Talk:HYFLEX

Requested move 6 December 2018

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. See general agreement below to rename article to its acronym per the style guideline and consistency in article titling policy. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hyflex → HYFLEX – In official papers by NASDA (JAXA) this project is referred to as HYFLEX, in upper case as the acronym of Hypersonic Flight Experiment (examples: About Hypersonic Flight Experiment "HYFLEX", 極超音速実験機(HYFLEX)設計結果).This article was made and possibly erroneously named 'Hyflex' before the current HYFLEX redirect page was created; instead of the redirect, this article should be moved there. Hms1103 (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support. As a proper noun acronym, there's an argument to be made for capitalization.  ONR  (talk)  08:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – In general, dressing up a title should not even be discussed for an unreferenced article. Let's talk notability first, find some sources, then look. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This mission was one of several that were part of the . As the page for the predecessor to this, OREX, and its successor, HOPE-X are both acronyms in upper case letters, perhaps this article should use the same style of title as the other pages. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Look again. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding some refs! In light of articles such as this and this, I still weak oppose the all-caps treatment. Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware the form Hyflex has been used in several respected news sites. However in official pages, such as the ones given in my initial edit here, along with the European Space Agency, German Aerospace Center, and the contractors (KHI), all use all-caps. Furthermore, the use of the form HYFLEX is prevalent in academic papers (some of the examples: ). The search results of 'HYFLEX nasda' or 'Hyflex nasda' on Google Scholar both shows papers that use the form 'HYFLEX' nearly without exception, especially in the titles. The paper you provided above, Development of the hypersonic flight experimental vehicle does indeed use 'Hyflex' in the webpage abstract, but reading the actual paper (the pdf), throughout its seven pages 'Hyflex' is used 5 times versus 'HYFLEX' used 25 times. (The abbreviation list in the first page includes both 'HYFLEX' and 'Hyflex', by the way.) And there are news coverage using the form 'HYFLEX' such as this and the original version of the text here from Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, but I can go along; so I changed me oppose to "weak". Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:ABBR and for WP:CONSISTENCY with OREX etc. I recognize the  applicability of Dicklyon's argument that if sources aren't entirely consistent, we default to lower case. But we don't actually do so when the name is an acronym (though some acronyms of this particular sort, using more than just initial letters, are also sometimes camel-cased; just do what the the majority of sources do with the case in question.) This is essentially the same case as SAGE Publications and IKEA, in being an actual acronym that some sources do not realize is one and thus mis-render in title case (and are more prone to do so in British and other Commonwealth English publications due to a British news habit of treating all acronyms this way, e.g. "Aids" and "Nasa").  We do lowercase an acronym when almost all sources do so, as with laser, radar, scuba, and various other terms that have been assimilated into everyday English as words (i.e., the average person knows what it refers to but doesn't know it's an acronym and wouldn't suspect that it was). That rationale can't apply to something this specific and technical, nor to a proper name.  That said, Hms1103's "it's official" argument is invalid; see WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP just does not care whether something is "official" or not, or we'd have an article at SONY instead of Sony to mimic their "screaming all-caps" logo.  "Official" sources are not independent sources, but the latter are what we care about for analyses of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 9 December 2018 (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.