Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BI → Bi (disambiguation) — Was correct before and reverted without any reason. Dreaded22 (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was correct before this edit (done by the same user EunSoo/Dreaded22). It was moved from that without any reason or discussion, which resulted in a malplaced disambiguation page, and the supposed new primary topic did not appear to be the primary topic, so I reverted it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Move would result in a malplaced disambiguation page, since there is no primary topic identified. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Requested by a confirmed Sockpuppet of Banned user EunSoo (talk · contribs) --220.101 (talk)^\Contribs 14:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless the proposer explains what they consider to be the primary meaning of "Bi". PatGallacher (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support because there could be a primary topic for this. Pollosh (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)~~ Vote stricken as both nominator and this user are socks of the same blocked user. Dpmuk (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Could be" doesn't mean we don't leave the dab at the base name; otherwise no dab would be at the base name. What topic do you think is the primary one, and why? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP the one most viewed, so Business intelligence I guess. Pollosh (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the one most viewed. It's the one most sought by people searching on "BI". Traffic stats will not give you that information (although clever use of redirects can get closer). Even if the stats were the correct stats, the metric is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined", not simply "more viewed" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bohemia Interactive

I've seen Bohemia Interactive shortened to BI quite often. I believe this would be suitable to 'Organizations'.

99.178.171.244 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)SilverStar[reply]

Done Widefox; talk 13:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request technical move

The following discussion is an archived 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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BI → Bi – Most of the entries concern topics described as "Bi" Gregkaye (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However I notice that there are a number of other articles of two letters that are both caps. Gregkaye (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe it is generally our practice to have two-letter combinations that make actual words at the lowercase. See Do, Ed, Go, Hu, Me, Pa, Si, Ye, Zo. bd2412 T 16:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"TY" bd2412, my interest, following some research into anti, has been in a general tidy up of prefixs such as: AN CO DE Di IG IL IM IN IR Re UN (disambiguation) Up. What do you think in regard to a possible consistent style? Gregkaye (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single letters obviously follow the style A, B, C. Gregkaye (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be to use lowercase letters as the default where practicable (i.e. where there are two or more senses of the term using lowercase letters). bd2412 T 18:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real reason to pick one - just split the two lists into two articles, linked from one another. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would generally oppose such a split on the grounds that people might lazily type "bi" in the search window when searching for "BI" topics. We routinely have a single disambiguation page for all two letter variations. Doubling the number of pages to police for that function is not something I look forward to. bd2412 T 20:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not supposed to cater only to lazy people :) Those people will see that they landed at the lowercase page, immediately notice their trivial mistake, and look for the link to the uppercase page. As long as we don't obfuscate that link, we're fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as proposed and doubly oppose a split. "Bi" is not a true word in English and therefore we should keep the disambiguation page at BI. Red Slash 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Slash that helps. On the same basis would you approve of a move of Di to DI and Re to RE?

Also, I had a look at a search on BI on Google books and it seemed that most of the Bi references were as a part of hyphenated words. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Di and probably Re, yes. Red Slash 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Page needed major cleanup per WP:MOSDAB. Done. More clear now...refute premise that balance of Bi to BI is that strong. (Not opposed to rename based on two letter dab consistency, per DAB project discussion). Per Red Slash, strong oppose split. What worries me is a page so badly out of style from MOSDAB and we're investing time debating renaming it. Fiddling while Rome burns maybe. Widefox; talk 12:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:B.I (rapper) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]