AICM (Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de México)

08:10 Apr 4, 2016 

Thanks for the input. I still haven't quite worked out how this particular black box in my brain works and why it wants to delete this particular "the". Examples in the air transport business would be e.g. KLM, CDG but I've no idea if they're what's influencing me.

I'm going to go with my instinct on this one while acknowledging that the rules seem to be on James side.

03:42 Apr 3, 2016 

...but no hard rules here. We say such-and-such program is being broadcast "on BBC", while so-and-so works for "the BBC". I do like Phil's rule of superfluity, but I also like Charles' leave it alone rule, particularly as it requires the least effort if you're correcting :). Still, I agree with you Donal, something just makes me want to cut it!

15:30 Apr 2, 2016 

I think there are rules even in the examples you mention, Robin - it's not wholly arbitrary. As you imply, it's partly about the use of two languages in one sentence, which can sound jarring. For example we say "the British Broadcasting Corporation", but we wouldn't say "the Aeropuerto".

14:39 Apr 2, 2016 

This problem came up regularly when I worked in-house for a web-known European organisation whose members are national radio and TV broadcasters in over 50 countries. The languages used in the organisation’s publications are English and French.

It was drummed into me when I joined them way back in 1978 that the correct form was, for example “The BBC is showing football on Sunday.”, but “RTE is showing football on Sunday.”. Likewise, for a couple of French-language examples, we always referred to the Swiss broadcaster as "the SSR”, but “TDF” went without the article for “Télévision de France”.

When referring to organisations having initialisms derived from other languages, the Dutch broadcaster NOS, for example, we would use the definite article in English but not in French. Germany's ARD was "the ARD", but ZDF was just "ZDF".

I still occasionally visit the organisation’s website, and I see that the use of “the” before “BBC”, "NOS" and "ARD" has become the exception rather than the norm. Times change. Conventions change. And not necessarily for the better, methinks.

14:13 Apr 2, 2016 

It's partly a reaction against trigger-happy revisers who seem to think that if they're not covering the page with red ink they're not doing their job (another mixed metaphor). In principle things should only be changed if there's really something wrong with them, however small. I don't think you should rewrite a translation that is acceptable even if you personally would have done it differently. But unfortunately it's often difficult to decide how far to go.

14:07 Apr 2, 2016 

Thanks. The "clear improvement" is certainly a good working rule.

14:01 Apr 2, 2016 

I'm not voting on this for the moment because I can't make up my mind. My waters tell me that I probably wouldn't use an article here, but I'm really not quite sure.

If you translate the words this stands for you end up with Mexico City International Airport, and you wouldn't add an article to that (which is more or less what Phil said). "The AICM" makes me think of some sort of body (the Association of Independent Cheese Manufacturers, for example). On the other hand, presence or absence of articles with initialisms is often just a matter of established convention. For example, to take a case mentioned in James's answer, I would certainly say "UNHCR", not "the UNHCR"; it feels right, and it's also what is usually done.

When correcting or revising I tend to take the line that you should only change something if the change is a clear improvement; if it's really 50/50, leave it alone. On that basis you could argue that this should be left alone. However, if you pressed me, I think I'd say remove the article here.

13:57 Apr 2, 2016 

I didn't know that either!
James, one other thing: Wikipedia is not a definitive source of information. This article has been translated, sometimes imperfectly, as in "constant growth in demand of both passengers and operations". The references to "the AICM" are one translator's opinion.

13:27 Apr 2, 2016 

You're welcome. I was sort of hoping you'd pop up :-) Once again I have this feeling in my waters, but can't put a finger on it (to mix metaphors).

13:23 Apr 2, 2016 

"arthrous ‎(not comparable)
(grammar) Of, pertaining to, or being the use of a term together with a grammatical article.
(specifically, of a term or phrase) Used with or headed by a grammatical article."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arthrous

So if initialisms are arthrous it means they require an article. (I don't think this is generally true, actually; they often don't take one even if they would when written out in full.)