Talk:Merck Group/Archives/2016

Title

The current title Merck KGaA is unfortunate. The "KGaA" part is only used in legal contexts, and not in branding of the company, and is certainly not part of the company's WP:COMMONNAME. The company has also recently objected to being referred to as Merck KGaA in other than legal contexts, since its trademark is simply Merck. As Merck is both the original Merck and the world's oldest pharmaceutical company which has operated under this name since 1668 with an iconic status in its industry, as it is still the company owned by the Merck family, and as it currently holds the rights to the name in 191 of 193 countries (almost 99% of the world's countries), with the exception of only two countries where one of its former subsidiaries holds the right to market their products under this name, it seems reasonable that it should be treated as a case of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially with respect to long-term significance. Hence, Merck should be moved to Merck (disambiguation) and Merck KGaA should be moved to Merck. Thkafra (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Merck KGaA → Merck – Primary topic, per rationale above (Talk:Merck KGaA#Title), following move of Merck to Merck (disambiguation) per Talk:Merck Thkafra (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Thkafra (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment this is a improperly formed multimove request -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE a second discussion is open at Talk:Merck -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose – Merck KGaA (viewed 26565 times in the last 90 days) appears to be of less interest to readers than Merck & Co. (viewed 57328 times in the last 90 days – i.e., more than twice as much readership interest), and both are known as "Merck". So if there is a PRIMARYTOPIC here for "Merck", it appears to be Merck & Co., which has been a different company for nearly a century (and thus there is no appropriate RECENTISM argument), and seems to be a larger company as well ("the world's seventh largest pharmaceutical company by market capitalization and revenue"). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In 99% of the world, the company known locally in the US as Merck & Co. is only known as MSD. So this seems like an example of US bias. Also, the original company is clearly the primary topic by long-term significance. Both companies are among the world's largest in the pharmaceutical industry, but it is far less problematic for the former American subsidiary to be titled "Merck & Co." than it is to have the unused (with respect to WP:COMMONNAME) "KGaA" part in the title of the original company. Thkafra (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That's quite the hyperbole. 99% of the world does not lie outside of North America. In terms of the pharmaceutical industry, global economy, and area, North America comprises much more than 1% -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof, "Merck & Co." is clearly the primary topic within North America, and therefore this article cannot be the primary topic, since there's a real competing topic. Since North America comprises a large portion of the English speaking world, it's a very valid reason why this isn't the primary topic in English Wikipedia (this is English Wikipedia, not the any-language Wikipedia) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not Wikipedia for North America, but Wikipedia for the whole world, including the UK and many other English-speaking countries where MSD is known as MSD and only Merck is known as Merck. A subsidiary, former or current, is not a competing topic, and it is known (and only in 1% of the world's countries) as Merck & Co., not as Merck, so this move request doesn't even affect the article on the former subsidiary in any way. In short: There is Merck, the world's oldest pharmaceutical company, in business since 1668 and famous for pioneering morphine among other things, a DAX-listed company with 50,000 employees, and there is its former subsidiary MSD, known as Merck & Co. (named for its historical parent company) in only two countries. Even if there is an American celebrity called Paris who may be better known to many Americans, she should clearly not displace the city from the plain Paris title. Thkafra (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That is also hyperbole. If we were only interested in the perspective of the North Americans and the raw majority of readership interest, we would move "Merck & Co." to "Merck", and that has not happened and has not been advocated here. Yes, this is Wikipedia for the whole world. More precisely, this is the Wikipedia for the English language readers of the whole world. Many of those people are in North America, and their perspective should not be neglected, just as the perspective of others elsewhere should not be neglected. In fact, according to the pie chart in the English language article, about 70% of the native speakers of English in the whole world are in the U.S. and Canada. If, to those people, "Merck" primarily refers to the company based in the U.S. with 70,000 employees that publishes The Merck Manuals, rather than the one based in Germany with 50,000 employees that popularized morphine in a century or two ago, that is something that we need to take into account. The fact that the U.S.-based company was separated 99 years ago from a Germany-based company with a similar name that continues to exist in some form is a very interesting fact they will learn if they read the article about the "Merck" they are primarily interested in – which, for about 68% of our readers (based on page view counting), does not seem to be the company based in Germany. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly as no evidence is provided and also as malformed multi-page move request. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, why not use the Merck page to document the company pre-split/confiscation, then leave Merck KGaA and Merck & co as the contemporary pages? Or leave it as it is... XyZAn (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that's essentially what already exists. The Merck page already describes the American company as "a former subsidiary of Merck KGaA". It doesn't go into further detail about that, but the linked articles provide that information. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason that any meaning listed at Merck should be considered the primary topic. Merck should remain a disambiguation page Merck KGaA should not be retitled. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:33, 6 January 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.

Page move

@Jenks24:, as closing admin of the page move request - the page was moved despite the consensus being to not move the page (above). Just to make you aware so this can be resolved Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aloneinthewild: Do you disagree with or oppose the new title? Seeing as there had been a previous RM, it would have been good practice for the mover to instead take it through a new RM, but the issue of "Merck KGaA" vs "Merck Group" was not really discussed so this move is not really in contravention of it. If you or anyone else object to the new title then I can move it back and we can have a new RM on the "Merck KGaA" vs "Merck Group" issue, but there's not real benefit moving it back just for procedure's sake. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)