Talk:Partners & Napier/Archives/2012

Fair use rationale for Image:PartnersNapier logo.gif

Image:PartnersNapier logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Partners and Napier → Partners + Napier —

• I would like to change the title of the Partners and Napier page to Partners + Napier ([1]). You can see the correct name on the agency's website (with the exception of the site URL). The official brand of the agency uses a plus symbol, and does not spell out the word "and" or use an ampersand. I am requesting this move as an employee of Partners + Napier and a representative of the marketing/PR department. Maldiamond (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Object should have a discussion, might contravene MOS:TM. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks for your request Maldiamond, but unfortunately Wikipedia guidelines on trademarks and company names, listed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), state that standard English text formatting and capitalization rules are preferred, regardless of the preference of the trademark owners or company. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MOSTM; the plus sign is not normal English typography. (I'd be neutral to a move to an ampersand, but if the company doesn't use one it'd be moot anyway.) 86.6.193.43 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia uses its own Manual of Style, not those of other companies or organisations. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM. – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Partners + Napier" may be the agency's preferred version, and is often used by reliable sources, but "Partners & Napier"[2] and less frequently "Partners and Napier"[3] are also used. The symbol represents an "and", not a "plus" ("Partners plus Napier" only appears in directory sites), so the existing page name seems to be more accurate as well as being preferred by Wikipedia guidelines. I have created redirects from the "+" and "&" versions. Peter E. James (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.