Talk:HP Inc.

I agree with the merge.
hi i agree with merging hp and hp inc to one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.44.206 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The contents of the Hewlett-Packard article should be moved here, and that page should be changed to a redirect page to this one. The Hewlett-Packard corporation is not defunct, it simply changed its name to HP, Inc. This is made unambiguously clear in their Form 10-K submitted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Form 10-K is a legal document with heavy penalties for incorrect factual statements. The submitted form says, "HP was incorporated in 1947 under the laws of the state of California as the successor to a partnership founded in 1939 by William R. Hewlett and David Packard. Effective in May 1998, we changed our state of incorporation from California to Delaware." (Part 1, page 4). Corporations change their names all the time and I assume there is a standard Wikipedia method for handling such name changes. Nick Beeson (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The original Hewlett-Packard is defunct. It split into two completely separate companies, each taking over part of the original HP's business units. The old company's HPQ stock ticker was only transferred to the new HP Inc. to avoid it from becoming unassigned. But considering there is so much support yet so much opposition to this proposal, I suggest that a full discussion take place here and have an admin judge the result later on. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gadget Geek - perhaps from a financial point of view, the printer-and-PC company is what the old HP turned into, but, from a technology and products point of view, there's nothing about the printer-and-PC company that makes it more the successor to the old HP than the server company, so it's best to say that the old HP split into two companies (after spinning off Agilent, which was the company that got the type of equipment that HP originally made). Guy Harris (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a (relatively) new company and by merging it with the older company it replaced we're essentially not giving the article a chance to slowly expand with time, for a comparable situation see Motorola Vs. Motorola Mobility Vs. Motorola Solutions, companies sometimes split and HP Inc. is simply not the same as Hewlett-Packard.


 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is only the opinion of a single editor. As is stated, legal documents dictate that HPE is a spin-out, and HP Inc. is simply a renaming of the remainder of what was formerly named "Hewlett-Packard Company". ViperSnake151   Talk  21:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge!
As stated above, "HP Inc." is a very short article and all contents from Hewlett-Packard must be transferred here, accompanied with the "Formerly called" text, and the same information regardless with the info about the split. DelightWell (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Excessive linking
As per WP:SEEALSO Hewlett Packard Enterprise can't be in the "See also" while also being in the body of the text. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Links to this page
Editors should please note that this page refers to the company created by the split of the original Hewlett-Packard on Nov 1, 2015, and should ONLY be linked to from other articles if the context refers to events AFTER the split. Any references to HP prior to the split should be linked directly to Hewlett-Packard. I would appreciate if editors could go through all the pages that link to here and HP Enterprise and correct those that reference events before Nov 1, 2015: see here for an example of what I would like to be done. Thanks for your help, &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that a lot of the links may come from templates such as that may legitimately link to HP Inc., so filtering those out will be a bit of a pain. Guy Harris (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

So what are the current HP Inc.'s "predecessors"?
The infobox currently lists Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, Tandem Computers, Digital Equipment Corporation, and 3Com as "predecessors".

The old HP acquired Compaq, Tandem, and 3Com; however, those parts of HP went into HPE, not HP. (HP didn't acquire DEC, they acquired Compaq who acquired DEC.)

As such, I'm not sure it's appropriate to list those companies as predecessors to HP Inc., given that, when HP split into HP Inc. and HPE, the parts of the company that's responsible for the products that came from those acquisitions went into HPE, not HP Inc..

(I'm also not sure they should be considered "predecessors" of HPE or Hewlett-Packard, given that they were purchased by Hewlett-Packard - that was more like "eaten by HP" rather than "was one of the organizations from which HP grew", but that's not as strong an objection. Guy Harris (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a slight objection, yes HPE has products resultant from Tandem, 3PAR, and 3Com's acquisitions, but Compaq's remnants didn't go into HPE. I'm of a mixed opinion about DEC, about the only thing that Digital made which still has some representation at HPE is OpenVMS, they still sell servers made for OpenVMS but even then they're not developing it anymore. There's nothing from DEC represented at HP Inc really. The Compaq name has been retired but HP Inc makes the successors to a lot of Compaq's products, like the Elite line which HP Inc uses for the high end of their business notebook and desktop models (I work in Elite hardware support). Some Compaq products aren't End of Life just yet either. HP Inc also operates out of the old Compaq facility in Houston, its the largest in the company as a matter of fact. Internally we refer to it as CCA (Compaq Campus Americas). Disclosure: I'm an HP employee. The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of HP Inc, its shareholders, vendors, contractors, or suppliers. 192.56.11.5 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The remnants of the original Compaq went to HP, Inc., but Compaq had also bought Tandem and DEC before HP bought Compaq, and Tandem and the non-PC parts of DEC went to HPE.


 * HPE licensed VMS to VMS Software Inc., who are currently developing and maintaining it - they're working on an x86 (probably just x86-64) port.


 * I don't know how much, if anything, of DEC's PC line remains in HP, Inc.. Hewlett-Packard had their own PC business prior to the Compaq acquisition.


 * So "Hewlett-Packard" arguably had no predecessors, they just had successors (Agilent, Hewlett-Packard Enterprises, and HP, Inc.) and acquisitions (Apollo, Compaq, 3Com, EDS, Palm, 3PAR, Autonomy, etc.). Agilent and HPE have Hewlett-Packard as predecessors; if one considers HP, Inc. as not being "Hewlett-Packard", it also has Hewlett-Packard as its predecessor. Guy Harris (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hewlett-Packard
Hewlett-Packard was renamed to Hp Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise was just spun off, just because HPE was spun off doesn't mean the company was split. The company was technically just renamed to HP Inc. This page also lacks a history section and the Hewlett-Packard page is mostly history with other sections that would fit into the scope of this page as they are the same company. Having the pages separate to make it seems like HP has no history and isn't as important of a brand as it is (which is covered in Hewlett-Packard). Also, this article is rather short for such a big tech company and a lot potential content that could be on this article is at Hewlett-Packard. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  04:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This situation looks a little complex, a great discussion is needed. To me, it looks like Hewlett-Packard was split into two companies in 2015. If that's the case, Hewlett-Packard should've moved to HP Inc (obviously after an RM discussion) and not text-merged especially without proper attribution and with just one user claiming there is consensus in silence/the lack of opposition. Hewlett-Packard, created in 2001 with over 5,000 revisions, should be the primary page and the 2015-created page with about 500 revisions should be merged into the former if there is consensus but there doesn't appear to be. I hereby oppose merging and would recommend starting an RM discussion. Flooded  with them hundreds 07:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hewlett-Packard receives way to many pages views for a defunct company. Legally, Hewlett-Packard was renamed to HP Inc and Hewlett-Packard was not split into two companies. Currently this page is way to small FOR an American tech giant, but the Hewlett-Packard page has all the content that needs to be moved here to make it a proper page. I guess because of the revision count we could do a RM. Just so I can know, how did I not provide proper proper attribution? If I'm doing a RM can I also make a draft with what the article would look like after the RM as I've done some work on HP Inc. already? – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  16:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can see that has already done the merge. But I agree with, I would support Hewlett-Packard being moved to HP Inc. which would keep the long edit history together in one place. Can we please revert the merge on both pages? Doesn't look right sticking to the 2015 one. Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. I was waiting for a response to my question, but doing a move seams like the best idea. – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  03:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reopened the case today. Chiffonr (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hewlett-Packard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Subsidiaries
I was wondering if I should include HP's subsidiaries in the infobox. My main concern is that there's a lot of them. The example to the right has all of them. Any suggestions on what to do or if I shouldn't include them? We could also make a page called List of HP subsidiaries with a list of the subsidiaries (see below). – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

After looking at other companies, I'll go with the separate article. – Brandon XLF   (t@lk)  19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Solutions?
What on earth are 3D printing solutions? if 3D printers is meant, say so. 31.52.252.141 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Chromebook
I think chromebook should be added to the current list of Laptops PranshuT (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree Shellyshubh (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC for removal of controversies related to predecessor companies
I propose that controversies related to predecessor companies be removed from the HP Inc page as they are already covered on the Hewlett-Packard page. There is no need to duplicate information here and the company has changed structure, etc. since they occured. Gusfriend (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - no need to duplicate the entire list of controversies. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 02:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - those actions were taken before the old Hewlett-Packard split into HPE and HP, and some of them may have been taken by the part of Hewlett-Packard that ended up in HPE. Guy Harris (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - No need for more than a link and a summary about their predecessor saying who they were and why the change - the things that are relevant to HP Inc. NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support excluding subsection "Xinjiang region", which seems to be relevant to HP Inc. P1221 (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Everything except the most recent section, which covers allegations made after the new entity was formed, could be radically summarized and linked to the other page. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - No need to dabble with the controversies here. It's a separate company. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Total equity
This is presented in such as way as to suggest that it was a minus-figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:581B:FECA:7572:6CBE (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Template:Infobox company, the "equity" parameter of the infobox that shows that information means:
 * "Total equity or net worth held in the company; shareholder equity for public companies."


 * HP Inc. is a public company. According to the Investopedia definition of "shareholder equity":
 * "The term shareholder equity (SE) refers to a company's net worth or the total dollar amount that would be returned to its shareholders if the company is liquidated after all debts are paid off. As such, SE is the owners' residual claim on assets after all debts are satisfied. Shareholder equity is equal to a firm's total assets minus its total liabilities. Retained earnings are part of shareholder equity as is any capital invested into the company."


 * According to HP, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021, page 57, the "Total stockholder's deficit appears to be the difference between "Total assets" and the sum of "Total current liabilities", "Long-term debt" and "Other non-current liabilities"; that sounds if it would be the amount shareholders would get if the company were liquidated, as all liabilities would have to be paid off, not just the "current liabilities", so it's the shareholder equity - which, being a deficit, is negative. The total stockholder's deficit has the value 1,650 million USD, so the shareholder equity is -1,650 million USD or  -1.65 billion USD. Guy Harris (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge request
In 2015 HP "split" but strictly speaking it involved the spin-off of part of its business which became Hewlett-Packard Enterprise. The HP press release says that "HP (to be renamed HP Inc.) will continue to trade on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “HPQ”." The old HP was simply renamed legally to 'HP Inc.' while spinning off a part of the business. It continued to trade with the same stock symbol, and it continued to use that same HP circle logo and brand (and the Hewlett-Packard name), while HPE went into another direction.

So I think we shouldn't have a separate article. the original HP did not 'cease to exist' in 2015, it was simply restructured and was legally renamed. Also take PRIMARYTOPIC into account, with the Hewlett-Packard article getting a lot of views and having a lot of content despite being "defunct".

FYI the German and Polish wikipedia articles for HP did not split them - the Polish article starts off as HP Inc. (prior to 2015: Hewlett-Packard Company), and that's how I think we should do ours too. Chiffonr (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strictly Oppose Hewlett Packards article and HP Inc.s article are just too big to combine together. Both have a completely separate history, and HP Inc. is legally separated from Hewlett Packard Company. It's not a good idea. WiinterU (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, per the last paragraph. No, think before you speak. Just because one version of Wikipedia does something doesn't mean we should do the same thing. Merging articles removes important information. WiinterU (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing, this has been brought up before. I am confused why you would decide to bring this up again. WiinterU (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Even though the original company technically still exists, virtually all reliable sources characterize its split as one that effectively created two new separate companies rather than a simple spinoff, with some heralding it as the end of the old HP or (at least) the end of an era; examples include The Wall Street Journal, Vox, Reuters, KCBS, Fortune, Computerworld, and TechRadar, with the old HP affirming such views in an investor presentation (as seen in Ars Technica). As for Wikipedia in other languages, the point is moot since each of them have their own standards for notability; since this article is on the English Wikipedia, we need to evaluate it by the English standards, and the often-complex nature of corporate histories means that there is no one-size-fits-all standard that can be applied across all companies. With that said, I doubt the overall sentiment has changed since the last time this merger was proposed. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think even if you're convinced that it was a split, we should remember that for the average person who doesn't know about the legal company stuff, HP has remained HP. The brand, the industry, it is the same as before. That weakens the case of if you genuinely believe it was a split. An article like AOL hasn't been divided either despite also technically the original company no longer 'existing'. --Chifonr (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "The average person" would know about HP mostly from its personal computer and printer product lines. HP itself didn't enter such markets until the 1980s; the company itself was mainly focused on scientific and business equipment until then. In terms of successorship, I think the 2015 split resembles Motorola's 2011 split, which also produced two successor companies; the only major difference was that Motorola sold off what it was most known for among the general public while HP kept it, though one could argue that HPE received some noteworthy products that the general public previously associated with HP. Regardless, I think the average person would recognize that the HP of today isn't the HP that existed post-Compaq merger. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is the 1980s was over 30 years (a whole generation) prior to the 2015 "split". It weakens the case as a result. Your last sentence is one I definitely disagree with, that people view this as the same company as it was at least around the Compaq merger. We definitely need some more people to come here and voice their views about this matter. Chifonr (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging prior discussion members:, , , , , , , and.
 * @: Assuming you and are the same editor (judging by the edit histories), I highly suggest creating a user page to clarify your use of multiple accounts under WP:VALIDALT to avoid accusations of WP:SOCK. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes they are the same, I've been locked out of the old one (Chiffonr). Thanks for the warning, I'll write it in my userpage. Chifonr (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, why am I dragged into this? Alexceltare2 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexceltare2 You participated in the the last merger discussion in support of it. I decided to ping all of those participants to see if the overall sentiment among you guys has shifted since then. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Yeah, i still support the merger. Simply because it's the same company but different subsidiaries. A whole article wouldn't be necessary and would cause confusion. Alexceltare2 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I stil oppose the merger even after seeing the discussion grow. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "The average person" doesn't matter. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Company are legally seperate. WiinterU (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, The Hewlett-Packard company split into two, HP being one of them. HP is only part of Hewlett-Packard, not the same business. MrNoobNub2 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you're right, HP legally split in the strict sense, but it may not need apply in Wikipedia if it is unnecessarily complicates it. The HP split case is weakened by the same brand still used and the language about HPE being "spinoff" that has raised the question in the first place. Chifonr (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I don't feel terribly strongly about this. The OP raises some valid points, but there really is no hard-and-fast rule to follow on a matter like this. Arguments can be made in either direction. What we have now is a Hewlett-Packard (original company) article the lead of which makes clear that "On November 1, 2015, Hewlett-Packard was split into two separate companies; its enterprise products and services business were spun-off to form Hewlett Packard Enterprise, while its personal computer and printer businesses became HP Inc." And we have a fairly well-developed separarate article now for HP Inc. (and one for HPE).  This situation is not objectively broken in any way.  It's not our fault that HP decided, basically, to do something that's quite confusing. We just have to make the best of it. It would be possible to merge the HP Inc. article into the original-company article, but it would make it quite long, and this might ultimately just necessitate another spin-out into a separate article.  We spin off "side" articles all the time, even for subtopics of a topic (which this could be considered, depending on your viewpoint), and this is not a problem. The problem is when one unrelated topic is glommed onto another; we call that a WP:COATRACK. But performing the merge would not be a coatrack, since the topics are in fact closely intertwined. A WP:N argument can be made: it is obviously true that "Hewlett-Packard" (original company), "HP Inc." and "Hewlett Packard Enterprise" all separately and severably meet the WP:GNG criteria of sufficient in-depth coverage in numerous independent, reliable sources. So, there really is no question about whether it is  for these subjects to be separate articles. The question is just the editorial judgment one of whether this three-article situation is what is best for the readers, and I lean toward thinking it is, because HP Inc. is markedly different from the original Hewlett-Packard – arguably more so than Hewlett Packard Enterprise is, since H-P originated in what we today call "enterprise" products, not the computer-and-peripheral stuff that HP Inc. is focused on. Maybe one could even argue that Hewlett Packard Enterprise should merge into Hewlett-Packard instead. (But I'm not actively suggesting that.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The info at Hewlett-Packard is extensive, mostly historic, and mostly irrelevant to today's HP Inc. The split into HP Inc and HPE is a good point to draw the line, in spite of the continuity of legal entity and stock symbol. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Scuderia Ferrari Partnership
Hey, I'm wondering where do I put the Ferrari-HP partnership in this article. I can't find a specific section for sponsorships and I feel like this would be informative to add. DualSkream (Talk) 8:22, 7 May 2024 (EST)
 * In this edit, I added a "Sports sponsorships" section to HP Inc. and moved stuff from Hewlett-Packard to that section, including a paragraph about the Scuderia Ferrari partnership added to that page by User:Senn4 Pr0st in this edit. Feel free to 1) rename the section if there's a better name (but remember it's a US company, so it's not "Sport sponsorships" :-)) and 2) make edits to that information. Guy Harris (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2024

 * 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

HP Inc. → HP – Primary topic. Probably half of the links on HP (disambiguation) are rarely, if ever, referred to as "HP" — most of the articles don't mention "HP" in the lead — and should probably be removed from the list anyway per WP:DABACRONYM. The most notable entries that are commonly referred to as "HP" are HP Inc. and its predecessor, Hewlett-Packard, the latter of which was commonly referred to by its full name and is therefore naturally disambiguated. Pageviews show Harry Potter with a sizable lead (unsurprising, but no evidence suggests "HP" is commonly used to mean "Harry Potter"), followed by several similar cases before HP. Horsepower is an interesting case, as it's arguably equally notable in terms of long-term significance, but WP:DIFFCAPS comes into play. Plenty of other two-letter companies are undisambiguated or redirect to the company's article, e.g. LG, GE, BP, EA, GQ, VW, QQ, 3M, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No primary topic here for this common two-letter abbreviation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What other terms are abbreviated as "HP", more so than the company? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, hit points. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose lots of uses and views[].  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But are any of those actually called "HP"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but some of them are acronyms so probably are. Interestingly I'd never heard of HP Inc. until I got the computer I'm using a few months ago.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be unusual for sure. When you say "computers", you mainly think Apple, Lenovo, HP, or Dell, and Hewlett-Packard has been a well-known brand for some time. What I'm trying to get at here is that I don't think a general audience would associate "HP" with any of the other articles listed. I for one have never heard of someone say, "My favorite book is HP." InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Pass the HP Sauce"? I don't know whether anybody says "pass the HP" without "sauce"; if not, then it's not "HP". And the set of people familiar with HP Sauce but not HP personal computers and printers may be shrinking over time. Guy Harris (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's a partial title match. We wouldn't turn York into a disambiguation page simply because New York City is more notable than the one in England, would we? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know plenty of people that refer to HP Sauce as just HP; myself included. It's possibly a regional UK thing. ConanTheCreator (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, HP Inc. is what most would associate with HP and most of HP (disambiguation) are for pages about things not called HP. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose health points/hit points are more likely in common usage. horsepower can also be rendered in this manner and much more likely a topic. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a video game jargon that only a small subset of Wikipedia readers would recognize. Wikipedia is meant to cater to a general audience, whose primary use for "HP" is to refer to the company. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A general audience would not be concerned with HP as a company, any more than hit points or horspower. Since vidoegaming is a very popular subject, that everyone and their smartphone uses, they are familiar with health. And everyone and their cars are concerned with horsepower. So, no, HP is not the most likely topic at all. It is certainly less common than the videogaming and automotive subjects, since it is a specific company instead of a generic topic. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose I guess that mobile phone (also commonly known as handphone) also claimed to be primary topic for the acronym HP when we specifically talking about tech-related. Maybe disambiguate the acronym HP may be necessary. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Technology and WikiProject Companies have been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. The WikiNav page for HP shows that an overwhelming majority of readers either click on HP Inc. or Hewlett-Packard. – Brandon XLF  (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose between horsepower, the Hewlett-Packard / HP Inc. / Hewlett Packard Enterprise split, and the other definitions, I do not think there is a primary topic. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hewlett-Packard is already WP:NATURALly disambiguated; horsepower is abbreviated as "hp" (lowercase) and thus falls under WP:DIFFCAPS; Hewlett Packard Enterprise is HPE, not HP, so irrelevant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:NWFCTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Hire purchase, Hit points and HP Sauce (and Horsepower, but I accept the WP:DIFFCAPS argument) are all commonly referred to as HP. Arguments that the most entries on the disambiguation page aren't commonly referred to as HP, is an argument to clean-up the disambiguation page, not to move HP Inc. ConanTheCreator (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose why? just keep it this way, 2 many disambiguation avialable RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2024 (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.