Talk:Ho Mobile

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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  Please see

  MOS:TMCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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

• Support [1]

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

• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose marketing stylism per
  independent reliable sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

• Oppose A review of news sources shows that the styling is all over the place. Relevant policy is
  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)[reply
  ]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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