Talk:BAP (German band)

Article name
Name of article should be BAP (German band) to differentiate from myriad of other BAPs on disambig page. Also this would conform to terminology already used for BAP (Basque band). Anlace 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Name of article should be Bap (German band), as Bab is not an abbreviation, but a full word: "Father". "Fans" want to have their band written as big as possible though... (E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
 * BAP is neither an abbreviation (in its true sense) nor is it a word in German or Kölsch. Also, Bap does not mean father, although Papp (double-p) means dad, and BAPP (double-p) is certainly a play-on-words on Papp. There is only one correct spelling of the band's name: BAP. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The official way to write it is in capital letters. Check their official website, they always write BAP. If the band writes in it in capital letters, then they want to be known like that, it's not Wikipedia's business to distort facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.242.17 (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bap (German band) → BAP (German band) –
 * The name of this band is BAP, not Bap, therefore it should occur under the correct title. It cannot harm to leave the incorrect spelling "Bap" as a redirect. Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This move request has been moved from "Technical move requests" to here. I still consider it an uncontroversial, purely technical move request, which would not require a discussion. The rationale is very easy: The name of the band is BAP. A lower-case variant of the band's name does not exist, nor is there a word "Bap" or "bap" in the German or Ripuarian languages. The band's name was derived from the originally considered band name "BAPP" for cosmetical reasons. "BAPP" in turn was kind of a play on words on the Ripuarian "Papp" (for English "dad"). The Manual of Style certainly does not dictate us to spell names in wrong ways. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Bap" and "BAP" are identical spellings; capitalization, on the other hand, is a stylistic issue.  For style issues, we follow our own house style, which is documented in places like MOS:CAPS.  Powers T 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. What I actually meant was capitalization, not spelling. I don't know, if "BAP" can be considered a proper noun given that it is just a name, not a word existing in the English, German or Ripuarian language. I would consider it as kind of a trademark without any specific meaning. BAP "as is" does not mean "dad" (see explanation above), it's just three letters, which have been written in all uppercase in any publication I am aware of in the past thirty years. I don't see why the English Wikipedia should ignore this established capitalization. Wikipedias in all other languages follow the proper "BAP" capitalization. We don't write Ebay, ebay or e-bay since the registered trademark is eBay and misrepresenting a trademark may even have legal consequences. For the same reason, I don't think, it would be okay to write Bap, when the name is BAP. Also, since this is not an English word, English grammar rules don't apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The guidelines at WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCAPS are very clear on this: we don't use all-caps for purely stylistic purposes. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are a few few thing. If this is a trademark it would apply user the WP:MOSTM which would therefore mean that the page should remain at Bap. Also We don't use eBay because it is the registered trademark or because of legal concern but because it meets a specific exception on the trademark guideline. The except is if the first letter is lowercase, the second letter is uppercase and the rest of the word follows standard capitalization rules which is not the case here. For example the Lego article used Lego and not the trademarked name LEGO and has been supported by a consensus of editors. I am also not convinced by the claim that since BAP is not an English word that normal capitalization rules don't apply since consensus on other articles have been to apply this standard to non English names such as DJ Ozma. Finally I am not convinced by the legal argument since the trademark guideline has been up for over seven years, and I am quite sure that if there were serious legal implications someone would have brought that up much sooner and the guideline would have been repealed years ago. Briefly on that topic are you (the proposer) aware of anyone ever being convicted or even taken to court because of the way they spelled a trademarked name?--70.24.208.34 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many MOS and WP guidelines stating to use sentence case in matters of style. — Bility (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This decision should be based on RS, which no one has cited so far. Deutsche Welle and [ http://www.amazon.com/BAP/e/B000ARA17K/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1329992644&sr=8-1 Amazon] use "BAP," and the libraries catalog them that way. They are certainly BAP in German. Check out Der Spiegel or Berliner Morgenpost. Kauffner (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't poll sources for determining capitalizations; the result would be a horrible mishmash of conflicting styles throughout the encyclopedia. We follow our own house style.  Powers T 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about normal English words, but a construction/trademark/symbol of Kölsch/German roots. There simply is no low-case representation of the band's name "BAP". The band exists for more than thirty years under the name BAP, and you will not find them named "Bap" in publications (and there are thousands) except for in the English Wikipedia. Trying to apply the manual of style here seems odd, because the purpose of the manual of style is to provide a streamlined appearance (within the normal grammar rules), not to invent new forms, which would not exist otherwise. "Bap" does not exist, except for as a new creation of the English Wikipedia. Actually, the German WP's manual of style is very similar to the English MOS in regard to capitalization rules, so according to the normal rules, the article would have to be named Bap also in the German Wikipedia. Still, it is named BAP (as in all other Wikipedias), simply, because the MOS does not apply here. This is not a question of style, because there is no freedom of choice. The name is BAP, not Bap. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - per MOS:TM. --180.183.120.181 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, the purpose of MOS is not to invent new forms but to help decide between multiple available ones - if and only if multiple formats are available. In the case of the band's name, there is only one allowed form: "BAP", so we have no freedom of choice. MOS:TM tells us: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." So, we clearly have to choose from formats already in use. Since "BAP" is the only format used in publications in the past thirty years, we would invent a new form using "Bap", which is in violation with MOS:TM specifically and also with the idea of the MOS in general. The fact, that "BAP" does not resemble standard English capitalization is secondary, because the set of available forms to choose from has only one member, "BAP", and also because "most closely resembles" is a relative expression, not an absolute one. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I assume part of the difficulties to decide for "BAP" is down to the fact, that BAP is a German rock band most of the English readers won't be familiar with. They may see BAP as a normal word and try to apply English grammar rules, something that looks odd to Germans, where the band name has always been written as "BAP". In an attempt to find another example perhaps more familiar to an English audience, I found the Australian band "INXS". Nobody would try to change that to "Inxs" just for better compliancy with the MOS, because everybody knows that the band is named INXS, not Inxs. For the same reasons, we should change the title of this article from the incorrect "Bap" to the correct "BAP". --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2012 (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.

Cleanup
Album titles need to be italicized, and song titles need to be enclosed in double quotation marks as per WP:MOSMUSIC. --DAJF (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct capitalization of the band's name: BAP
Some while ago I tried to rename this article from "Bap (German band)" to "BAP (German band)" in order to correct the capitalization of the band's name. Unfortunately, I was overruled by people pointing to the Manual of Style. Beyond this change in the article's title, I have also been reverted when trying to correct the capitalization of the band's name inside the article itself. And even when I tried to add a note stating that the band's name is officially written "BAP" (which is an undisputable fact beyond any style guide discussion), this gets deleted as well. I consider this a forceful suppression of facts. I assume the motivation to suppress this is to not point the readers to this inner inconsistency of the English Wikipedia with the rest of the world (as in "if we don't point this out explicitly, they may not recognize it"), but by creating the impression the band would be written "Bap" in the real world (that is, outside of the English Wikipedia), I don't think we do the readers a favor.

While I'm all for correct and consistent style (where possible and reasonable), after all these months I am still not the slightest convinced that we should knowingly settle on a false capitalization in the title and the text for the sole purpose of achieving compliancy with the MoS. The constant inflow of other people also commenting on the currently wrong capitalization we use here convinces me, that there really is something fundamentally wrong here - so we should do something about it.

While people are technically correct that the MoS suggests (not forces) a capitalization of BAP as "Bap" in the general case, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if rules don't fit and would lead to presenting falsehoods they should be ignored. After all, the idea of this project is to build an encyclopedia and one of its basic principles is to not invent facts and ensure verifiability. Unfortunately, as it stands, the article in the current form does exactly this -- invent facts, that there would be a German rock band named Bap. This is plain false, there isn't. There is only a German rock band named BAP. You will not find a single reliable source where the band's name would be stated as Bap, but you will find thousands of reliable sources (in German as well as in many other languages, including English) where the band's name is correctly written as BAP. This is consistent throughout both printed and online sources (including dozens of books) and has been so for more than thirty years from when the band was founded in the late Seventies up to the present. The band is also covered in articles in other language Wikipedias and is always written as BAP there as well - the only unholy exception is the English Wikipedia (and its derivatives). I think, this is very embarrassing. Even the Manual of Style clearly states, that, "when deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Since there has consistently only one style ever been used for the band's name ("BAP"), it is therefore wrong to use "Bap" inhere. (Someone used "LEGO" vs. "Lego" as an example - this is a very good example for what the Manual of Style discusses in general, however, this is also a totally different case from our's. I too would opt for "Lego" here, given that both forms exist in the real world and have been used as written text as well as in logos. In the BAP case, you will, without a single exception, only find "BAP".) So, as odd as it is, the Manual of Style, which was created to help establish consistency, is technically abused here to create an inconsistency with the world outside the English Wikipedia. By trying to be technical (mostly) correct, we violate the higher principles and original ideas of this project. No good.

We should stop distributing falsehoods. As I see it, we have several options to achieve this:

The easiest way to comply with reality and move on (and f.e. add more contents to this project) would be to use common sense and consider the underlying purpose of the Manual of Style to create consistency, and then create this desired consistency by switching to the correct capitalization "BAP". I see this even supported by the MoS in the current form (see above), but for other's it may be an exception to the default. However, exceptions are okay, if there are good reasons -- and there are here.

The alternative would be to work on and improve the Manual of Style accordingly, so that in this and similar cases it allows the form BAP more obviously as it (IMHO) already allows it right now. This is more much work, and it may also have consequences for other articles, possibly including some with less obvious cases.

Yet another alternative (which I don't like at all, but still I'm mentioning it just to demonstrate the absurdity created by only technically relying on our rules instead of trying to act with a good portion of common sense and in their spirit) would be to delete this whole article since a band under the name "Bap" does not exist (at least not as a German rock band), that is, notability could not be established for this title then.

I would suggest option 1 since I don't want to waste my and anybody else's precious time on bureaucracy, when, as I see it, there is an easier solution which achieves the goal and does not harm otherwise. I hope we can find a working consensus here. Your comments are welcome. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
On 18 January 2014‎ Loginnigol (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (16,950 bytes) (0)‎. . (Loginnigol moved page Talk:Bap (German band) to Talk:Bap (band): redundancy) except it isn't redundant because there is B.A.P South Korean band I requested a technical move back page Talk:Bap (band) to Talk:BAP (German band) Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink)) without seeing the previous RM. However the German article is still at BAP, album covers all at BAP, and Amazon.de at BAP, so not sure what to think now. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tried to move back to Bap (German band) as RM result but requires a second tech move request. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. The clear consensus is that the stylized majescule name is widely attested in sources; thus, it is the most appropriate common name, and does not violate the terms of WP:MOSTM. The other moves suggested by User:In ictu oculi appear already to have been performed editorially. Xoloz (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bap (band) → BAP (German band) – usually capitalised and Korean band B.A.P – In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Someone unilaterally moved Bap (German band) to Bap (band) in January 2014 so it's better to have a formal discussion this time rather than a technical move. I would favor the upper case BAP for recognizability. We do have some upper-case band names in . Per WP:AT "article titles should be recognizable to readers". Nothing in WP:MOSTM requires a band name normally written in upper case be lower-cased. We don't write the corporation BASF as Basf. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per INXS Agathoclea (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This wasn't the move I was intending as was trying to restore an undiscussed move, but in fact agree with User:EdJohnston, so now it is a full RM should be BAP (German band), as noted nothing in WP:MOSTM requires a band name normally written in upper case be lower-cased. Though the corporation BASF is initials, wheras BAP is a stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom & above. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per all the reasons already laid out before. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:MOSTM "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one." The two sources listed in the article use "Bap" so it is not a newly invented format and is in widespread use. BASF, INXS and the upper-case band names in the category German musical groups are incorrect comparisons because those are acronyms, the correct comparison, as mentioned on WP:MOSTM, is Kiss (as in Kiss (band). B.A.P and B.A.P.!! are currently correct in terms of capital letters because they are acronyms but I would support the movement of B.A.P to B.A.P (South Korean band), B.A.P.!! to B.A.P.!! (Spanish band) and the move of this article back to Bap (German band) because the capital letters, periods and exclamation points are not enough to differentiate the three bands from each other. Aspects (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because a few (obviously clueless, if they can't write it correctly) sources, mentioning the band in the passing use "Bap" does not force us to use a wrong capitalization. Perhaps they use "Bap" only because the English Wikipedia used this wrong capitalization in the first place? For good reasons, all other WPs use "BAP", and we are making fools of ourselves using "Bap" inhere. All serious publications use "BAP" and this is also the only variant ever used by the band in the close to forty years since their formation. In all those decades, there was zero variance. You can find hundreds of thousands of sources using the correct form "BAP", including tens of thousands of printed sources (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.). "Bap" is definitely not in widespread use in reliable sources or elsewhere, it's a typo, it is an invention of a new form! Even per WP:MOSTM, we mustn't use it.
 * If we can have 1000 reliable sources verifying "BAP" as the correct way to write the name, I wonder why we should fabricate something to use the minuscle number of obviously wrong sources using "Bap" instead? Does our MOS overrule reality? I don't think so, but if so, it would be seriously flawed and had to be changed. In fact, I consider continuing to use the wrong form as a violation of our core principles to not make up stuff and to not knowingly spread false information. We don't have a freedom of choice here. It's BAP.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are from 1997 and 2005, before this article was moved to "Bap", so you cannot blame their usage on Wikipedia. These two sources were not cherry picked sources I came up with to support my opinion, they are the only two sources in the article and by them both using "Bap", shows that it is in wide use and it is not an invention simply for use in Wikipedia.  We have our own Manual of Style here on English Wikipedia and we are not beholden to what rules other language Wikipedia's use.  If both forms are in use, then we use the one that follows English capitalization rules as I already quoted WP:MOSTM.  You say that WP:MOSTM means "we musnt't use it," what part exactly are you reading that reinforces your opinion?  Aspects (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I already explained that. The correct form "BAP" is in common use, whereas the incorrect "Bap" form is not. We mustn't use it, because our core principles as an encyclopedia forbid us to make up stuff or present it in a biased, non-neutral language giving undue weight to minority views. Specifically, WP:POVNAMING, WP:COMMONNAME ( "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. [...] Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what [...] names are most frequently used." ), and WP:MOSTM (" is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one" ) do not allow us to use a form not in common use, particularly not when another form ("BAP") is well established for decades and is in widespread use in English sources, in original language sources, in sources world-wide, and therefore would be the obvious choice. If I search Google, browse news, scan inventories, or check books in my library, I can turn up numerous reliable sources using "BAP", but would be very hard pressed to even find a source using "Bap" (there are a few using Google, but their number is so low, they don't count). 99.99% (probably more) of all reliable sources in any language use "BAP" - for a reason. "Bap" simply is a typo, an invention, a sign of incompetence or ignorance, or they meant something different, not that German rock band. There never was a valid lowercase form of their name.
 * Yes, there is no obligation for us to follow other language Wikipedias, but if they all write "BAP" when they mean the German band (as they do), it might tell us something. Even our style guides above ask us to favour a form used in other encylopedias already. We don't have an obligation to make mistakes.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - support also the movement of B.A.P to B.A.P (South Korean band), B.A.P.!! to B.A.P.!! (Spanish band) as proposed above. Unless anyone objects, and this passes, can probably be done by WP:MOVE. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aspects, I just sourced the Spanish band (had been lacking any source and BLP tag since an AFD in 2006) - as a nationalist Basque-language only band, and per source, it should go to BAP (Basque band) not Spanish, and not B.A.P.!! per only source I could find. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was confused by that band, but I saw it was in Category:Spanish rock music groups and Category:Spanish punk rock groups, so that is why I put Spanish, but I have no problem with it being Basque instead. Aspects (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.