Talk:Getrag/Archive 1

= Capitalization? =

Someone edited GETRAG to read Getrag. GETRAG is an acronym, thus Getrag is incorrect. I have changed it back.

See the company's homepage: http://www.getrag.de/51 GETRAG is an acronym for Getriebe- und Zahnradfabrik Hermann Hagenmeyer AG

-Series8217


 * I tend to agree. While WP:MOSTM indicates that all caps should be avoided even when a trademark holder encourages its capitalization, I believe acronyms fall into a different category (which is not discussed in that guideline).  Pages that indicate the convention which would require a capitalized GETRAG are 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing), BMW, GM, etc...  Because GETRAG is an acronym just as are the aforementioned trademarks, it too should be capitalized.  I'll change this back, and if someone else disagrees, we can discuss it on this page.  Nicholas SL Smith 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I thought it important to mention that this does not appear to be an acronym to English speakers; in German is is very much an acronym (think GETRiebe-...AG). Nicholas SL Smith 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Manual of Style (trademarks)discussion regarding issues such as GETRAG and SAAB, which are capitalized registered acronym trademarks, but are not strict acronyms. A discussion is taking place there on this topic to resolve differences of opinion.  Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that some of the "rules" are not appropriate. For example, the article about Byte (magazine) looks strange because the name of this publication is always written BYTE. It seems a similar situation is with this case where the name GETRAG is typically written all in caps. — CZmarlin (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments added at Manual of Style (trademarks) discussion, but basically I don't see anything wrong with Byte (or Time). They're words, for which the rules of the English language say do not capitalize. So why indulge these attempts at corporate promotion? And as mentioned elsewhere, Getrag is not "typically" written all in caps by reliable sources. If the NYT, BBC et al can write Getrag (or Saab), so can we. --DeLarge (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The manual of style appears to be pretty definitive on the subject of names such as Time or Byte, which are simple words. I do like to see information in Wikipedia with as little interpretation by editors as possible (modification for the purposes of fitting information into a form we deem acceptable for presentation).  I think we ought to present what is out there, such as TIME or BYTE - that is a conversation for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks).  Here -  once we come up with a rule to address partial acronyms such as GETRAG, we can apply it to this and other article names. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
GETRAG → Getrag — Restoration to original location. Common usage, WP:MOSTM guidelines —DeLarge (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nom. Recently moved by a user who calls this an acronym of Getriebe- und Zahnradfabrik Hermann Hagenmeyer AG. Same user also reverted an attempt to move it back. Capitalized on the company's website.
 * However, not capitalized in most Google News searches, most Google Scholar searches, most (all?) Google Books searches, and not capitalized on its home language article at Getrag. Site specific searches of NY Times, the BBC, Reuters, CNN, The (London) Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all show the uncapitalized form as most common.
 * User recommends amending WP:MOSTM to insist the acronyms should be capitalized, but both the Chicago Manual of Style and the Guardian Style Guide recommend against all caps unless the acronym is also an initialism (this is only a contraction).
 * Majority of inbound links to the page come from the Getrag redirect (partly because the article existed there for years prior to the recent move, no doubt). Conversations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and subsequently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) saw no progress. User insists that web searches and news searches "do not reflect common usage".
 * Our article at acronym and initialism points out that "Mid-20th century German showed a tendency toward acronym-contractions", giving the non-capitalized Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) as one of several examples, none of which are all caps.
 * If this is moved, we'll also tidy up the categories, since the user who moved the page also created Category:GETRAG transmissions, a duplicate of Category:Getrag transmissions. Other pages with "GETRAG" in the name will also be moved.


 * Oppose This move should not take place as this is an acronym. Another example of such an acronym is SYSCO, which is also an incomplete acronym, or acronym-contraction as it stands for Systems and Services Company, but is an acronym never the less.
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Capitalization (MOS:CL#All caps) covers this on point, stating as a caveat to the WP:MOSTM reference for trademarks, "write acronyms and initialisms in all capitals. But note that some acronyms have now become ordinary lowercase words, such as scuba and laser."  GETRAG is an acronym and therefore falls under the first sentence quoted.  GETRAG does not fall under the second statement about common words because it is not used as a common noun, it is only ever a proper noun referring to the GETRAG Corporate Group, unlike laser and scuba which refer to no particular identity.  Acronym-contractions are not differentiated under the established rule.  If this page is moved, we need to first revise the aforementioned rule found in the Manual of Style on Capitalization.
 * Common usage for reference to the company at hand is in all capitol letters, as GETRAG. Technical articles, catalog pages, faq information and so on is all caps.  I have seen locations where it has been written without all capitol letters, however, this is most certainly done in ignorance of the fact that GETRAG is an acronym
 * Furthermore, we don't use Google news searches to dictate our English usage rules; Google searches only show most commonly accessed web pages given a search string (users don't choose pages based on an agreeable capitalization scheme, they click on most recent news stories). The reason for news searches showing so many normal case examples is most likely that many news media companies use normal case, which differs from the norm of all-capitalization (see Acronym).
 * The article on acronyms, specifically the Acronym section, notes that acronyms are only subject to normal capitalization when they have become normal words.
 * Either way - the contention that GETRAG is not an acronym is countered by the Acronym article, see Acronym. The definition in that case asserts that when such acronyms are not strict acronyms they are capitalized, and when they aren't evenn proper nouns, they are still often capitalized (notice the example of the non-popper noun MARC as Mailing list ARChive).  This gives an even stronger case to capitalize GETRAG because it follows that proper nouns acronyms should be capitalized all of the time, and non-proper nouns only sometimes.
 * The fact that GETRAG is not in all capitol letters at Getrag does not speak to how we ought to capitalize in GETRAG. German capitalization is starkly different than English, for example, all nouns are capitalized in German regardless of whether the noun is proper or not.
 * I do, however, support tidying up duplicate categories. Tidying should be done regardless of this surrey's outcome.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC), 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support OSX (talk • contributions) 06:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As per WP:VOTE, discussion is preferred to simple polling. --DeLarge 10:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose 75.165.63.251 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC) — 75.165.63.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As per WP:VOTE, discussion is preferred to simple polling. --DeLarge 10:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Common usage in many articles about the company seems to be "GETRAG Group" — with all caps for the acronym. CZmarlin 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A Google News search of "getrag group" indicates the opposite; 69 hits, and 50-19 in favour of the uncapped "Getrag". --DeLarge 09:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha - I apologize that this is turning to a sort of DeLarge v. Nslsmith death match -- but, CZmarlin wrote many, not all or even majority. Not to mention, Google does not know all - it knows what it has in its databases.  Don't forget, despite Egon's statement in Ghostbusters, print is not dead.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Common usage isn't very clear, but the usage of the company itself is clear: GETRAG. --Zundark (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Common usage seems very clear to me, or am I using a different internet to everyone else? At the risk of nauseous repetition, "Getrag" is uncapitalized in 42 of the first 50 (84%) Google News results, 39 of the first 50 (78%) Google Scholar results, and all of the first 50 (100%) Google Books results. And despite all the votes, I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that the capitalized version is commonly used anywhere, as opposed to merely just stating that it's the case. As for the company itself? WP:MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." Standard English in the Chicago Manual of Style: "Since 1993, we’ve realized that we needed to be more precise. In the fifteenth edition, therefore, we distinguish between acronyms, initialisms, and contractions." The AP style guide also follows the convention of only capitalizing initialisms. That last link is the website of Washington Post copy editor and published style guide author Bill Walsh, who says on the subject of acronyms, "CSX is CSX, but the snappy little ARCOs and PEPCOs are initial-capped, even if they are each-letter-stands-for-something acronyms. Usually they don't even meet this standard: Arco is (or at least was) Atlantic Richfield Co.; Pepco is Potomac Electric Power Co. -- so what do those O's stand for?" --DeLarge (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: DeLarge, what you are arguing is exactly opposite an already established Wikipedia guideline (Manual of Style (capital letters)). If you wish to clarify or modify that guideline and begin applying it to article titles, that is perfectly acceptable, but piecemeal discussions on individual articles does not represent a unified approach to this problem, nor will it better Wikipedia or improve consistency.
 * As far as the "common usage" argument, which I think is now moot in light of Wikipedia guidelines, i`n almost every print source I've seen, I've seen GETRAG in all caps. My BMW shop manual, GETRAG service manuals, GETRAG parts and tool catalogs (from third party distributors), and so on including brochures and technical bullions.  Google has only a fraction of available print on Google Books.  Google does not represent the English language; it is not designed to do so, and it is not held as an authority on the subject by Wikipedia editors.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of dragging this out even further, I think MOS:CL is being completely misquoted here. It states "write acronyms and initialisms in all capitals", but gives no examples. The only capitalized examples at acronym and initialism are all initialisms, while the only contractions used as examples are all not capitalized (Amphetamine, Gestapo, Interpol), which I'd say supports Getrag. Further, there's an external link on MOS:CL to the Chicago Manual of Style which, as I've previously pointed out, is very clear on the subject: contractions ≠ acronyms.
 * And quite why you think a BMW service manual or a tool catalogue trumps the NYT, WSJ, BBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, the CMoS, the Guardian Style Guide, etc on matters of style is beyond me... --DeLarge (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite untrue, directly above the quote from MOS:CL is MOS:CL, which specifically lists "FOREX" as an acronym or initalism for "foreign exchange." You appear to b trying to enforce the Chicago Manual of Style here in Wikipedia.  If you wish to do this, please change the guidelines we use - don't piecemeal your views and opinions here.  If our guidelines directed us to use these manuals of style, we would - but they don't - so we don't.  Furthermore, simply because many other entities use a particular manual of style does not mean that it is more credible than our own guidelines here in Wikipedia.  Please stick to the guidelines we use here, or modify them and then apply them to articles.
 * When looking through examples -- a quick browse down the List of acronyms and initialisms reveals examples such as ACOUSTINT, ACK (computing), or ALGOL (for ALGOrithmic Language). There are many many examples of these sort of capitalized acronyms on Wikipedia, I only needed to look at the "A" portion of the list of examples.  We will both be following Wikipedia convention and style guides by leaving GETRAG as is (the examples you used have fallen into use as normal words, like laser or scuba have.)  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Common usage is not necessarily correct usage.  I don't view a company capitalizing it's own acronym as special treatment because this is correct according to some standards.  Wikipedia standards are not clear on this.  MOS:TM does not directly address pronounceable acronyms or partial word acronyms.  Further complicating this is the fact that GETRAG incorporates the abbreviation (initialism according to Wiktionary) AG, which is always capitalized when used alone.  I view moving GETRAG to Getrag as inconsistent with Manual of Style (capital letters) since "getrag" has not become an ordinary lowercase word. ~ Dusk Knight  23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Clarification: Note that GETRAG has been capitalized since its inception on 8 October 2004. Recently it was briefly moved to Getrag by OSX in [revision 170046548], which was contested and reverted.  A discussion about the status of the name as an acronym is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks), and is unresolved.  Until the dictating rule in MOS:CL is changed, GETRAG needs to remain in all capitalized.  This talk page is not the forum for rule discussion. I highly recommend to User:DeLarge a good faith attempt to reach a consensus before moving this article. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean the article was at GETRAG, that's not so. A cut & paste move was done, so I merged the histories. This article stood at Getrag until recently when you copied it to GETRAG and redirected there. This edit is not a move, it was just the user changing the article's style. That's why all of the articles link to the uncapped version


 * I don't think it should matter in this debate, but the article was at Getrag.


 * You might mean that the article was at Getrag but was consistently capitalized internally. That is correct. Cool Hand Luke 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that "Getrag" was uncapitalized in the text at its inception, and remained so for two years until June 2006, when an anonymous IP made a mass conversion of the case. Although I agree that this isn't really of relevance to the discussion. Thanks for your response. --DeLarge (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You both are right - I was confused about OSX's edits - I thought that user moved it to Getrag and I sought to move it back. Thanks for the clarification - Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As per the following talk page edits at User talk:CZmarlin and User talk:Emt147, User:Nslsmith has engaged in canvassing in an attempt to influence the result here. He's also done the same elsewhere in relation to a WP:RM request at Orange (colour). I've alerted the user to the guideline. --DeLarge 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * DeLarge is completely unfounded in claiming improper canvasing. No campaining has taken place, only a note indicating that a current duscussion was underway and that editor's honist oppinions would be valued.  Under WP:CANVAS, it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions.  Instead of DeLarge's method of engaging in conversation about edits I have executed without notifying me of the debate (by using forums unrelated to the edits such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles when discussing this article or move proposal).  DeLarge really ought to try to show respect other's edits instead of pulling vague and over interpreted policy as hes been done above.  Everyone contributing here has valid opinions; bullying is no way to come to a consensus.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfounded? I was perfectly willing to accept that as an inexperienced editor you were unaware of the guideline, and presumed that had been the case. However, to claim you were working within it? To quote from WP:CANVAS, "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." In every case, you stated that "your vote would be much appreciated" or "The issue is coming down to a vote...I appreciate your help". For Orange (colour), you contacted only four editors, all of whom had previously initiated move requests to Orange (color), the position you supported. You did not contact any of the dissenting users in those previous discussions. Similarly, in this case you left messages on the talk pages of User:CZmarlin and the inactive User:Emt147, both of whom had explicitly supported the position you're taking. You chose not to contact User:Henry W. Schmitt, who had offered a dissenting opinion.


 * As I said, I'm quite willing to give latitude to inexperienced users, but I also expect them to stick to the same behavioural guidelines as the rest of us, and not try to game the system. --DeLarge (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely - your quotes illustrate that I influenced no voting. I asked for an honest opinion if the editor felt so fit to include his or her opinion, any and all help is appreciated!  I even appreciate you oppinion, although I disagree with it.  I think you are grossly mis interpreting my statements if you believe they sway any editor in a particular direction.  I do see, however, that I should have notified all parties who would be interested.  I used my judgment, however, to notify those who had a problem, but were shot down with an adequate discussion.  I did not see fit to inform those who shot down the ideas of others without discussion as such behavior would be counterproductive to this group conversation.  This is true of the discussion in Orange; by the way, are you seriously using this forum to argue a point which should be argued in the Orange Talk page?


 * If you truly believed that I was simply uninformed, your public defamation of my behavior is unwarranted and not of a friendly nature which is becoming of a Wikipedia editor. The combative tone in which you informed everyone that I have been warned would make no one feel welcome here, especially one who might be new or inexperienced.  You are going so far as to point out behavior you did not like in a past discussion on a different topic in a different article, while I have extended to you good faith gestures and sought to include a little humor.  I have operated within the boundary of acceptable behavior under WP:CANVAS.  Your interpretation is overly broad, and does not serve to better Wikipedia.  Keep in mind, a poll with only you and me serves no one; If we can't include those who are interested, we will achieve nothing but a little argument between the two of us.  The moment I post "please go here and vote this way, thanks bud," by all means, jump all over me!    Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move discussion
It is pretty clear that the consensus is to leave the article at GETRAG at present. I suggest cleaning up the duplicated categories. Neil  ☎  11:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Getrag" transmission category has been cleaned up - working to clean up other issues. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've cleaned up all Getrag/GETRAG issues -- Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)