This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. We do allow company names to be all upper case, for example
IBM and
SAP SE. Editors here don't agree on whether the capitalization is a strong enough signal of difference to remove the need for disambiguation. The mentions of
MOS:CAPS in the discussion weren't fully persuasive -- you need to spell out the details. It seems that
Calyx (magazine) lost the argument for upper case since it's from the same publisher.
EdJohnston (
talk)
17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think that is necessary since the only other company I can find is Calyx & Corolla, a florist delivery company that has no article. if there are more notable companies named Calyx they are not listed here.--
67.68.161.242 (
talk)
04:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
But not
WP:NATURALDIS, which, unlike MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM, is a policy. "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources..."--
Cúchullaint/
c12:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Does WP:naturaldabs state that it overrules both WP:CAPS and the MOS:CAPS and if not why should that be favoured over the other two.--
70.27.228.231 (
talk)
01:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. The
WP:NATURALDIS argument seems pretty shaky to me. Its intent is to allow alternative names, not alternative capitalizations. There's nothing "natural" about disambiguating two articles based on whether you had your caps lock engaged when you typed your search. In other words,
MOS:CAPS still applies.
Krychek (
talk)
20:05, 18 May 2015 (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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. We do allow company names to be all upper case, for example
IBM and
SAP SE. Editors here don't agree on whether the capitalization is a strong enough signal of difference to remove the need for disambiguation. The mentions of
MOS:CAPS in the discussion weren't fully persuasive -- you need to spell out the details. It seems that
Calyx (magazine) lost the argument for upper case since it's from the same publisher.
EdJohnston (
talk)
17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think that is necessary since the only other company I can find is Calyx & Corolla, a florist delivery company that has no article. if there are more notable companies named Calyx they are not listed here.--
67.68.161.242 (
talk)
04:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)reply
But not
WP:NATURALDIS, which, unlike MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM, is a policy. "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources..."--
Cúchullaint/
c12:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Does WP:naturaldabs state that it overrules both WP:CAPS and the MOS:CAPS and if not why should that be favoured over the other two.--
70.27.228.231 (
talk)
01:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support. The
WP:NATURALDIS argument seems pretty shaky to me. Its intent is to allow alternative names, not alternative capitalizations. There's nothing "natural" about disambiguating two articles based on whether you had your caps lock engaged when you typed your search. In other words,
MOS:CAPS still applies.
Krychek (
talk)
20:05, 18 May 2015 (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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.