html --- I don't know whats the right thing to do here. I'm just sayin'... Katanada (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I emailed Jon at FlightBlogger before he left. He told me the Boeing official name is MAX, not Max. Flight International's editors felt it should have been Max, and the writers all seem to disagree and wanted MAX. However many different sites waffle between the two. It is NOT an acroynm but I much prefer MAX to Max. It's Boeing aircraft and as such I feel Wikipedia should follow the true naming convention. JhanJensen (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the consensus is that the MAX should be in all-caps, since it is an aircraft designation and not a trademark. The MOS is only a guideline and not a hard, fast rule. It's not like the article is going up for GA/FA review so the article does not need to conform to the MOS. It's common sense that the MAX should be capitalized because that's how most people refer to it. As stated at the top of every MOS article, common sense always trumps the MOS. And MOS compliance is not part of the five pillars, instead one of the pillars is that WP doesn't have firm rules. We all know that, so there's no need to be a real MOS stickler if an article isn't being review for GA/FA status. I think an admin should go ahead and change the article name back to "Boeing 737 MAX." —Compdude123 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur and support the use of "Boeing 737 MAX" as the title. Ng.j (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
While other websites may list the 737 MAX as Max, even most words in the article in Wikipedia uses MAX not Max, along with airline fleet charts that have ordered the 737 MAX. I believe that should you want to use Max, that Max is used throughout Wikipedia, not just the title of this page. ABXInferno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)