Talk:CNET/Archives/2016

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CNET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829001159/http://www.cbscorporation.com:80/news/prdetails.php?id=3503 to http://www.cbscorporation.com/news/prdetails.php?id=3503

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2016

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: No consensus for the move (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

---

CNET → CNet – It's not an acronym, so "grand-capping" it as "CNET" is against MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM (cf. Sony not SONY, etc.) The SCREAMING ALL-CAPS is just one of their former logo stylizations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom (isn't this one that can just be moved without an RM?) Randy Kryn 12:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. And just to take one point: I don't want the readers' eyes poked by this kind of excess. Tony (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unlike Sony, the majority of this article's sources, the majority of other reliable sources, including books, academic journals, and the company itself all use all-caps in running text. Given that the minority of sources can't even decide on "Cnet" versus "CNet", why not go with what the large majority of sources and the company use - which will also be what our readers are most familiar with. Dohn joe (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Their own site has it has CNET and per Dohn Joe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to CNet. There is no way we can allow "CNET" to stay (@Lugnuts: we don't allow allcaps even if their own site uses it) and it appears "CNet" is more common among the other options. I could be wrong on the comparison, though.  ONR  (talk)  05:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  User:Old Naval Rooftops: did you see my point right above Lugnuts, that the majority of reliable sources, both in the article itself and via a Google Books search, use the all-caps version? Dohn joe (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom and the spirit of WP:TM. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and Dohn joe. I believe every rule has exceptions. A quick search would show that Wikipedia would be in an extreme minority not to use CNET. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – The full-caps spelling has always been dominant in sources since the 1990s, this is not a case of mere styling. Even when the company's logo style was all-lowercase and included an ornamental pipe ("c|net"), commentators still called them CNET. Besides, if you argue to de-cap, then why keep the camel-case "CNet"? House style would argue for "Cnet" then (which I don't endorse either). — JFG ^talk 01:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per JFG and Dohn joe. Calidum ¤ 02:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dohn Joe--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 10:42, 20 August 2016 (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.