Talk:eWay

Requested move 14 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move technically impossible; use instead {{lowercase title}} tag (has been done). (non-admin closure) Dwpaul ^Talk 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated|eWAY}}

EWay → eWAY – Corrected style of corporate name and trademark; requires admin assistance since EWAY and EWay exist. – Dwpaul ^Talk 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved from speedy rename

• Object to speedy rename MOS:CAPS,MOS:TM -- this should be discussed. "WAY" does not seem to be an acronym, and the logo uses small "way"; further EWAY and eWAY are the same pagename under the current MediaWiki settings for English Wikipedia, so it is impossible to have separate pages at "eWAY" and "EWAY". The destination EWAY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a different topic than that found at EWay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so this move is impossible anyways, as you cannot delete another article with a speedy rename. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• As to the first objection, the textual mark "eWAY" is a registered trademark with IP Australia, the Australian Trademark office. The treatment in the graphical logo is irrelevant. (I am not connected with Web Active Corporation Pty Ltd, the parent of this service and owner of the mark, in any way.) Dwpaul ^Talk 14:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• As to the second, it seems to be possible to have separate articles at EWAY and EWay, so it is unclear to me why it would be impossible to rename the second to eWAY. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• At MOS:TM: "The exception is trademarks that begin with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter are not capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules". This might argue against capitalization of "AY", but not against a move to eWay. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• However, I do see now the information on the technical restriction on lower case names of MediaWiki, and that the advice given there has already been implemented to use the {{lowercase title}} tag on the article. So yes, I can appreciate now that the requested move is not technically possible and will withdraw the request. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:42, 15 July 2014 (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.

Proposed Changes

I edited the page to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EWay&oldid=738302368

But it was rolled back.

If I update the page without the Industry Partners and Banking and Financial Partners sections would that help solve the issues with the page?

Then all references will be coming from third party newspaper articles (With the exception of the PCI Cert which I can remove as well if needed?)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.147.158 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding the "Industry Partners" and "Banking and Financial Partners" sections. This is not really an issue. In actuality, one issue ,and not the main issue, is - I don't see why it is necessary to remove so much material from the article in order to add material. All of it seem relevant to the Eway history and so on.

Next, the main issue is establishing notability WP:N, WP:ORG. If you have reliable third party sources (newspaper articles), these will determine notability for this product. After that the sources and content already in the article can stay, and new information can be added (with similar sources), as long as the information is accurate and not off-topic. To get an idea of what I am talking about see these: WP:NOTRS, WP:SELFSOURCE, and WP:QUESTIONED. For example, the sources in this article are probably considered non-independent and promotional. They do not indicate notability for this subject. Additionally, these are probably considered to be "sources as sources on themselves" - which is OK after notability has been established. To see what I mean take a look at the second set of links I provided - it won't take more than a few minutes to read.

So, first please answer my question about why removing so much material is necessary? Next, please post your third party newspaper sources here, so I can take a look at them. And thanks for starting a dialogue here, rather than insisting on editing the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, the stuff removed in the edit was features eWAY don't support anymore and offices eWAY have closed. As well as a cleaning up the article by splitting content into different sections to make it easier to read. All sources listed were from third party news, with the exception of a link to eWAY's PCI Compliance doc and customer story from Salesforces website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.147.158 (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)