Talk:Block, Inc./Archive 1

Help
Any help would be appreciated, just knew this needed to be started. www.squareup.com for more info. English06 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm surprised this article wasn't created yet. Can you make any attempts to expand it? Talk about pricing, its introduction to the market, or anything else? Also, you may want to update the square disambiguation page. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some details using the company website and an article in the LA Times. I also renamed the page from 'payment device' to 'payment service' - it seemed more apt to me, let me know if you think otherwise. Casablanca2000in (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

reading some of the reviews on their site, apparently there's some problems and it's not a viable payment service yet - particularly, nobody seems to have received their card reader. would a mention of this be appropriate, or is it too hearsay? 94.193.221.42 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Square up so hard to contact?
Why is it that in developing such high technology, Square Up has no phone number that a consumer can reach in order to speak to a person? After receiving an email from Square promising a refund there has been nothing. Square undoubtedly does not do much background research on people who apply for a card, since people are having thousands stolen from them. I personally was taken for $3,000 and another man had $7500.00 stole from him by the same Square merchant. This Square merchant is currently out on bond after being in court in Sept. This money will never be returned although it is Square's policy to issue refunds. Just post a reliable phone number! John Coker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.8.93 (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Because they don't want customers, they're just money laundring. And distributing it to 400 people inside their business...and what do you think those billions are coming from? By the way I can't see any innovation with square, because I can already pay everywhere with my credit card, there is no need for square and will never be. And the silicon valley was money laundring station #1 for US drug money ever since. That's how people like Dorsey really get their money. Nice face with a big smile, but still your life's a big lie, and still one day all you AIC fags are gonna end up in prison, time's running up. 178.197.234.91 (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Article subject
The article is a combination of the software application, the hardware, and the company. thats fine for now, but if its highly notable, the company should have a separate article from products.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm surprised it evolved the way it did (in the first place). I've moved it to Square, Inc. and updated the lede to strictly reflect things from the perspective of the company (the infobox already did).  If someone feels either of the two apps (or the card reader, I suppose) deserve an article of their own, feel free — although I don't really think it's necessary, at least the Square Register app is almost undoubtedly notable in its own right.   user: j  (talk)  17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must disagree with both of you. First, I'm not familiar with Mercurywoodrose's criteria for notability, and frankly, it sounds quite strange.  We have many articles on companies and their products, all contained within one topical treatment.  There is absolutely no requirement that products and companies should be separate.  Due to size concerns, we split out products if and when they grow too large.  That is not the case here.  Second, User:J should familiarize himself with Naming conventions (companies).  We generally don't use "Inc." in the title of our company articles, with a preference for (company) instead. You may have confused the disambiguation of "Application" with the company.  It merely referred to the product the company was known for which was acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, easy on the bite, Viriditas. :) I'm perfectly familiar with wp:nccorp, and I'm afraid you're misreading that convention reading more into that convention than is there.  To be clear, from that guideline (with emphasis added): "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended '(company)', or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company))." Disambiguation was required, as square is clearly taken.  There is no "preference," as you say, for using "(company)" to disambiguate over the legal status; in fact, as the convention is written, legal status is mentioned before the company parenthetical.  I'm not going to read anything more into the order they're listed, but certainly Apple Inc. and Oracle Corporation can't be bad precedents from which to rely upon.  Finally, there was significant justification for the move: there's no such thing (anymore) as a single "Square (application)." The application the company was known for when this article was moved to that title was renamed from just "Square" to Square Register and another application, Square Wallet, was introduced. This article is about the Square Register app, the Square Reader device, and the Square Wallet app. Most importantly, its core focus is the company named Square, Inc. That why it really ought to be here, frankly. user: j (talk)  19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Square (company) was taken. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost would rather the article about the defunct videogame company be moved (à la Hyder (defunct company)) and have Square (company) redirect to here, since that's more likely what someone would be looking for today, but I'm not finding much in the way of past discussion on using "defunct company" as a parenthetical disambiguator. I figure the dabhat is fine, anyway.   user: j  (talk)  20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Tristan O'Tierney?
http://www.crunchbase.com/person/tristan-otierney https://twitter.com/tristan https://www.quora.com/Square-Inc-1/Who-created-the-Square-card-reader

69.163.111.209 (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Debit card "inclusion"
According to https://squareup.com/help/en-us/article/5085-accepted-cards they mention debit cards however, the list which mentions debit cards is a subset of the accepted credit cards. So debit cards which also bear a credit card marking (eg VISA promotes this, via their "cheque card", and similar) would be accepted while pure debit cards would not be. Most of the promotion on what kinds of cards are accepted specifically state credit cards and it's not until you find this sub-help page you find out that the credit enabled debit cards are also included. The intro paragraph which states "debit cards" are accepted should be modified - I'm open to the specific wording. Jarod (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

With regards to some comments I've received; regardless of how prevalent credit enabled debit cards are, the fact remains that non-credit enabled debit cards ("pure" debit cards) can not be processed using this device. Saying that this device accepts debit cards is misleading. Jarod (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion to be had on this topic, I nominate that all mention of this device accepting debit cards be removed from the article. I would accept adding a paragraph which clarifies the difference between debit and credit enabled debit cards as long as it's very clear which Square does and does not accept. Jarod (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has been previously pointed out that your opinion and interpretation of the term debit card differs from the majority. In other words, the term is no longer used the way you infer, and hasn't been used that way in more than a decade.  Therefore, there is nothing to modify.  The term "debit card" is used to refer to a "check card".  And most accounts now give you a check card as the default option, which wasn't always the case, hence your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. To clarify then, the Square system does not accept debit transactions. Jarod (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Square quite clearly does accept debit transactions. It's just that it doesn't use your unilateral interpretation of what a debit card is or isn't.  In the real world, debit cards are also known as check cards.  I believe this has been explained to you before.  Wikipedia tends to attract single-minded editors who are unable (for whatever reason) to handle fuzzy meanings. I apologize, but we can't change the encyclopedia to suit your unique interpretation.  In the real world, a word or term has multiple meanings and several definitions. You'll have to learn to accept that and move on. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At this time, the bottom line for Square is that they accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express cards, including debit/check cards offered by these companies. However, they do not accept debit cards that are not offered by these companies. I would suggest that the most accurate and concise way to word this is to simply say that Square accepts Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express cards. This wording does not erroneously imply that Square accepts all debit cards, and also does not erroneously imply that Square accepts no debit cards. DesiArcy (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable DesiArcy, I would accept your wording. Viriditas, I am only trying to facilitate discussion and don't appreciate your implied tone. As per how debit transactions actually work (not what they're called), the debit transaction requires the card owner to input a PIN for online mode and the transaction happens immediately, which the Square software does not support. Therefore the Square system may indeed accept check/debit cards but they are not processed in the debit system (online debit system), the transaction goes through the credit system, or offline debit mode, which is the same system. I don't think the world is at the place yet where a debit card is considered the same as a credit card. Jarod (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As has already been explained, the term "debit card" in this instance refers to a check card, as the usage of the term has evolved over the years. Are you disputing something published on this subject by Square?  It sounds like you are using your own interpretation. To repeat, Square takes debit cards, and most debit cards are check cards with a credit card symbol. You are using a definition that is now archaic. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like DesiArcy said, the system accepts Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express cards. The system will not process payments in Online Debit Mode, per the links in my previous comment. So debit cards which are not offline capable, those being which do not bear a credit card mark or are able to be processed like check card are not able to be used with the Square system. From your previous comment you say that "Square takes debit cards", which could be any debit card. You go on to say that "most debit cards are check cards with a credit card symbol", a fact of with which I completely agree. But the other subset of debit cards which do not fall into the check card category do not work with the Square system, period. From Square's support page, they do not accept Canadian Interac Debit Cards, and American cards without credit logos. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. Jarod (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Try making it as clear as our article on debit card which notes that the term is interchangeable with the term check card. Square accepts debit cards, and in this context, a debit card refers to a card with a credit card logo, not to the old fashioned "debit" card of yesteryear from the 20th century.  As was explained previously, the term "debit card" now generally means a "check card", which of course, Square accepts.  Pretty simple, actually.  Does any source other than you interpret the term "debit card" to refer to a pure debit card, which has been pointed out to you many times now, is no longer the actual definition in usage? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's own article on debit card clearly explains the difference between online debit cards and offline debit cards; Square's setup accepts offline debit but not online debit. This is an important functional difference for both merchants and consumers, as online debit is more secure than offline debit and offline debit bypasses overdraft protection. I really don't understand why you're so insistent on saying Square accepts all debit cards when the actual situation is more complex than that and can be easily explained without overly convoluted wording. DesiArcy (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not insistent on saying Square accepts all debit cards, and I've never said that. Wikipedia's article on debit cards says "many debit cards are of the Visa or MasterCard brand" which is what Square accepts, and implies by association that Square accepts offline debit cards. Where is it implied that Square accepts online debit cards?  Nowhere, of course.  And what is the language Square uses?  Debit card.  Why? Because it is implied that this is a "Visa or MasterCard debit card", per Square.  What's the problem here? If you signup for a basic checking account in the U.S. as of 2014, you do not get a simple debit card, you get a check card.  This was not always true in the past, but now it is.  Since this is standardized, there's no reason to talk about the different kind of debit cards anymore. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think DesiArcy's wording is simple, and accurately describes the system. I vote to replace the current wording with "Square accepts Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express cards." or even "Square accepts any card bearing the Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express logo." Jarod (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This entire thread is based on your own misperception and misunderstanding. You originally claimed that there was an ambiguity over debit cards, and that you were confused that it was only "credit enabled debit cards" that are included, not "pure" debit cards.  But there never has been any "confusion".  Below, you make it clear that your confusion is based on the fact that Square does not accept your preferred card.  Sounds to me like you are pushing a POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If a Canadian user were to view this page as it is worded right now they may legitimately believe that they can use their Interac cards with the system when in fact they would not work. I am only trying to add the clarification that this system is not supported. These facts may indeed come from my point of view, but they are indeed correct facts which I believe add to the article. Jarod (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In reference to "Does any source other than you interpret the term "debit card" to refer to a pure debit card...", yes, in bullet number one, "Interac Direct Payment (IDP) is Canada's national debit card service for purchasing of goods and services. Customers enter their personal identification number (PIN) and the amount paid is deducted from either their chequing or savings accounts." This could be some source of disparity between you and me as I grew up in Canada - I'm assuming you grew up in the US. How we understand these systems is likely quite different. I believe it would be fair to say that the system does not accept Canadian Interac Debit cards not bearing a Visa or Mastercard logo. (I have a debit card which has the "Visa" word logo on it.) American Express and Discover are American based companies and do not place their mark on Canadian Interac Debit cards. Jarod (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Interac debit cards are not currently supported with Square". "Square works with any US-issued and most non-US issued cards bearing a Visa, MasterCard, American Express or Discover logo including the following card types: Credit, Corporate, Debit, Gift, Pre-Paid, and Rewards". Those are the only sourced facts we require. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct - but the article doesn't say "US debit cards" it says "debit cards" in the same sentence which says "United States, Canada, and Japan". I can't speak to how this conversation affects the Japanese debit system, but this conversation might apply to them too. Jarod (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Puff piece
This article reads like it was written by a Square, Inc. shill or lifted from a magazine article. — QuicksilverT @ 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, it does not. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Square (and reader)
I see this section was removed due to lack of references - fair enough. The section mentioned "increasing problems", which could refer to BBB's Page which shows 415 complains closed in the last 12 months, with 820 total complains in the last 3 years. This shows to me "increasing problems". (Accessed 30-Jan-2014) Also, between this review site and the Better Business Bureaus list of complaints, it would seem that Square legitimately has the right to hold any transaction for 90 days, (about three months), because they think it may be fraudulent or pose a high risk. This has been a problem for many users of the system who are trying to conduct business with this service. Square's current BBB rating is "A", up from other reports of "B+" on Nov 20, 2013. I think here is enough information available to warrant posting real users concerns with this service. Do any businesses on Wikipedia contain a BBB link/rating in their "company info box", (upper right corner of the page) -- is it something to consider adding? Jarod (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you have reliable sources about Square, original research cannot be accepted. Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the original research, yes you're right - thanks. It could be stated directly from the BBB website that they have logged 820 complaints in the last 3 years, 415 of which were closed in the last 12 months.
 * Regarding the 90 hold on funds, at this point I'm unsure on how to phrase this to be included - if it indeed could be. We could cite portions of their user agreement. There's also CardPaymentOptions.com which has a seemingly in-depth published article on Square, including a section on funds-holds. The key item to pick up on, from that article, is that Square doesn't notify customers when 90 day holds are placed.
 * Regarding the BBB rating - I've seen it referenced in multiple articles differently, but none in the "Company Block". Citations ranged from in-line to a paragraph section.
 * Sorry about the bullets, I just wanted to make each of these items a bit easier to see. Jarod (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The axe grinding continues. Square is processing what right now, US$20 billion in transactions per year as of 2014?  And there are 821 complaints?  Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 20$ Billion is estimated for this year, and we're only starting February - and it isn't a good indication of how individual operators are using the system. Also, it's not necessarily the number of complaints, though the number is still significant - having that number double in one year is quite significant. Even if we assume that "first" 405 complaints all happened in the year before last, that's two solid years of steady complaints, which shows no improvement - actually things would be getting a bit worse by about 2.5% (10 more complains based on 400). Just because a company can show that people are using their system (by showing how much money they're bringing in), doesn't mean they have a good system, or good customer service. Seeing as I'm having difficulty coming up with something that we can agree on, how do you think we can add this section from a neutral POV? Jarod (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Customer Support
The only claim I can find is in reference 27, the author claims to have received that information (24 hour email turnaround) from the company. Accessing the Square site, the "Contact Us" form, without logging in does not specify any turnaround time. I can't say if they state one if you're a current user as I am not. Can someone check? Without any firm reference, I think we can remove that claim as a 3rd party statement. Jarod (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could state the date of that web article next to the word "current", or rearrange the sentence to read something like "...it claims that turnaround times as of to customer inquiries..." Jarod (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Customer Support
"Square's support is handled, email, YouTube videos, a Twitter feed and an online help center."

I don't understand this sentence. What does it mean? Uncle Alf (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think someone is using this article for a personal attack.
The first entry under services appears to be a complaint against square customer services that isnt really relevant, and is neither cited nor sourced properly. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.121.254 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019
In the Business Model subsection under the Business header there's a typo: "In some instances, Square may withhold payments to its users pending issues related to chargebacks.[62]the fSquare also"

That "the fSquare also" should just be "Square also'''". Gray hat (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I've changed it to "The firm" because Square is already used several times in the same paragraph. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Tristan O'Tierney
Was wondering if he should be talked about in the article considering he was a founding member and the one to build the original iPhone app for the company. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 04:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2021

 * 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Square (financial services company) → Square (company) – This company is more notable and has more long term significance than the video games company. Square (video game company) can be mentioned in a hatnote. I also think that Square, Inc. or Square Inc. are bad names because the logo calls it Square. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose, recentism. First preference leave everything as it is. Second preference move this article to Square Inc.. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as WP:INCOMPLETEDAB. Better to just keep it where it is. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:BarrelProof. 162 etc. (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Timeline
not encyclopedic, put here per WP:PRESERVE

trash follows: This is a timeline of Square, Inc., a payments company that was founded in February 2009 and became publicly traded in November 2015.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

16:46, 27 October 2018‎ Flooded with them hundreds 34 bytes −14,514‎ merge per AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Square Tag: New redirect 17:02, 11 September 2018‎ Atlantic306 14,548 bytes −371‎ AFD closed as merge (XFDcloser) 06:41, 4 September 2018‎ DGG 14,919 bytes +438‎ Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Square. (TW) 20:42, 18 June 2018‎ KolbertBot m 14,481 bytes +3‎ Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v485) undo 18:41, 3 May 2018‎ Daylen 14,478 bytes +386‎ →‎Full timeline: Added Weebly acquisition Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 15:42, 17 March 2018‎ John of Reading m 14,092 bytes −5‎ →‎Full timeline: Typo/general fixes, replaced: Protalinksi → Protalinski per source. using AWB 00:03, 21 January 2018‎ Alexhyen 14,097 bytes +298‎ →‎Full timeline 22:41, 10 December 2017‎ KolbertBot m 13,799 bytes +1‎ Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v478) undo 15:10, 31 October 2017‎ Daylen 13,798 bytes +461‎ →‎Full timeline: Added Square Register announcement Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 23:04, 16 September 2017‎ KolbertBot m 13,337 bytes +3‎ Bot: HTTP→HTTPS undo 22:18, 25 June 2017‎ Bender the Bot m 13,334 bytes +6‎ →‎Full timeline: HTTP→HTTPS for TechCrunch, per BRFA 8 using AWB undo 00:21, 24 March 2017‎ Northamerica1000 13,328 bytes +55‎ →‎References: + 15:09, 23 March 2017‎ Ritchie333 13,273 bytes −431‎ close 22:27, 22 March 2017‎ AnomieBOT m 13,704 bytes +32‎ Dating maintenance tags: undo 22:07, 22 March 2017‎ Bri 13,672 bytes −871‎ →‎Big Picture: rmv OR/SYNTH 22:06, 22 March 2017‎ Bri 14,543 bytes −807‎ →‎Full timeline: rmv weird Facebook page (SEO? fansite? we may never know.) also remove Victory Park Capital/Square press releases. 20:51, 13 March 2017‎ Exemplo347 15,350 bytes +431‎ afd 02:50, 12 March 2017‎ Bender the Bot m 14,919 bytes +3‎ →‎Full timeline: HTTP→HTTPS, per BRFA 8 using AWB undo 19:08, 14 January 2017‎ Daylen 14,916 bytes +34‎ Added Template:Technology company timelines 23:51, 20 December 2016‎ Ottawahitech 14,882 bytes +14‎ ±Category:Payment company timelines; ±Category:Technology company timelines using HotCat 12:09, 13 October 2016‎ David Gerard 14,868 bytes −4‎ Removing link(s) to "The Next Web": rm redlink (AFDed). (TW) 20:34, 20 August 2016‎ Northamerica1000 14,872 bytes +5‎ →‎References: 03:39, 20 August 2016‎ Clpo13 14,867 bytes −423‎ AfD withdrawn 07:12, 19 August 2016‎ Anarchyte 15,290 bytes +423‎ afd 19:25, 12 February 2016‎ PKT 14,867 bytes +27‎ Disambiguated: Central Market → Central Market (San Francisco); formatting: 4x whitespace (using Advisor.js) 21:54, 17 January 2016‎ Riceissa m 14,840 bytes +4‎ No edit summary 06:28, 30 November 2015‎ Srednuas Lenoroc 14,836 bytes 0‎ gram 19:18, 29 November 2015‎ Simfish 14,836 bytes −29‎ →‎Full timeline 19:18, 29 November 2015‎ Simfish 14,865 bytes +15‎ →‎Full timeline 19:17, 29 November 2015‎ Simfish 14,850 bytes −9‎ →‎Full timeline 19:17, 29 November 2015‎ Simfish 14,859 bytes +478‎ →‎Full timeline 19:03, 29 November 2015‎ Simfish 14,381 bytes +819‎ →‎Full timeline 18:51, 29 November 2015‎ Simfish 13,562 bytes +438‎ →‎Full timeline 16:43, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 13,124 bytes +352‎ →‎Full timeline 16:40, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 12,772 bytes +196‎ →‎Full timeline 16:38, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 12,576 bytes +393‎ No edit summary 16:36, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 12,183 bytes +15‎ →‎Full timeline 16:35, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 12,168 bytes +456‎ →‎Full timeline 16:32, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 11,712 bytes +570‎ →‎Full timeline 16:13, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 11,142 bytes −297‎ →‎Big Picture 16:13, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 11,439 bytes −223‎ No edit summary 16:13, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 11,662 bytes +353‎ →‎Big Picture 16:08, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 11,309 bytes +13‎ →‎Big Picture 16:08, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 11,296 bytes +1,036‎ No edit summary 15:57, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 10,260 bytes −22‎ No edit summary 15:57, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 10,282 bytes −416‎ No edit summary 15:54, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 10,698 bytes +718‎ →‎Full timeline 15:33, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 9,980 bytes −24‎ →‎Full timeline 15:32, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 10,004 bytes +906‎ →‎Full timeline 15:28, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 9,098 bytes +20‎ →‎Full timeline 15:22, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 9,078 bytes +533‎ →‎Full timeline 15:13, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 8,545 bytes −28‎ →‎Full timeline 15:12, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 8,573 bytes +261‎ →‎Full timeline 15:10, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 8,312 bytes +317‎ →‎Full timeline 15:10, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 7,995 bytes +810‎ →‎Full timeline 15:05, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 7,185 bytes +336‎ →‎Full timeline 15:04, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 6,849 bytes +330‎ →‎Full timeline 15:03, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 6,519 bytes +276‎ →‎Full timeline 15:02, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 6,243 bytes +294‎ →‎Full timeline 15:02, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,949 bytes +334‎ →‎Full timeline 14:59, 28 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,615 bytes −12‎ No edit summary 22:34, 22 November 2015‎ Vipul 5,627 bytes +179‎ No edit summary 20:44, 22 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,448 bytes +3‎ →‎Full timeline 20:44, 22 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,445 bytes −40‎ →‎Full timeline 20:43, 22 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,485 bytes −3‎ →‎Full timeline 00:08, 22 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,488 bytes +302‎ →‎Full timeline 23:21, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish m 5,186 bytes 0‎ Simfish moved page User:Simfish/Timeline of Square to Timeline of Square 23:15, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 5,186 bytes +604‎ →‎Full timeline 23:13, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 4,582 bytes +283‎ →‎Full timeline 23:10, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 4,299 bytes +638‎ →‎Full timeline 23:09, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 3,661 bytes +3‎ →‎Full timeline 23:09, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 3,658 bytes +685‎ →‎Full timeline 23:07, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 2,973 bytes +748‎ No edit summary 23:07, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 2,225 bytes +1,537‎ No edit summary 23:01, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 688 bytes +3‎ No edit summary 23:01, 21 November 2015‎ Simfish 685 bytes +685‎ ←Created page

Requested move 14 December 2021

 * 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 Clear consensus not to move the article. Discussion ongoing if a split would be possible (closed by non-admin page mover)  Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  07:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Square (financial services company) → Block, Inc. – Back in December 10, 2021, Square, Inc, the holding company that owns Square, has been renamed to Block, Inc. Square as a product would have its own page while the holding company itself that was formerly named Square, Inc. would be renamed to Block, Inc. and will be reformatted to reflect such changes. 20chances (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I was the one who moved it back after an earlier move.  This move may well make sense if Block-the-holding-company does something relevant unrelated to Square, but so far they haven't really.  It'd be like moving Facebook to Meta or Google to Alphabet.  I don't think there's so much information that a split makes sense yet, but I agree that if the article does expand, separate articles on Block and on Square might make sense.  However, in general, if there's only a single article, it's usually placed at the better known product that people see, not the corporate entity that owns the relevant product.  SnowFire (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually both Facebook and Google have separate articles for the parent companies at Meta Platforms and Alphabet Inc..--65.93.193.134 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. As you said, those are separate articles cover just the corporate entities, and I agree that would be the split if separate articles were made.  As is, the current article covers both, and is partially about the corporate entity but mostly about the small business terminal business that it is mostly known for.  SnowFire (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Original article mover here. I think moving it back was a good call, and I am wondering about making this into something like the Facebook/Meta pair of articles. Facebook is a service provided by Meta, and Square is a service provided by Block. Since Square is no longer the name of a company, I think this could be a good path forward. TheMadDesperado (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. An article split of Square and Block should be its own discussion, as that is not covered by an RM.  Since Square (financial services company) is somewhat inaccurate now, a possible alternative would be Square (payment system). 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My only question is how we can make a split possible. I hope I wasn't using the right request for the article since I wasn't sure what to find. I do agree on splitting most of the content of the Payment system with Square while making a new page for Block, as an corporate entity. 20chances (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPLIT and WP:PROSPLIT. 162 etc. (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think a split is a better solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadDesperado (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal
I propose splitting this article into a page called Square (payment system) or similar and Block (financial services company). Square is no longer the name of a company, but it is still the most well known product provided by Block.TheMadDesperado (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * just pinging those who were in the discussion above.TheMadDesperado (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about my consideration with the split, but I had to add the notice since you just mentioned the proposal. My suggestion is that should this article become split, the holding company, Block, should have its article renamed to Block, Inc., not Block (financial services company) 20chances (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding the notification banner, that's an important step. TheMadDesperado (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support split Block Inc., Square, and Cash App are all notable enough for their own articles per WP:ORGCRIT. 162 etc. (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to do the split, I won't object - personally I'd probably rather wait for there to be more Block-independent events, but I suppose if it's likely to happen eventually, there's no harm in an early start. Would also make the move request moot and solve that issue.  SnowFire (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose until such time as the new parent company is independently notable. Just redirect to the Square article and discuss the holding company there for now. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can the article be changed so that it's about the Square product since this is the most notable thing? I think an article titled Square (payment system) that references the company that develops the system would be a better reflection of the current situation.TheMadDesperado (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Given the notability of Square as a payment system, its best to split things up, especially with the other things that may revolved around Block. Like what SnowFire mentioned, there's no rush. I think its best to start the split whenever possible. I still have to put their entire corporate website in the whitelist given that Wikipedia puts all websites with an .xyz domain in the blacklist which is important if we need to cite any press releases from them. 20chances (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Considering the splitting of the entities themselves, I find that a wiki page for "Square" describing "Block" is inaccurate. Square and Block should have their own wiki pages, as they are completely different things. Scyth3934 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What about changing this article so it's about the more notable thing - the square platform - and saving the creation of a Block, Inc. article for later? I think an article called Square (financial services company) doesn't really reflect reality, but it's not necessary to make a whole new article for Block if Block is not yet notable enough. According to the notability guide for companies, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Has Block met these requirements? - TheMadDesperado (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While many sources out there will be for "Square Inc." rather than Block Inc. (since the renaming happened only a few weeks ago), there are definitely reliable secondary sources covering the company.. We're not talking about some random startup.  It's been around since 2009.  Jack Dorsey is the CEO.  Its revenue last year was almost $10B.  This meets WP:ORGCRIT. 162 etc. (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support As similar to edits and moves that were done between Facebook and Meta Platforms they are also relevant here as the cases are highly similar. The Square article is now mixed up with information of 1. Square as a company, 2. Square as a service, and Block which in itself is disorganized and can be confusing to the readers of Wikipedia. We need to come to a conclusion. My Suggestion is to organize the articles as follows;

1. Block (company) - Showcase the holding company and its history of how it first became Square Inc and finally being rename to Block Inc. 2. Square (financial services) - Showcase history, products and services of Square. DownTownRich (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's been a month since this was set up. Any updates? Or have we fully went to a full consensus? 20chances (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

We have reached a full consensus for a split and we have enough time was given to allow fellow editors to make their inputs. DownTownRich (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I created Square (payment system), using content from this (Square (financial services company)) article. In the Square (financial services company) article there are now subsections for Block's various businesses, including Square, Cash App, Afterpay, Weebly and TIDAL. Chrisclear (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What about for other products I believe they also provide point of sale products as well. If it is to be called (payments system) what about the other Square products. I think that is why we have been holding back on splitting the article. DownTownRich (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly concerned as to what the title for the Square (payment system) article should be. There is nothing stopping other editors proposing a change to the title. Likewise, there is nothing stopping other editors from editing the Square (payment system) article. Chrisclear (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole Square article needs an overall cleanup showcasing these products/services. At this point a good start would be creating Block and taking the history of Square as company and transferring it into the history of Block.
 * Thank you for taking the initiative on starting the move we will be here to support and make sure everything is well - DownTownRich (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Block, Inc. for the company and the current article for Square till we finalize the move. DownTownRich (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "till we finalize the move". What move? I also don't understand why you've created a separate article for Block, Inc. when it is about the same thing as the Square (financial services company) article. Chrisclear (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not create a separate article it already existed alongside its WikiData Item. DownTownRich (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My statement was poorly worded. Why did you delete the redirect at Block, Inc. and commence adding non-redirect text to 'create' an article under this title? Chrisclear (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The current article beginning of this proposal included content of Square Inc, Square products and Block which on itself was confusing. Fellow editors here were still yet to agree on where to move Square (financial services company) as a product/service/subsidiary of Block. (That is why I asked why you created your article) Now the discussion prolonged because Square has multiple diverse products under it and we were still to decide what to use either (payments system), (financial services) and other examples given. So while they are still yet to decide Block can be created without completely removing the current article till we can agree on where to move Square as a service alongside its products. DownTownRich (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll address each sentence of your reply separately, for the sake of clarity. "The current article beginning of this proposal included content of Square Inc, Square products and Block which on itself was confusing." Response Agreed. "Fellow editors here were still yet to agree on where to move Square (financial services company) as a product/service/subsidiary of Block. (That is why I asked why you created your article) Now the discussion prolonged because Square has multiple diverse products under it and we were still to decide what to use either (payments system), (financial services) and other examples given." Response As you are aware, I boldly created Square (payment system) which discusses Square products and services. You are welcome to propose a different name for this article. The reason for creating the Square (payment system) article is that the Square business, like the CashApp business, the Afterpay business, the Weebly business and the TIDAL business are all separate businesses of parent, Block, Inc. "So while they are still yet to decide Block can be created without completely removing the current article till we can agree on where to move Square as a service alongside its products." Response As stated on the discussion page for the proposed deletion of Block, Inc., the article you've "created" is a duplicate of the Square (financial services company) article, and I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve by creating this duplicate page. Chrisclear (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support rename - With the acquisition of Afterpay by Block Inc. closing on 31 January there is now another significant business unit under Block Inc. that is not Square (payment system) and it is time to have Square (financial services company) renamed to Block Inc. and a redirect placed at this location.Gusfriend (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Name change, page structure
What is the best way to proceed after the name change of Square Inc to Block Inc? The article has been moved back to "Square (financial services company)" but the lead section still begins with "Block, Inc. (formerly Square, Inc.)". I checked the pages for Google/Alphabet and Facebook/Meta to see what has been done in those situations.

Google is a company owned by a parent company, Alphabet Inc. Facebook is a platform operated by Meta Platforms. Their lead sections reflect this - "Facebook is an American online social media and social networking service owned by Meta Platforms...." and "Google LLC is an American multinational technology company..."

Does this mean that there should be an article titled "Square (point of sale platform)" and a separate article titled "Block (financial services company)"? As I understand, there is now no company named "Square, Inc." so "Square (financial services company)" seems wrong.

This seems like the way to match what's been done in these other articles; is there a reason to do it differently here? TheMadDesperado (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it could be a good idea to convert Square into a different page and restructure the page to reflect the service. Perhaps something like what we've seen with Alphabet and Meta when it comes to the holding companies that operate such services. WE MAY need some admin to approve the move though. Which I think its the best time to do so. 20chances (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

How to show support for name change?
Is there any way that I can show support/vote on the name change?-- Scyth3934 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you can edit the above sections titled Splitting Proposal and/or Requested move 14 December 2021. Looking forward to seeing your contribution to the discussion! TheMadDesperado (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The company continues to trade as Square - its homepage is www.squareup.com, and its European arm is called Squareup Pte Ltd. It is obvious that Square continues to be WP:COMMONNAME. Please do not move the page until there is a consensus. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "The company" continues "to trade as Square" is at best misleading. This article is about the parent company, which is named Block, Inc. Your reference to a homepage at www.squareup.com refers to one of Block's many products, which happens to be named Square. The homepage for Block, Inc. is https://block.xyz/ Chrisclear (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Only their Square brand (or "product" as you call it) is notable. Anyhow, please refer to the move discussion above. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  09:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what criteria you are using for your determination of notability. However if you refer to notability in the Wikipedia context, then it would appear the Wikipedia community disagrees with you, as there are separate articles about several of Block's products: Cash App, Weebly, TIDAL, Afterpay, as well as Square. Presumably all five of these meet the criteria for notability. Chrisclear (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

IAR
The evidence for IAR is clear: --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about the financial services company named Block, Inc. For payments system operated by Block, Inc., see Square (payment system). This is an absolutely crazy hatnote.
 * Square (financial services company) and Square (payment system), why two articles with the same name? This is nonsense. The scope is fuzzied. This is a ridiculous outcome of a confluence of policies and guidelines.

(1) Background information. As you are likely aware: (a) Block, Inc. has many different businesses. Some of the bigger ones are Afterpay, Cash App, Square, TIDAL and Weebly. (b) Prior to December 10, 2021, the company was named Square, Inc. (c) The proposed move from Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. was rejected on 21 December.
 * Reply You've raised a number of issues, I'll try to address them as best I can.

It appears to this editor that one of the impediments to reaching consensus on this move was that the Square (financial services company) article at that time contained information about Block, Inc. as well as the Square product/business/brand.

On 1 February, I created the Square (payment system) article, which contains information about the Square product/business/brand. This content was moved from the Square (financial services company) article to the Square (payment system) article.

Now that the Square (payment system) article exists, the Square (financial services company) article is "cleaner" as its sole focus is on the corporation, and not on the Square product. One would hope that this would make it easier to reach consensus to move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. in the (near?) future.

(2)  You wrote This is an absolutely crazy hatnote. Response Agreed, however, please consider that (a) from a procedural point of view, the proposed move from Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. was rejected on 21 December, and (b) from a practical point of view, it is not possible for most non-administrators to ignore all rules and move the page to Block, Inc. because the target page name already exists. Having said that, you will see that there is a deletion discussion for Block, Inc. It should close in a few days, if not sooner. (3)  You wrote why two articles with the same name? This is nonsense. The scope is fuzzied. Response I thought the hatnote (disclosure: I wrote it) for the Square (financial services company) was quite clear. The page is about the corporation named Block, Inc. Whereas the page titled Square (payment system) is about one of Block's many products. I disagree with your assertions that the "scope is fuzzied". and that Square (financial services company) and Square (payment system) "have the same name".

(4)  You wrote The evidence for IAR is clear. Response Is there a particular/specific outcome you are seeking? This is unclear. Chrisclear (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note that non-admins are well able to move a page over a redirect (i.e., where the target page exists). There is even a script to facilitate this: (pagemover rights required).
 * As long as this article focuses on the corporation, not on the Square brand, and we have dedicated articles to notable brands, then renaming should be fairly uncontroversial. For procedural reasons I suggest a new RfA RfC. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the above information. Previously I was unaware of the "pagemover" right. Could you please explain what a "RfA" is? Chrisclear (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant RfC, a request for comments, although a move request will also do. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  11:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions and the links. I will probably wait until the deletion discussion for Block, Inc. closes before proceeding with a move request. This should make the process 'cleaner' and reduce the possibility of confusion. Chrisclear (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Support rename - With the acquisition of Afterpay by Block Inc. closing on 31 January there is now another significant business unit under Block Inc. that is not Square (payment system) and it is time to have Square (financial services company) renamed to Block Inc. and a redirect placed at this location.Gusfriend (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title changes and closed discussions
A short time ago, another editor completed the following actions:


 * deleted the previous incarnation of the Block, Inc. article
 * moved the Square (financial services company) article to Block, Inc..

As a result of the above changes, Square (financial services company) is now a redirect to Block, Inc..

As you will see above on this talk page, I have closed four related discussions, since all comments in those four discussions/sections were made before the recent changes to article titles. If any editor wishes to discuss these changes further, I would encourage them to comment under this section, or under a new section heading. Chrisclear (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)