Talk:CALYX

Requested move 4 April 2015

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)

---

CALYX → Calyx (company) – this does not appear to be an acronym, so MOS:TM/MOS:CAPS, this should not be capitalized. The current title should redirect to the disambiguation page calyx --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support not an an acronym, (publisher) might be better as there are more notable companies in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

I think you may be confused with Calix which does list other companies.--67.68.161.242 (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing else on the dab page uses capitals, so it should be suitable natural disambiguation from other topics, which is preferable to a parentheses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't use capitals either, it isn't an acronym. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The website and other sources discussing the topic show capital letters are indeed used, so it's perfectly acceptable as natural disambiguation.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It fails MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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..."--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. WP:AT, including NATURALDIS, is a policy whereas the MoS is merely a style guideline. Calidum T|C 04:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

---

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.