Talk:I7

Airport codes on dabs

There's three common styles I've seen the wording for airport codes, and [1] isn't one of them:
I7 or i7 may refer to:

• Paramount Airways, by IATA code
  • 1. my preferred
• Paramount Airways's IATA code
  • 2. User:JHunterJ's style
• Paramount Airways' IATA code
  • 2.5 User:JHunterJ's style
• Paramount Airways (IATA code: I7)
  • 3. also common
• Lufthansa CityLine (IATA code), a German airline
  • 3.5
• Paramount Airways, IATA code
  • 4. your edit

Which is the least worst option? Widefox; talk 21:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question. There may well be a best option which is where I would go to. If I would eliminate one, it would be

• Paramount Airways, by IATA code

Since it is either bad English, does not read well or does not make sense. My edit restored what, I believe, was there before your change. Paramount Airways's IATA code and Paramount Airways, IATA code are similar and may be more of a style sheet question. If you want the best, it may well be

• I7 - Paramount Airways IATA code

But this discussion probably belongs on a project or guideline page since it does not only affect this page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you objected to my edit perfectly correctly. That last option 5. would be far from MOSDAB, but could be:

• I7, the IATA code for Paramount Airways
  • 6. (possibly the best English, but the link at the front is preferred)
• Paramount Airways (by IATA code)
  • 7. possibly.
• My rationale is that "'s" may be one of the best English, but do we really have to invoke the possessive? - it a) overcomplicates, b) the "'s" is heading towards piping / entry name padding c) goes against comma delimiting all items. MOS:DABENTRY "Use sentence fragments". I7 does refer to Paramount Airways (by IATA code). Most correctly, isn't it "IATA's code for Paramount Airways"?!

Yup, I thought I'd capture your thoughts before pinging the project. We should probably standardise using 3. / 3.5 as it works well for all codes / units. Widefox; talk 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The possessive is still a sentence fragment, and there's no guidelines for comma delimiting all items. We should standardize on 2 (Paramount Airways' IATA code) or 2.5 (Paramount Airways IATA code) if the possessive is somehow problematic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence fragments was my justification for 1. . Folk struggle with the possessive nowadays. We've already got two versions -'s -' . As it involves grammar easily avoided on a dab. Avoid. (I thought the rule was plurals use -' , and Paramount Airways is singular so uses -'s !)

MOSDAB doesn't specify comma delimiting no, but it implies it - all examples with descriptions use them, for example:

"Dark Star" (song), by the Grateful Dead

Both 1. and 2./2.5 are clunky

There's a simpler one...when we have units etc we often just have the symbol in brackets.

• Paramount Airways (I7)
  • 8. does it matter which body has set the code? It could be that simple, the same as units Widefox; talk 08:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I (obviously) don't find them clunky. I understand you've inferred the comma, but it's not implied. Putting just (I7) beside the link is odd. BTW, the 's rule is not based on plurality. "Ladies' room" but "Men's room". It's based on the presence of the "s" (or /s/ sound), on whether the possessive changes the pronunciation, and/or tradition (in the case of things like "Jesus' disciples" if you would otherwise use the 's because the pronunciation changes). There is no avoiding grammar on dabs without avoiding descriptions entirely. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't specifically infer it, I'm assuming it's reasonable for readers to. As the intention seems not to imply it, maybe we should add an example without one? I don't like adding characters after the linked article name ('s ' or s) as it's similar to piping (although the ' or 's is not linked like an "s" is). 8. was an attempt to see if one style works for all codes, units. With units the multiplier case (and other style) is worth being explicit about to disambiguate mV / MV etc but with this code (IATA etc) less so. Randomly I just came across AEY where the ISO 639-3 code being lowercase may be worth spelling out to help distinguish.

Agree with you. (I had to check [2], but you may have a better source at hand). I think we're coming at it from different angles: ' is for regular plurals (ending in s), but there's exceptions for proper nouns. So "Men" is an irregular plural (doesn't end in s). My understanding is that with proper nouns there's confusion due to the plural, and as you say the Biblical/classical rule. So using ('s or ') with a proper noun (the case for many/all the IATA codes) is somewhat ambiguous. Avoid (if possible). Widefox; talk 13:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

While MOS:DAB doesn't currently have explicit guidance on this, it does say that the link should be the first thing in any entry, and unpiped where feasible. For my money, the best approach is:

• Paramount Airways (IATA code I7)

—Swpb^talk 16:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Due to this, I've been replacing my style 1. with 3. or 3.5 on dabs. That style seems to be accepted over the months and to me seems consistent with other symbols (chemical, currency etc). On this dab it is not yet resolved, so can we draw this to a consensus? Ping User:Vegaswikian User:JHunterJ User:Swpb. Widefox; talk 11:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been replacing styles with 2.5 on dabs, and that style seems to be accepted over the months and is consistent with other dab entries. I'd love to draw it to a conclusion, but don't think there's a consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, my preference is #1. I do not understand the objection to this as being ungrammatical or unclear. I think the use of possessive is both ugly (in that the link stops at the apostrophe) and confusing (possessive formation is one of the more confusing aspects of learning English). older ≠ wiser

And my preference is #2.5. Objection to #1 is similar to my objections to others: descriptions, where needed, on dabs should be appositive phrases, not adjectival or adverbial phrases. Possessive is certainly less confusing that someone trying to figure out how "Paramount Airways" is "by IATA code" the way that "Intel Core i7" is "a brand of Intel processors". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that using adjectival or adverbial phrases are an actual problem, but in that case, any of the other options would be preferable to using the possessive form. older ≠ wiser 13:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And I don't agree that the parentheticals or descriptions-that-aren't-descriptions are preferable. If English possessives are somehow a stumbling block (on English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikipedia), the solution would be "Paramount Airways, an airline based in Chennai, India" or "Paramount Airways, an airline with the IATA code I7 based in Chennai, India", or more convoluted constructions. But I don't agree that possessives are a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Or hell, even "Paramount Airways", and leave the description off entirely, on the assumption that whomever is looking up an airline by its IATA code knows that it's the IATA code. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is that instead of several of us using our preferred style, there's currently no consensus where one would aid for this dab, and avoid flitting between. Vegaswikian had their preferred, which they rightly reverted to, and then later I incorrectly thought we had consensus for #3 / #3.5, proved incorrect by JHunterJ.

My reasoning is that brackets for codes may (or may not) be desirable in general. See CL (and the above AEY), in particular where the Lufthansa CityLine IATA code is just one of many codes. My recollection was that MOSDAB advised to explain the connection when an entry's ambiguous term is not obvious. I couldn't find that wording now, or a year ago. JHunterJ, we can always avoid the possessive, whether we should or not is another matter. I for one put my hand up and say it's too much effort to be correct with proper nouns on dabs (where we can never just copy the article wording). I do nowadays try to leave other's style when if I notice it, but would prefer to agree on this one, and then take the discussion to MOSDAB about codes in general. Widefox; talk 21:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)