Talk:Square Enix Montreal

Requested move 28 October 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: not moved. Despite the fact that the proposed new title is what the company itself uses, consensus is that reliable sources generally use the current title, so there is insufficient reason to change.--Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Square Enix Montreal → Square Enix Montréal – Company name and logo officially use accent in the title. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 17:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It checks out with MOS:TRADEMARK and is the correct name of the company Hecseur (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To the contrary, MOS:TRADEMARK states, "Do not 'correct' the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources" (emphasis added). Most of the reliable sources cited in this article do NOT use the diacritic mark. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right! Man am I good at reading... Anyway, in light of this new information, I have to Change my vote to oppose Hecseur (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not right for reasons, I detail below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose It'd be far more difficult to search for the company with British and American QWERTY keyboards if the accent is implemented. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Invalid rationale, since Square Enix Montreal will be retained as a redirect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No change since last December. The article's sources more commonly use the title without diacritics, making it our common name. But I would assume you already knew by now that we use the common and not necessarily "official"/"legal" name. czar  21:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is not a style policy, and has no effect on whether a diacritic is retained. We've been over this quite literally hundreds and hundreds of times .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah? And if you survey your own link of discussions, we still follow the version used most often in the sources. I'm sure you can pull company names whose sources actually use the diacritics, but that isn't the case here. Note also in this specific case of "Montreal", our article on the city doesn't use the diacritic, despite being its (as you put it) "proper" name. czar  17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Opposers are mistaking the facts, the guidelines, and what WP does with diacritics. Square Enix Montréal is the actual proper name (easily confirmed at the official website), and we do not remove diacritics from names when they are there for linguistic reasons (see, e.g., Nestlé), even if some journalistic sources do drop them (many do it to all names, as a matter of house style).  MOS:TM is concerned with diacritics added simply for trademark stylization (e.g., This Is Spinal Tap is our article title, despite the movie poster giving a "metal umlaut" and a dotless Turkish ı in it, This Is Spın̈al Tap). The diacritic should be retained here for the same reason it's retained in various other company names (in English, in English-speaking countries), e.g. Québec Cartier Mining Company, Café Henry Burger, Léger Marketing, Liberté Inc., Montezuma Copper Mining Company of Santa Fé, New Mexico, Garduño's, Santacafé, La Viña Winery, Café Café, Café Allegro, Caffè Nero, etc., etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See also essentially opposite RM at Talk:Eidos Montréal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Or instead Talk:Montreal, in which the similar proposed move to diacritic was also rejected czar  17:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support—reluctantly, and only because it's a proper name. Tony   (talk)  01:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Trademark, and Nestlé etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Zero sources provided. And contrary to the assertion above, WP:DIACRITICS explicitly says to use the name most common in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jenks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no evidence that the majority of relevant sources use the accent, and in fact the opposite appears to be true.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:14, 6 November 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.

Separate article
The more I read through the sources, the more it seems that Onoma should just be its own article. London Mobile is not discussed in reliable, secondary sources as having been merged into Montreal prior to the Embracer acquisition. They share prior IP/history but it's ultimately a distinct entity. czar 18:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Square Enix Montréal already had the current corporate structure when the proposed acquisition was announced back in May, so the name change alone should not trigger an article split. You could argue that the former Square Enix London Mobile could be its own article, but I doubt that it would be notable. Onoma's website clearly says that both studios now have this name. I'm sure reliable sources will catch up. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 19:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also don't think the website stating "Onoma was later joined by SELM" is enough, most of what is written appears conjecture (The current article doesn't even source the mentioned studio page). The information here appears redundant from the SEE page with original research added.
 * The changed subheading "Embracer acquisition" gives the section undue weight, WP should not be an acquisition wiki. Also I feel the style of article reads more like an essay like some "good articles", with opinionated conclusions made. IgelRM (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moot point now that the "new" studio is being shuttered after a month. It didn't have a chance to be known by its more recent name. czar  04:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on this one. For a defunct company, a name used for almost 11 years and featured on every game release clearly outweighs one that did not last 30 days. I'm mostly happy with the current state of the article. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 06:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)