Talk:EE (telecommunications)

Move

Would it be a good idea yet? Or at some point soon to move this article to EE (Telecommunications). Mark999 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, not yet, ETEW is still here, with EE still not up and fully running yet. Also capitalisation; EE (telecommunications). -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We should at least wait until the company name changes, which hasn't happened yet.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What about now? VEO^onefive 22:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the matter should be settled when the 30 Oct comes. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

EE

Does anyone think we should have the name changed to 'EE (Telecommunications)'? I think the change is needed as the company is officially called EE. Anasoon212 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the Everything Everywhere name is confined to the footer, with EE as the trading name. PS, as per WP:Capitalisation (as said above, it's 'EE (telecommunications)'. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Everything Everywhere name no longer exists. The parent company is now known as EE, as well as the network/brand. Either this article needs to be renamed 'EE (Telecommunications)' ((after the parent company)) or a new article needs to be made for 'EE' (the 4G network/brand). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.74.228 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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 per consensus, non-admin closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Everything Everywhere → EE (telecommunications company) – The Everything Everywhere, is now confined to the pages footer with EE now being used as the trading name, for the mobile network. relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer "EE (company)", which is more accurate and also reflects that the company's core activities include things like broadband.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add at the end of my sentence, if their were any other disambiguation terms that could be moved. I've changed it to '(company)' due to its accuracy. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I can support the requested move.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Relisting without support or opposition. There is no evidence above in terms of policy that the name change has taken popular effect, see WP:official names. In the circumstances such uptake might be rapid, but that's speculation. According to the article the rebranding was launched in September. That's very recent. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. All news sources now refer to the company by this name. This is the name most people know the company by. 212.159.45.2 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Really? There's English Electric, a defunct manufacturer. Also, there's Experts-Exchange, a troubled yet active website. Equal Education is a social movement, but it may be also a company. To be honest, I don't think of "EE (company)" as just one thing only. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: And in Australia we have Electronic Enterprises a very well known discount house, two branches within 15 minutes drive of where I live, with some professional lines as well, the Hornsby branch is where I used to buy 15" reels of tape for my 4 track... memories... they don't seem to have a website but there are other organisations by that name that I do see, one in India [1] who use a very similar trademark to the Australian organisation I see. Andrewa (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support it has confirmed rebranding to EE, and while the other companies use "EE" as the shorthand/initials, the news sources appear to use the full name for the other businesses. Support moving to EE (Company). Tiggerjay (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support but... prefer EE (telecommunications company) or similar as other companies use the EE initials. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support EE (telecommunications company). George Ho has sufficiently demonstrated that "EE (company)" is ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2012 (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.

Town or city missing in coverage additions

I noticed that the total number towns/cities of the first 4 lists (October to February inclusive) do not equal the 4th total of 37 cited in the ‘the next web’ article.

11 +7 +9 +9 = 36 ≠ 37

However, the first 3 lists add up to the 3rd total of 27 cited in the TechRadar article.

11 +7 +9 = 27

So it seems that there was a town or city added in January or February that is on neither the 3rd or 4th lists.

—James Haigh (talk) 2013-04-18T19:46:02Z

Requested move 2

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

---

EE (telecommunications company) → EE (telecommunications) – Simpler title, like Orange (telecommunications) Unreal7 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - attempts to increase ambiguity and decrease recognisability in brackets rarely add anything to the encyclopedia. In this case EE (telecommunications) could easily mean EE the technological term not EE the company: In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Amyot, ‎Luigi Logrippo Feature Interactions in Telecommunications and Software 2003 Page 211 " One common Execution Environment (EE) is used for all service programs, instead of using an individual EE for each service program."

Not a great concern. We don't have an article on Execution environment, and if we did, we could use hatnotes. The topic doesn't even seem to meet your standard of "covered by," based on search results. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral Per WP:D, disambiguators should be precise and similar to those of other articles. Besides this one, only Fastweb (telecommunications company) and Ribbit (telecommunications company) use this term (there's also Melita (telecommunication company)). But this area is a mess. (company) is usually sufficient, though not here. I don't know how many articles on telecommunications companies use the proposed disambiguator. It's almost certainly more than the number that use the current one, but there doesn't seem to be a standard in this field, such as (comics). I don't think the proposed title would do any real harm, and it's concision is appealing, but neither am I seeing a very good reason to move. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose it is not an Electrical Engineering degree with a specialization in Telecommunications. -- 70.24.251.36 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2013 (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.

One more requested move

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: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

---

EE (telecommunications company) → EE Limited – Use of the company type as natural disambiguation is not a new concept, see also BlackBerry Limited. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 02:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC) ViperSnake151  Talk  02:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean What about EE Ltd? Wow, I assumed that "BlackBerry Limited" is a phone brand, not a company. --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They used to be called Research in Motion. But yeah, either is fine. Our infobox actually does use "Limited" so that's what I went by. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. Natural disambiguation would also be more WP:CONCISE in this case. bd2412 T 16:20, 3 November 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.

Love the info, hate the title....,....

I think that you should edit many things, such as the titles, they need to be better! For instance to say something like the definition of something to do with dogs, just simple, make it fun like this, Woof Woof!! who knew that when dogs shed they are nervous!!

--50.32.107.46 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)LOVER of wiki user12

Everything Everywhere

The original name of the business was Everything Everywhere Limited, this should be included in the beginning of the article. For some reason an IP keeps on deleting this. Steven (Editor) (talk) your input would be useful as you have also reverted the IP. --Devokewater (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Devokewater I agree with everything you have said, Everything Everywhere is the original name and should be mentioned in the beginning of the article Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Support also. Readers will want to know the meaning behind the initials, and the intro is short enough to include this. --Wire723 (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)