This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Private Equity, a collaborative effort to improve the depth of quality and coverage of the private equity and venture capital industry and related topics in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This project seeks to collaborate with the following WikiProjects:
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 the WikiProject Private Equity, a collaborative effort to improve the depth of quality and coverage of the private equity and venture capital industry and related topics in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This project seeks to collaborate with the following WikiProjects:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment Is this strictly necessary? Seems like an unnecessary complication when JC Flowers is a lot simpler and is more likely the way the company is referred to in common usage. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiably true that "JC Flowers…the way the company is referred to in common usage", or just a hypothesis? The external links on the page are a mix of "J.C. Flowers & Co.", "JC Flowers", and "J.C. Flowers". If there is clear evidence of a clear WP:COMMONNAME, then that wins, but otherwise WP:NCCORP says (with the exception of eliminating "LLC") editors can't pick a simpler-than-proper name themselves. We would obviously keep redirects from various perceivably-popular names to wherever the actual article is. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
