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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per MOS:TMSTYLE. There's no need to have this type of mere stylization in the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. Providing some reliable, independent sources showing how the company is currently referred to would go along way to making a case either for or against this move. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself more in favor of moving it to ho. Mobile (the period is always in the name[2][3][4][5][6][7]) Offans (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A review of news sources shows that the styling is all over the place. Relevant policy is WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM and MOS:TMLOWER (more specifically). Per WP:TITLETM, we should use standard English styling unless there is clear evidence of another consistent styling in sources. WP:TITLETM also directs us to MOS:TMLOWER. MOS:TMLOWER gives further advice and clarification. Looking at MOS:TMLOWER, I see that this article is more like the example of Adidas than iPod. The guidance in toto would therefore support the existing title. I do see some examples of ho. Mobile and a tendency to ho Mobile. The former is definitely out because the full stop mark creates a significant issue of readability. WP:TSC would advise us to avoid this too. ho Mobilemight be considered an alternative. However, I am not convinced that this tendency to lowercase ho is sufficient to override the inherent readability of standard casing (eg Ho). If adopted, there is also the issue of readability if placed at the start of a sentence and whether it should be capitalised in such a case. There is no search issue arising from using Ho instead of ho that might otherwise justify using ho. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157 what do you think about moving the page to ho. Mobile as I suggested? It seems more appropriate, and the sources call it "ho. Mobile". Offans (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The former [ho. Mobile] is definitely out because the full stop mark creates a significant issue of readability. WP:TSC would advise us to avoid this too.Cinderella157 (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, stylism. This was discussed, with the consensus being "Not moved", only 4 months ago. 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.