Talk:Disney (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

I agree. Move to Disney. Although those who type Disney most often mean the Walt Disney Company, it seems reasonable that a significant minority would mean Walt Disney or Walt Disney Pictures, which actually produces the "Disney movies." --Plainsong 05:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) I agree too. Move to Disney. For the reasons Plainsong said. Remes 03:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Seeing no opposition, I have performed this move. - UtherSRG 12:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think this move was misguided and worked out terribly. There are over 600 pages that link to Disney, and 99%+ would work just fine pointing to The Walt Disney Company. We either should disambiguate all 600+ pages (a huge task), or else make Disney a rd and deal with the problems (where a Disney link refers to the person) as we find them. In short, I think it should be moved back. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) June 30, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Walt Disney Company is clearly, to me, the most dominant of uses. Cburnett 05:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, in my work on shortcutting links to the disambiguation page, I found that most uses of Disney should really refer to a specific subsidiary. Very few really meant The Walt Disney Company. I find that using The Walt Disney Company as the catch all would force the reader of the original page to try to figure out what subsidiary was intended to be referred to by the link. ppblais 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike[edit]

It doesnt say how is Mike Disney related to the rest of the Disneys.

Merge to?[edit]

How about the company specific stuff merges into The Walt Disney Company, the family stuff merges into Disney family, the rest is moved to Disney (disambiguation), and Disney is redirected to The Walt Disney Company with some appropriate disambiguation header links added to that page? Ewlyahoocom 21:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 20 June 2018[edit]

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: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney (disambiguation) → Disney – The term most commonly refers to either the company or the founder. I don't believe any of these are the primary topic. 2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the company is clearly primary on both counts. This isn't a mononym like "Mozart" or "Stalin" In ictu oculi (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The company is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's some claim that Disney could be a mononymous reference to Walt Disney, but the company eclipses that usage in every aspect. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. bd2412 T 11:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW The company is obviously primary. The man is/was not mononymous; Disney is just his surname, so to refer to him by just that name you have to establish context for it, such as in his bio. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 26 November 2021[edit]

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. Consensus has not changed since the previous RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney (disambiguation) → Disney – Rename this to just Disney. Disney should not redirect to the company, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Walt_Disney_Company/Archive/2015#Requested_move_18_May_2015 Aalaa324 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing has changed since the above RM discussion from two years ago, the company is still the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While there are other Disneys, Walt Disney is clearly the most famous, and he is more famous for creating a fictional universe and founding a company than as a private person. JIP | Talk 01:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There are definitely other Disneys, but the Disney company is clearly the primary topic. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). - cheezejack | talk | contributions - 02:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the status quo is fine. No actual evidence presented in favor of a change. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Very clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 January 2024[edit]

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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move, and more like a consensus against. BD2412 T 02:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disney (disambiguation) → Disney – Follows on the RM that failed to move the main company to Disney. There is no primary topic although the company and the person may be likely. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Walt_Disney_Company#Requested_move_11_December_2023 WP:NOPRIMARY GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support no clear primary topic given other uses as well even though the company is likely to be the most common use. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Concur that WP:NOPRIMARY applies here. As I pointed out in opposing the recent proposed RM to move the company to this title, "Disney" can refer to the man, the company, the animated movies, the live-action movies, the TV shows, the parks, the merchandise, etc. It is always funny at D23 Expo (I have attended three times, in 2015, 2017, and 2022) to see Disney fans from different fandoms share their interest in "Disney" and slowly realize that the word "Disney" means very different things to different people. For example, like most normal people, visiting a Disney park once every five years is more than enough, because I am primarily a fan of Disney films and television shows. I find it very amusing that there are people who visit a Disney park every year, every month, every week, or even every day. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:NOPRIMARY and my comments at the prior RM mentioned. There is clearly no primary target for "Disney" as some, like myself, mainly think of the company while others think of the studio, Walt Disney, etc. Several trade reports and news headlines use "Disney" to refer to a multitude of these differing subjects, so automatically assuming someone searching "Disney" is looking for the company when they could be looking for the studio or individual is a bad precedent to maintain. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Walt Disney's signature is used as the company's logo. For good reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Walt Disney's place in western civilization and the shaping of the 20th century in entertainment, film, and the various Walt Disney Shows and their impact on societal norms in both the early age of television and later, is profound. Walt Disney catapulted several cartoon characters to icons, introduced a generation to space, and had a vision which came about at exactly the right time to create these affects. The individual has at least, and arguably much more, long-term historical significance as the company and deserves equal billing under the name 'Disney'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Although arguments for WP:NOPRIMARY are convincing, I feel the company still has greater long-term significance and modern-day relevance (considering it's still around and actively contributing to society) that gives it an edge over what readers are likely looking for. Within articles, when we say "Disney did this", we usually mean the company (which can be referred to as "Disney" without ever using its expanded form), whereas it is not possible for us to use "Disney" to refer to Walt Disney without mentioning his full name once. The RM that did not move The Walt Disney Company to Disney is actually not relevant; a name can be too ambiguous as a title but at the same time be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Barack Obama should not be moved to Obama, but Obama should still redirect to Barack Obama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure you can use the single word 'Disney' to refer to Walt. Disney created Mickey Mouse. Disney introduced children to the possibility of space travel. Disney's vision created "Disneyland". And if I may, let me apologize on behalf of Walt Disney that he died, thereby shirking his responsibility to continue contributing to society (couldn't resist). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said you can't use "Disney" to refer to Walt Disney without mentioning his full name at least once. By contrast, an article can use "Disney" to refer to the company without ever mentioning the full name "The Walt Disney Company". In fact, there are presently 3,753 uses of an unpiped Disney to refer to the company, versus a mere 82 uses of [[Walt Disney|Disney]] (which should really be changed to [[Walt Disney]] if referring to the person or [[Disney]] if referring to his company. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I don't think the idea that a person is typically introduced with a full name and is then referred to by a surname is any more relevant here than the idea that typically the readers are looking for the company. It's probably fair to say that the terms "Disney" and "Walt Disney" are largely synonymous for the average reader, which in itself means that there's a clear ambiguity between the person and their company. --Joy (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply above. "Disney" can act as a shorthand for the company without ever invoking its full name; "Disney" can only act as a shorthand for the person only after his full name is stated once. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're describing the article style when editing, but what we care most when discussing primary topic by usage is reader behavior and expectations. The idea that an average English reader encounters the term "Disney" in reference to a person and then looks that up in the encyclopedia, expecting in turn to be navigated in a reasonably efficient way, is perfectly sensible. --Joy (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the same outside of editing. When you hear "Disney film", you are more likely to interpret that as "a film produced by Walt Disney Pictures", not "a film produced by Walt Disney (the person)". If you type "Disney" into the search bar, you are more likely looking for the company — if you were looking for the person, you would type "Walt Disney". Just take a look at the most recent news results for "Disney" — how many of those are referring to the person? [1] as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to get this straight, when you are talking of "Disney films" do you mean the ones represented by this signature of Walt Disney or the films made under the banner of this Walt Disney signature? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly wrote "Walt Disney Pictures" in my comment, not "Walt Disney Studios". No one really uses the term "Disney film" to refer to films distributed by Walt Disney Studios (which includes Fox, Marvel, Star Wars, etc.). But I'm not sure how that's relevant? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevancy exists in the full honor and recognition of the life and accomplishments of Walt Disney, and all of the corporate logos containing his signature attest to this long-term historical importance of the name 'Disney' when referring to both 'Walt Disney' and the companies which bear his name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "honor and recognition" have absolutely nothing to do with WP title policy and procedures. This very strange perception of yours to the contrary is also behind your constant attept to overcapitalize things as signification of importance/prominence, against MOS:SIGCAPS and against title policy. This really needs to come to an end, Randy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a good example that it's the "same" outside of editing, because these phrases are particularly affected by what first comes to mind, but the idea that there were films specifically associated with Walt Disney is perfectly sensible as well. There's other phrases that could be particularly associated with people, like "Disney dynasty", but we wouldn't use them as the determinative example of what constitutes the entire extent of the meaning of "Disney". --Joy (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Disney has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics snapshot for the last three months
December
  • 9270 views of Disney
  • The_Walt_Disney_Company Walt_Disney link 12358 [identifiable clickstreams]
  • The_Walt_Disney_Company Disney_(disambiguation) link 587 [identifiable clickstreams]
  • 955 views of Disney (disambiguation)
  • 62 total identifiable outgoing clickstream destinations where the article name starts with "Disney" or "Walt Disney"
  • 35313 total identifiable outgoing clickstreams to those
November
  • 9444 views of Disney
  • The_Walt_Disney_Company Walt_Disney link 12688 [identifiable clickstreams]
  • The_Walt_Disney_Company Disney_(disambiguation) link 699 [identifiable clickstreams]
  • 1048 views of Disney (disambiguation)
  • 56 total identifiable outgoing clickstream destinations where the article name starts with "Disney" or "Walt Disney"
  • 36132 total identifiable outgoing clickstreams to those
October
  • 10002 views of Disney
  • The_Walt_Disney_Company Walt_Disney link 16696
  • The_Walt_Disney_Company Disney_(disambiguation) link 796
  • 1180 views of Disney (disambiguation)
  • 66 total identifiable outgoing clickstream destinations where the article name starts with "Disney" or "Walt Disney"
  • 42213 total identifiable outgoing clickstreams to those
Methodology notes

The totals calculated with queries such as: 

% grep -P '^'The_Walt_Disney_Company'\t' clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv %7C awk '$2 ~ /^(Walt_)?Disney/ { c++; t += $4 } END { print c, t }'
Sorry for the extra use of grep, it's just a speed optimization, as it seems to be 6x faster for me in this environment than just checking $1 with this awk.
The two most common topics are the person and their eponymous company, clearly, yet because they're so intertwined, and we don't have measurements that are that precise, it's still hard to say how many people click the Walt Disney link in the hatnote as opposed to the Walt Disney links in the lead or the rest of the text. Regardless, the sheer amount of it is suspect. Conventionally, we'd be looking for e.g. ~90% people landing at the primary topic and not reaching for navigation aids, and while we can't confirm that measurement here because we can't discern the Walt links, it sure sounds like the ratio might not be that good. From the WikiNav graph at the disambiguation page, it's apparent that most people who got there were looking for people, so even if those ratios are relatively small (around 6-8% in this sample) they're also indicative of ambiguity.
Trying to present all this ambiguity to the readers in a more straightforward way is probably a worthwhile endeavor. If not, in a few months time we'll have the data to support a revert either way, and MOS:DABCOMMON will make sure the average reader isn't astonished. --Joy (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per InfiniteNexus, plus the article on the company serves as a good WP:CONCEPTDAB. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per my statement in the previous move discussion. There's no primary topic between the company or Walt Disney. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The Walt Disney Company is clearly and unambiguously the primary topic for the bare name Disney. The man himself was an important figure, no doubt, but when sources in 2024 talk of simply Disney, without qualification, it's unlikely anyone would think they meant him. That the previous RM failed to reach a conclusion to actually move it there is immaterial. This change of primary topic from the long-term status quo is not at all merited, for procedural reasons or any other.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To try to verify this, I tried going to Google Books, clicked show English sources and 21st century, which showed me #1 Stewart (2005) about the company, #2 Schickel (2019) about the person, #3 Watts (2013) about the person, #4 ditto just 2001, #5 Disney Institute (2003) about the company, #6 ditto just 2001, #7 Gabler (2006) about the person, #8 Wills (2017) about company culture referencing the person in the blurb, #9 Quinn (2014) about the person, #10 Sandlin & Garlen (2016) about the company. Adding &pws=0 to the query string didn't change this. It seems Google thinks it's very likely their readers meant Walt when they look for Disney in a book search. And then we're back at the perennial question - is a lookup into an encyclopedia more like a book search or a general search or what. I'd lean towards the more academic options there. --Joy (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Google Maps skews to the person, but have you looked at other search engines? Regular Google Search doesn't show me anything related to the person for many pages, and the Knowledge Graph is that of the company, nor does Google News. Ngrams show a significant lead for "Disney" (excluding references of "Walt Disney") and "Walt Disney" (which probably includes references to the company's full name). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I already said in my last couple of sentences above... let me try to be a bit more illustrative with this line of reasoning: if we think of Wikipedia as the equivalent of the regular search or the news search, as something that should be guided by the same principles, then it's clear we should point readers to the topic that first comes to mind, and while we're at it, we might in turn want to consider sprinkling in a few ads or sponsored products to monetize all those views. :) --Joy (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Amakuru. The Walt Disney Company is the primary topic for "Disney" nowadays. It's even better known than Walt Disney himself who founded the company. JIP | Talk 10:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joy disproved that in the comment just above yours. The company named for Walt Disney and Walt Disney as a historical figure share the name and should share the disamb primary page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Chanel point to the company or the person? What about Armani? Dell? Forbes? Chrysler? Nestlé? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these are probably problematic, and it's possible they haven't been thoroughly evaluated with the primary topic guidelines in mind, but have rather grown organically like that. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. --Joy (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I feel like the company's article makes for a decent of sort of WP:BROADCONCEPT-ish target. I might feel differently, though, if we find that a significant number of links to Disney were not meant to point to The Walt Disney Company. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the argument about a broad concept. I don't think the links are too relevant, because that would be deciding on what we show to (a huge amount of) readers based on the behavior of (a comparatively tiny amount of) editors. --Joy (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the broad-concept thing because I've seen that as an argument in terms of primariness: for example, Talk:Nickelodeon/Archive 2#Move to Nickelodeon (I have done many hundreds of DAB fixes for Nickelodeon, and the overwhelming majority of them (back of the napkin, over 99%) meant to point to the television channel.) and Talk:Madonna/Archive 22#Requested move 18 July 2020 (I frequently disambiguate links to Madonna, and they are always meant to link to the entertainer.). See also New York, which attracted links referring to the city when the state was considered the primary topic. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we have a long history of doing that, and I've probably done that myself in the past, but I started to waver when I learned more about the behaviors of the readers from the clickstream visualizations in WikiNav. (That tool was made in 2021, so for example it wasn't even available at the time of the two linked discussions, in 2011 and 2020. The clickstream archive only starts in late 2017.) --Joy (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @162 etc., @320th Century, @GalaxyFighter55, @IceWalrus236 @Blaze Wolf, @Waylon111 @WiinterU and @Jorahm all those who participated in the previous move. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish, the nominator of previous discussion also gets pinged. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The company is overwhelmingly the primary topic. The number of times that Walt Disney, as a biographical subject, is referred to as just "Disney" is vanishingly small by comparison and almost always in a context in which his first and last name were just given a moment earlier in the material. The article presently at The Walt Disney Company (due to a "local consensus" that is directly in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME and other principles, and really should just be at Disney, since that is far and away the most common name used to refer to the company in independent sources, and matchingly the vast majority of mentions of "Disney" in those sources is in reference to the company) already links Walt Disney in the lead paragraph, and in the hatnote, and links in the hatnote to Disney (disambiguation). This is more than enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like that it feels too simple to call it just "Disney" as there are other purposes, if anything. it could be called just Disney (company) although I oppose moving The Walt Disney Company to Disney GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NATURAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let it go, SMcCandlish... InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prove me wrong. Just because we have a page at a policy-non-compliant title for the time being doesn't mean I'm going to sit idly by and let the situation get worse with a related RM that also should not happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have been told many times, it's not just a matter of COMMONNAME. "Disney" is not WP:PRECISE enough, even though it should continue to redirect to the company as the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. We could easily move Las Vegas to Vegas (which redirects there), Stanford University to Stanford (which redirects there), and Barack Obama to Obama (which redirects there) — but we shouldn't. Those PRIMARYREDIRECTs shouldn't point to disambiguation pages either. As for Disney (company), that is far less WP:NATURAL and more awkward than The Walt Disney Company and is thus out of the question. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were not precise enough, then it would not be possible for about 95% of references to the company in the mainstream media to simply be "Disney" without further disambiguation. QED.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, Disney could be a DAB page (which I agree on) or become a redirect to the DAB page. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, New York is a DAB, and Mercury is a DAB. Disney should be a DAB, despite Disney being the most common use. Even Coachella is a DAB, while the festival is the most common use! The same should apply to Disney too! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because they both have two uses that are widely used on their own (that is, without tacking on extra words). But when it comes to Disney, no one will say "Disney" without stating his first name, but you'll find many, many articles (both in the news and on Wikipedia) that say "Disney" without stating the full corporate name. That's the difference. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in August 2016, it was discovered the state of New York cannot be the primary topic for the word "New York". GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because as I explained above, New York City and New York state are widely referred to as simply "New York", without ever mentioning their extended forms. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish Disney can even refer to other stuff. The Disney family, the theme parks, the studios, the cities, the people, the companies, and etc!. I strongly believe there's no primary topic for Disney despite the company being the most common use. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And most importantly! Walt Disney himself or the person! GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the most common use is the literal definition of a primary topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing to tell, Coachella has no primary topic by long-term significance but the festival is the primary topic by usage. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That page should be moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to what, and outcome of what? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The festival is clearly the primary topic and should be moved to just Coachella. I'll likely start an RM once I have the time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually tried before, but it didn't work. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because you argued solely on the basis of pageviews (and from a single month), which are often not convincing enough to establish a primary topic. You should have pointed to WP:TITLEPTM, ngrams, year-long pageviews, etc. The festival literally has six times the number of attendees than the city's population. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also had low participation, though I worry trying again so soon would come of as excessive. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there's an ongoing RM to move Flint to Flint (rock) and the DAB to Flint, I do support that as Flint, MI is the highest in usage I would also support redirecting Flint to Flint, MI. Primary topic should not just matter by long term-significance but also usage. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to think a primary topic is determined solely by pageviews, which like I said is not the case. Unlike the two Disneys and the two Coachellas, flint has existed since ... the Stone Age, literally. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Coachella (festival)#Requested move 12 February 2024, for those interested. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "refer to other stuff": all of it properties of this company. They're all subtopics, and in no version of the world are they regularly referred to just as "Disney" by themselves without having already been clarified earlier in the name material, or being uniquely clear already due to the specific context in which the sentence was found. In particular, since you and a several others here keep harping on this, I challenge you to find any source anywhere on planet earth referring to the person Walt Disney simply as "Disney" without also giving his full name in the same material to make it clear they mean the person not the company, the latter being overwhelmingly what the string "Disney" means to virtually everyone all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no proof whatsoever this number of times is "vanishingly small", and indeed we have the clickstreams to actually indicate otherwise (though it can't be conclusive because of the large amount of topical overlap). Can you please not reach for so much hyperbole? :) --Joy (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's blatant argument from incredulity with no basis. I've actually done quite a bit of source-background checking (when this was RMed before), and RS that refer to the person Walt Disney as simply "Disney" (except as a shorthand after already giving his full name) verge on non-existent. "Disney" in modern RS material almost invariably refers to the company (or, in a narrow enough context, one of its subsidiaries).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying that this distinction of "except as a shorthand after already giving his full name" is critical there, and that it is not helpful for the purposes of reader navigation. We're effectively pretending that that sort of usage is not a good source of ambiguity and we decide not to help the readers who encounter that usage navigate faster. At the same time we decide it's fine to use the shorthand for the company, and we will help the readers who encounter that to navigate faster. This is a fairly arbitrary choice of which contingent of readers to assist more. --Joy (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, my opinion has not changed since the last one I participated in. And also there have been 2 previous move requests since then on this page, both having been closed the same way. That to me suggests that this isn't likely to get much support. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per many of the above comments. The term "Disney" in 2024 (or really any time in the last 20+ years) almost always is in reference to the company, not its founder. 05:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessintime (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose, I agree with  SMcCandlish and InfiniteNexus. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Oppose I am late to this discussion but I would also like to register my opinion against such a rename. "Disney" commonly refers to the corporation and this is completely compatible with the article having the name "The Walt Disney Company" as a natural disambiguation and as the name that is more technically correct and legally. The disambiguation page for Disney is really only necessary for other secondary and tertiary meanings of the term and that includes the company's founder who is rarely mentioned compared to the company itself ... without taking anything away from his accomplishments or historic importance. Jorahm (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RM has been closed, so no further !votes can be cast. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney_(disambiguation)&oldid=1211672566"