Talk:Netlist, Inc.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Netlist Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425024845/http://www.netlist.com:80/products/ppt/HyperCloud_32GB_020612.pdf to http://www.netlist.com/products/ppt/HyperCloud_32GB_020612.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability tag
The AfD closed as no consensus, so I added the notability tag to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Move of Netlist Inc. to Netlist (company) and removals of "Inc."
Hi. I noticed you moved Netlist Inc. to Netlist (company) with the edit summary "In keeping with naming conventions". According to Naming conventions (companies): "Convention: The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title (for example, Microsoft Corporation, Nestlé S.A., Aflac Incorporated, and Deutsche Post AG). 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))." This means that the title Netlist Inc. was complying with the naming conventions to disambiguate from Netlist. The guideline also notes that Netlist (company) is an acceptable title for disambiguation. I also noticed that you removed the "Inc." from the article. From Naming conventions (companies), "Regardless of the article title, the first sentence of the article should normally begin with the full legal name of the company." Examples in the guideline like Apple Inc. and Nike, Inc. retain "Inc." in both the first sentence and infobox, so I recommend restoring them. I agree with your removals of "Inc." in the body of the article. Cunard (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Inc. serves no purpose here, especially because while the company is notable (as I agreed in the AfD), it is nowhere near the level of the others that you just pointed out, which is where we typically allow the Inc., etc. type listings. I'll revert 's undiscussed move and start an RM below that you can both comment on. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Commented below here. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2017

 * 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: moved  Dr Strauss   talk  ''' 07:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Netlist Inc. → Netlist (company) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Netlist is the common name of this comapny. While Inc could be a natural disambiguation, the only sources that tend to refer to the company as this are official stock tickers and PR sources. As I noted above, we tend to reserve Inc. as a disambiguator for major corporations such as the ones that Cunard listed above, but prefer the (company) disambiguation with the common name for less prominent ones. This move would be consistent with our standard practices for corporate naming given the stature of the company. See also the conversation above and the recent AfD for background. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The guideline does not say that the level of notability dictates whether a company is disambiguated with an appended "(company)" or a legal status suffix. Uber (company), for example, is a major company that is disambiguated with "(company)". I have no opinion on whether Netlist Inc. or Netlist (company) is a better title. I responded to this edit summary for the move that said "In keeping with naming conventions". I commented to say that Netlist Inc. was compliant with Naming conventions (companies). My comment was also to ask to retain "Inc." in both the first sentence and the infobox. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was gonna say something about the notability of the company, but then I realized that it was nominated thrice for deletion, none of them successful. Therefore, I'll say that, regardless of which news articles use whichever name they use, changing to "Netlist (company)" would not benefit readers wanting to search for this company, especially to those who disable the search suggestions via user preferences. Statistics say that the daily average has been usually one or two views; the title change would not improve statistics IMHO. Also, multiple books use "netlist" as a generic term, while narrowing down the search results leads to just less than 200 results in any other method. --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Netlist without Inc. is more common for this firm. Since there would be a redirect, it wouldn't make it any harder to find, and Netlist (company) would be more in line with what they see in the sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh...... I was almost certain that news sources use "Netlist Inc." entirely, but I guess many don't. While I was searching without the "Inc.", I found those sources...: ...using "Inc." entirely: Stocks Gallery...using "Inc." more likely, even without "Inc": Stock News Union, Press Telegraph, ...using "Inc." less likely, even when using it: PR NewsWire (2), The Markets Daily, Seeking Alpha, Linux Journal, Northern California Record ...omitting "Inc" entirely: NASDAQ, Insider Tradings, The Investory via Korea Herald, The American Lawyer, Business Korea, Barron's, Enterprise Tech, Computer World I have to selectively pick sources that are distant by weeks. Also, Naming conventions (companies) says to use either (company) or legal status but also says that "common usage is preferred". I won't support the move just because multiple news articles omit "Inc" or emphasize it less and less. I found very little or no non-news sources of this decade significantly covering the company. However, I'm switching to neutral mostly due to my newer findings. --George Ho (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to switch to "weak oppose" or still remain "neutral". Most of news articles come from stocks-oriented websites, and I can see a lot of "Inc." in those results. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- the "(company)" designation is the more common one. For example, Uber is listed as "Uber (company)" and not "Uber Technologies Inc.", which is the full name. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2017 (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.