- 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) ASUKITE 15:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Bausch & Lomb → Bausch + Lomb – The actual company name and used in all other parts of the article Qwv (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
- @Qwv and BarrelProof: Pinging participants in the WP:RMTR discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
- That seems like it might run afoul of MOS:TM. The company itself is also not completely consistent in its usage. The footer of their website says "©2022 Bausch & Lomb Incorporated" and the headline of their SEC 10Q filing says "BAUSCH & LOMB CORP filed this 10-Q on 08/04/22". The Wikipedia article is also not completely consistent – it has about a dozen instances of "Bausch & Lomb" in it. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose MOS:TM use Bausch and Lomb instead -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per MOS:TM. The current title seems more like ordinary English formatting of a company name. Looking at Google Scholar, such high-quality sources use the current title more than the proposed one. WP:& accepts ampersands as an ordinary styling of a company name, so I see no need to change this title. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose per MOS:TM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2022 (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.
.jpg){kind=small}
