Jump to content

Talk:DiDi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:DiDi (company))

Merger of Didi Dache

[edit]
  1. I propose merging Didi Dache into Didi Kuaidi. Since the company merged with Kuaidi Dache, there's no need for a seperate article on Didi Dache.--Cattus talk 18:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed Mk17b (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree too. --Deansfa (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree this too. --Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 04:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed. MethaneK (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree --Baptisteg (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 2018

[edit]
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: move the page to DiDi (company), per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Didi Chuxing → DiDi (service) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TRANSLITERATE and WP:TITLETM. Plus, the service is now using DiDi as its name for international markets. See its official English website, which calls itself by just DiDi. Its app in the App Store and Play Store is also just DiDi for international markets. Didi Chuxing is undoubtedly a good name, but Chuxing is a hard to understand for English readers as it is Chinese pinyin. Welcome for discussion. Cheers. Wefk423 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Didi (company), even though this seems to fail WP:NATURAL. But Amazon.com was moved to Amazon (company) not long ago. Timmyshin (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Timmyshin: Good suggestion, but just to make sure: It's Didi (company) or DiDi (company)? Cheers –Wefk423 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2018 (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.

Names

[edit]

The BBC and NYT have been using the name Didi Chuxing for two years [2] [3] so I added it to the altenative names. NYT has some use of just Didi but neither use the stylised DiDi, which the article is currently titled. It seems the WP:COMMONNAME may be Didi Chuxing (stylised DiDi). Widefox; talk 11:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: As explained above in the move discussion, Didi Chuxing is a Chinese pinyin of the company's native name 滴滴出行. Per WP:TRANSLITERATE, simply DiDi would be the best option for common name (or the article title) as it will be easier for English readers here in Wikipedia. I appreciate your edit on adding it into the article lead. Cheers! –Wefk423 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wefk423: What's that got to do with COMMONNAME? Sources are using Didi Chuxing! (BTW TRANSLITERATE also says ...English language reliable sources...) . The move discussion above isn't very enlightening or numerous. Widefox; talk 17:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note is WP:OFFICIALNAMES Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources (emphasis own) Ping others User:Timmyshin User:Ita140188 Widefox; talk 17:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox: But from what I have searched, reliable sources such as South China Morning Post, Reuters, CNBC, Financial Times, TechCrunch, The Verge, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Engagdet, etc... uses "DiDi" or "Didi" in the article (at least in the title). –Wefk423 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the full name should never have been removed as an alternative name, secondly e.g. TechCrunch uses "Didi Chuxing" as the name in the body, and in the company profile linked [4], but yes some shorten to "Didi" but not one uses "DiDi" , and WSJ has full name "Didi Chuxing Technology Co.". As such, the move discussion above is flawed as none of the sources use "DiDi" which is the stylised version, and would need consensus to go against the COMMONNAME. It's a mess. Widefox; talk 17:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify that I do not oppose adding back the alternative name. In the beginning, I have expressed my apprecitation (I appreciate your edit on adding it into the article lead. Cheers!). You also mentioned WSJ has used their full, official name "Didi Chuxing Technology Co.", but that does not mean it could qualify as a WP:COMMONNAME reason. As for the company profile, I believe it refers to the company in China, rather than the company that handles their international services. If you open their international website (https://www.didiglobal.com), it will see that the official company name is Beijing Xiaoju Technology Co, Ltd. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out that Didi also provides services in non-Asian countries (Mexico, Australia, etc. see article), and I'm not sure if it's known as "Didi Chuxing" in those countries? However I don't object to Didi Chuxing because it meets WP:NATURAL. Timmyshin (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Timmyshin: After some research, I think it is marketed as just "DiDi". Take Austrailia as an example, their website [5] and mobile app [6] uses DiDi. Also note that the developer of the mobile app is DIDI MOBILITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PTE. LTD. I personally think that the company has a lot of different subsidiaries to handles different markets. ABC News (Austrailia) also uses just "Didi" in their whole article. [7] Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing is somewhat irrelevant, again see WP:OFFICIALNAMES While common names are generally preferred over official names as article titles (and the app, subsids, and other irrelevancies are not the company), and COMMONNAMES policy. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) . Widefox; talk 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2018

[edit]
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: Moved to DiDi. There is no consensus to move back to the longer title Didi Chuxing. Claims that it meets NATURALDIS were offset by claims that this name refers only to the Chinese market, and worldwide the "Didi Chuxing" name is an official name rather than a common name. However, there is a consensus that straight DiDi is better than the current title, as it differs from other Didi entries in capitalisation, and also satisfies NATURALDIS.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


DiDi (company) → Didi Chuxing – Revert bad move, flawed per above using the stylised (WP:OFFICIALNAMES) camelcase version in the face of WP:COMMONNAME, which is against policy/MOS as not dominant in sources (both all mentioned above, and all in article) per MOS:CAMELCASE ..reflects general usage... Widefox; talk 17:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary
  1. Camelcase should not be used as it fails MOS:CAMELCASE ..reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable.. - it is not dominant in sources (see below) - for example only 2/100 article sources use camelcase (and one is a PR), and does not make more readable as per the examples there of compound nouns ie not like OxyContin, PlayStation
    • Even the proponent of the flawed previous move claims (below) the lowercase is the commonname, invalidating the previous (bad) move rational which this just reverts.
  2. So, as lowercase Didi is ambiguous disambiguation is needed so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) states Whenever possible, common usage therefore "Didi Chuxing" is preferred for disambiguation
  3. Revert the bad move back to the title "Didi Chuxing"

Survey

[edit]
Oppose. As mentioned above, I can agree on the non-stylized Didi (company) but not Didi Chuxing. Didi Chuxing is a Chinese pinyin name for Chinese markets. Other international markets uses "DiDi", as seen from their official website [9] and mobile apps [10][11]. Please also note that the sources provided above (South China Morning Post, Reuters, CNBC, Financial Times, TechCrunch, The Verge, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Engagdet) uses Didi in the title (common name) while most article body uses Didi Chuxing to refer to the service provided in Mainland China. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You agree Didi Chuxing is the most common in RS? BBC, NYT etc. We go by policy WP:COMMONNAME, see WP:OFFICIALNAMES for the overemphasis you're putting on official style and title. This is just the revert of a bad move, based on official styling rather than policy, which you're still sticking to, despite this being clearcut. Widefox; talk 18:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by policy too. You used BBC and NYT as source, while I used SCMP, Reuters, CNBC, FT, TC, The Verge, WSJ, NYT, Engagdet, etc to show that they have used Didi in their title, while using Didi Chuxing in the body to refer to the Chinese service, not international services. Please note that DiDi provides services in markets such as Hong Kong, Austrailia and Mexico. These regions uses Didi as common name. Plus, I did not overemphase the official style and title, I have been stating the common name of the service the whole time. It was you that stated the official name ... and WSJ has full name "Didi Chuxing Technology Co.". Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources use "DiDi", correct? So what part of that move is per policy? Your claim is "Didi" as the commonname, so why move to "DiDi"? Confused.
We tend to use gold standard RS like BBC, NYT which use "Didi Chuxing" for the company name (and sometimes use "Didi" for short, BBC does not though), which this is the topic, correct? You seem to be conflating service name with company name. Just as reference, the Uber titled article has Uber Technologies Inc. (doing business as Uber), Amazon (company) Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon (ie with trade name). The apps, and geographically named services are not to be conflated. This is English WP too. Widefox; talk 21:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it funny that you are trying to put the blame on me on the requested move. Yes, considering the sources we have now, the current common name is Didi instead of DiDi. But please do understand that the move was a request and proposal for discussion. The result of such move was based on consensus. Back to service and company name - We don't know if "Didi Chuxing Technology Co." is really the official company name. Like I mentioned, If you open their international website (https://www.didiglobal.com), it will see that the official company name is Beijing Xiaoju Technology Co, Ltd. The company name you mentioned from WSJ is the one handling Chinese markets, we are not sure whether it is the parent company of all services. The situation is different than the companies you gave (Amazon and Uber), as DiDi has two different common names for different markets. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree the move wasn't per WP:COMMONNAME. Bad moves should be reverted. It is that simple. (I suggest that if you don't know the name of the company, then you should refrain from moving the company to a different name) Widefox; talk 15:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bad moves should be reverted. It is that simple. No, it's not. You kept emphasising that it was a bad move and it should be reverted to Didi Chuxing, but me and several editors have repeatedly pointed out that the name that appeared on the sources you listed here (Didi Chuxing) refers only to the service in Mainland China, and not the other numbers of market. Those sources used Didi in the title for a reason, it's been used as common name, not "sometimes use "Didi" for short". Didi Chuxing is undoubtedly not a suitable name for a service that is available in different countries with a different name. For overseas countries that always used DiDi as common name to refer to the service, using Didi Chuxing is confusing to them. Is this an article only referring to the service in China, and not their hometown or country? –Wefk423 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that if you don't know the name of the company, then you should refrain from moving the company to a different name I'm here to once again make it clear to you. The move request was a proposal for discussion, and was moved per consensus. You make it seem like I have moved the article without making any discussion. Please refrain from persistently putting the blame of "bad move" to me. I'm asking nicely. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ has full name "Didi Chuxing Technology Co.", BBC only uses "Didi Chuxing". You may claim to know better, but I do not. It is good that we go by policy and guideline and not votes, then isn't it. Widefox; talk 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From what I understand, Didi Chuxing is used specifically for the Chinese service, while Didi is generally recognized as the service worldwide. Since the article is general, Didi is a better term to refer to the service worldwide. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That conflates the service with the company (the company is the subject here), which is called Didi Chuxing Technology Co., Didi Chuxing for short, or Didi for ambiguously short, etc . Widefox; talk 15:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are using one of their companies' official name "Didi Chuxing Technology Co." as evidence to support using Didi Chuxing would be the best option, but I have, and once again, replied saying that The company name you mentioned from WSJ is the one handling Chinese markets, we are not sure whether it is the parent company of all services.. Also, you mentioned Didi Chuxing for short, or Didi for ambiguously short. No. Didi Chuxing is for China markets, DiDi is for all international markets. It has been mentioned by me and other editors many times. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it literally doesn't matter what you or I think, COMMONNAME is clear we go by WP:RS. None uses "DiDi" (camelcase). Period. Even the heavily DiDi branded WP:primary source (non-independent) used by a proponent here http://www.didi-labs.com/#about has "ABOUT DIDI CHUXING". ) Widefox; talk 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a disambiguation issue, so the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which states, Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. In this case, the natural disambiguation for this article is the company's official name, "Didi Chuxing", which is preferable to "Didi (company)". The company may have chosen to use the "DiDi" name in isolation for their international marketing, but "Didi Chuxing" remains the better title for this article. Λυδαcιτγ 08:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does not need disambiguation. DiDi is currently a red link. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, search on Google for "didi" ride service -chuxing gives 3 million results [12], while "didi chuxing" ride service gives only 378,000 results [13] --Ita140188 (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting using DiDi as the article title? Λυδαcιτγ 08:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the addition of company in brackets is a problem, yes, I think DiDi is better than Didi Chuxing, which is less commonly used and generally refers only to the Chinese service. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree using DiDi rather than Didi Chuxing if DiDi (company) fail WP:NATURAL. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again this conflates the service with the company name. All this OR is moot - we use RS for COMMONNAME rather than Google hits (and that Google search conflates the previous companies and other issues, e.g. "didi chuxing" gets > 1 million hits including BBC, https://www.didiglobal.com/ "Didi Chuxing", https://news.sky.com, "Didi Chuxing | Crunchbase", https://www.engadget.com, https://gizmodo.com, https://www.reuters.com, Didi Chuxing (@DidiChuxing) | Twitter, Didi Chuxing - Home | Facebook, www.didi-labs.com/ "Didi Chuxing", Didi Chuxing | South China Morning Post, https://www.linkedin.com/company/滴滴 "Didi Chuxing", Didi Chuxing - CB Insights, itv.com, time.com), BBC and other gold standards are clear. Widefox; talk 15:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Widefox but I don't agree with your points. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ita140188 This isn't a vote, the weight of argument based on policy matters, so stating "don't agree" has no weight unless it is reasoned. Widefox; talk 15:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't voting, I was saying that I don't think your replies invalidate my points. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. camelcase should not be used as it fails MOS:CAMELCASE (see below), 2. Didi is ambiguous so disambiguation is needed so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) states Whenever possible, common usage therefore "Didi Chuxing" is preferred for disambiguation) 3. even the bad move proponent (above) claims the lowercase is the commonname, invalidating the bad move rational. Widefox; talk 16:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either you are saying that this is an issue of disambiguation, or it is a commonname issue. If the issue is disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB DiDi would be acceptable rather than Didi (company). --Ita140188 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
even the bad move proponent (above) claims the lowercase is the commonname, invalidating the bad move rational ?? That does not mean that Didi Chuxing is suitable. It is not the common name and MOS:CAMELCASE also stated Trademarks in "CamelCase" are a judgment call; the style may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable., this is why we have discussed the possiblity of moving to DiDi, the trademark name from DiDi. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ita140188 - that's a false dichotomy - both are relevant per policy/guideline. You agree both apply here?
Wefk423 - what we are discussing here is undoing a bad move, which you agree was not the COMMONNAME per policy (due to camelcase not being in any source above). MOS:CAMELCASE says to follow general usage not editors desire. Usage in RS is clear = not used. Period. Widefox; talk 17:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't a request to undo a bad move. DiDi is not the COMMONNAME, yes I agree on you. But like I said, Didi Chuxing has several issues (explained above by me and serveral editors). Undo a bad move is cool, but I just don't think Didi Chuxing is the best option here. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When an edit is bad, we revert it. This goes directly against CAMELCASE, so should be reverted just on that alone. The original title matches the history DiDi (company)#Didi Chuxing (from September 2015). Widefox; talk 17:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To invoke WP:COMMONNAME you still have to demonstrate that Didi Chuxing is more common and recognizable than Didi alone --Ita140188 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm only contesting a bad edit (move) which even the proponent states is not the COMMONNAME. There's a lot of merit to mentioning the stylised "DiDi" in the article as it's the common conglomerate branding / marketing thread / trade name (as it is currently mentioned), but to name and style the whole topic as such is directly against policy and guideline as quoted. Widefox; talk 16:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is against MOS:CAMELCASE as the camelcase is not dominant in sources. Widefox; talk 08:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not against MOS:CAMELCASE to make a move that does not change the CamelCase-ness of the title in question. --В²C ☎ 18:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on that non sequitur. You seriously making that argument that if it's against guideline before we can't correct it later? That's a joke right? Widefox; talk 22:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur? What? It directly refutes your claim. No, I'm not arguing we can't correct it; I'm not arguing anything like that. How did you even get that meaning from my words? I'm just saying MOS:CAMELCASE addresses CamelCase. If a title change does not affect the CamelCase-ness of the title, like moving from DiDi (company) to
Yes, ignoring the actual RM, it wouldn't involve camelcase, correct. Widefox; talk 00:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DiDi does not affect the CamelCase-ness of that title, as favored by Simonm223, then that move would not violate MOS:CAMELCASE, as you claim it would. --В²C ☎ 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Born2cycle shouldn't you refrain from a second premature reading of consensus during discussion?! (what evidence do you have for the assertion that "Didi Chuxing" is only for part of the business - below I've refuted that with multiple primary and secondary sources, while so far no evidence has been produced for the assertion) Widefox; talk 20:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

If I were to close this now, I'd need to dscard much (perhaps most) of the above for various reasons... blatantly contrary to policy, personal opinion only, based on primary sources (see also the essay at wp:official names for more on that). Suggest the supporters in particular might try to clarify the reasons for their support.

And as part of this, is the stylised DiDi and the proposed natural disambiguation of Didi really the best possible proposal? Neither of these questions have been well addressed above.

That latest !vote, for example, appeals to WP:IDENTITY, presumably believing that it isn't clear which is most used (see the link they gave). That claim needs justification; Just name-dropping the MOS means nothing. In fact, none of their four arguments stand up to scrutiny, so I'd simply discard that !vote, and several others. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Just saw this. Quoting from WP:NCDAB, When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use. ... Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. "Didi Chuxing" is a commonly used, unambiguous, and more complete name for the company. Since natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical, we should use it instead of "Didi (company)". Λυδαcιτγ 06:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem here is that Didi and Didi Chuxing are not used interchangeably: the first is generally used in international markets, while the latter is generally used for the Chinese market. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect - even their own announcements define "DiDi" as a stylised version of "Didi Chuxing" making them synonymous [14]. The sources I read use sometimes use "Didi" in titles and "Didi Chuxing" in the body, with no explanation about any difference. BBC only uses "Didi Chuxing". How do you explain your claim when our best RS are evidence for the exact opposite? Widefox; talk 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: when you say "supporters" are you referring to supporters of this move proposal, or supporters of camelcase "DiDi"? (from my side, what started as just contesting the previous bad move which goes against CAMELCASE (not used in sources), I then retrofitted some justification for the previous name (belt and braces I thought). I didn't expect such counter arguments which aren't based on MOS/policy IMHO (hence me asking what your referring to). Widefox; talk 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By supporters I meant those who had !voted support at the time I relisted the discussion and made that comment. My relisting was primarily to give them the chance to relate their arguments to policy. Failure to do this is regrettably common, and makes closing rather tricky at times, as for the closer to be influenced by any !vote that is based on an invalid rationale but which they think could be rephrased to be valid leaves the closer open to a charge of supervote. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: I've attempted to shore up the nom including refuting invalid arguments presented by oppose !votes. I won't ping other supporters, who's comments you're referring to. Widefox; talk 10:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to MOS:CAMELCASE I would suggest that this is one circumstance where the direction, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," seems reasonable. Although DiDi may not be used by a preponderance of secondary sources, it's pretty clearly used on all Didi Chuxing branding for this arm of their business. In addition it allows for easier disambiguation within Wikipedia and lets us delete the annoying (company) tail. In short, even if it's not 100% in keeping with MOS guidelines, I think this is a circumstance where it's a good course of action.Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a good example of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, which is generally preferred over parenthetic disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 18:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Simonm223 there's only 2 out of 100 sources that use the camelcase. One is a company PR, so only 1% of those used. None of BBC etc use the camelcase. It appears to be pushed here, which is in line with the marketing, but not in line with sources or the MOS as you say. The way I see it, that's two good reasons to not use camelcase - why should be be different to the sources? We default to our policies not what commercial desires are! I see only a marketing need to WP:IAR. Widefox; talk 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, FWIW, the reason I didn't give your arguments much weight when I assessed consensus is because you have not addressed the point that Didi Chuxing is used specifically to address the business in China. If you have found sources referring to the company's business globally as Didi Chuxing, you haven't cited it. But based on what was available when I closed, it appeared there was no counter to this point. I don't see a change now. That left DiDi vs. DiDi (company) - nobody seems to prefer the latter over the former, which is why I found consensus in favor of moving to DiDi. Note that the move to DiDi does not preclude anyone from starting a new RM to move somewhere else. --В²C ☎ 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec - ironically it answers that point...) Take this source [15] "Didi Chuxing is the world's largest ride-hail company by number of trips". This article is about the company "Didi Chuxing" shortened to "Didi" by the BBC, used synonomously, and styled in marketing (but not RS) as "DiDi" (ie never in any BBC source). Widefox; talk 20:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article refers exclusively to the business in China. See also: DiDi Global. The business originated in China and the bulk of their business remains there, and that business is called "Didi Chuxing", but the point made by others (which you continue to ignore) is that the global business is not called Didi Chuxing. It's referred to as "Didi" only, which we must disambiguate. Now, do we disambiguate as Didi Chuxing, which has been argued to be misleading since that name refers only to their business in China, as the stylized DiDi, as the parenthetically disambiguated Didi (company) or keep it as is, disambiguated by NATURAL stylization and with parens: DiDi (company). Like I said in my close, there is no perfect answer. Choose your poison. I still think the least unpalatable by participants here is DiDi. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - read it again the article synonymously uses "Didi Chuxing" and "Didi". That directly refutes the assertion above Didi and Didi Chuxing are not used interchangeably by User:Ita140188. Further, this source [16] is about Brazil receiving investment from Chinese group Didi Chuxing, not "Didi". I've already refuted this with the primary source [17] ABOUT DIDI CHUXING...DiDi is a ride-sharing platform used synonomously ...which has a link to [18] Didi Chuxing, the Chinese ride-sharing giant that has big ambitions for international expansion Crunchbase Didi Chuxing ...Also Known As Didi , [19] primary also has Udacity, Didi Chuxing want to give you $100,000 ... The Verge Didi Chuxing, the Chinese ride-hail behemoth, plans to expand to Mexico ...It would be the company’s first international expansion...Didi .. so no, by primary and secondary sources "Didi Chuxing" is used for international investments etc, not just China. Also, to recentre this discussion on the article, note it leads with Didi Chuxing Technology Co., (stylised DiDi) which is correct per above - this is about a Chinese company that has expansion plans., which is per Crunchbase, etc sources, none of which use "DiDi". (as comparison...despite the camel pushing here... Cheng Wei has it right founder of Didi Chuxing ("DiDi", formerly known as Didi Kuaidi) )Widefox; talk 21:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While using Didi interchangeably with Didi Chuxing in an article focused only on the business in China does not refute the assertion that Didi Chuxing refers only to the business in China (regardless of what anyone else asserted), your examples of sources using Didi Chuxing in an international context give your argument much more weight. That aside, I still think there is preference of DiDi over DiDi (company) in the discussion. --В²C ☎ 23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the assertion that "Didi Chuxing Technology Co." , "Didi Chuxing" , "Didi" and "DiDi" are not the same is just, well, not true. Note this assertion, while prevalent above is similarly flawed based on sources and policy as a Hobson's choice of "DiDi" vs "DiDi (company)". "Didi Chuxing" and "Didi" are the choice of COMMONNAMES, so are the only choice per MOS, despite the marketing push for "DiDi" branding. Put another way, why should WP be pushing the camelcase when RS are not?! Preposterous. The use of official camelcase trademark is explicitly disallowed per MOS:CAMELCASE Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one: We should not invent "DiDi" when 99% of sources do not use it. Period. Further, per MOS:TMSTYLE the current stylised variant should not be used throughout the article (that can be fixed now). Widefox; talk 23:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, those are guidelines for article content text, not article titles. Secondly, they are not as clearcut as you seem to think. They also say, Trademarks in "CamelCase" are a judgment call; the style may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable. ; OxyContin or Oxycontin – editor's choice; however: PlayStation only (camelcase preferred because Playstation is not widely-used.) Thirdly, once a title (like Didi) is not available, we're into disambiguation territory, where rules change. If Didi is not available, but DiDi is, and it's a NATURAL disambiguation, that's fair game for a title. Finally, and again, I saw consensus in the discussion favoring DiDi over DiDi (company). I did not see consensus favoring Didi Chuzing over DiDi (company). Discussion had petered, it was in the backlog, and it was time to make a decision. I did the best I could with what I was given. I could see no consensus for the specific proposed move, but I did see consensus for the move to DiDi. It was the best anyone could do, I think. --В²C ☎ 01:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That comes across as justifying an overturned close, it quotes the crucial aspect where it reflects general usage . It is 1% of camelcase usage, and 99% normal usage of "Didi". Hmm, 99% or 1%. Which would I close? Widefox; talk 09:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My close was not overturned, which could only be accomplished with a formal move review. Someone simply reverted it and I haven't contested it, per WP:BRD. I still see no consensus to move to Didi Chuxing. As to the CamelCase issue, that's not relevant to the DiDi (company) -> DiDi move as CamelCase remains the same, and I still see consensus for that move. But if this is closed as no consensus I suppose we can start another RM looking exclusively at that move to prove beyond any doubt there is consensus for it. --В²C ☎ 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the move request - it is to revert the camelcase which is not used in sources. Widefox; talk 17:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. See the opposition to that proposal. It is not supported by consensus. What is supported, as best as I can tell, is a move from DiDi (company) to DiDi, which is a move that does not change CamelCase, and so MOS:CAMELCASE is not relevant to that. --В²C ☎ 18:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC) inserted missing critical "not" --В²C ☎ 23:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean empty and factually incorrect reasoning like like a) ..obviously supposed to go, b) but it does appear that Didi Chuxing is specific to the Chinese market a) empty b) not true. ? Widefox; talk 22:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, if only we devoted the time wasted in this useless discussion on actually editing articles, Wikipedia would be much better. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this discussion hasn't achieved much considering the effort put into it, but we're a collaboration, each with different interests and abilities. Not sure how to do this more efficiently, and suspect that trying to improve the process would be even less productive. Andrewa (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we could strike factually incorrect statements the above would be more clear. Specifically the false assertion that "Didi Chuxing" is not the topic - the company "Didi Chuxing Technology Co." (Didi, stylised "DiDi"). My understanding from the Mexico source is they're not in other markets outside China, which makes much of the above moot. Widefox; talk 12:32, 14 September 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DiDi&oldid=1206967441"