Talk:Ho Mobile

Requested move 15 October 2023

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, due to inconsistent styling. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Ho Mobile → ho-mobile – correct name; renamed without WP:CONS 2A01:E11:1A:990:C48D:248E:171A:8787 (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, stylism not supported by secondary sources. 162 etc. (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  so what? if that's the official name we can't make up names. 2A01:E11:1A:990:61EF:2A98:6275:5B29 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please see WP:OFFICIAL and MOS:TMCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to Ho-mobile.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, are you also supporting OP's suggested use of all-lowercase? 162 etc. (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support [1]

2.199.29.146 (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• Oppose marketing stylism per WP:TITLETM, MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:TM, pending a survey of English-language independent reliable sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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 Mobile might 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)

  @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)

  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)

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.

Requested move 9 February 2024

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Ho Mobile → ho. Mobile – Correct name of the company

References

2A01:E11:1A:990:9DBC:CA01:AD79:A83 (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, stylism. This was discussed, with the consensus being "Not moved", only 4 months ago. 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 11 July 2024

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Still consensus to use WP:TITLETM's clause regarding lack of consistent stylization. Favonian (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Ho Mobile → ho. Mobile – Real name of the sub-brand operated by Vodafone (which also fits perfectly into the criteria of WP:AT).

References

InterComMan (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, stylism not consistently used by secondary sources. As a matter of fact, even one of the references cited by OP spells it "Ho Mobile." [8] No evidence that anything has changed since the two RMs we've already had. 162 etc. (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  the article you cited says "ho. Mobile"... InterComMan (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are 7 instances of "Ho Mobile" in that article, and 6 instances of "ho. Mobile." Like I said, not consistent. 162 etc. (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  but if you see the official website and most of the articles, it is called ho. Mobile InterComMan (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. This is a stylization. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Old Naval Rooftops Stilization? It's the brand name... InterComMan (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as closer of previous RM. WP:TITLETM would seem to indicate that in this case, due to the lack of consistent stylization, we should default to standard English sentence case. Its also important to note that per WP:OFFICIAL, it is irrelevant what the "official" stylization is. Bensci54 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pls see WP:NCCORP#Capitalization. InterComMan (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose stylism per MoS:TM and prior comment by 162. Discussed and "Not moved" only 4 months ago. Again. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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.