Talk:Big Blue

DAB or Redirect

Redirection

This page doesn't redirect to the IBM article anymore. Why was this changed from the previous page Big Blue (disambiguation) page? OptimumCoder 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I believe the change is neither necessary nor in line with MoS. I'll be changing it back soon, barring any objections. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I OBJECT! *pounds table* Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I believe it will have to go to WP:RM, so I'm proposing that Big Blue redirect to IBM again. There is no disambiguation, as all the rest of the possible uses are redirects. In all experiences I've ever had the nickname Big Blue is almost always in reference to IBM, and I believe the the greatest good to the greatest number of would-be readers would be served by a straight redirect to IBM, with a "Big Blue redirects here. For other uses of "Big Blue" please see foo" template at the top. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. As my old motto goes... You're Wrong, and here's why: A simple Google search for "Big Blue" doesn't even mention IBM. The primary usage, based on that search, would probably be Big Blue Bus. Barring that, IBM barely registers.

That said, I'll grant that Big Blue is an established nickname for the company, as IBM Big Blue would imply. The issue is whether that connection justifies a preferential—and, some would say, biased—redirect. I, for one, think not. Allow my to explain.

Part of the reason, undoubtedly, is that IBM kinda crapped out as a company over a decade ago. They may be on the rebound, but I'm certainly not hearing their name bandied about much (let alone some vague, esoteric nickname).

Another issue is the front/article page's edit history. This page started out as a dab, was made into a redirect by Zeus. It was promptly made into a dab again, as it remained until...you made it a redirect again. >.>

My take? There is no primary use. I recommend making making Big Blue a DAB page again. The histories and content of this page and the parenthetical will need to be reconciled, but it shouldn't be hard for an admin.

With all that said, I'll be honest. I'm not as active in the project as I used to be. I can do some spot work, on and off, but the process of fixing and maintaining a page really isn't in my power. So, I need your help. Clearly, things are slow on the 'pedia these day. Otherwise, your work would have been contested and reverted sooner.

So, can we work together to fix this mess? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1. "You're wrong" is always the worst way to start a discussion in good faith.
2. I can't speak to what "you are hearing", but fortunately Wikipedia doesn't base decisions on such subjective criteria.  :)
3. If you did bother checking the actual facts, you would see that IBM is worth more than 3 times what it was 15 years ago, and well over what it was a "decade ago", when you suggest it "crapped out as a company".
4. Checking recent news results for "IBM" and "Big Blue" shows a lot of use, just in the past few months. To quoth a few:
   • "Big Blue Helps You Go Green".
   • "Big Quarter For Big Blue: IBM Profits Top Estimates". Forbes. 2011-01-18.
   • "IBM: Big, Blue, And Kinda Cheap". eweek. 2011-01-20. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
   • "IBM Bond Sale: Is Big Blue Flashing a Bond Warning?". The Wall Street Journal. 2010-08-05.

That's just the first few, and it's not even counting books. "No primary use" indeed... Given we see tons of reliable sources referring to IBM as "Big Blue" every few months for decades, can you present any evidence that any other disambiguation target comes close to this frequency and widespread use of "Big Blue"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Pleasantries get old, man. I'd rather put my feelings out honestly (and bluntly). I didn't really expect to convince you with my first post(s) anyway. It never works that way; at least not until I really start to master debating.
2. It's a little hypocritical for you to be telling me about subjectivity, doncha think?
3. Heh. Look, we're not here to discuss the market, or IBM's place in it. I made the point that they failed epically a while back. I allowed for the possibility that they've righted course since. The fact that they're doing well in the stock market has little barring on whether they're the primary use of an ambiguous two word nickname.
4. First link is self-referential and thus invalid. If the LA Times calls itself "the Times," that means its the primary use, right? (We should just move that old London paper.) Second link refers to the nickname, but not exclusively. ("We'll use the nickname, but we better put the real name in there, too. It's a little esoteric.") Again, that IBM is called "Big Blue" was never in dispute. Same for the third. I'll give you the fourth, but even that one is debatable. So, 1 out of four objective sources use that nickname as if it's unambiguous (meaning they don't need to specific which Big Blue is meant). Wow. Impressive.
5. Since most of the other "targets" are actually titled "Big Blue," yeah, I'd say I can. A nickname (redirect) will never be equal to a title. It's this logic which has been applied, against my advice, to the title Friends. Alternately, consider the Dark Knight. Is Batman the primary use, or his movie? Well, both, either or neither, of course! Ultimately, DAB pages split the difference and offer a fair compromise when issues like this pop up. And that's all I'm arguing for.
6. As an additionally aside, I could throw you three good arguments:
   • More people are looking for one of the other "Big Blues" when they type in "Big Blue" than are looking for IBM. In other words, the DAB page is the primary use. Big Blue as a nickname for IBM doesn't automatically trump everyone other nickname usage, let alone every use as a title.
   • All it takes is one really Big new Blue to torpedo any claims of primary use. Hypothetical: {BigNameStudio} releases a movie called "Big Blue" and it's a hit. Like, Avatar level. And guess what? Even Avatar needs to have "2009" in its title. It can't, per Wiki-policies, just be "Avatar (film)," regardless of its fame.
     • Why delay the inevitable? Unless IBM changes its name to Big Blue, its never going to be more famous (as "Big Blue") than something that's actually titled Big Blue. And by the time someone brings all this up again, the mess of parallel edit histories, links and redirects will be even worse.
   • It's not so much "Ace's preference supercedes Blax's". Rather, I'd say it's "Ace's compromise is fairer than Blax's lack thereof." Again, I'm not trying to bully you or force my will on these pages. I just want what's best for the project.

Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a disambiguation page?

It seems like there are mostly links to other pages here, but this page is not listed at such. Shouldn't the contents of this page be moved to Big Blue (disambiguation).

Also the new material added on September 5th, 2008 seems to have been added hastily without regard to other material already on this page. They should have made a new article named Big Blue (band) instead of adding the blurb to this page.OptimumCoder (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it all. Thanks for noting it. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Blue (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)