Talk:Ernst & Young

message: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/business/ernst-and-young-sec-cheating-fine/index.html
TheHeroBrine (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about this should probably be added. Cheating scandal. 

message: :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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ernst & Young →  – WP:COMMONNAME. While the firm historically traded as Ernst & Young, in 2013 it was rebranded EY. This is reflected in how the firm identifies itself. By way of a similar examples, the KPMG and PwC articles are both named using their initialised names after undergoing similar rebrandings. Zoumestein (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose A move to EY (company) was considered in 2013 (see archives) and again in 2016 (see archives) and the decision was not moved. According to the footer of its website the official name is still Ernst & Young. In any case Ernst & Young is not a company, so EY (company) is not appropriate. If you are proposing E&Y, it is neither branded that or known as that. Dormskirk (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment The E&Y proposal was an error on my part, I amended it immediately, but the hatnote did not pick it up, has now been corrected. While the discussions from ten and seven years ago maybe worth mentioning, whether this move request is successful will solely be what the consensus is in this discussion. The trading name is EY, that the legal entity is Ernst & Young Global Limited is not particularly relevant when it comes to WP:COMMONNAME, although notably Limited does indicate it is a company. Zoumestein (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment The media normally refers to it as a firm rather than a company: see here and here. Dormskirk (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In common parlance, Firm and company are not particularly distinct. (Click on that link for a demonstration.) In any case, it is a company. SilverLocust (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I agree that a case could be made for either firm or company. Just a thought, but would it not be better to make the case for moving this article to EY on the basis that the accounting firm is the primary topic? The list currently at EY could be moved to EY (disambiguation). Dormskirk (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 May 2023 

message: :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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 06:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 May 2023