Company name[edit]

The company name is pmdtechnologies or (preferably) pmdtechnologies. It is always written with a lowercase first letter (just like eBay or iPod). Ref: [1]

Why isn't it possible to keep this? Why don't you check the references before reverting edits that were made by people who know what they were doing, in good faith, and using a legitimate template for a lowercase title? 217.24.206.253 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted to change the name of the company to the correct format, and admins and bots turn this into a battlefield. Please clean up this mess. Pmdwiki (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Trademarks_that_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter, which makes it clear that Wikipedia uses the form "Pmdtechnologies". PamD 15:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's not how the name is composed. If by any means necessary you could revert it to "PMDTechnologies (stylized as...)" but not to "Pmdtechnologies" because the acronym would be "PMD", whereas "Pmd" is not a word. Pmdwiki (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use blogs as sources and in any case none of this content is notable enough for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the same reasoning you'd have to remove half of the citations, let's say on the Apple page: blogs, Mac expert forums, news sources that just repost Apple press releases or act on behalf of Apple (not to mention the dead links). I have no problem with Apple getting a lot of buzz, I picked it just as an example for differently handled criteria.Noaffiliation (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Noaffiliation: please read MOS:TM more closely. The reason Wikipedia doesn't choose to style company names as the companies wish is to help the reader: "Pmdtechnologies" is a proper noun, and is distinguished as such in English by an initial capital letter. "PMDTechnologies" also does this, but isn't reflected in the usage found in reliable sources (i.e. your company uses "pmdtechnologies" all lower case; we can't just make up our own style, which would border in Wikipedia policy as "WP:OR"), and is also "camel case" which is also discouraged in MOS:TM.
As User:PamD and User:Theroadislong have pointed out, we're making this article follow Wikipedia policy; if you have a problem with this policy then raise it (ideally with a constructive alternative suggestion, while pointing to this discussion and mentioning your affiliation to this company) at WT:MOSTM rather than here. Following on about WP:COI, see (edit:) the new section on your talk page. ‑‑mjgilsonT 22:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the policy, but "Pmdtechnologies" is *not* English. It is not one word although the capitalization would suggest it. Noaffiliation (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So who is cleaning up this mess if I'm not allowed to? As I mentioned all I did was change the name and logo, and I was punished with big signs essentially saying "This article (and/or the company) is shit".Noaffiliation (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a message to your talk page; your apparent COI edits alerted us to the problems inherent in the article, which readers are now aware of. I'm willing to work with you if you are to constructively address these problems. ‑‑mjgilsonT 15:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the article for deletion, which if successful, will make this discussion obsolete. I started cleaning up the page and reviewing the proposed edits, but I didn't find any sources that met the requirements for an organization to qualify for an articles as outlined at WP:CORP. Specifically, we require at least two in-depth profiles on the organization in credible, independent sources, such as national-level press articles written by professional journalists. It's very unlikely that a company of this size would qualify. If you feel two in-depth, independent profiles exist, it would be useful to share them at that discussion CorporateM (Talk) 04:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More references (fixing broken links, some are or new):

Noaffiliation (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Copied from above lists (update: previous references in the article as of 17 July 2015 have also been added) let's work through these to see which ones are WP:RS using WP:RSN: ‑‑mjgilsonT 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intial thoughts: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung seems a pretty uncontroversially reliable source, and, following this discussion, Engadget should probably hold up as long as it's carefully used. ‑‑mjgilsonT 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New references

Pixelatrix (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelatrix (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo Phab 2 pro

Infineon and pmd are development partners and suppliers of Lenovo's Phab 2 pro.

Pixelatrix (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Innovation Award 2016 by Frost & Sullivan

Pixelatrix (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal form changed to AG[edit]

The legal form has been switched from GmbH to AG. Source: [Company website footer] Pixelatrix (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update; changes made. ‑‑YodinT 13:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 6 March 2016[edit]

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 (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Pmdtechnologies → PMD Technologies – (or → PMDTechnologies if the WP:RS consistently do elide the space, which is dubious). Per MOS:TM, and thousands of already fixed article titles: Wikipedia does not try to emulate unusual stylization in trademarks. It's Adidas not "adidas", AT&T not "at&t", Sony not "SONY", Burger King not "BURGER KING", Alien 3 not Alien3, Macy's not "macy★s", etc., etc., etc. Also per MOS:ACRONYM. I would speedy this, but it's an open question whether the spacing should be collapsed in this this way the company uses in its logo. It should only be done if the sources pretty much overwhelmingly do it, since it's confusing and hard to read.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Change Title[edit]

I am working for this company. Please change the title of this article to pmdtechnologies, as we are known by our customers, business partners and employees. We have tried this several times now, but the volunteers here, keep changing the name to the wrong spelling. In case we are not to be mixed up with other companies that also have "pmd" in their name, it is important that all letters of the company name are written in lower case. Just as we are officially registered in the commercial register. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmdtechnologiesag (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 September 2020[edit]

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: Procedural close. Nominator has requested withdrawal due to unanimous opposition. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


PMD Technologies → Pmdtechnologies – The situation has changed some since 2016. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the page should be moved. A "Google" search found about twice as many results for pmdtechnologies ([77] 76,000+ results) than "PMD Technologies" ([78], 30,000+ results) even after subtracting out several terms likely to pollute the results. When I restricted the results to the past year, the numbers were a bit closer, over 130 for "pdmtechnologies" but just under 100 for "PMD Technologies." While both sets of results were dominated by unreliable or first-party sources, the sheer ratio strongly suggests that a move is appropriate. Had it not been for the 2016 discussion, I wouldn've just boldly moved the page. As an aside, the difficulty in finding the reliable sources among the search results would make it harder to support this company's notability (see WP:CORP) but that's not what this discussion is about. @SMcCandlish, Yodin, and Amakuru: You were involved in the previous discussion or page move back in 2016. See above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are ghits really the best way of determining this? O.N.R. (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best, no, efficient, yes, likely to get an accurate result? Yes. I'm open to other ways to efficiently determine this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Categories