Talk:Best Products

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Best Products. Click here to start a new topic.


Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.


Co., Inc.

Why "Co.", let alone "Inc.", as part of the title? We don't do this elsewhere (and I'm glad that we don't). -- Hoarier 17:23, 24 February 2012 (PST)

It was my interpretation of the company page standards. I looked on the List of companies and saw some company pages that were the full, legal name (e.g. with inc, ltd, etc) and some that were the common usage. But that said, I'm fine with renaming the page if that's preferred but we should probably clarify the desired company page naming scheme on the help page and rename the others that use full company names. Steevithak 20:39, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Does Wikipedia have anything on company page names that might apply here? I searched but couldn't find much. It does appear there's a tag called DISPLAYTITLE, that would allow one to name a page something other than the real company name while still displaying the real company name, so that would work in this case (e.g. name the page "Best products" but display "Best Products Co., Inc." as the page title. Steevithak 20:50, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Here's what I could find this page says pages that using a proper name should "as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English" which in this case would definitely be "Best Products" rather than the full name. And this one seems more definitive, saying titles should definitely be the common name rather than the official name, also that titles should not be pedantic. Ok, so I think I'm fully in agreement with you at this point. I'll make the change. Steevithak 21:04, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Edit clash with page move, so rather obsolete ¶ If we look in WP for articles on companies, articles that have obviously been produced by a number of thinking people, we don't see this. "Microsoft", not "Microsoft Inc." or whatever. There certainly are exceptions: Oliver Typewriter Company, London Necropolis Company; but I think that these are intended to avoid confusion with Oliver typewriters and the London Necropolis (a graveyard). In our own company page standards, we give Pentax as an example; we don't use whatever was the earlier (pre-Hoya?) equivalent of "Pentax Ricoh Imaging Co., Ltd.". ¶ I think that a change to including "Co., Ltd." and the like would be of little help to most people, and would bring lots of confusion. Take Britain as an (admittedly unimportant) example: for a long time, British companies called themselves "Co. Ltd." (with or without dots, a comma, and this capitalization). Then for some reason (legislative? just fashion?) most (all?) switched to "PLC" or (more often) "plc" (usually without dots, for "public limited company"). And now most (all?) seem to have switched back. Probably the changes are of great interest to those who are in the business of selling grand nameplates to be mounted on the front of buildings, but I venture to guess that 99% of the public don't care. ¶ If this article were instead "Best Products", conceivably some poor souls might be momentarily under the impression that it was about the best products, but they'd soon be disabused of that notion. And anyway the capital "P" of "Products" is supposed to show that it's a tradename or similar. (Though -- ahem! -- the subheadings within this article go against the de facto norms of capitalization in C-W [and, of course irrelevant here, against WP's "Manual of style".) -- Hoarier 21:25, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Can you clarify the problem with the article headings? If it's the use "References" vs "Notes" I looked that up and it's an acceptable header for sections containing primarily references and citations (notes preferred if there are other types of stuff included) Steevithak 21:31, 24 February 2012 (PST)
"Albinar Lenses" as opposed to "Albinar lenses", etc. The former is of course fine on its own terms but not the way we've been doing things. (See Olympus Six as just one example of a header-rich article by the much missed magus of C-W.) I prefer the way we've been doing things, not because I'm a stick-in-the-mud (well, I would say that) but because "up" capitalization either (a) is done to an extreme, as a few old-fashioned US newspapers may still do it ("Late Cameras With No Strap Lugs") or else (b) eventually raises grammatical questions (probably "Late Cameras with No Strap Lugs", but what part of speech is "no"?). -- Hoarier 22:53, 24 February 2012 (PST)
Oh, sorry, totally missed that. No worries, I'll take care of it. Steevithak 07:43, 25 February 2012 (PST)