Talk:Baby bonus

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Demographics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested Move, Jan 2011[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Bonus → Baby bonus – (lowercase b) This is about baby bonus schemes in general, not about one particular such scheme called Baby Bonus. ― A. di M. 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram Viewer shows that baby bonus is well established as a non-proper noun phrase. ― A. di M. 18:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If the matter must be decided by appeal to sources rather than as a matter of Wikipedia style (which is not the case), this ngram using the plural (incidentally suppressing many uses in title-capped headings) suggests that the generic, lower-case use is dominant. Noetica^Tea? 22:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(In general, I think using the plural in ngrams is a bad idea when trying to determine whether to use capital letters: see my comment at Talk:Semantic Grid for why. And this shows that “title-capped headings” are usually negligible.) ― A. di M. 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we are to make of those observations, A di M, in this case the contrast between a substantial number and zero occurrences is a useful adjunct to the evidence you present. Noetica^Tea? 00:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, there's a threshold in Google Ngrams so that any phrase occurring in fewer than 40 books in a given subcorpus in a given year is reported to never occur in that subcorpus in that year. (But this is an issue only if both forms being compared are vanishingly rare – in which case even a Google Web search might return results in the right ballpark.) ― A. di M. 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, whatever we are to make of ... :) But point taken. The case is clear from all evidence, and from WP style considerations. Noetica^Tea? 22:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Baby bonus. I presume you didn't mean to force Baby to lower case, too. Dicklyon (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I didn't. (Fixed the nom for clarity.) ― A. di M. 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Baby bonus. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baby bonus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]