Talk:Butlin's

Improving Butlins Coverage on Wikipedia
I don't think we have enough pages to justify forming a specific project (Though perhaps UK Holiday Camps might have) However I think it's useful to have a central list of pages on the subject and how much work has been done or needs to be done on them. This is a first draft, so any feedback or suggestions are welcome (though please do so below the template). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Original inspiration for camps
Your statement, sourced from the Butlins website, claims that the original idea came from an unhappy holiday on Barry Island in his youth, when he had been locked out of his bed and breakfast accommodation all day by his landlady, which was normal practice at the time.

In his memoirs, he does not say that he was on holiday. He had gone to Barry Island to research a possible investment in the local fairground. He had not realized that people could find so little to do on a Bank Holiday, especially when it was raining. Having travelled in America, he saw that there were great possibilities for improving the British holiday experience. Valetude (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Title
The article title is Butlins and this is very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. So in this edit, I sought a compromise wording that included the company's official name in the first line of the lead, but the article should start with the commonname. You have again simply reverted to your challenged edit. Per MOS:BOLDLEAD, If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. No one calls this "Butlins Skyline Ltd." It is Butlins. That is the widely accepted name. So that comes first. The guideline you linked to says Where the most common name in independent, reliable, secondary sources (as reflected in the article title) is substantively different from the legal name, it is normal to mention both in the lead. So common name comes first and we menton Butlins Skyline somewhere in the lead. Note that my compromise kept it not just in the lead but in the first sentence of the lead. Also, as there is an incoming redirect from that name, I had it bolded. I submit that my compromise was better. I also object to the two primary sourced citations in the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE. I don't think it is controversial information that the company is called this. It is on the small print of all their legal documents. It probably does not need a citation per WP:BLUESKY, but if it is controversial information, it shouldn't be in the lead. There should be discussion of this in the main section and the lead can be a summary. So, I propose we go back to the compromise edit, which - if we agree - would form a tacit consensus. If not, then, per WP:ONUS we should restore to the status quo ante, and seek further opinions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that Butlins is the WP:COMMONNAME. That does not matter. That is for article titles. Yes, Butlins should remain the article title. I am in no way disputing that.
 * What I am disputing is the refusal to follow Wikipedia guidance about the lead sentence for companies. MOS:BOLDLEAD is general guidance for all articles. MOS:TM, which I have tried to get get you to read multiple times, reads "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name". This guidance is specific to articles about companies, and we should follow it.
 * The first sentence should read "Butlins Skyline Limited, trading as Butlin's, is a chain of large seaside resorts in the United Kingdom."
 * There is no reason to go against these rules. In my version, the WP:COMMONNAME is still mentioned very early on and in bold.
 * I mind less about where the refs are for this full name. As long as they are included somewhere on the article, whether in the lead or not, I don't mind where they are. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not only have I read that section, I quoted from it above. And as I have said elsewhere, the section you are quoting from is headed, Multiple, changed, and former names, so what we are dealing with is clear guidance that when you have a company that had a name and then changed its name, that the full current legal name is what we should be using and not the names we have changed from. It is specifically talking about a company (e.g. BTR Siebe) that changed its name (to Invensys plc, and then later Invensys Ltd. when it was bought out, in this example). The article should call it Invensys Ltd and not BTR Siebe or Invensys plc. We don't confuse the reader with the history before we tell them what the company is now.
 * But there is specific guidance in that section, which I have already quoted to you above, about cases like this where the name they trade under differs from the legal name. It says: Where the most common name in independent, reliable, secondary sources (as reflected in the article title) is substantively different from the legal name, it is normal to mention both in the lead. It does not say that the legal title must still be first. The guidance there is not saying that the first usage must contradict the page title. Indeed, the manual of style very particularly deals with this. MOS:FIRST says: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. So the first sentence should read "Butlins is..." That is what the MOS says. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)