`   == Your requesting aborting my move of Nike, Inc. ==  What you stated in your request is in error in two ways.  You stated: ``Reverting a move made without discussion. ``Nike, Inc.`` complies more closely with WP:NCCORP (using the legal status is the first preference listed to disambiguate) and is actually used as an example in paragraph three.``  First, there needed to be no discussion prior to moving.  Period.  Second, the WP:NCCOMP guideline states at the beginning ``The legal status suffix of a company (such as Inc., plc, LLC, and those in other languages such as GmbH, AG, and S.A.) is not normally included in the article title,``  which indicates that the preferred state is to avoid using things like ``Inc.`` in the title.  It goes on to say that, yes, it is allowed, and I am not going to bother with pursuing this further; however, I will put a note on the talk page indicating that the preference based on a move and revert is to leave the article title as Nike, Inc.  I did look for any prior actions or discussions related to the title of this article before I contemplated changing it; in other words, I did check to see a controversy had arisen in the past, and seeing none, took action.  The example of Nike, Inc. in WP:NCCOMP does not endorse or lock in the article at that title; it is simply an example.  User:Ceyockey ('')   :Hi , if you read WP:NCCORP, you will see that the reason legal status is not normally included in an article title is because it is usually not needed. However, when disambiguation is needed, the legal status is the first form of disambiguation listed. In fact Nike, Inc.'' is used as an example in paragraph three, which discusses the use or not of a comma in an article title which includes legal status. Furthermore, adding a parenthetical to an article title causes editors to have to use a piped link every time the company is mentioned and hyperlinked, whereas using the legal status is immediately comprehensible as the specific company, unpiped, and differentiated from both all other uses of ``Nike`` and also from Nike's various sub-brands, labels, subsidiaries, projects, etc.    ::I believe you are reading too much into the order of items.  Legal status, ``(company)`` and ``other suffix`` are only prioritized by order in the text; as far as I am concerned, they are on equal footing ... which is why I did not escalate the issue over the current article.  As I stated above, just because the article in question is used as an example means nothing ... it was a convenience and not meant to establish a precedent (or so I infer based on how text like this is usually composed).  We agree to disagree.  I am not on a spree.  I do feel that removal of the 'legal status' element is preferable as a company's life cycle is not defined by its legal status.  As noted above, I've put a hopefully neutral passage on the Nike, Inc. talk page ... which is something I would do if I found prior conflict related to other companies.  I am not a big fan of precedence-first, but the building of Wikipedia is all about compromise, not rules enforcement.  Be well. User:Ceyockey ('''')  ::P.S. I've found the template  to be useful recently.  See if you find it useful as well.`