Talk:CALYX

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

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

Requested move 4 April 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. We do allow company names to be all upper case, for example IBM and SAP SE. Editors here don't agree on whether the capitalization is a strong enough signal of difference to remove the need for disambiguation. The mentions of MOS:CAPS in the discussion weren't fully persuasive -- you need to spell out the details. It seems that Calyx (magazine) lost the argument for upper case since it's from the same publisher. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CALYX → Calyx (company) – this does not appear to be an acronym, so MOS:TM/MOS:CAPS, this should not be capitalized. The current title should redirect to the disambiguation page calyx --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support not an an acronym, (publisher) might be better as there are more notable companies in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessary since the only other company I can find is Calyx & Corolla, a florist delivery company that has no article. if there are more notable companies named Calyx they are not listed here.--67.68.161.242 (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused with Calix which does list other companies.--67.68.161.242 (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nothing else on the dab page uses capitals, so it should be suitable natural disambiguation from other topics, which is preferable to a parentheses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't use capitals either, it isn't an acronym. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website and other sources discussing the topic show capital letters are indeed used, so it's perfectly acceptable as natural disambiguation.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It fails MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But not WP:NATURALDIS, which, unlike MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM, is a policy. "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources..."--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:naturaldabs state that it overrules both WP:CAPS and the MOS:CAPS and if not why should that be favoured over the other two.--70.27.228.231 (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. WP:AT, including NATURALDIS, is a policy whereas the MoS is merely a style guideline. Calidum T|C 04:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The WP:NATURALDIS argument seems pretty shaky to me. Its intent is to allow alternative names, not alternative capitalizations. There's nothing "natural" about disambiguating two articles based on whether you had your caps lock engaged when you typed your search. In other words, MOS:CAPS still applies. Krychek (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2015 (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.