Talk:IABM

Requested move 4 August 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: The new title has support/evidence for being the COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

International Association of Broadcasting Manufacturers → IABM – In January 2015 the decision was made to amend the name to IABM in order to remove the idea of it being an acronym. Bendales (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose at least for now, per WP:V, WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE. The claim in the article that they've reduced their name to a meaningless string of letters is unsourced, and is not even a complete sentence, nor does it have any explanation or other context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * International Association of Broadcasting Manufacturers → IABM – Hi, as an employee of IABM I think that makes me somewhat sourced to be able to request this name change, my name is Ben Dales and I am the Online Media Executive at IABM, i have included below the legal certificate of name change to IABM which clearly shows that this is not in fact a "meaningless string of letters" so would like the page name to be changed. Any issues then please come back direct to me (ben.dales@theiabm.org) so we can discuss in further detail if you still have issues (which I don't think you should now). Bendales (talk)
 * The potential problem in a case like this is that "reliable source" on Wikipedia means something specific, namely a verifiable publication. A person posting on a talk page here never qualifies as a reliable source (and could be anyone – we don't do identify verification).  That said, the verifiability policy only requires that something be verifi not "already verifi" unless there's something contentious about it. So, I would think that document scans that would be tedious to fake and which can be verified by requesting copies from the state's department of commerce or equivalent are good enough to establish that the name change actually happened, at least for purposes of this requested moves discussion.  That isn't necessarily enough to move the article, since the "use the most common name in reliable sources" principle outweighs the "this is the official name" position. However, as noted below, I think a common-name case is easy to make and compelling enough. Aside: "remove the idea of it being an acronym" = "reduced ... to a meaningless string of letters", by definition. But the rarity of such a move has nothing to do with the article title, it only raised the necessity for evidence.  Wikipedia is subject to attempts at hoaxing pretty often. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The acronym, despite the recentness of the formal change of organizational name, is actually clearly the most common name used in reliable sources such as news publications and books. There are barely a dozen Google News hits that give both the acronym and the full name, and only three that give only the long form . There are over 2,000 news results for the acronym without the full name, and at least in the top few pages of results, not that many are clearly false positives for anything else (most commonly the Institute of Agri Business  [sic] Management).  If you exclude "agri business" and "agribusiness", and also exclude "monitors" and "meteorology" to weed out references to the obscure International Association of Broadcast Monitors and The International Association of Broadcast Meteorology, and then exclude some other false positives found in the book searches below, you get over 1,500 news hits for "IABM", the bulk of which appear to refer to this organization . This is further supported by excluding the words "broadcast" (and variants), "television", and "radio", which yields only about 600 news hits for "IABM" in isolation that might be fairly likely to be about something else, yet right on the first page several are for this organization anyway (mostly about the IABM awards) . In Google Books, there are 8K+ hits for the acronym without the name, but many more are false positives, for obscure things like "Iaroslavl Bol'shaia Mill", "individual, age-based population model", "Integrated Architecture Behavior Model", and other academic topics that rarely make it into the news, so this particular search is not very helpful . By constraining the search to include "broadcast" and variants (but not "broadcasting", which is in the long name) and to exclude other organizations, you get almost 500 book hits, with few false positives . By contrast, only 18 books indexed by Google mention the full [former] name of this organization without also mentioning the acronym , while almost 100 mention both . I think the stats support a COMMONNAME determination here, as with UNICEF and various other organizations far better known by their acronyms than their long names (whether current/official or not).  We generally look to the WP:OFFICIALNAME of things as the default, anyway, unless there is clearly a more common alternative name, or there's something problematic about the official one, which is not the case here.  There is also nothing else notable vying for the IABM title at Wikipedia, so no confusion is likely to result.  Because of the commonness of the acronym for this organization, and the lack of notable competition, the short name satisfies WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * International Association of Broadcasting Manufacturers → IABM – Hi, thanks for this, so does this mean that we can now have the name at the top changed to IABM so when a user searches in google, the wikipedia entry will show as IABM rather than International Association of Broadcast Manufacturers?. Bendales (talk)
 * you really should not be editing the article at all given your relationship to the organisation - see WP:COI. It's ok to comment on this talk page, of course. I have massively pruned the thing because the only sourcing for many years has been primary and that simply will not do. Unless you can find decent, non-trivial, independent mentions in other sources (and that excludes regurgitated press releases etc), I fear that this article may be deleted regardless of what title is used. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2016 (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.