Talk:BAE Systems

message: In an edition of Air Forces Monthly shortly after the merger they stated that BAE Systems stood for "British Aerospace Electronic Systems" - being an amalgamation of British Aerospace and the "Electronic Systems" of MES (the Marconi name being unusable due to the intention of GEC to adopt it). Does anyone know if this was a plan that was abandoned or simply the magazine getting it wrong? --Mark83 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The magazine got it wrong - see the Name/Capitalisation guidelines above. Employees were told that BAE "didn't mean anything". haydn_likes_carpet 23:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When the new name was announced we were told clearly that it didn't stand for anything - however it was said to be inspired by 'British Aerospace' and '(Marconi) Electronic Systems' as above - so the magazine got it half right. There are large parts of the company (in the UK and elsewhere), many products, and core governance etc that come from the MES side so 'BAE' very much gives the wrong impression. Internally, the abbreviation 'BAES' gets used a lot - though I'm sure that doesn't meet the branding rules either. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The position we took during FAC was to allow abbreviation of BAE Systems to BAE but write British Aerospace in full - thus confusion is minimised/eliminated. Mark83 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Wikipedia understands how often people might come to an article because someone asked them "What does 'BAE' in 'BAE Systems' stand for?" How often does Wikipedia have an article read COLD by someone with NO knowledge in the field? I would hazard the guess "never". For the question "What does 'BAE' stand for?" to be relegated to the TALK page and not in the article itself shows, I think, how limited Wikipedia's vision is. An article must not meet only the standards of people who know A LOT about the subject, but also the standards of people who know very little or nothing about the subject, and the standards of people who know only Wikipedia's rules for spelling, punctuation, and grammar, and other people who know when a sentence can be interpreted ambiguously -- something to which the person who WROTE the sentence and KNOWS what was meant can't possibly be sensitive. Then there's the standards of people who can SEE an editing mistake that garbles something, but, because they know LITTLE about the subject (why else read Wikipedia?) can't possibly know the correct way, of multiple ways, to ungarble it. 2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand how often people might come here because someone (maybe?) asked them what does BAE stand for?  I'll have a think how this can be covered, and more importantly if I can find reliable sources. But I do think you are massively overstating the problem, whilst also being particularly negative about Wikipedia, the sole aim of which is volunteers advancing knowledge. Mark83 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I request you to kindly accept the change done by me relating PSATRI (Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute / معهد الأمير سلطان لأبحاث التقنيات المتقدمة)  in "See also section" of your article.
I would also like to inform you that PSATRI is a defense research and development center established by King Saud University and Royal Saudi Air Force. PSATRI and BAE Systems have a technical agreement with each other. This interlink will certainly prove beneficial for both of the articles.
Thank you.
Hnhusain (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The agreement between them should be stated in the History section instead.  That's more fitting and clearer. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request the addition of "PSATRI" in the "See also" section as it is one of BAE Systems partners 

message: When it comes to Cybor Security, what is BAE's organizational structure/Chart?2602:306:CEF1:E8D0:694D:EFCC:68D4:F1E6 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational structure/chart 

message: For an FA, I find the 2010s section very poor indeed, just dozens of bullet points.  It needs to be written as near-professional prose for the retention of featured status. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, well spotted. That's very good of you. Go right ahead. 86.187.171.252 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not at all interested in the subject matter.  I was just giving fair warning before it's nominated at WP:FAR. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010s section 

message: Just to explain my thoughts further on this (expanding on edit summaries), the parameter is about former name(s) of the legal entity.  There is another parameter (predecessors) which correctly includes both British Aerospace and Marconi Electronic Systems. Mark83 (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as British Aerospace is in the Predecessors, parameter, having it in "Formerly" is redundant. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Removed. Mark83 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That should forestall any more edit warring, but we'll have to see. BilCat (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Formerly" parameter in infobox 

message: Does the name 'BAE Systems' actually stand for anything? The article is a bit unclear about the matter. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh yeah, there it was. I still couldn't find any info in the article itself, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's because they're aren't (as far as I am aware) reliable sources to explain the status, i.e. it 'means nothing'. Mark83 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *:Found it! See here: . It's pretty much what we thought, and we can cite it in the article now. BilCat (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *::Haha! Feeling a bit stupid that I didn’t try BAE’s site! I did find some references today that didn’t answer the question above but that I might integrate as a follow-on.  I.e. the conscious decision of the company to drop ‘British’ from the name to become more multi-national, yet retain BAE due to strength of the BAe brand. I also found an article which stated that 4 revolutionary names were shortlisted, but they decided on evolution instead for the brand-recognition reason.  Straying into my opinion here, but it’s a good thing the 4 names were rejected because they’re truly awful. Mark83 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *:::Pretty sure BAE has lifted this text from our article for that page: “The company was formed on 30th November 1999 by the £7.7 billion purchase and merger between Marconi Electronic Systems (MES) - the defence electronics and naval shipbuilding subsidiary of the General Electric Company (GEC) by British Aerospace, an aircraft, munitions and naval systems manufacturer.” I saw this because I think I wrote it, nearly 15 years ago! Mark83 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *::::Wow! I've had that experience at least once. Some had accused an article (Aircraft carrier,I think) of being a copyvio of a Chinese news site of some sort. So as I was reading the text, I recognized some phrases that I had written a couple years before that. Sure enough, I found the exact diff that had been copied from Wikipedia. As far as checking the site, I usually forget things like that too, so it was just an impulse this time. As for truly awful names, they seem to be a trend in the US now. One of the worst is Truist Financial, which is in our area of the country. Ugh! BilCat (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

text: *:::::That sentence I found also seems familiar. We might want to check the history and see if it's there somewhere. Or maybe we shouldn't! BilCat (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Name (part 2)