Talk:Thus (company)/Archives/2015

Requested move 30 July 2015

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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Thus (company) → Thus – No other subject currently exists that is title "Thus". – Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• A better occupant of the article place Thus would be an article about the word "thus". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Or a redirect to Logical consequence, as with Therefore. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTDIC. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer Thus (company) Because "Thus" is a regular English word, so while we don't have an article on the English word "thus" there are multiple meanings for it and I prefer we make it clear which we are talking about. CorporateM (Talk) 06:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer Thus (company) Because "Thus" is a regular English word, so while we don't have an article on the English word "thus" there are multiple meanings for it and I prefer we make it clear which we are talking about. (I agree with post above by CorporateM) also would suggest Thus (Logical consequence) as redirect to Logical consequence WillemienH (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Most people typing "thus" would not be looking for an article on a short-lived telecommunications company. There is a lengthy article on Thou, so an article on the word "thus" is still theoretically possible. Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The company is not the primary topic; the English word is. Sławomir
  Biały 11:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move. It is best to have a title that is not confusing. A person seeing the title (e.g. in the list of suggestions of the search bar) is unlikely to expect a company, and it will save trouble for the reader to have disambiguation in view. In a sense, the move would introduce an easter egg in the form of the title. Even in text, one would often have to disambiguate by adding the qualifier the company, as in "The company Thus ...". I also agree with all the above opposition. —Quondum 20:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose move (preferring to keep the article at Thus (company)) per the principle of least astonishment. Readers are going to expect a non-disambiguated "thus" to refer to the primary meaning of the English word (regardless of whether that word should actually have an article). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • PS I tend to think that the word "thus" is not a proper subject for a Wikipedia article, but that thus should soft-redirect to wiktionary rather than the current redirect to the company. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

    What would you think about keeping Thus as the company, but adding a hatnote to wiktionary at the top of the article? Dohn joe (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Which is why we don't have an article, after all these years, on the word. If it were not for the company, there would be no Thus on WP at all. This means that the company is the only encyclopedic use of the word. See Sooner. (Also see Rather, Until, etc. - these are disambiguation pages with no entries on the word as a word - only links to Wiktionary.) Since Thus redirects here, and there are no other uses, it does our readers no good whatsoever to add unnecessary disambiguation. See WP:AT and WP:DAB. Where there is no other topic on WP, there is nothing to disambiguate from. Dohn joe (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If there was no company, there would still be the plural for "thu". -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The English word is by far the PRIMARYTOPIC here & IMHO it should be kept that way. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common word against fairly obscure company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the reasoning laid out by Dohn joe. kennethaw88 • talk 04:50, 6 August 2015 (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.

Untitled

1. As of 16 Feb 2011 there is no company registered in this name in Great Britain.

2. Companies House WebCheck service indicates the nearest matching current entity as (company number SC192666) Thus Group Holdings plc, previously Thus plc (to 24 Mar 2009), previously ScottishPower Telecommunications Holdings plc (to 1 Oct 1999), incorporated 19 Jan 1999.

3. No company registration number is given thus failing to give certainty to which entity is described. --MBRZ48 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The article title and preamble have been amended to describe the entity most resembling the content. This still leaves much of the content based on imprecise material some of which still appears inconsistent with that originating from primary sources such as the company itself or from other associated companies.

--MBRZ48 (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki articles do not normally specify which legal entity is being referred to. In this instance it appears that C&W may have moved the trade into a different legal entity. I have moved to "Thus (company)" so the reader is not confused by legal entities. Dormskirk (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

History: SPT had taken the simple step of setting up their own internal telecoms network by running fibre-optic cable along the top, earth wire of their power supply pylons. This was then made available to some of their clients on a trial basis to handle voice traffic and leased lines. When this proved successful, ST was launched, marketing first to the largest Scottish companies close to their network. Having limited network and almost no local loop of its own, particularly outside city centres, ST was often reliant on renting a "tail"from BT to link customers to their switch, increasing the cost of any service and reducing its profitability.

Originally selling voice services and point to point leased lines, ST tried to extend into data services such as Frame Relay. They lacked technical expertise in this and the abortive attempt to install a national frame relay service for Scottish & Newcastle saw the end of serious attempts to provide these services.

In 1999 all but one of the board, including Matthews, were sacked by the owner, Scottish Power, following ST's disastrous foray into the retail household telecoms market. £50m had been invested in technology for this market only to generate £1m per annum of sales. The money was mainly invested in Ionica's line of sight wall mounted dishes which would have allowed ST to establish direct links with a subscriber's property, rather than giving a share of revenue to BT for using their local loop, redirecting to ST's switch. Unfortunately the dishes, developed for the flat fenlands of Ionica's Norfolk, could seldom establish line of sight over Glasgow's drumlins and high rises, so BT's local loop was used in most instances, drastically reducing revenues.

A new board was built around new Chief executive Bill Allan who came from running Cable & Wireless's operation in the Bahamas. It was Allan's board who bought into the idea to change ST's name prior to privatisation, buying an "off the shelf" identity which was being marketed to the largest companies in Scotland by a local marketing agency. The "thus plc" identity, (all lower case)complete with trademarked logo, colour scheme and marketing messages had been pitched to several companies before ST decided that it would suit them. The logo included three coloured balls (white grey and orange) which stood for "boldness, simplicty and speed." The launch included a series of TV adverts featuring the Beatles' tune "Let it Be" which broadcast on a few occasions before being pulled.

In 2002 it was demerged from Scottish Power under the name thus in a deal which effectively wiped out the majority of the company's debts, placing the company on a sound financial footing.

The flotation by sale of 49% of the company was initially very succesful with the share price rising tenfold in the first six months. Thus's market capitalisation peaked around the £2.5bn mark and it entered the FTSE 100 index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.243.192.81 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the name "Thus"?

I assume the TH comes from Telecommunications Holdings (a term mentioned in the article). Is that right? What about the US? Equinox (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"thus plc" was a generic, meaningless name used for a packaged, complete "brand identity for the 21st century". The package was hawked by the marketing company who devised it (and who trademarked its numerous aspects) round many of the largest companies in Scotland. The word is supposed to have connotations of action, decisiveness and freedom, emphasised by the strap line coming after the name: "Let It Be"

Reportedly Canvas Holidays were looking to simply update their logo and were pitched the whole rebranding concept. They wisely decided that their brand name was strong enough and that calling themselves "thus" would be ridiculous.SlipperyJim (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)