Talk:Pipex

Requested 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. 

The result of the proposal was move to Pipex. JPG-GR (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article should be about the history of PIPEX as it was prior to the buyout from GX Networks plc. It may also discuss development of the PIPEX brand. --Hm2k (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Should be moved to Pipex, not PIPEX. See Pipex.co.uk,and guidelines at Manual of Style (trademarks). Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The brand was originally known as PIPEX not Pipex, it became Pipex after the GX Networks takeover. This entry exists for historic reasons and mainly describes PIPEX prior to the takeover. However, the brand is now known as Pipex and is now owned by Tiscali UK. --Hm2k (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Pipex per FSGS. It is not "P.I.P.E.X." after all. Horsesforcorses (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you'll find that PIPEX stands for Public Internet Protocol Exchange and/or The Public I.P. Exchange Ltd. Thus, it probably should be PIPEX, not Pipex. --Hm2k (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support "Pipex". Regardless of its acronym origins, it has now become an established brand, and is always written in lower case. Establishing a clear history would be better done by merging these different articles, which right now offer a confusing history spead across many different pages which is extrememely confusing for this reader: UUNET/PIPEX, Pipex (redirecting to Tiscali), Unipalm, GX Networks, Pipex Communications plc (redirects to Freedom4 Communications), Zipcom, etc. Surely these various pages can be merged? The constant bouncing from one article to another is hopelessly user-unfriendly. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This article details the history of Pipex, and development of the Pipex brand, where as the other articles detail the various companies. It would NOT be correct to place the Pipex brand under the Tiscali article, as Tiscali has had no development in the brand so far. --Hm2k (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support "Pipex". In review, the brand is currently known as Pipex, thus this article should be under that.--Hm2k (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (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.