Talk:L. Inc.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

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

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 5 January 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED - WP:SNOW closure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Inc. → L. – L. is the proper name of the company this page explains Autz3 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The full stop may not be sufficient to disambiguate the page; this had best go to full discussion. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move. The proposed title can be confused with various other things called L, so the current title is the best option. ONR (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I could support L. (company). bd2412 T 05:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:NCCORP says in the lede, "If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form".

By the way, the legal name of the company is This is L. Inc. as given at the first reference. L. (disambiguation) is red. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. L. redirects to Carl Linnaeus and has hundreds of incoming wikilinks. Station1 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but WP:EDRED has nothing to say on the wisdom of converting redirects to articles on unrelated topics beyond "Such a change cannot be made without changing all the preexisting links". I've left messages at WT:PLANTS, WT:ANIMALS and WT:BIOLOGY. 92.249.211.146 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a fairly small startup should not displace a usage that has been established for a couple hundred years and that is used as part of the name of thousands of species. Use of L. for Linneaus is the dominant and established usage. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Keep as is. -- Paleorthid (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2019 (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.

Requested move 26 January 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Inc. → This Is L. Inc. – inaccurate company name Jmoser9 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. samee converse 19:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmoser9: Best discuss this request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The company brands itself as "L." on its website and so on. Per WP:NCCORP, it depends on "common usage" and "Whether The is considered an integral part" of the company name. No objection to creating a redirect. Despite being styled as "THIS IS L. INC." I think the legal name is "This is L." with lowercase "is". 94.21.204.175 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With slight modification. The legal name of the company is "This is L. Inc." The "is" is lowercase. I do not have the ability to move the page, but it should be moved to "This is L. Inc.". See B Corp website. Autz3 11:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase "is" is a stylization and would normally be deprecated under WP:MOS-TM. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me why we can't use L (company)? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because natural disambiguation is preferred. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be L. (company) if anything. Autz3 (talk) 9:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.69.115 (talk)
Hoping this can be resolved ASAP. Autz3 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been involved in an edit war moving it back and forth to This is L. Inc.. Unfortunately right now, L. Inc. is a redirect. I have asked the protecting admin (on their talk page) to move it back where it was when this discussion was opened. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name is fine. It's concise, precise, natural, and commonly used. — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. There's honestly no reason to move this. ONR (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2019 (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.

Further discussion[edit]

An edit conflict prevented me from !voting before the close, but I think the close and result are both good. So I saved my intended !vote to think about it.

And on reflection there are issues not raised which might be important here. In particular this seems to be a classic case of a name which is trivially more concise. Andrewa (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Have also posed some heads-ups regarding possible COI, see here and here. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]