Talk:Border Gateway Protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 24 May 2006 (→‎Q<sub>3</sub>. "Linkage Protocols" ([[LP]]s)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

IPv6 advantage

I removed this text:

One of the many advantages of IP version 6's huge address space potentially is to solve this by better use of route aggregation.

because it's not really true, and it would be confusing to explain why in a page that's basically about something else.

There is no mechanism associated with that larger address space that is explicitly designed to reduce the size of routing tables. In fact, the larger address space would allow for larger routing tables if it is not managed properly.

The two issues (address space size, and degree of aggregation) are totally orthagonal.

There is a mechanism that is part of IPv6 that might provide some help, the fast renumbering stuff. However, for that to be of any use, people must be willing to renumber their networks, to produce greater aggregation in the routing tables, and there is no empirical evidence that this will actually happen. However, this has little to do with the size of the address (only that large addresses allow use of hardware derived low-order parts - except that this is now deprecated on privacy grounds).

Similarly, if Multi6 actually agrees on a mechanism, and it gets OK'd by the IPv6 community, and it is adopted, implemeneted, and deployed, then that would help too - but again, this has nothing to do with the size of addresses. Noel 20:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Terms: path vector versus vector routing protocol

"path vector".. don't you mean "vector routing protocol"? I am not confident enough to edit it myself.

Rembering my courses on BGP, I think that it's been given many names, e.g. depending on whether people wanted to insult it (for marketing reasons e.g). It's a kind of vector routing protocol (since it only knows next hop and a kind of sophisticated cost, it doesn't know the whole link through to the end) but it's really much more than a vector routing protocol since beyond direction and fixed cost, it also knows the "ASPATH" which lists the networks that will be traversed in that direction. This allows political decisions (I would rather my traffic didn't go across ZUZONET since they monitor traffic). That's why it is sometimes called something like a "path vector" protocol see Google... first several links look good. Mozzerati 05:59, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

"path vector" is the proper term, invented by Yakov Rekhter distinguish it from "destination vector" protocols such as RIP. Noel 20:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was not sufficiently precise above, I wrote in haste, sorry. "path vector" is a sub-set of "destination vector". Note also that "distance vector" != "destination vector".
All "destination vector" means is that the data that is passed from one router to another is a table (vector) of information about destinations; about basically (modulo policy constraints) all destinations, in fact. (Think of it as the complete routing table.) Contrast this with link-state routing (which I recently re-wrote in a major way to provide a precise, and hopefully readable, description), which is fundamentally radically different.
BGP does carry the complete AS path for each destination (for loop-prevention as well as making it available for policy decisions - initially the former was the more important, but nowadays the latter is), so your statement ("it doesn't know the whole link through to the end") isn't quite correct - yes, the BGP information doesn't specify each individual router in the path, but it does show which AS's are in the path which packets to that destination will take.
(Sigh, I need to redo the destination-vector routing page too, and also distance-vector routing, to make them all equally precise. The history of the terminology is a little confusing. At first there was only "distance" vector, which implied that the only data in each element of the vector, other that the destination identity, was a single metric, the "distance". [That's very ancient terminology, I'd have to do some research to track down its source.] Then Yakov came up with the PV term to emphasize that each vector element included an entire path. So then we started calling the entire class "destination" vector [in part so that the "DV" acronym didn't have to change ;-] to emphasize that its fundamental nature - as opposed to LS - hadn't changed. You still gave your neighbour the entire routing table, and the path selection computation was still a distributed one, as opposed to LS, where the entire path-selection algorithm runs in parallel on each node.)
I hope this makes things a bit clearer (until I get around to re-writing those two articles). Noel (talk) 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All ISPs?

Not all ISPs use BGP - smaller ISPs (eg tier 3) may be part of the upstream provider's AS. Unless someone objects, I'll soon amend the relevant text.

--Thedangerouskitchen 11:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me... That being said, the ISPs that don't run BGP tend to be very small with only a few exceptions. --Jwvo

Border Gateway Protocol (Capitalization)

Note: for a summary of some of the arguments, and the discussion and survey specific to the Requested move, see #Requested_move.

NB. Copying some previous discussion that was begun on my user talk page. Jon Awbrey 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the name of Border Gateway Protocol to Border gateway protocol. But the article is about a specific, named, standardized protocol which is always written with initial capitals. In accordance with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions it should be changed back, along with other similar articles. NealMcB 05:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: The way I read "most common usage" (MCU), it does not apply to orthography, and does not override local standards of orthography, as all sorts of people think that it's MCU to capitalize all of the major words in article headings, and then again we would have every condition in DSM being capitalized, for example, "Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder", but we don't do the likes of that here in a host of similar cases. Jon Awbrey 05:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the common usage argument, this is also a proper name, one that won't change over time, unlike the DSM conditions which change with edition, author, etc. When referencing BGP from other articles, people will always want to refer to it as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). Changing that to lower case will make the text look bad and be confusing. --NealMcB 05:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words in the names of specific standards-track internet protocols are normally capitalized, so this article should be renamed, in conformance with the Naming policy, I think. --NealMcB 04:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: It makes for Ridiculously UnEnglishText (RUET), and since one can associate the acronym with the name on first use, it's not really necessary. WP naming conventions use caps only for titles of articles, books, and sometime propriety trademarks. Jon Awbrey 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, says "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game)." In this article we are talking not about generic protocols near borders, but about a particular, standardized protocol. I.e. it is a proper name, always used with initial caps. --NealMcB 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I suggest that you consult a dictionary about the definition of "proper name" or "proper noun". Proper nouns do not take limiting modifiers. The article begins: "The border gateway protocol (BGP) is ..." — and the "The" is a limiting modifier. QED. Jon Awbrey 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Simple:Noun, I see no such absolute rule, and in fact see "the Internet" as an example. The definition there clearly applies to this case. "The World Wide Web" is another case in point. --NealMcB 13:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: That means "Authoritative Dictionary" (AD), which WikiPedia (WP) is not. Terms like "border gateway protocol" (BGP) are not proper names. The capitals are used on first mention to telegraph the derivation of the acronym that follows, as in "First Order Logic" (FOL) and "eXclusive OR" (XOR), none of which telegraphy is considered proper orthography, here or elsewhere. Incidentally, to say that a revert is made per talk page discussion when there is no consensus on the talk page is considered to be a form of dishonest conduct. Jon Awbrey 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: In technical terminology, protocols and standards are typically capitalized. The article on Internet Protocol is a case in point of how this article should be titled. It is not the Internet protocol, but the Internet Protocol. In fact, the article even has a supposed limiting modifier at its beginning "The Internet Protocol (IP)". The same is true of User Datagram Protocol, Transmission Control Protocol, Stream Control Transmission Protocol, Internet Control Message Protocol and Address Resolution Protocol, to name but a few. Perhaps the contributor who used this argument should be more considerate of other obvious articles to refer to, and even more sparing in their usage of the term QED. The Internet Protocol should be referenced as a standard for naming in this case, and the article should once again be titled Border Gateway Protocol. QED. Unless a strong argument can be made that this article needs to be named with different rules than the 6 articles above on protocols, we should assume that there is consensus. MatthewWilder 20:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I am quite familiar with technical terminology in several fields, and personally somewhat fond of acronyms. But that has nothing to do with the orthographic standards that are required for composing a readable encyclopedia. English is a language that is notorious for its irregular exceptions, so the fact that we say "The Internet" (TI?) or "Art Nouveau" (AN) in a few isolated instances proves nothing. If you were familiar with tech terms in more than one area, and even some of the cult followings hereabouts — say, Conceptual Graphs or Ockham's Razor, just to recall two recent battlegrounds — you would know that everybody likes to capitalize their pet phrases, but the WP rule of MCU does not apply to orthographic peculiarities, and does not allow that for others, so there is no reason for one cult or field to have special privileges. Jon Awbrey 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I admit that I am no linguist, but I hope you can appreciate that many acronyms have lexical capitalization (IBM, NATO). These protocols are abstract constructs, and not simple objects that we happen to interact with. Apparently, as we have progressed through the 20th century, we began to use acronyms more prolifically in order to simplify conversation. And of course, acromyms are simply abbreviated groups of words. In the case of protocols, they are clearly defined objects, that carry more meaning than the words themselves. Because there is an object that is referred to by the specific arrangements of word, I would argue that there is justification for capitalization. A house is a house is a house. You know it, because it is self contained. But the Internet Protocol is something very specific, that is only incited with a combination of individual words. The capitalization is a cue to the human mind that these words go together and mean something in a colaborative sense. To me, that sure beats underlining it. In the case of the Internet Protocol, if the words were not capitalized, someone could mistake it to mean an Internet related protocol, such as TCP, UDP or ICMP. This is why it is useful and even necessary in this case that the English language has evolved in this way. And regardless of why it has become this way, the Internet Protocol is understood as the Internet Protocol. I suspect that you might be trying to prove a point by removing capitals here first, and then extending the argument to the Internet Protocol and others, knowing that you have a better chance with that approach than working the other way around. However, I suggest that there is no such discussion with Internet Protocol, and so this dicussion should cease until there is a discussion there. And as far as Ockam's Razor, that is a case outside what I have described. That was probably capitalized in an attempt to immortalize the contruct. As for Conceptual Graphs, those also lie outside what I have described in this comment. They imply more of a method than a definite object. If there was one type of "Conceptual Graph" then that would be different. For a positive example that compliments what I have been saying, please refer to the GNU Free Documentation Licence, which is a specific object, only envoked effectively by capitalization. I haven't taken any linguistics, and all of the development of this comment I have done just now off hand. I don't mean for it to be conclusive, but it is an argument that I feel is fairly strong. I'll end with this thought. A specific object which has a name consisting of multiple words should be capitalized for two reasons. The first is so that the reader will automatically identify the group as a single object, and the second is so that a writer won't accidentally encite a more meaningful object by grouping together words that create a specific object. The phenomon of lexical capitalization of terms may be a more recent development in the English language, but I submit that it is necessary, and should be accepted as part of the evolution of the English language. MatthewWilder 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: There is no dispute about capitalizing acronyms. "International Business Machines" is a proprietary name, that is, the proper name of a legal individual. "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" is the proper name of a chartered organization. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action is the name of a book by John Dewey. Again proper names. If there is a specific document called "The Internet Recipe Document: 7-11" (TIRD 7-11), then you can write an article about it and capitalize to your heart's content. But a protocol is an abstract noun, not a proper noun, and whether you refer to the border gateway protocal (BGP) or the eXclusive OR (XOR), the capitals are not demanded by syntax but only a helpful telegraphing of the customary acronym. Jon Awbrey 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I appreciate your feedback, and I acknowledge that I would have distinguished this if I was familiar with linguistics. However, being unfamiliar with linguistics I believe I have the advantage of seeing how it should be as opposed to simply how it is. I hope that my previous comment explained in enough detail why it is useful and even necessary to have lixical capitalization on specific protocols. If the English language needs to be rigid in only allowing such capitalization to proper names, which includes organizations and documents, then the definition of proper names should be extended to include specific protocols, as there is not much difference between a protocol and document. The usefulness of capitalization is evident, and if the rules are to be obeyed, the definitions should be updated. You mentioned earlier that English is notorious for irregularities. That's because English wasn't built upon the notion of being pure and absolutely simple. It was build on the notion of being useful and effective. Because of that, it has adapted and evolved more quickly than any other language. I would suggest that rather than fighting that basis, we exploit it. MatthewWilder 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: The thing you have to consider in the Categorical Imperative (CI), Also Known As (AKA): "What If Everybody Did That?" (WIEDT?). We Would All Go Blind! (WWAGB!). Say G'Nite Gracie (SG'NG). Jon Awbrey 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: The funny thing is that I am not trying to justify the use of any of those examples you just gave. I am not talking about capitalizing any phrase I want. I am talking about capitalizing a specific and well defined object. Besides Categorical Imperative, not one of those acronyms could be even be considered a noun. And even then, Categorical Imperative is a philosophical concept, not a specific construct. My argument is that the protocols discussed look and act alot like proper noun. What makes a name a proper name? It's an entity that is specifically being adressed, often envoked by capitalization. While there are many internets, there is one Internet. While there are many liscences, there is a GNU Free Documentation Licence. While there are many gods, there is one God, and so on. In the same way there are many protocols, but there is one Border Gateway Protocol. It's as much a proper noun as a specific document. Or do you think the article on the United States Declaration of Independence should be retitled? Of course not, because that's a very specific document. Well, it seems obvious to me that this article describes a very specific protocol. MatthewWilder 01:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: The "United States Declaration of Independence" refers to a specific document. It's like the title of a book, which we have already discussed. The American Psychological Association (APA) style sheet actually requires writers to alter the titles of published works by lowercasing all but the first word. I'm agin it. But the point is that orthography is conventional, neither God-given nor god-given. But if you leave out the "United States", then it's no longer a proper noun, but an abstract noun or an ambiguous noun. The fact is that nobody is thinking of a specific document when they say "Border Gateway Protocol", or they would have add epithets to give it a version number and date of issue, etc. They are thinking of any number of roughly "who-cares-about-the-implementational-details-beyond-a-certain-point" (WCATIDBACP) formal specifications. That is exactly like the Categorical Imperative (CI) or let us say the Pragmatic Maxim (PM1), but not like the Principia Mathematica (PM2). Jon Awbrey 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: As much as you dance around it, you still fail to acknowledge that these are well-defined, specific protocols. It's not as though there are several "border gateway protocols". There is one Border Gateway Protocol. It is unique, it is specific and it won't be envoked in lower case. It's that simple. You're right, nobody is thinking of a specific document, and that's because it is a protocol. And it doesn't matter what they are thinking, you are getting into intension and extension. The reality is that there is a perfectly definite object defined as the Border Gateway Protocol. Just because it is a protocol and not a document is a minute detail, and the only thing you demonstrate with that point is a narrow and incomplete view of how language works and should work (IMO). MatthewWilder 15:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: This has nothing to do with Universal Grammar (UG), Government And Binding (GAB), Principles And Parameters (PAP), Passive-Aggressive Behavior (PAB), or the Language Of Thought (LOT), except for the fact that even people who are rather broad-minded about how language works are flexible enough about it to follow a few "Simple Orthographic Standards" (SOS) for the sake of the readers' eyes. And whatever English is e-volving into, I doubt if it's e-volving into German. Jon Awbrey 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I agree that not very many things need to be or should be capitalized. But you continue failing to show me why such a specific and well-defined protocol should be treated differently than a specific organization, agreement, or document. Show me why it's not in the same space, and please don't show me any more abstract theories that are very much unrelated. I keep saying I am talking about something different, so stay on topic, please. I am open to you proving why a specific protocol is significantly different than a specific document or agreement. For instance, have you heard of the "Kyoto Accord", or did you know that it is a actually the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That's a protocol with in capitals. Please stop telling me why I shouldn't try to hurt your eyes, and tell me why the Border Gateway Protocol differs significantly from the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. MatthewWilder 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Look, these are two obvious. The Kyoto Protocol is a very, very, very specific document, opened for signature on a specific date (December 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan), etc., etc., etc. If you want to refer to a specific document like that, then fine, but that is not the way the term border gateway protocol is being used in the sentences where it is used. Period. Jon Awbrey 16:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: Good, this is what I want to talk about. Sorry for being rude in previous comments, but this is the heart of what I would like to discuss. What immortalizes the name of an organization to the point of being considered a proper name? Is it incorporation, or trademanrks? What makes a document or agreement immortalized to the point of becoming a proper name? Is it publication? Is it signatures? What makes the title of a novel immortalized to the point of becoming a proper name? Again, is it publication? The answer to all of the yes/no questions is probably yes. Probably. The problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of a proper noun. That seems to be more a philosophical debate than practical, and it seems to lack much practicality. I would argue very, very fiercely that this is a very specific agreement or protocol, and though it is not published and there are no signitures, it is just as valid as a proper noun as is the Kyoto Protocol. It's worth noting that someone once said that proper names do not accept limiting modifiers. Clearly that can't actually be the case, as the Kyoto Protocol shows. That, or the Kyoto Protocol is just another special exception which will eternally frustrate readers of the English language. MatthewWilder 16:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: In the matter of distinguishing between proper noun and ordinary noun, you might point to the aspect of static vs. dynamic. There are different versions of a protocol, or it changes over time, you might say. So while you would not accept Border Gateway Protocol, you would accept "Border Gateway Protocol v2.0" and as an umbrella, border gateway protocol. This would probably satisfy you, but when books (aka publications) undergo revisions before re-release, they do not emulate this behaviour. The title that refers to the work is not changed to "To Kill a Mockingbird Original Book" to distinguish it from the movie and the condensed version published in the Reader's Digest in the summer of 1960. It is refered to as To Kill a Mockingbird. The book, the movie, and the condensed story have the same name, by defintion of proper names for works and publications. So, clearly the static versus dynamic argument is disproven. MatthewWilder 17:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data On Capitalization Practices In English (DOCPIE)

JA: Watch this space " ". Jon Awbrey 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: Is this really on topic? MatthewWilder 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: You're the one who e-voked "The Evolution Of The English Language" (TEOTEL). But seriously, Folks, the old section was getting too large for my browser to edit. Jon Awbrey 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Exhibit 1. I don't know what you mean about the book/film issue:

MW: The disambiguation here is only on WikiPedia because it is necessary to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, you still didn't suggest what would be done about the condensed version of To Kill a Mockingbird from the Reader's Digest. View the publication history here: [1]. All I am trying to draw light to is the complexities that are ignored by trying to develop overly simply conventions. MatthewWilder 18:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I'm familiar with the "Trials And Tribulations" (T&T's) of complex bibliographies. While you're at it, though, check this out. The thing is that orthography is not determined at the Source context but at the Target context. Jon Awbrey 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Exhibit 2. We Just Don't Do It That Way Anymore:

  • Berkeley, George (1734), The Analyst; or, a Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician. Wherein It is examined whether the Object, Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious Mysteries and Points of Faith, London & Dublin. Online text, David R. Wilkins (ed.), Eprint.

JA: Or, Do We? Jon Awbrey 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I Don't, or at least I Try not to! The probelm again is that these cases don't address the major point which I have brought up. I am concerned that the overly legalistic application of traditional orthographic conventions is too restrictive too be reflective of necessary adaptations. I don't want to Communicate all Day in Capitals. I want to meaningfully apply capitals in a way that is useful. If the conventions of orthography are so iconic that they cannot ever be altered (consider though, they must have had a history that was evolved with time) then we should also accept the conventions given in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game)." Not only is Border Gateway Protocol almost always capitalized, it is in fact always capitalized. This goes well beyond the requirement, and so if we are to follow conventions with no consideration given to exceptions, then I believe the discussion is over, and we need to rename the article? Or is there an exception to this convention? MatthewWilder 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: The fact is that it is not a Proper Noun and it is only capitalized by Some People. There are are all Sorts Of Phrases (SOP's) that are not Proper Nouns but that are Very Insistently Capitalized (VIC) by Some People, and None Of Those are Regularly Capitalized in WikiPedia. If we let Internet Hacks do it, then believe me, Everybody Else will Demand the Rights Of Equal Citizens (ROEC) to do so and we'll be right back in 1734 before you can say Jiminy Cricket©. Jon Awbrey 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: Thanks again for yet another boatload of examples that have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Please stop getting carried away and distracting this discussion. My overall point is that the exclusivity of what you consider a proper noun should be examined more carefully. I am not saying that we should see ttyl, c ya and other insanity in the dictionary. So, before you get ahead of yourself again, let me revisit the meaning of a proper noun. I live in Canada, and my phone service comes from TELUS. In fact, it's not "TELUS", but "TELUS Communications Company". But people call it "TELUS" and guess what, it shows up in Wikipedia as "TELUS". Before you rant about how this is all capitals, and doesn't conform, blah blah blah, how can an article be based on a name that's not the incorporated name? And again, in case you are confused, I am not asking to remove all notions of convention. I think it is very good that there are people like you who are very much concerned about keeping English understandable, and under control. However, I am convinced that protocols such as the Border Gateway Protocol are no different fundamentally than liscences, agreements, and documents. It's simply in a different format. And this step to include the protocols as a proper noun is not revolutionary, it's evolutionary. Encouraging crazy sentances like you will probably do next would be revolutionary and would render our language annoying, but what I am proposing would be useful and effective. MatthewWilder 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "border gateway protocol" the name of an article, book, corporation, or document?

JA: No it's not. So let's put those comparisions aside for good. Jon Awbrey 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: Well, you had better go get rid of that offensive article about TELUS, beacuse it's actually "TELUS Communications Company". Also, you had better change the article on the Kyoto Accord, because the article calls it an agreement, not a document. MatthewWilder 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: For that matter, the American Civil War should be lower case, as should Great Depression, Fat Man, United Empire Loyalists and the Black Panther Party. None of those is the name of an article, book, corporation, or document. These are all examples of the failure of your definition. MatthewWilder 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations for frequently cited works

  • M–W (not to be confused with MW) = Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged (1950).
  • Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged (1950), W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA. Cited as M–W.

MW: My point is simply that you have an overly restrictive definition of a proper noun. The Border Gateway Protocol, just like the Transmission Control Protocol, the Internet Control Message Protocol, and the Address Resolution Protocol (to name a few) is specific, unique, and identifiable, which are all properties of proper nouns. The problem you are hung up on is that it is not definitively a proper noun, even though I have shown it is characteristically a proper noun. And to suggest that language should remain entirely prescriptive, and not become desciptive is a narrow, inadequate and incorrect point of view. I won't be suprised when the definition of proper noun is changed to become inclusive of terms such as Border Gateway Protocol. You will be. Even though you don't agree that this protocol looks, smells and feels like a proper noun, and should be handled as such, the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions dictates that we will use the most common usage, which in the case of Border Gateway Protocol is not only the most common usage, but the exclusive usage. Please note that it should immediately be changed to capitals, as it should be. It was falsely changed before there was concensus indicating that capitals should be removed. Until you can actually discuss the reasons why it should be lower case (and convince us to the point of consensus) it should remain upper case. If you do feel like trying to prove to us that it needs to be lower case, please directly address the points being made here. MatthewWilder 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I see no evidence that we have reached a consensus here, so I would advise proceeding slowly. There are several steps yet to go in the "Dispute Resolution SOP" if we can't work it out for ourselves, and it is after all a weekend. Later, Jon Awbrey 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I am fine with that, but I suggest that we revert it to the original, with capitals, as that is the standard. Maybe you weren't aware of the move being contraversial at the time, but it is fairly clear that it was contraversial. And so, to respect the process for moves, you should change it back and only move it to lower case if a consensus is reached to do so. And I am happy leaving it that way for now until we have a dispute resolution, as you have said. MatthewWilder 20:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NealMcB: Yes. MW is right. For all practical purposes Border Gateway Protocol referrs to a document - one of a very few documents in the RFC series carefully defined to describe generally-interoperable versions of a specific protocol. This is a far more specific and useful definition than the question of whether, e.g., "The New Testament" refers to a clearly defined book or document. So lets do as MW and I suggest, and move the article back to the capitalized name until there is consensus to change it and all the other similar protocol-related documents like Internet Protocol, World Wide Web, etc. --NealMcB 04:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula Rasa (TR0)

JA: I hope everybody is well-R&R'd. I know what you think, but this WikiPedantic stuff is not really the "Meaning Of Life" (MOL) in my book, so let me propose that we take our time to sort out the issues over the course of the week, and see what sense of the meeting we've reached when next it's time for TGIF, or as they say in Texas, where the drinking gets going early, "So Happy It's Thursday" — you do the acronym. I sympathize with this penchant for capitalist acronymphomania more than you know, having spent-wasted a ½-decade of my life in a Standards Working Group (SWG). But among the many things that WP:IsNot, it is definitely NOT a publisher of Technical Reports (TR1). Jon Awbrey 17:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q1. What is a proper name (proper noun)?

MW: To be blunt, what's frustrating is that you (JA) have an unswerving affinity to derail the discussion, and take it to arguments not being made. The first comment I posted in this discussion referred to acronyms. I have come to understand that acronyms are not a basis for justifying capitalization. But I came to this realization by the time I posted my third comment. And yet, it is maybe the only point you have been harping on for your last 20 points, even though I keep asking you to talk about what we are talking about. We have "consensus minus one" to change the title back to capitals given that the move was contraversial. Out of respect to the other people here, you should be willing to change it to capitals and then only to lower case once consensus is reached that way. Now, as far as the proper name goes, I have brought up examples that you don't even attempt to explain. You narrowly defined a proper name, and I gave several counter-examples. You didn't admit that your definition was too narrow, or even explain why these were reasonable exceptions. Don't ask for discussion and then shy away from it when your position cannot be argued. Also as a matter of respect, you should be willing to admit when you are wrong. You claimed that the limiting modifier was sufficient proof (by virtue of your "QED") that the Border Gateway Protocol is not a proper noun. Again, I will allude to "the Kyoto Protocol". After all, the article opens with "the Kyoto Protocol". Further to including the use of the limiting modifier, that article also omits the majority of the title of the documet. After all, the treaty is really titled Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Does that mean that every time you want to talk about the agreement, you have to include the entire title of the document? Most people would never be able to tell you what it is! Or should "Kyoto Protocol" be lower case when mentioned on its own? Though you would demand that, it is impractical to take that stance. Nobody has made a fuss in that discussion page about the way "Kyoto Protocol" is referred to, and that's because the human mind identifies the "Kyoto Protocol" as a specific and identifiable object, worthy of capitalization on the grounds that it is essentially a proper noun. To refresh your memory on some other counter-examples, here we go again. I have ancestors who fled the United States on account of being United Empire Loyalists. I have never peronally known someone associated with the Black Panther Party. Finally, I am glad that I wasn't even alive when Fat Man fell or when people endured the Great Depression. These examples all go against your definition of proper nouns. I am referring to them because they challenge the status quo defintion that you have been suggesting. I would like to see your explanation for these. And if I haven't been clear enough, I would appreciate if you keep the discussion on topic, and move past your point of this "penchant for capitalist acronymphomania", because I moved past it several days ago. MatthewWilder 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I have no special definition of proper nouns. There's already one in the dictionary that I will copy out for our study when I get the time. The localized exceptions, context-bound, cult, disciplinary, and party honorifics that you point out are merely the kinds of exceptions that prove the rule. I already know from considerable experience editing WP articles -- there are presently 3916 of them on my watch list -- what the general standards and practices in WP are. I am just trying to assure you folks of their long-term global rationality, a rationality which comes from considering the consequences of doing otherwise.

JA: Some of the articles that you instance are valid proper nouns in ways that "border gateway protocol" is not. The Kyoto Protocol is not just an agreement, it is a treaty, a very, very picky piece of paper picked over by diplomats, and nothing not on that paper is worth the paper on which it's not written. A Marriage License is an agreement or contract, often inscribed in elegant script capitals on the document itself, but the term is not capitalized outside that context, because it is too generic. Have to break, my wife is calling me for lunch, and I'm contractually obligated to obey. Jon Awbrey 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: The Kyoto Protocol is not the title of a document, and therefore is not a document. So when someone refers to it as the Kyoto Protocol, whether they realise it or not, they are demonstrating the way that the human mind is understanding the agreement. It is almost secondary that there is a document. The significance of the Kyoto Protocol is that there is an understanding, an agreement (not the document kind) made by several parties. That agreement has been formalized in the form of an agreement (document kind). And the document would not be called "the Kyoto Protocol of ect, etc". You would not ask if someone had read the "To Kill a Mockingbird" and so if someone refers to the Kyoto Protocol, it is evident that they are referring to the underlying agreement (not document) that was reached. Here I am using the Kyoto Protocol as an example of how the underlying agreement, which is not a document, is referred to and used as a proper noun. In fact, you yourself used it in your last post as a proper noun, though not referring to the document name. It's almost irrelevant that the Kytoto Protocol is not the true title of the document, because we understand that the Kyoto Protocol is merely formalized within that document. In the same way, it is irrelevant that the documented form of the Border Gateway Protocol had to be submitted as a Request for Comments (RFC) for the original definition, and further RFCs for amendments. And of course a marriage licence (which is a generic and not specific) is not a proper noun, as it is a reference to a type of contract, not a specific one. In the same way, a declaration of independence is generic, though the United States Declaration of Independence is specific. So a protocol is generic and the Transmission Control Protocol is specific.

JA: Look, I think it's fairly obvious that the honorifics pertaining to titles of documents and titles of nobility also attach to their nicknames and other short forms. All sorts of articles, books, nobles and so on are referred to by titles that are shorter than their official titles:

JA: In any given literature, there are always customary abbreviations and nicknames for frequently cited works:

  • CE n, m = Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, vol. n, page m.
  • CP n.m = Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. n, paragraph m.
  • CTN n, m = Contributions to 'The Nation' , vol. n, page m.
  • EP n, m = The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, vol. n, page m.
  • NEM n, m = The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, vol. n, page m.
  • SIL m = Studies in Logic by Members of the Johns Hopkins University, page m.
  • SS m = Semiotic and Significs … Charles S. Peirce and Lady Welby, page m.
  • SW m = Charles S. Peirce, Selected Writings, page m.
  • PEP = Peirce Edition Project.

JA: With regard to British peerage, for example, there are a whole host of "protocols" about what short forms are appropriate on what occasions:

  • Bertrand Russell, for one example, is more properly "Earl Russell", and even more properly "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS".

JA: But to say in regard to the Kyoto Protocol that "it is almost secondary that there is a document" displays a startling lack of grasp of the situation, "to be blunt".

JA: The dictionary definition of proper name mentions the criterion of not taking a limiting modifier as a "rule of thumb" (ROT), not an absolute rule. All who wrestle with the Anglish Language very soon learn that it does not suffer an absolute rule to live. The good sense part of the rule in question is that proper names, "Under Normal Circumstances" (UNC), simply do not need a limiting modifier, as that would be redundant given the "Limitation Of Reference" (LOR) that is already implicit in the proper name itself. "Under Novel Circumstances" (UNC), however, a limiting modifier may indeed be called for. For example, if I say that I saw Elvis Presley buying chips and beer down at the 7–11 last night, you'd naturally just have to ask "THE Elvis Presley???". There's an important point here that I will elaborate on later. In the meantime, though, you might entertain yourself with the homework exercise of typing your own name into Google and seeing how many Doppelgangers you can find in the world. Jon Awbrey 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Some data:

Q2. What is generic? What is specific?

JA: Puhlease... Have you even read the article on the TCP? TCP is about as specific as a Marriage License in Massachusetts. Try this section just for starters:

Development of TCP

TCP is both a complex and evolving protocol. However, while significant enhancements have been made and proposed over the years, its most basic operation has not changed significantly since RFC 793, published in 1981. RFC 1122, Host Requirements for Internet Hosts, clarified a number of TCP protocol implementation requirements. RFC 2581, TCP Congestion Control, one of the most important TCP related RFCs in recent years, describes updated algorithms to be used in order to avoid undue congestion. In 2001, RFC 3168 was written to describe explicit congestion notification (ECN), a congestion avoidance signalling mechanism. In the early 21st century, TCP is typically used in approximately 95% of all Internet packets. Common applications that use TCP include HTTP/HTTPS (World Wide Web), SMTP/POP3/IMAP (e-mail) and FTP (file transfer). Its widespread use is testimony to the original designers that their creation was exceptionally well done.

The original TCP congestion control was called TCP Reno, but recently, several alternative congestion control algorithms have been proposed:

A proposed extention mechanism TCP Interactive (iTCP) allows applications to subscribe to TCP events and respond accordingly enabling various functional extensions to TCP including application assisted congestion control.

MW: Funny, you conceded that short forms for titles are acceptable. Border Gateway Protocol is part of the title "RFC 1771 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4". So "Border Gateway Protocol" is just as valid as "Kyoto Protocol". As for being specific, "Border Gateway Protocol" and Transmission Control Protocol are just as specific as To Kill a Mockingbird. Just because there is more than one release, doesn't mean it's not specific. The revisions and discrepencies arising from the mutliple versions of TCP are fully documented and identifiable. And since you have conceded that short forms of titles are acceptable, we should consider this case closed, should we not? MatthewWilder 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NealMcB: The article on TCP is fully consistent with our arguments. Its name is Transmission Control Protocol (not the lower case form you link to). It uses and cites the upper case form of the name. There are a few generally interoperable versions of documents by that title which are referred to by the page. You seem to be confused by the references to various implementations of TCP many of which have their own names, which are only needed when the small distinctions need to be discussed. But again, they generally interoperate, which is why wikipedia and usage in general refers to TCP with caps, like other such names. --NealMcB 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NealMcB: You ask What is generic? What is specific? An article title of "transmission control protocol" would be generic, and would be good for discussing generic protocools used for controlling transmission. But that isn't what the article in question is about. The article in question is about a very specific standardized protocol relating to IP, and thus the name is capitalized. If the name were not capitalized, readers would be confused and think it was generic. Same goes for BGP. --NealMcB 22:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q3. "Linkage Protocols" (LPs)

JA: There has been some mention of "Ease Of Linkage" (EOL) issues, and I fully sympathize with the generic problems thereof. The more x-citing ½ half of my day yesterday was spent trying to fix a tangle of redirect loops, double redirects, and even a couple of triple redirects in one section of WickerWork that had gotten itself all wound all round about the following apparent multiplicity of terms, all of which actually refer to the same page:

JA: Lunch! Jon Awbrey 15:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: There are many, many similar terminological complexes in WP, many of them far worse than this one. How do they come about? Apparently, as it appears from my experiences with many similar tangles, a certain proportion of the people who take a course in, let us say, "Digital Electronic Circuit Systems" (DECSs), at their local poly-technic runs right out and writes a WP article on "Digital Electronic Circuit Systems" (DECSs), rarely if ever stopping to think that WP might already have the moral equivalent of the very same article already written up under, let us say, the singular form "Digital Electronic Circuit System" (DECS). And so it goes. And of course the title of that recent course experience appears with all due authority in eminent caps and imminent gowns in their Alma Mater's (AM)'s course catalogue, and of course it's e-blazoned in their digital memory like a Las Vegas Marquee (LVM). You cannot imagine — and I do not have to imagine — just how recalcitrant these devoted e-thusiasts will be to any proposal to mess with any ι or ˜ of their Holy Writ, just the way that "Good Old Doctor" (GOD) So-&-So duly baptized and catechized their assembled parish in it. Jon Awbrey 16:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I wasn't aware that one could say the same old thing with different words so many times (STSOTWDWSMT). Sounds like broken record syndrome (BRS). We understand what you are saying, but we would appreciate if you move on, and address what we have discussed. Border Gateway Protocol is the meaningful part of the title of a document, and on that basis should be capitalized. After all, "it's fairly obvious that honorifics pertaining to titles of documents and titles of nobility also attach to their nicknames and other short forms." What do you have to say about this? MatthewWilder 17:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Well, golly, I've said it umpteen times already. We agree that the WP article currently entitled "border gateway protocol" contains a sequence of words that is one "meaningful part of the title of a document", no doubt a many-splintered variety and a veritable host of such documents. Where we differ is on the curious-to-me notion that a sequence of words that appears as one "meaningful part of the title of a document" must therefore be capitalized, et in saecula saeculorum. Otherwise, I would never be able, legally speaking, to mock a mocking bird, even in States Of The United States (SOTU's) betond the juris-dictionaries of Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas where one is legally permitted to mock a mockingbird, without being obligated by the applicable IP laws to mock that mockingbird in capital letters. And that seems terribly inconvenient to me, to say the least, which I never do, as fond as I am of mocking mockingbirds. Jon Awbrey 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: Can you explain to me how you justify Border Gateway Protocol being "one" meaningful part of the title "RFC 4271 - Border Gateway Protocol 4"? I will re-iterate what I previously said, that it is THE meaningful part of that title. Anyone familiar with the RFC format would recognise this as a fact. But good for you for trying to belittle it. MatthewWilder 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: I am unfamiliar with the definition of umpteen, but in this context I can only assume it means zero, since that is the number of times you have agreed that Border Gateway Protocol is part of a title. And you really should take up a career in politics, because the flip-flopping here is outrageous. At one point you say "it's fairly obvious that honorifics pertaining to titles of documents and titles of nobility also attach to their nicknames and other short forms" while not much later you express that it is a "curious-to-me notion that a sequence of words that appears as one 'meaningful part of the title of a document' must therefore be capitalized." So, either Kyoto Protocol refers to a portion of a document name, and stands as a perfectly reasonable example of why Border Gateway Protocol deserves capitalization, or Kyoto Protocol refers to an abstract though, or collective thought (an agreement, or understanding, as they call it) and Border Gateway Protocol deserves capitalization. You can decide now which one it is, but it's one or the other. Or, you can backpedal (another common political exercise) and tell us where you were wrong in your previous statements. MatthewWilder 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Mathematical Note. Umpteen ≥ 1. At my age (≥ 50) I sympathize will STM-challenged individuals everywhere, but the fact is that somewhere in our first few (NB. few ≤ 5) exchanges on this page, I stipulated as follows:

JA: There is no dispute about capitalizing acronyms. "International Business Machines" is a proprietary name, that is, the proper name of a legal individual. "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" is the proper name of a chartered organization. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action is the name of a book by John Dewey. Again proper names. If there is a specific document called "The Internet Recipe Document: 7-11" (TIRD 7-11), then you can write an article about it and capitalize to your heart's content. But a protocol is an abstract noun, not a proper noun, and whether you refer to the border gateway protocal (BGP) or the eXclusive OR (XOR), the capitals are not demanded by syntax but only a helpful telegraphing of the customary acronym. Jon Awbrey 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: "Moral Of The Story" (MOTS). People are prefectly free to refer to specific documents — myself, I'll wait for the movie — that contain the words "Border Gateway Protocol" or any orthographic variant thereof, capitalizing or not as they please, except of course in APA — no, the other APA —journals, where the style sheet over-rules even what's embossed in gold on rich Corinthian leather bindings. But that is not the usage that occurs in the WP article on the border gateway protocol, which by way of a clue, however fallible, begins with the English sentence "The border gateway protocol (BGP) is the core routing protocol of the Internet", the likes of which would invite Universal Mockery if one were to begin the article on the book To Mock a Mockingbird with a sentence of alleged English like "The To Mock a Mockingbird, more precisely, the To Mock a Mockingbird, And Other Logic Puzzles, Including an Amazing Adventure in Combinatory Logic, is a book popularizing an assortment of topics in logic and mathematics by Raymond Smullyan". So that is one way to hear the difference. Jon Awbrey 19:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: You are dancing in circles, and avoiding the points I am making, and I find it terribly frustrating. I am being explicitly rude, but you are being implicitly rude, by failing to conduct a real discussion. You aren't following the discussion, but keep falling back to points that have already been discussed. No matter how many times I ask you to keep up and move on, you fall back to the same 2 arguments:

  • 1) Just because you can abbreviate it with acronyms, does not mean it should be capitalised in standard form.
  • 2) APA is the mother of all things orthographic, and should be applied blindly in all situations, with no consideration of context OR of evidence that the blind application may be faulty.

MW: At least that's what I am reading out of your arguments. I already recognise and agree to the first one. The second one, I think it definitely made out of good intentions, but I simply want to know why Kyoto Protocol is a supposedly acceptable exception, and Border Gateway Protocol is not.

MW: To move back in time a bit, the first time you mentioned umpteen, you said "I've said it umpteen times already" and went on to say how we agreed that Border Gateway Protocol is part of a title. I can only assume that you are implying that you have agreed umpteen times. However, if in some convoluted reference, you were indicating that you have said umpteen times that acronyms are not a good enough basis for capitalisation, then I object, because umpteen is far too small an indication of how many times you have said THAT.

MW: I gave you three choices in my last comment, and you chose none. Those two statements are at odds. I don't care about acronyms, and I most certainly couldn't care less about APA. I want to hear you tell me which one of them was wrong. MatthewWilder 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Look, by way of avoiding what the cog.sci folks call an Einstellung effect (problem mindset), I made up a fictional title "The Internet Recipe Document: 7-11" (TIRD 7-11). But I thought the point was clear: If you want to write a WP article on a no-doubt-yet-to-be-notable paper, say Awbrey, J., Wilder, M., et al. (2006, forthcoming), "The Border Gateway Protocol Protocol", Journal of Irremockable Ensults vol. umpteen, then you can try to get it past the local sensors. But the subject of that article would not be in the same syntactic category as the subject of the current WP article on the border gateway protocol, which is not a specific document, however many documents it happens to mention with some orthographic variation and combinatorial permutation of those words in their titles. Which is what I've been saying since Day 1. Jon Awbrey 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: You have still done nothing to answer my question. This is what I am talking about when I say you go in circles. I understand that your allowances for capitalisation are very rigid because of the APA. However, your comment didn't discuss either of the two comments you previously made which go against one another, or the Kyoto Protocol. If you can't explain it, and you see a flaw in your argument, say it, but address it. To your point of uniqueness, uniqueness is not a requirement for proper nouns, which is shown by To Kill a Mockingbird. Though that article branches off to other pages for other releases of the work (including the film) it doesn't mean that a title has to refer to one work in order for it to be valid. The Boxcar Children and The Hardy Boys are examples of works that are non unique, and yet specific and referenceable. So, before you run back to some old arguments, I will ask it again, and I will try to be polite. You accept "the" Kyoto Protocol as I have reffered to it because it is part of a title, and yet you don't accept "the" Border Gateway Protocol even though it is the same effect at work. At one point you said "it's fairly obvious that honorifics pertaining to titles of documents and titles of nobility also attach to their nicknames and other short forms" while not much later you expressed that it is a "curious-to-me notion that a sequence of words that appears as one 'meaningful part of the title of a document' must therefore be capitalized." These statements are entirely at odds. MatthewWilder 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: By the way, you are right, and I do suffer a form of the Einstellung effect. I am accustomed to a collaborative problem solving method whereby when one person asks a question, the other person answers that question. MatthewWilder 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I only follow the stylesheet of the American Psychological Association (APA) when I write for a journal that dictates it. I already indicated that I follow a different rule here, since I tend to respect the data on the title page more than the APA does. The only reason for bringing all that up is to make the point that matters of orthography is customarily dictated by the target of the editorial morphism, not by the source.

JA: Let me ask it this way: You honestly think that the title of the article in question, to wit, the string "border gateway protocol", possibly with capitals, taken in the present interpretive context, denotes a particular document? For example, in the same way that the string "MatthewWilder", taken in the present interpretive context, presumably denotes a particular person?

Requested move

Border gateway protocol → Border Gateway Protocol - official protocol names like this, including Internet Protocol and Transmission Control Protocol, are capitalized because they are nearly universally spelled with capitals, when not used as abbreviations (BGP, IP, TCP), because they are names which simply and clearly refer to document titles in the the RFC series for internationally standardized protocols, and to simplify links. The article should be moved back. NealMcB 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. Stick with spirit and letter of naming conventions: follow common usage and avoid ambiguity of lower case, which doesn't properly signal the unambiguous character of the name. NealMcB 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would violate naming conventions that are standard throughout the rest of WP, as can be seen from many examples listed above. It will lead to every "Special Interest Group" (SIG) everywhere demanding the right to capitalize their in-group phrases. WP does not currently sanction this practice, even in many other jargonesque technical fields and devotional communities. Otherwise, it's "Cry 'Havoc', and let slip the dogs of war" (CHALSTDOW). Jon Awbrey 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It will help to start with this quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

  • This policy in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

See also discussion above(!) Here, I'll just note that 1) that when referencing BGP from other articles, people will generally want to first refer to it as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to clarify for readers that it is a name, not a general term, to clarify that it is usually referred to by the acronoym, and to clarify the acronym. Changing that to lower case will make the text look bad and be confusing, and 2) there are a few other pages like this linked to from BGP, also recently changed to be lower case, and they should also be changed back. --NealMcB 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fear of a "slippery slope" about "phrases" of technical jargon is not persuasive. Jargon is about language, not about standardized names. As such, it is indeed far too easy for people to capriciously switch the names and definitions they use for their favorite terms every few years, and invite a chaos of renaming. I agree that most of the terms that Jon Awbrey cites should not be capitalized. But the nature of protocol development, standardization and naming is very different. We are in fact talking about document names, and definitions that are generally constrained to be interoperable, so the protocol name is much more long-lived and reliable for use in capitalized form in an encyclopedia as well as in normal prose. --NealMcB 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Point 1. Notice that it says "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". The majority of English speakers could not care less whether a reference to "n-type metal-oxide-semiconductor logic" is spelled:

  1. n-type metal-oxide-semiconductor logic
  2. N-type metal-oxide-semiconductor logic
  3. N-Type Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor logic
  4. nMOS logic
  5. NMOS logic
  6. …

JA: One eventually ends up having to create redirect pages for all of these, and many more you probably can't anticipate. Jon Awbrey 02:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NealMcB: Again, please refrain from basing your case on examples we agree on. I am unaware of an unambiguous international standard document which specifies exactly what NMOS logic is, so I'd be easy to pursuade that it should not be capitalized. The point with BGP is that the reader is normally clued in by the capitilization to know that we're talking about a specific, well efined thing which one can check normative references on to find out exactly how the world has agreed to spell it, define it, and se it. And that is useful and important - in fact it is part of the miracle of Internet standardization, ubiquity and openness hich enables Wikipedia itself to exist. It would also help if you were to directly address cases like TCP - do you plan to move hem to lower case also? --NealMcB 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MW: As Neal has mentioned at the end of his comment, you should have been clear about your objective from the first time you moved this page. It should have been done as a requested move, AND you should have requested a series of page moves, since your intention is clearly to have the entire set of internet protocols in lower case. MatthewWilder 15:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MW: Apples and oranges. It is irrelevant how English readers will read and recognise NMOS. That is not the topic of discussion, and the discussion above has already identified key differences between NMOS and BGP. Point 1 appeals to the similarity that arises from both terms being commonly reffered to in acronym form. Again, there are important differences, so this point is not meaningful. MatthewWilder 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Point 2. There are standard techniques in linguistics for detecting the grammatical category of a given chunk of syntax. One of the most common is the substitution test, where you try fitting the expletive in question into a number of syntactic slots into which only a particular lexical category will fit. If the result is a "marked construction", which is what they call it when a lexical hand does not fit a lexical glove, then you must acquit the bit of being of that category. If the result is "unmarked", which is what they call it when their "informants", that is, people who would squeal on all the usual suspects, grammatically speaking, do not say Boo! about it, then the slot-filler must be convicted of that category. But it's late, so let's adjourn until tomorrow. Jon Awbrey 02:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MW: Kyoto Protocol is a very common (if not the most common) reference given to Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Similarly, Border Gateway Protocol is the most common (if not the only) reference given to "RFC 4271 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4". Both are documents, and in fact both are even protocols. The similarities of these two cases seems to be evidence enough that Border Gateway Control in capitals is definitely proper usage. In other words, the lexical hand fits the lexical glove. And as they say, if the glove fits, wear it! MatthewWilder 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Border_Gateway_Protocol&oldid=54953682"