Talk:Vocus Group

	Australia portal Vocus Group is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move 1 October 2017[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: page moved. As Andrewa removed his opposition immediately after the relist. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vocus Communications → Vocus Group – First line of page is "Vocus Communications, now known as Vocus Group Ltd". Page CallPlus has a dead link to Vocus Group. Move Vocus Communications to Vocus Group, leave redirect at Vocus Communications. Thanks. Mr Vholes (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Mr Vholes (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. This these are all primary sources or original research. No evidence that the name has changed in secondary sources. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (change of !vote) in view of evidence below. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looking through recent news sources, I found a split between those using "Vocus Group",[1][2] and those using just "Vocus",[3][4] There was one which retained the old name,[5] but in general it appears reliable sources have cottoned on to the new name. — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2017 (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.