Talk:ShopHQ/Archives/2019
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Requested move 26 November 2015
- 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.
No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 15:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
EVINE Live → Evine Live – "EVINE" is just the way the name is styled, not its real name. 2604:2000:5269:8700:6993:736:7568:1602 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support WP:MOSTM In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:CDB7:3A89:91ED:8D21 (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support to avoid vanity styling per MOS:TM. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Relisting comment. See User talk:Jenks24#EVINE Live. Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per points I made at the above conversation on Jenks24's talk page. Specifically, per WP:TITLETM, there is an exception to the rule that we should not follow trademarked capitalisations, if "the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark". In this case, most independent sources call it "EVINE Live", for example the stock market listing at NASDAQ, and a clear majority of news sites, including the usual highly reputable bellweathers such as The NY Times. The alternative "Evine Live" is not unheard of in reliable sources, but I would say it is a very clear minority usage, and we should follow the majority usage here rather than artificially applying our house style to it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- We shouldn't use a styling that is absent in sources, but as long as there is some significant minority of sources that don't use the all-caps styling (per MOS:TM: "as long as this is a style already in widespread use"), we should avoid all-caps. The quote I used is specifically about all-caps, with the examples listed of "TIME, KISS, ASUS". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: the crucial thing here is not MOS:TM, but WP:TITLETM, which is policy, and refers to "common usage". It does not require exclusive usage, or that the other form is completely absent in sources. The capitalised form is demonstrably the most common usage in independent sources, and I've not seen any evidence counter to that. This is not a Macy*s or a TIME magazine, rather the capitalised form is the proper common usage name. I would also say that if the NY Times, which of course has its own house style as well, goes with the all caps form, then it's rather more entrenched than some other pure stylistic usages. NY Times certainly use the capitalisation Time Magazine, but I can't see any cases of them using "Evine Live". Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with looking to MOS:TM for matters of styling, and I see no conflict between MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM here. The quote from WP:TITLETM about "common usage" is about spelling, not styling. It says "unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage". Here we are discussing capitalization, not spelling. Spelling seems more applicable to issues such as "macy★s", "skate.", "[ yellow tail ]", and "Se7en" than matters of capitalization. On the question of capitalization, WP:TITLETM says only "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); ..." which does not conflict with MOS:TM. WP:TITLETM also says "Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks", so it is telling us to look at MOS:TM for further information about what it is saying. "Invader ZIM" seems very similar to "EVINE Live". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: the crucial thing here is not MOS:TM, but WP:TITLETM, which is policy, and refers to "common usage". It does not require exclusive usage, or that the other form is completely absent in sources. The capitalised form is demonstrably the most common usage in independent sources, and I've not seen any evidence counter to that. This is not a Macy*s or a TIME magazine, rather the capitalised form is the proper common usage name. I would also say that if the NY Times, which of course has its own house style as well, goes with the all caps form, then it's rather more entrenched than some other pure stylistic usages. NY Times certainly use the capitalisation Time Magazine, but I can't see any cases of them using "Evine Live". Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- We shouldn't use a styling that is absent in sources, but as long as there is some significant minority of sources that don't use the all-caps styling (per MOS:TM: "as long as this is a style already in widespread use"), we should avoid all-caps. The quote I used is specifically about all-caps, with the examples listed of "TIME, KISS, ASUS". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The company wants it in all-caps, we respect it, whatever our technical restrictions. Nate • (chatter) 14:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the WP:MOSTM have been deleted years ago if that were the case.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- True enough, @Mrschimpf: please see WP:OFFICIALNAME. We specifically don't go by what the company itself wishes to be called, but by common usage in reliable sources (which also happens to use the all caps form). — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the WP:MOSTM have been deleted years ago if that were the case.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support WP:MOSTM. Not universally all caps, so this is a TIME/Time magazine situation. oknazevad (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Amakuru. Those shouting MOSTM should bother to read it first, especially the part regarding not inventing new formatting of the name as this move request would do if it goes through. Calidum T|C 19:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Amakuru. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:10, 19 December 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 22 August 2019
- 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: page moved by TomCat4680. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Evine → ShopHQ – Network rebranded back to this name as of August 21, 2019, and entire presence has shifted to a new name, new website, new stock ticker symbol, new branding, new company name...everything (we knew about this a month ago); attempted a non-controversial move this morning that was approved easily and changed the pertinent parts to the new branding, but another editor who seems to enjoy hating WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY reverted the move, claiming WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:CRYSTAL says we should hold off because there's no official proof (I presented an article from the Star Tribune literally spelling out the change was made overnight, a link to the network's livestream with a whole bunch of 'welcome to the new ShopHQ' mentions and Shop HQ logos all over the place, and that I was seeing the new logo on the network with my own eyes), despite being told that lower-tier shopping channels generally don't get much publicity even for a name change, especially in 2019. Thus...here we are. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon and Mrschimpf: network entity has changed their on-air branding as of this morning. Nate • (chatter) 16:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- We don't update immediately to announced new names. We first need to see independent sources taking up the change. Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- And I changed to "discuss = no" as there's no point in opening an RM discussion on it this early (though proposer can open one if he wishes). Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. They appear to have completely rebranded. "Evine" doesn't even exist anymore, so changing the title is completely appropriate in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support There is an independant ref in the article already and their on air branding has already changed. Not moving the article at this point would be a factual error. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2019 (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.