Talk:Gannett/Archives/2018

Requested move 20 September 2018

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. Whether the disambiguation page should be moved to "Gannett" is a separate discussion. bd2412 T 01:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Gannett Company → Gannett – WP:COMMONNAME. 98.172.84.135 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The company is much more commonly known as "Gannett" and Gannett is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here so no need to disambiguate is already established. --В²C ☎ 00:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is working. Gannett is well known in the US, but there are so many other items at Gannett (disambiguation) not convinced that "Gannett" passes WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That's an argument to move the dab page to Gannett which is a separate matter that needs to be handled differently. In the mean time, having the more WP:CONCISE and better WP:COMMONNAME be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here makes no sense. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It could also go at Gannett Company, Inc but isn't the current title reasonable compromise of WP:CONCISE. Britannica uses Gannett Co., Inc. as do many other sources, maybe that would be a better title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• opppose but i support to moving disamb page to base page. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:49, 6 October 2018 (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 5 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Gannett at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Gannett Company → Gannett Co. – Move discussion, again: sorry to rehash after just a couple of months, but I don't think Gannett Company is the correct title for this article, because there is no such entity. The name in the company's charter, which is reflected in the company's securities filings with the SEC, is Gannett Co., Inc. (i.e. abbreviated). Thus I believe it would be appropriate for us to locate this article at one of the following pages that are currently redirects:

• Gannett (obviously requiring rehash of the last discussion);
• Gannett Co. (to match the name absent the Inc., which follows WP naming guideline in leaving it off); or
• Gannett (company) to make clear that the disambuiguator is WP-applied.

but the current article title is not appropriate IMO. My preference is Gannett Co. (note we have Crane Co. and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.)

Comments, reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support The website title is "Gannett Co." but the company uses just "Gannett" and Britannica uses "Gannett Co., Inc.". In any case I don't get many sources for searching for "Gannett Company" but I'm not sure which of these is best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment my personal preference would be Gannett (company). The newspaper industry has had a flurry of mergers, spinoffs, and renamings over the past few years (TRONC) and trying to keep up with it is a fool's errand. The common name (as much as there is one) is "Gannett". Of course, Gannett redirects here and thus Gannett (company) isn't an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Count me as one of those fools, happy to be one of the many editors trying to keep up. But I strongly object to "(company)" (don't get me started on Amazon (company) or IAC (company)) because always we have the real corporate legal name to fall back on, as we do in this case. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and instead move to Gannett - already redirects here, and is the WP:COMMONNAME of this company. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with that also; was only trying to be sensitive to the previous RM outcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Gannett. Per Netoholic. That previous RM was just a silly outcome. I respect UnitedStatesian's sensitivity to it as nominator, which was the right thing to do, and now I think it quite reasonable to bring it up again as the best option. --Bsherr (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Relisting note: in this RM, consensus is leaning towards moving to Gannett but as UnitedStatesian alluded to, it's probably best to relist to give the dissenters from the previous RM time to lay their case out. SITH (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving to Gannett. Gannett redirects here. This will make it easier for the readers to understand that there is no other "Gannett". Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 17:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Gannett as per above comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• Move the page to "Gannett". Also in support of this move, like some of the others above. Csworldwide1 (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2018 (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.