User:Aron Manning/737 Max RM

The close by the same closer a second time seems to be a conflict-of-interest

 * 10:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC): The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move. The nominator submitted this move request just 11 weeks after the previous one and is reminded that the policy states: "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one." — Fuzheado
 * 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC): The result of the move request was: No consensus. — Fuzheado

WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest: "An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request."


 * "same closer closing is not appropriate" (Born2cycle)
 * "It is not OK to close two contested RMs on the same page" (SmokeyJoe)

The close did not follow WP:RMCI
The close did not evaluate the arguments, thus ignored the closing instructions WP:RMCI: "Consensus is determined [...] by evaluating [the] arguments, assigning due weight accordingly [...]." The close comment "The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move." shows the result is based on a head-count. The previous close comment has no explanation for the "no consensus" at all: The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado.

According to WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious". The close counted all the votes, failing to evaluate the arguments made. An evaluation shows, most votes are based on the false assumption: the correct name is the official. The intro of WP:OFFICIAL makes it clear this is not the case: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one."

Unsound arguments
Presented here is Evidence [...] limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion., as required by WP:MRV.

Claim: the opposing arguments, however numerous, do not make sound arguments for the "Boeing 737 MAX" title. This is explained here in general and with further detail in [the notes at each argument].
 * 1) The most repeated (12/21 !votes) "official" argument is a false assumption, as explained by WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "It's a very easy mistake to make, and a very common one."  These !votes contradict WP:TITLETM based on that false assumption. — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy" applies. — Marked with.
 * 2) (4/21) personal preference votes without an argument made are closely related to the "official" argument, and subjective by definition. — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those based on personal opinion only" — Marked with.
 * 3) (3/21) misunderstanding of WP:TITLETM/WP:COMMONNAME is explained in the notes marked as:  arguments: 1, 2, 3 — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
 * 4) (1/21) opposing !vote makes 2 arguments that support the move  1 — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
 * 5) (1/21) !vote is referring to the guideline WP:NCAIRCRAFT, without taking into account that the guideline gives no guidance regarding the marketing style / capitalization, and does not state WP:TITLETM policy is not to be applied, marked as:  1 — WP:NHC: "discarding irrelevant arguments: [...] those that are logically fallacious"
 * (Note: There was and will be debate about WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline overruling WP:TITLETM policy. Those arguments are based on dubious claims, like: "737 MAX" is the designation (designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max "), "737 MAX" is not a name (what matters is "737 MAX" is a trademark and WP:TITLETM applies to trademarks)).

Some arguments are ambiguous in the RM, therefore it's categorization is also ambiguous. The [evaluation of individual arguments] can be discussed, and improvements suggested on the [associated talk page].

Supporting arguments

 * 1) (6/8) WP:TITLETM policy: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks". "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". — Marked with.
 * 2) (2/8) MOS:ALLCAPS guideline:  "Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case". —  1, 2
 * 3) (1/8) MOS:TM: From among "styles already in use by independent reliable sources", "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." —  1.

I could not find any opposing !vote, that makes a sound argument to oppose WP:TITLETM policy. Following WP:RMCI and WP:NHC, the resulting consensus is very different from the close that is reviewed. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy applied (proof)
Presented here is Evidence [...] limited to demonstrating that the RM closer did or did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI in closing the page move discussion., as required by WP:MRV. This evidence shows most of the numerous opposing arguments made were logical fallacies, misunderstanding of policy, and false assumptions.

The supporting arguments (most notably DonFB's) clearly show that WP:TITLETM policy applies and explicitly instructs to use standard English capitalization ("Boeing 737 Max") for trademarks (it is a trademark: Uspto, archive): "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks [...]. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)".

The exemption to the policy "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." does not apply, as the prevalence of "MAX" cannot be demonstrated:
 * 9+ long-standing WP:IRS using "MAX": Reuters, WSJ, Seattle Times, Aviation Week, The Economist, Al Jazeera, Forbes, Marketwatch, Time, ...
 * 17+ long-standing WP:IRS using "Max": The Air Current, Aviation International News, CBS, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, Bloomberg, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, CNN The Guardian, The Hill, LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, Seattle PI, Sydney Morning Herald, The Times of London, ...

Although this list can be extended, it is clear at this point that the choice of sources to count cannot be made objectively, therefore "MAX" being more common cannot be demonstrated, leaving WP:TITLETM policy in full effect. For the same reason WP:COMMONNAME (referenced once, mistakenly in the context of the "official" source, not WP:IRS) does not apply.

The 2 guidelines also support this result. MOS:ALLCAPS: "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks", and MOS:TM: "editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."

There was and will be debate about WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline overruling WP:TITLETM policy. Those arguments are based on dubious claims, like: WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline gives no instructions regarding marketing stylization / capitalization, nor states that WP:TITLETM should be ignored. It's focus is on a higher level: the structure and words included in the article title, not the writing style, therefore both WP:TITLETM and WP:NCAIRCRAFT can be applied at the same time without conflict. There are opinion-based counter-arguments to this.
 * "737 MAX" is the designation (designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max ")
 * "737 MAX" is not a name (although it is, this does not matter, as "737 MAX" is a trademark, thus TITLETM applies)
 * "MAX" is not a capitalization of "Max"

As shown above, the policy and guidelines clearly favor the "Boeing 737 Max" title. Closing the MR with "no consensus" would just result in another Move Requests, until the policy is properly applied, thus wasting more time of wikipedians. Based on the sound arguments supporting the move and the lack thereof in opposing votes, consensus can be determined in favor of the move.

WP:RMCI: "the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere."

RM Discussion: arguments and evaluation
Source: Requested move discussion — 25 May 2019 
 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move. The nominator submitted this move request just 11 weeks after the previous one and is reminded that the policy states: "Successful move re-requests generally take place at least three months after the previous one." Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Boeing 737 MAX → Boeing 737 Max
 * Boeing 737 MAX groundings → Boeing 737 Max groundings

– Per WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)". Here is a non-exhaustive list of reliable sources that use the spelling "Max": BBC Bloomberg CNBC CNN The Guardian The Hill Los Angeles Times New York Times NPR Seattle PI Sydney Morning Herald The Times of London USA Today Washington Post  Calidum   04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC) WP:TITLETM


 * Reopening comment. There is nothing wrong or out of process with opening a new RM like this 2 or 3 months after a previous close of no consensus. So I have ' as valid.  Paine Ellsworth ', ed. put'r there  22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM The result was no result (no consensus), thus this is a logical fallacy.
 * Agree Makes sense to move following guidelines at WP:TITLETM. LK (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree per guidelines, common usage and personal preference. — Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)    04:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This was discussed before, and the result was the current Boeing 737 MAX title.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The result last time was no consensus. So it's worth more discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ALLCAPS.
 * Support sticking to guidelines, avoiding decorative allcaps. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

personal preference. MAX is not uppercase max?
 * Oppose as this was only discussed a few months ago with no consensus, please read the long discussion not that far away about MAX not being an upper case version of max so the quoted title guidelines dont apply. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

1. "the correct way", "for me the official designation by the manufacturer should be used": WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." 2. There are ca. 13+ RS using standard English capitalization ("Max": The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...), and 9+ using official ("MAX"). 3. "737 MAX" is a trademark (Uspto, archive). WP:TITLETM policy explicitly instructs to use title case ("737 Max") for trademarks. The argument reads something else into TITLETM. 4. Personal preference. Designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max ". 5. WP:NCAIRCRAFT ("the same reason as last time").
 * Oppose with the same reason as last time: Just because some reliable sources write it the wrong way should not mean that that becomes the correct way. There are also reliable sources that do spell it as "MAX": The Wall Street Journal Reuters. Also notably the FAA. WP:TITLETM applied to this specific case seems to just say if the media write it incorrectly you should do it too... Anyways I can see that some find this just to be an opinion, and honestly in the end it are just 2 letters. But for me the official designation by the manufacturer should be used, since this is not a case of styling but it is a name. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - there's an article called "Aircraft name groundings"? Shouldn't that have been "grounding of....". Or "response to aircraft name crashes"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM
 * Support per MOS:TTM: "examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner"....and: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official', as long as this is a style already in widespread use". I realize independent official sources like FAA, etc use MAX, but I believe the majority of mainstream media RS use a style that "most closely resembles standard English" (initial capital only). Because MAX is not an acronym, we are not obligated to reproduce the capitalization. The caps are "the preference of the trademark owner," which the guideline says we can disregard, while the policy (WP:TITLETM ) says: "follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." MAX does appear to be the official name, but our rules say we are expected to use standard English, not the company's style preference. DonFB (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 13:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)      The WP:TITLETM exception requires "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.". Official sources are not independent reliable sources (misunderstanding of WP:TITLETM). There are two common usages "Max" and "MAX", in too many WP:IRS (9+ using "MAX", 13+ using "Max") to objectively say one is the most common, thus "Max"/"MAX" is not exempt from TITLETM.
 * Oppose per Talk:Boeing 737 MAX. WP:TITLETM doesn't apply here since plenty of official independent sources (FAA, CAA, ALPA, AOPA) and journalistic sources (AP, WSJ, etc.) use all caps. We just went through this six weeks ago, nothing has changed since then. Pinging participants in the previous discussion (my apologies if I left anyone out or pinged anyone who already participated this time): . --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Support by above. Ythlev (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the nomination and as supported by WP:TITLETM and MOS:TMSTYLE, and exemplified in Mini (marque), an article about the car that BMW call "MINI". "MAX" may be the way Boeing choose to stylise the name, but normal English, as evidenced in a multitude of secondary references, is to write "Max". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the previous RM, OFFICIAL should take precedence. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

1. "Commonly recognizable name" is independent from the official name. WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" (misunderstanding of WP:COMMONNAME). 2. WP:OFFICIAL.
 * Oppose. The manufacturer calls it 737 MAX . That's the official name. Nothing can trump that. WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * using the official name only means using the official spelling and doesn't imply using the official stylisation too, so the proposed new name is fine as the spelling is per the official spelling. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The all-caps would appear to be the official stylisation so as such OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME trump anything here. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "official stylisation" isn't the same as "official name", and the capitalisation isn't relevent to common name either, just the spelling and word spacing. Unless the "MAX" part is an acronym, the official name and common name translate to "Boeing 737 Max" per MOS:CAPS. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, Point is they use the caps and so we should too. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And the official name for TIME, SONY, IGOR etc isn't used per the guidelines. There is no trumping here.  Lazz _R  16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's because sources use lowecase? Anyway OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a compelling arguement. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL
 * Oppose even if a thousand people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. It's Boeing's aircraft, therefore Boeing's name for the aircraft is correct.  While some argue that it is a marketing name, the name is used in most, if not all official sources. -  ZLEA  T \ C 14:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL / no reasoning.
 * Oppose Why are we going over this AGAIN only 6 weeks later? As Ahecht and Redalert2fan said, many RS, including journalists and aviation sources use the Boeing official convention.  --rogerd (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS
 * Strong support per MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 45 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, as with TIME and SONY Mobile, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. MOS:ALLCAPS explicitly says to "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks". This is not even a matter of the name, it is just a matter of whether to use ordinary or promotional styling with capital letters. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL
 * Strong oppose Official sources such as the FAA and many others use the all caps style. funplussmart (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:TM
 * Strong support per WP:ALLCAPS and BarrelProof.  Lazz _R  16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL
 * Strong oppose As per some previous users mentioned, it is officially capitalized as MAX, and has been registered by FAA with this name. Even though some news media and journalists capitalize it as Max does not mean that it’s the correct name. -- 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

While prioritization of sources is not the concern of WP:TITLETM policy, it's clear about the exemption only applies if "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.". As there are numerous sources using both (roughly equal), and the choice of prioritized sources can tip the balance either way, it cannot be neutrally and objectively demonstrated that "MAX" is the most common usage, therefore the policy applies: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks [...]." This requires the use of standard English capitalization (title caps for proper names): "Boeing 737 Max". (The argument misinterprets WP:TITLETM.) * there are 13+ long-standing WP:IRS using "Max": (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...). * there are 9+ long-standing WP:IRS listed, using "MAX": Reuters, WSJ, Seattle Times, Aviation Week, The Economist, Al Jazeera, Forbes, Marketwatch, Time * Aviation media is prioritized by some opposers. "MAX" is not most common usage in those either: * 2 using "Max": The Air Current, Aviation International News * 2 using "MAX": Aviation Week, Aviation Herald ("737 MAX" only in the article; uses designator "B78M" in the title)
 * Oppose. There are many reliable media sources that use full upercase: Al Jazeera, CNN (used interchangeably), Forbes, Marketwatch, Reuters, The Seattle Times, Time, and The Wall Street Journal, to name several. The language of the policy guideline referenced in the justification is up for interpretation: i.e., do all internet sources count equally, and if not, which sources should be prioritized? (Aviation media, associations, and organizations; or the general press?) I cannot see that conversation reaching a consensus. We should also keep in mind that guidelines are not law (see WP:5P5). G EORGIAN  Go Dogs  17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You asked which sources should be prioritized. There is a good answer for that – we should prioritize the sources that are independent and reliable. The sources cited in an article should also be those sources, or at least should be reliable if not independent, so to observe that 45 sources that are cited in the article use the proposed styling is evidence for the proposal to use ordinary English styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point, and I understand your reasoning. There are other sources cited in the article, though, that use full uppercase, several of which come from the media organizations I mentioned. I'd say all of those satisfy both WP:IRS criteria. My first question was more of a rhetorical one, but I think it's of note that the vast majority of aviation media uses the current styling, in addition to a good amount of press coverage and the manufacturer itself (although I am less inclined to give too much consideration to that). My vote still stands. G EORGIAN  Go Dogs  01:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Oppose for the exact same reason I had in the last discussion about this exact thing less than 3 months ago. Why is this being discussed again? Nothing has changed since then. 737 MAX is the official name, the trademarked name, the name used by a decent number of reliable sources (no hard numbers, just an observation from a scan of the first few page of Google News on the topic), and the name used by official aviation regulation agencies (i.e. the FAA). -- HunterM267  talk 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My opinion hasn’t changed. I still think the page should be moved. However, I respect Fuzheado’s closure of the previous discussion and don’t think enough time hasn’t passed to be able to expect a new consensus to form. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Good argument, but unsound: WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline says nothing about stylization / capitalization, however the WP:TITLETM policy is explicitly in favor of the standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max". WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline in 2011: Never stated that all caps stylization is preferable and WP:TITLETM policy should be ignored.
 * Oppose for the exact same reason I had in the last discussion. Naming conventions (aircraft) has not materially changed since then.  Therefore, the proper name of this article remains "Boeing 737 MAX". Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 01:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

1. For WP:COMMONNAME "it's okay either way", as roughly the same number of WP:IRS uses both (9+ using "MAX", 13+ using "Max"). Non-decisive. 2. "should not be swayed by trademarking, etc. over policy" supports WP:TITLETM ("Boeing 737 Max") 3. "I think the use of MAX, [...], is better": Personal opinion contradicting previous arguments (logical fallacy). 4. "Boeing's headspace/marketing" implies WP:NCCAPS: [...] "Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions are [...] drawing primarily upon academic style, not journalistic or marketing/business styles", and MOS:ALLCAPS: "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks". 5. 2 arguments support the move, 1 is non-conclusive, 1 is logical fallacy. Why is this an "oppose" vote?
 * Weak Oppose We use common names. Unless it has changed, I think the spelling was a toss-up. So, it's okay either way, I think. We should not be swayed by trademarking, etc. over policy and consistency. That said, I think the use of MAX, especially in the grounding title, is better. It's clear the title is about the product named 737 MAX. (Not that there is a thing called "Max grounding", but the title kind of could mean that) Also, the MAX all-caps kind of indicates a bit about Boeing's headspace/marketing about their product. Which I do think is an important part about the tragedies. Alaney2k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

no argument / personal preference. no argument / personal preference. no argument / personal preference.
 * Oppose - Didn't we just decide this a few weeks ago? Nothing has changed. Eilidhmax (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for all the reasons set out in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX. Nothing has changed since then. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Endless nonsense move requests, can never satisfy them. At least bother checking prior move requests? What has changed? Well played Wikipedia. 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohbye (talk • contribs)

WP:TITLETM
 * Strong support The relevant policy is WP:TITLETM. It isn't a question of how the manufacturer styles it -- that's marketing. It isn't a question of whether anybody copies their nonstandard style. The policy is to use standard capitalization for trademarks unless the preponderance of reliable sources does otherwise. They don't. TypoBoy (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A (strong) preponderance of reliable sources including regulators, major airlines, aviation-focused news media, major travel blogs, and industry groups such as ALPA and AOPA do indeed use the correct MAX name. I've cited several below (links are available in my comments on the previous request from a few weeks ago.) Mainstream news outlets are more inconsistent, but they're also much less reliable in matters of aviation. Vbscript2 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL.
 * Oppose Per WP:IGNORE, and official sources (Boeing, FAA, and AOPA) spell it MAX. - Gorkypickeral (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Oppose Once again, I think that renaming this page is wrong thing to do. As per above by Gorkypickeral, offical sources should be the best place to see how a name is spelled. I think this secton of this talk page will close on Sunday this week. GCunknown (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

1. WP:OFFICIAL. 2. No other guideline referred, but might suggest WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". 3. Which sources matter is personal preference. The sources listed only demonstrate one side, and lack reliability: official sources and airlines are not WP:IRS, blogs are frowned upon. Only Aviation Week (uses "MAX" in titles) and Aviation Herald (uses the designator "B78M" in titles, "737 MAX" in the article). 4. There are 2 aviation news sources (The Air Current, Aviation International News) and 11+ major, long-standing IRS (CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...), using the standard English capitalization "Max". Whether "Max" or "MAX" is more common, cannot be determined objectively. 5. WP:TITLETM policy clearly instructs to use the standard English capitalization (title case for proper names: "Boeing 737 Max").
 * Strong Oppose for all of the same reasons I listed in the previous discussion on this a few weeks ago. 737 MAX is the official name of the aircraft. This is the name used by the FAA, which issued the type certificate. It's the name that nearly all sources that are reputable in matters of aviation use, including the US Federal Aviation Administration, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Aviation Week, Aviation Herald, major travel blogs like The Points Guy, View from the Wing, One Mile at a Time, and airlines that operate the aircraft, such as Southwest, United, Norwegian, Air Canada, and American. Major news organizations are more inconsistent (with plenty of examples available of both capitalizations,) but they also tend to be notoriously unreliable in matters of aviation, especially compared to the more aviation-focuses sources listed here. The strong majority of sources that are reliable in matters of aviation consistently use MAX. Just because some less-reliable journalists incorrectly write it was Max doesn't mean Wiki should be wrong, too. Vbscript2 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Still Neutral per my vote in the first discussion. WP:TITLETM states the guideline very clearly: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". A cursory search on Google for the top 30 hits of "boeing 737 grounding" shows independent sources do not have consensus on the name format. Because of this absence of independent media consensus, my vote is Neutral, however if the Support or Oppose side can demonstrate widespread use of "Max" or "MAX" in independent news sources respectively, their rationales would be justified.  Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 03:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * After reading the comments above, I have changed my vote to Oppose per FAA and AOPA which ties in with Boeing's choice of capitalization. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 15:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."

1. WP:OFFICIAL. 2. IBM is an acronym, "Max" is not, (MOS:CAPSACRS).
 * Oppose It looks like all the Boeing web pages use MAX, I also notice that the IBM page is upper case. Also, note that max is not an English word, though often short for maximum. If the name was 737 MAXIMUM, I might agree that it be changed, but it isn't.  We don't know the exact reason it was named MAX, and I believe we don't need to know that.  It might, for example, be an acronym for something we don't know.  Gah4 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2019 (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.

Count of votes based on the argument made (March)

 * Support: (9/13) policy based sound arguments, (3/13) guideline based sound arguments, (1/13) indecisive (unsound), (1/13) personal preference (not argument / unsound).
 * Opposition: (15/30) WP:OFFICIAL false assumption, (5/30) misinterpretation of policy, (4/30) biased, (2/30) debatable based on guideline, (2/30) false assumption (designation), (1/30) logical fallacy, (1/30) personal preference. No sound arguments.

Count of votes — details and guidelines (March)
In opposition: (see above)
 * 1) 15x WP:OFFICIAL: false assumption
 * 2) 5x  Misinterpretation of policy: fallacy
 * 3) 4x  Biased: only references sources that use "MAX"
 * 4) 2x  Debatable / misinterpretation: WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline does not concern capitalization, it's not in opposition with WP:TITLETM policy
 * 5) 2x  False assumption: aircraft designation is "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max "
 * 6) 1x  Argument supports move: logical fallacy — arguments: 1
 * 7) 1x  Personal preference: subjective

In support:
 * 9x WP:TITLETM policy: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks". "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)".
 * 3x MOS:TM: From among "styles already in use by independent reliable sources", "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."
 * 1x MOS:ALLCAPS guideline:  "Reduce text written in all capitals in trademarks", "Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case".
 * 1x WP:COMMONNAME (indecisive: roughly the same number of WP:IRS use both "Max" and "MAX")
 * 1x Personal preference


 * (There was and will be debate about WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline, but this is unnecessary, as WP:TITLETM policy is clear about the use of "Max", and WP:NCAIRCRAFT ignores the question of capitalization, and does not oppose the policy).

Discussion (March)
Source: Requested move discussion — 11 March 2019 
 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX → Boeing 737 Max – MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS. I count about 35 sources that are cited in the article that have "Max" in their titles (with mixed case). That is a large number. I see no indication that the all-caps "MAX" is anything other than a promotional styling. The company's self-published material follows the all-caps, but we should pay more attention to independent sources. Wikipedia guidelines say to use ordinary English styling in such a situation where the sources are mixed. (I note that there was some prior discussion of this issue in 2012, although not a formal RM discussion, which is archived in Talk:Boeing 737 MAX/Archive 1.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC) MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS

Designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max ". "737 MAX" is a trademark (Uspto, archive), WP:TITLETM applies to trademarks. WP:OFFICIAL says the article title is not necessarily the same as the official.
 * Oppose - "737 MAX" is the company's aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it is exempt from the guidelines. The company has every right to call an aircraft what it choses, and that is "737 MAX". - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, it is a trademark registered by Boeing for use on aircraft, so we need to comply with Wikipedia policy for article names containing trademarks for this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Boeing 737 Max" is capitalized with title case, as WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:PROPERNAME instructs. Neither says to stick with the official all caps stylization, thus "737 MAX" "is the proper name" cannot be deduced (fallacy). The rest is WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Strong oppose Naming conventions (capitalization) states "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name". 737 MAX with "MAX" being all caps is the proper name as that's how Boeing named it. We should keep with the proper name. funplussmart (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both of the above comments seem like some variation of just saying "it's official!" Is there something more to it than that? Also, the WP:NCCAPS remark about capitalizing proper names is only about capitalizing the first letter of a word, not about using all-caps, and also I believe this isn't strictly a proper name since there are hundreds of these airplanes – please see the "Corvette" example in the Proper noun article. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are also hundreds of thousands of Corvettes. Also, if "Boeing 737 MAX" is substituted for "Chevrolet Corvette", that paragraph would read the same. So I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning that. Also, if this article is retitled, then there are several other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) Oddly, no one has ever proposed changing the A320neo article's title. Curious. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Airbus A330neo. - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked what is my point in mentioning the Corvette example. It is that that the proper noun article notes that "Corvette (referring to a car produced by the company Chevrolet) is not a proper name" and "Similarly, Chevrolet Corvette is not a proper name." And "Boeing 737 MAX" is also not a proper name. So the boldfaced guidance above about what to do with a proper name is irrelevant to this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured out why. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is referring to capitalising the first letter. There would be no other reason for it to start from the "second word". It is not referring to all caps. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM
 * Strong support per the nomination and further supported by WP:TITLETM and MOS:TMSTYLE, and exemplified in Mini (marque), an article about the car that BMW call "MINI". "MAX" may be the way Boeing choose to stylise the name, but normal English, as evidenced in a multitude of secondary references, is to write "Max". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Implies MOS:ALLCAPS: "Avoid writing with all caps, [...] when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case".
 * Strong support Advertising copywriters write "MAX"; journalists write "Max". We're writing an encyclopedia here, not trying to sell airplanes. TypoBoy (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, a google search will show news sources do not unanimously use "Max", many do capitalize all the letters. funplussmart (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that some sources write "Max" and others write "MAX". The relevant Wikipedia policy here is WP:TITLETM, and it says we should follow standard practice (that is, "Max") "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". Your observation therefore supports the move. TypoBoy (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Implies the indecisive WP:COMMONNAME policy: roughly the same number of WP:IRS use both "Max" and "MAX".
 * Support (agreed): Reputable aviation press such as Flight Global use "Max" and "Max 8", a recent example is here. zmm (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM
 * Support: Per WP:TITLETM, stylized titles are typically noted in the lede, whilst the title of the article remains as it is expected by the convention. Thus, there should be a sentence that goes something like Boeing 737 Max, often styled as Boeing 737 MAX, ... etc.BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Correct name" is not defined in Wikipedia, this is personal preference or WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]."
 * Strong oppose That some journalists don't get the name correct isn't a good argument for making it incorrect here, too, in my opinion. Mainstream news coverage of aviation is of notoriously poor quality. The correct name, per Boeing, is Boeing 737 MAX. News sources that are more reputable in aviation matters typically use the correct name with the capitalization. For example, Aviation Week's tag page for the Boeing 737 MAX uses the capitalization, as do most of their article titles that you can see listed there. Even well-known frequent flyer blogs like View from the Wing, One Mile at a Time, and The Points Guy correctly use the all-caps. While I apparently can't link those here, you can do a Google site search on their domains to confirm. Vbscript2 (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * but Wiki policy for article titles at WP:TITLETM explicitly says Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. We are bound by that. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that it is demonstrably the most common usage among sources that actually know what they're talking about. The usage of all upper-case seems relatively consistent among sources that are reputable in aviation-related matters. AvHerald is another example. Like I said before, some reporters who aren't very knowledgeable of aviation getting it wrong seems like a rather poor justification for making it incorrect here, too. I would also disagree about being 'bound' by WP:TITLETM. There's also WP:IGNORE to consider. Though, in this case, I think keeping the all caps does follow at least the spirit of the "demonstrably the most common usage" language in WP:TITLETM. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Air Current, Aviation International News (aviation media sources) prefer "Max", Aviation Week prefers "MAX". Need to improve NPOV, only sources using "MAX" are represented.
 * Also of note, the US Federal Aviation Administration, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Line Pilots Association, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association all use "MAX", not "Max." The usage seems mostly consistent among sources that are actually reputable in aviation matters. Vbscript2 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Commonly recognizable name" is independent from the official name. WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title", misinterpreted.
 * Oppose. The manufacturer refers to this model as 737 MAX. We are required to use WP:COMMONNAME. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * there are no plans to change the name, so it will still comply with WP:COMMONNAME. The change proposed is to write it using standard English capitalisation per WP:TITLETM, another part of the naming policy which we are required to use. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 for the original argument. 1. Both "MAX" and "Max" are common names, 13+ long-standing WP:IRS uses "Max" (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...), therefore the most common name cannot be determined objectively. 2. EasyJet is ok for WP:ALLCAPS, "MAX" is not. 3. Invoking WP:IAR is personal preference in a contentious case.
 * Oppose. Uppercase MAX definitely is common usage, though admittedly not universal among reliable sources. In any case WP:TITLETM is inconsistently applied (e.g. we let easyJet get away with their camelcase styling despite relatively common usage to the contrary), and WP:IGNORE tells us that improving Wikipedia should take priority over individual rules. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

They do. WSJ also uses the "Max" form, 13+ other major media outlets also use "Max" (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...).
 * Oppose. Multiple reliable independent sources, like Reuters, Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal use the all-caps MAX form. Eilidhmax (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia guidelines, the question isn't whether you can find some independent sources that use the all-caps styling. It is whether there are independent sources that don't. Actually, the article in The Wall Street Journal that is cited in this article uses "Max". So do the cited articles of BBC and The Guardian (plus the 35 that have it in their headlines). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether there are some that do or some that don't, it is whether the trademarked usage is demonstrably the most common (per WP:TITLETM, though that is not the only applicable guideline). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I was focusing on MOS:TM, which is phrased a bit differently: "examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Do not invent new styles that are not used by independent reliable sources. ... Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, 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". I think the 35+ identified sources are sufficient to demonstrate widespread use. (The degree of independence of the sources is also important, of course.) —BarrelProof (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM
 * Support WP:TITLETM is clear we use standard formatting unless a majority of reliable sources do not do so. Here are some sources that do use standard formatting (aka the proposed title): Washington Post NY Times The Guardian BBC The Associated Press.  Calidum   15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Warthog" is a nickname explicitly opposed by WP:NCAIRCRAFT. "Max" is not nickname, but standard English capitalization. Misinterpretation of the guideline.
 * Oppose This is Boeing's designation. Using this same logic, we would rename the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article to A-10 Warthog, since that seems to be the popular name. --rogerd (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That specific analogy would be relevant only if this article would refer to the frequent spelling as Max somewhere in the first few lines (like the A-10 article does). Since it does not, the analogy is at best flawed. Arnoutf (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the proposal isn't to change the designation though, the only change proposed is to write it in standard English - to conform with the Wikipedia article naming policy at WP:TITLETM. There is nothing though to stop us qualifying it at the top of the article, to explain how Boeing stylise it per MOS:TMSTYLE. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by my original argument, that the manufacturer's designation should be used. --rogerd (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * given that, according to move request closing instructions: Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions, Which of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or naming conventions are you relying on to support your "original argument"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The all uppercase usage is the common usage on many sites as demonstrated by others here. --rogerd (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM applies to trademarks (aka. marketing names), therefore this logic Supports "Boeing 737 Max" as per WP:TITLETM. This being an oppose vote is logical fallacy / misinterpretation of policy.
 * Oppose as per the last discussion we had on this earlier when it was confirmed from sources close to Boeing that MAX is not an acronym or a captialisation of Max just a Boeing marketing name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the sentence referred from the last discussion is: "I emailed Jon at FlightBlogger before he left. He told me the Boeing official name is MAX, not Max. Flight International's editors felt it should have been Max, and the writers all seem to disagree and wanted MAX. However many different sites waffle between the two. It is NOT an acroynm but I much prefer MAX to Max." - by JhanJensen 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement from some sources (indecisive), and a personal preference.
 * Can you supply a link to that previous discussion please. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look on this talk page's archive page. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This item from 2012 then, I guess. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MilborneOne the argument there in 2012 assumes that the requirement to use standard English is only a MOS guideline, and so can be ignored. Now, in 2019, WP:TITLETM is official Wikipedia policy, and trumps MOS guidelines and project conventions, so really needs to be complied with I think, regardless of how we characterise the nature of Boeing's use of the word. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TM
 * Support - Clearly a stylisation. Move to standardised form per MOSTM - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TM?
 * Support - Unless MAX is an initialism for something, regular mixed case should be used. Trivialist (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL. Note: changed his mind later (below), but that argument is striked out (not the "Support" though...). Confused. As good measure, this Oppose is counted, the Support is not...
 * Oppose - I think that it the way Boeing using it as a trademark. It just how we know it as. However, I agree with some of the "support" comments. But I want to oppose it for now. GCunknown (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Oppose - It is the registered trademarked name. It is the name also on all regulatory certifications, licenses etc. --Bohbye (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of WP:NCCAPS that says [...] "Wikipedia MoS and naming conventions are [...] drawing primarily upon academic style, not journalistic or marketing/business styles". "737 Max" and "737 MAX" are both WP:PROPERNAME.
 * Oppose Per WP:NCCAPS, proper names are exceptions for non-capitalizing in article titles. MAX is a proper name here, so correctly capitalized, even if other sources use inconsistent capitalization. Brandmeistertalk  15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood WP:NCCAPS. It means just the first letter of words that are proper names, not all the letters. Like Supermarine Spitfire is not Supermarine SPITFIRE. That means, as it's the proper name of an aeroplane model, we can call this article Boeing 737 Max (but not Boeing 737 MAX) and we don't have to follow the normal rule of no caps - as with Airbus A320 family where "family" isn't part of the proper name, for example. Please reconsider your declaration. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, but as per others. Multiple official documents follow Boeing's own capitalization, like FAA's Airworthiness Notification, EASA's type-certificate data sheet, ICAO's Boeing Product Update etc. Brandmeistertalk  16:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."


 * Comment, just to save repeating it several more times, for those who are opposing the move based on it being Boeing's trademark, or because it's the way Boeing write it (including, I think, and ) that is exactly the case that the Wikipedia policy for article names containing trademarks covers and states cannot be capitalised this way. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we rename COBOL to Cobol or AstroTurf to Astro Turf or Astro turf? --rogerd (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We use the common capitalizations of those because they're the common ones. For terms that are sometimes, but not always, capitalized funny, we use standard capitalization, even if the vendor has a non-standard one. @DeFacto is pointing out (correctly) that a lot of the people who weighed in above seem to think that the rule is "spell it however the vendor does" That's not the rule. TypoBoy (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * COBOL is an acronym, so is correctly written in all capitals, and isn't a trademark anyway, so WP:TITLETM policy doesn't apply. AstroTurf is correct per WP:TITLETM, as neither word is written fully capitalised (AstroTURF or ASTROTurf would be wrong). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Strong oppose Even though some writers in journalism are writing it as Max, Boeing officially writes it as MAX. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM Thank you for showing how to apply the exact policy.
 * Support The default according to WP:TITLETM is “Max”. Boeing’s trademark is “MAX”. Unless the trademark “MAX” is the most common in sources other than Boeing, the default “Max” should be used. I reviewed recent news stories that involve this airplane, and about 2/3 of sources called it “Max”. “MAX” isn’t demonstrated to be the most common usage, so the article should be titled with “Max”. I support the move. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM
 * Support A number of press outlets use "Max", WP:TITLETM is pretty clear on this. Boeing has said the spelling is a marketing style not an acronym. The only real reason to keep is because that's what Boeing wants it to be called and that's not a very strong one. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Oppose On Boeing's actual site it says Boeing 737 MAX SchoolBusesC2 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

''Changed his mind again. As good measure, the Oppose above is counted, but this Support is not....''
 * Support I agree with that DeFacto. May as well Support the merger and renaming of the page. GCunknown (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you need to strike out your oppose entry above - made at 03:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC) - then, if you have changed your mind. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No need to demonstrate prevalence of "Max": "follow standard English text formatting [...] unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common". See also MOS:ALLCAPS: "Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case [...].". This is a misinterpretation of the policy.
 * Neutral. Per WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". This, or the lack thereof must be demonstrated by those arguing for one choice or the other. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 02:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you are misunderstanding the policy. There is no spelling change in the proposal - that will remain exactly as it is now - the only change proposed is to the way the word "max" is capitalised per the requirement "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim)" of the stated policy. That in this case means changing "Boeing 737 M AX " to "Boeing 737 M ax " - no spelling change. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding me. I didn't even think or suggested there was a spelling change. We are talking about capitalization? Yes. My point of my !vote is the community must demonstrate which form is most predominantly-used by the media, either mixed-case or upper-case. It is in the exact quote of the policy I mentioned. After doing my research there is no media consensus on what form of case to use, hence my !neutral. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Oppose 737 MAX is the official name of the product, given to the product by its manufacturer. We should stick to that official name. Kestreltail (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1. WP:AT policy implies WP:TITLETM policy &ensp; 2. WP:MOSTM/WP:MOSCAPS &ensp; 3. WP:OFFICIAL applied properly.
 * Support WP:OFFICIALNAME we do not use official names just because they are official. WP:MOSCAPS/WP:MOSTM uses sentence case when a word is artistically capitalized, when it is not an acronym/initialism/abbreviation. WP:AT use sentence case for naming articles, not title case. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." "decent number of reliable sources" in itself is not a deciding factor.
 * Oppose 737 MAX is the official name, the trademarked name, the name used by a decent number of reliable sources (no hard numbers, just an observation from a scan of the first few page of Google News on the topic), and the name used by official aviation regulation agencies (i.e. the FAA). -- HunterM267  talk 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL.
 * Strong Oppose 737 MAX is the official name and is used in all official statements I've seen. Omega13a (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL.
 * Strong Oppose as per OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME, 737 MAX is the official name. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe the time has come to consider WP:TITLECHANGES: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." I do not see consensus forming. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment with respect to the comments made by, , and  about the current name being the "official name", "trademark" or "common name". That is true, but there is nothing in the proposal that will change that, so those points are moot. The only change being proposed is to change the capitalisation of the word "max" from "MAX" to "Max", to comply with the the WP:TITLETM policy, and there nothing in WP:COMMONNAME or WP:Official name insisting that capitalisation is copied. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * a courtesy ping for you as I got your capitalisation wrong above and the ping failed! -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Problem is that MAX is a trade name and not a capitalisation of Max so to present it as "Max" is clearly wrong. Probably a case of common sense overrides the alphabet soup. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ^This, MAX is the offical and commonname, Max isn't - It may seem pedantic that I'm choosing MAX over Max however they use the former as does sources. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)      Official sources are not WP:IRS. The WP:TITLETM exception requires "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." (737 MAX is a trademark: Uspto, archive). There are two common usages "Max" and "MAX" in too many sources to objectively compare.
 * Oppose WP:TITLETM doesn't apply here since plenty of official independent sources (FAA, CAA, ALPA, AOPA) and journalistic sources (AP, WSJ, etc.) use all caps, as pointed out by Vbscript2 and Eilidhmax. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

PAGE ]]) 01:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLETM doesn't give any exceptions that allow for all caps to be used, other than as a possible means of disambiguation, so as it's a Wikipedia policy (not simply a MOS guideline) then it's reasonable to expect it to be enforced here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLETM allows for non-standard capitalization when it is used by independent reliable sources. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * there's nothing in WP:TITLETM sanctioning the use of all caps, even if it is used by all independent reliable sources. That exception only applies to spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No argument (personal preference), just a negative remark that confuses WP:OFFICIALNAME with WP:PROPERNAME and misunderstands both: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.", "Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English.".
 * Oppose and a comment. It seems like the height of collective Wikipedia hubris to ignore the proper naming of a product because of an arbitrary policy. 170.249.172.210 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM is the policy. as above.
 * Support MAX and Max are used in the media, so I would go with Wikipedia policy and go with 'Max' for consistency. MAX is clearly marketing-speak, even if Boeing uses it officially. Alaney2k (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support by above. Ythlev (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Which? WP:OFFICIAL is the most common.
 * Oppose per others. G EORGIAN  Go Dogs  04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLETM.
 * Support per WP:TITLETM. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL do apply as this is not about what we are calling it (i.e. the name) but about how said name is styled, i.e. do we ape marketing and render "Max" in all caps? Which we do not... unless a preponderance of independent sources do. Which they do not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose in regards to a preponderance of independent sources not using it. The FAA, UK CAA, AOPA, ALPA, Aviation Week, AvHerald, major travel blogs like TPG, OMAAT, VFTW, major airlines that operate the type, such as Southwest, United, Norwegian, Air Canada, and American, and several major news organizations all use the correct "MAX" capitalization. Vbscript2 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Air Current, Aviation International News (aviation media sources) prefer "Max", Aviation Week prefers "MAX". Need to improve NPOV, only sources using "MAX" are represented.
 * there's nothing in WP:TITLETM sanctioning the use of all caps, even if the preponderance of RSs do do it. That exception only applies to spellings. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support because it looks better and major newspapers such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times use Boeing 737 Max   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.100.131.96 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal preference ("it looks better") and a very weak WP:COMMONNAME.
 * "Looks better" is not a particularly encyclopedic reason, just because journos cant get it right is not a reason to repeat it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."
 * Strong Oppose Same reason as many others, 737 MAX is the official name and is used in all official statements. It's their name they can capitalize it however they want. We can't arbitraily change it.Tgalos90 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCAIRCRAFT is a guideline, not a policy. It says nothing about stylization / capitalization, only the "content" and structure of aircraft article titles. Whether "Max" qualifies as official name is debatable, but not the concern of WP:NCAIRCRAFT: It only opposes nicknames and "Boeing 737 Max" is not a nickname, but the capitalized (title case) official name, according to the policy WP:TITLETM, that applies to trademarks. Note: the aircraft designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max ".
 * Oppose: the move appears contrary to the article naming policy that applies, Naming conventions (aircraft). At the time of writing there have been some 38 votes and umpteen references to assorted general policies but even though it's clearly linked from the article naming overview policy it seems to have been missed and this seems to be the first mention. Unfortunate, particularly for closing counting. The naming policy and examples seem clear as to designation being the actual designation and "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military". while many seem to dislike the name, there seems to be agreement that the official name is MAX, not Max. Per the relevant article naming policy, MAX appears to be the correct form to use. Hence I vote against this proposal to move this article away from the current name, noting that almost all support for the move has been from people apparently believing they were advocating following naming policy. I've also raised the matter over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft with a request for comments on this and additional naming examples on the policy page. Deferring until they have had time to act then following any clarifications which emerge may be best. Jamesday (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." WP:COMMONNAME is hardly applicable as both "Max" and "MAX" are common in WP:IRS.
 * Strong Oppose name is whatever Boeing has registered it as. That may be ungrammatical, undesirable, or even inconsistently unused, but that's what, for better or worse, they have stuck us with. See OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL
 * Strong Oppose see www.boeing.com. The manufacturer uses ‘MAX’ therefore the official name of the product uses ‘MAX’. East Anglian Regional (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Good argument, but WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline says nothing about stylization / capitalization, however the WP:TITLETM policy is explicitly in favor of the standard English capitalization "Boeing 737 Max". WP:NCAIRCRAFT does not say to ignore WP:TITLETM.
 * Oppose. Let me quote Naming conventions (aircraft): "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military."  The "official name given by the manufacturer" is "Boeing 737 MAX".  Ergo, the correct title of this article is, and cannot legitimately be anything other than, "Boeing 737 MAX". Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 03:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No example, no proof. The exemption to WP:TITLETM only applies, if "MAX" is "demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark", not "when the name of the aircraft has all caps" (misinterpretation of policy). The argument might imply that the all-caps "MAX" is the most common usage, thus the exemption, but this is not the case "demonstrably", as both usages "Max" and "MAX" are similarly common in WP:IRS (9+ using "MAX", 13+ using "Max").
 * Strong Oppose - Exceptions to Article titles exist when the name of the aircraft has all caps. - ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

1. The designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max ". 2. The argument ignores the fact that "737 MAX" is a trademark (Uspto, archive), therefore WP:TITLETM policy clearly applies, whereas WP:NCAIRCRAFT guideline says nothing about stylization / capitalization. 3. The argument gives undue weight to the debatably applicable guideline. Stating that 13+ long-standing WP:IRS using "Max" is a mistake (The Air Current, Aviation International News, CNN, CBS, BBC, NYtimes, CNBC, CBC, PBS, Vox, BusinessInsider, TheGuardian, Bloomberg, ...) suggests there is a strong bias towards the official stylization.
 * Oppose MAX is the official designation from Boeing, this is just how their product is called. This is not a case of style for promotion but a set name and following Naming conventions (aircraft) is the correct way to do it. Just because some journalist (of reliable sources) make the mistake of writing it as "max" or "Max" doesn't mean that is the correct way. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 20:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, WP:NCAIR says to use the designation from the Type Certificate Data Sheet, and the TCDS for the 737 just calls it the 737-8 and the 737-9, leaving out either "MAX" or "Max". --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

WP:OFFICIAL: "People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, [...]. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." Note: the designation is actually "737-" - ref, designator is "B3M" for "737 Max ".
 * Oppose MAX is the official designation not only by Boeing, but by the aviation authorities who govern the aircraft's operations, thus I agree with the above opposing editors. The official sources on the subject are not the media, but the aforementioned aviation authorities including the CAA, CAAC, EASA, FAA, and KOCA etc., who issue operating certifications (using the MAX designation) and certify/control the aircraft's operations. Many of the authors of the "reliable sources" covering the 737 MAX are breaking/trending news producers, columnists, senior writers, associate editors, etc., which means they are journalists, not aviation experts. According to All caps, "Studies have been conducted on the readability and legibility of all caps text. Scientific testing from the 20th century onwards has generally indicated that all caps text is less legible and readable than lower-case text." This may be why journalists incorrectly write "Max" instead of using the officially designated name, "MAX." Because the aircraft is certified as the Boeing 737 MAX it would be improper for a Wikipedia page to use another name, therefore I oppose an article name change. Thanks. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral I've read enough of this to realize that it doesn't matter that much.Technophant (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary (intermediate?)
Congratulations Wikipedia editors! In less than a week, enough electronic symbols were exchanged on this important matter (should ax be capitalised in AX?) to make the bitcoin farms in China pale with envy! Right now there are two camps : Right now I count similar forces in both camps. (52 oppose, 40 support)
 * seasoned aviation editors, supporting a MAX like Boeing, regulators and aviation media write;
 * new to the subject editors, supporting a Max like general media write.

Honestly it does not matter so much. Both are OK. The Boeing stylisation is a bit ugly, but it's its plane. The general media writing may replace it as the most common name but it will never be the certification name.

What is ugly, is the banner on top of the article and this too long, sterile discussion.

Aviation editors: let it be. Maybe we'll redo this discussion when things will be tamed.

New editors: let it be. Aviation editors will stay after you anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As an outside editor I support this summary. There's clearly no consensus right now for a move, it might be better to revisit the topic when the 737 world has calmed down a bit... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:44, 18 March 2019 (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.

Boeing 737 Max or Boeing 737 MAX?
Source: Talk page discussion — 5 May 2012

It seems that we're in a "move war" over whether the "MAX" should be in all caps. In my opinion I think it should be, per WP:COMMONNAME. Having it be in not all caps just looks weird, considering that it really ought to be all caps. I encourage to explain his opinion here. &mdash;Comp dude 123 16:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change but it was changed again by ProhibitOnions, as far as I can see we have no evidence that MAX is the same as the word Max and is clearly the common name. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple. It's not an acronym, and Wikipedia does not indulge all-caps trademarks, no matter whether "official". There are literally thousands of precedents for this (Kiss (band), Mini (marque), Time (magazine), etc.), and it's explained in WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:TM, and WP:CAPS. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 11:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (my emphasis) All reliable sources for aviation capitalize the MAX and so should we.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "737 MAX" is an aircraft designation, not a name as such, therefore it should be exempt from such guidelines as enforced by ProhibitOnions. Otherwise, there are probably many other aircraft and military articles that would have to be retitled, including the Airbus A320neo page (to Airbus A320 Neo). (Note that Airbus A320 NEO would be allowed, as it is an acronym, if these guidelines applied to designations, had Airbus chosen that style.) - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC) - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People seem to abide by the MOS way too much. The MOS is only a guideline, and it should be used with common sense.  Common sense, which overrules the MOS 154% of the time, states that the "MAX" should be capitalized.  And oh by the way the only rock-solid rules on Wikipedia are the five pillars, and a rule that "all articles should conform to the MOS" is not part of the Five Pillars.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 15:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to have the "MAX" be all-caps, but I would like to see ProhibitOnions' response to the above comments. Thanks, Comp dude 123 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions (aircraft) should probably provide primary guidance, but doesn't seem to directly address the issue. Manual of Style/Trademarks therefore seems applicable here. The Wall Street Journal follows this convention: Boeing Tweaks Engine for New 737 Max, as does Puget Sound Business Journal: Expect more debate between A320neo and 737 Max as Boeing tries to catch up to Airbus in orders. Chicago Tribune did all caps in at least one article however, and this site does it both ways: http://www.737max.com/ – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The manufacturer website refers to the airplane as the capitalized form. I would assume that Boeing marketing would take care of having it written correctly on their public website: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/737max.html --- I don't know whats the right thing to do here. I'm just sayin'... Katanada (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I emailed Jon at FlightBlogger before he left. He told me the Boeing official name is MAX, not Max. Flight International's editors felt it should have been Max, and the writers all seem to disagree and wanted MAX. However many different sites waffle between the two. It is NOT an acroynm but I much prefer MAX to Max. It's Boeing aircraft and as such I feel Wikipedia should follow the true naming convention. JhanJensen (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I think most people would refer to it as the MAX not the Max.  Certain news articles use both styles, but the all-caps MAX is the correct way to do it.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 03:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that the MAX should be in all-caps, since it is an aircraft designation and not a trademark. The MOS is only a guideline and not a hard, fast rule. It's not like the article is going up for GA/FA review so the article does not need to conform to the MOS. It's common sense that the MAX should be capitalized because that's how most people refer to it. As stated at the top of every MOS article, common sense always trumps the MOS. And MOS compliance is not part of the five pillars, instead one of the pillars is that WP doesn't have firm rules. We all know that, so there's no need to be a real MOS stickler if an article isn't being review for GA/FA status. I think an admin should go ahead and change the article name back to "Boeing 737 MAX." &mdash;Comp dude 123 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur and support the use of "Boeing 737 MAX" as the title. Ng.j (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While other websites may list the 737 MAX as Max, even most words in the article in Wikipedia uses MAX not Max, along with airline fleet charts that have ordered the 737 MAX. I believe that should you want to use Max, that Max is used throughout Wikipedia, not just the title of this page. ABXInferno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Page title has now been changed back to "Boeing 737 MAX" by . &mdash;Comp dude 123 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And it was reverted again, as I though it would be, but I had hoped the "user" would show better judgement than to move revert-war against consensus. Again, there are many aircraft designations that use formats contrary to a literal reading of the MOS. I've moved it back. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think an admin would know better than to unilaterally enforce his/her interpretation of a guideline agaisnt consesnus. If you genuinely feel we are in error in our interpreation, then address the issus at the proper venue, but please stop reverting against consensus here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Every MOS page says the following at the top: "This guideline [remember it's a guideline, not a rule] is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." These words speak for themselves.  Additionally there is clear consensus that the MAX should be capitalized.  Furthermore, another user mentioned that every other Wikipedia article refers to this plane as the 737 MAX, not 737 Max.  All these reasons justify having the MAX capitalized.  I shouldn't be seeing an admin doing things like edit-warring and going against consensus.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 22:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that MOS:TM and WP:CAPS are guidelines, not policies, as the user incorrectly claimed in his/her edits summary. - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ProhibitOnions replied to my post on his talk page and somehow thought that there was not clear consensus based on some of the statements here. &mdash;Comp dude 123 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)