Talk:Planters

Mr. Peanut

Shouldn't this section include information from Mr. Peanut's wikipage? I think what is there currently, talking about Mr. Peanut in Hong Kong internet culture, is interesting, but should be on the Mr. Peanut page as "In Popular Culture".

File:Planters02.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Planters02.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 27 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Re. "discontinued for being too delicious"

Why is there a revert war going on over obvious vandalism? Granted, the vandalism has been on the article for over 2 years (original edit was [1] and not found until [2]), and the vandalism did make it into several news articles and blogs, but vandalism is vandalism, and this is an encyclopedia. If you have evidence that this product was indeed "discontinued for being too delicious", please provide relevant citations/references. 71.83.121.138 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was me; I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Sorry! Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Planters/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It doesn't tell you what "a peanut shaped cookie or wafer filled with sweet peanut butter" was named or when exactly it would released and discontinued. 76.108.158.105 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2020

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 to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Planters → Planters (company) – WP:ASTONISH, by long term significance if anything many of the terms titled in the singular would be primary if anything. See similar cases like Bones, Bookends, Cars, Cats, Parachutes and Pixies which no only does the specific meanings not take precedence, the general meanings do. I propose that like Dockers, Cuts and Threads we redirect "Planters" to Planter per WP:DABCOMBINE since there are quite a few meanings that would be on both DAB pages if split. While its true that per WP:PLURALPT users can be expected to use the singular more often they are still full matches and anyway it gives the examples of Cars and Bookends redirecting to the singular named article. Also as noted in the Bookends, Suites, Dockers and Peanuts discussions (and probably others) we can't distinguish between "planters" and "Planters" since the 1st letter is always capitalized in titles even though we can with the likes of Common sense and Common Sense. When I Google "Planters" all the results are for flowerpots. An Images search also similarly returns nothing but flowerpots, a Books search returns some of the topics listed in "Common meanings" as well as the likes of New England Planters again nothing for the company. By PT#2 the company would clearly not be primary. Farmer gets 17,946 views compared to the company's 16,685, Colonization's 12,771 and Plantation's 11,290[[3]]. In the category namespace Category:Planters is about one of the Plantation meanings and on Commons Commons:Category:Planters is about the plant meaning with the company under Commons:Category:Planters (company). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calidum 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mild support, simply by WP:PLURAL. I get it; in other countries Planters may not be a thing, but it's a relatively well-known company in America. Still, I would be very interested in pageview statistics. Red Slash 02:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. There are four WP articles/redirects actually titled "Planter": Planter (farm implement), Planter (plantation owner), Planter (American South), and Planter, Georgia. Planters gets more pageviews than those articles combined. When you add the WP:PLURALPT preference for singular titles, the company article has established a separate primarytopic for the plural form. Dohn joe (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  Remember that redirects naturally get less views than articles (of which the 2nd and 3rd are) but the 4th doesn't appear to compete. But indeed we don't know either way how many people are searching via this term but the Google searches and PT#2 suggest no clear PT at least. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious primary redirect to Planter, no matter how well-known the company is (and not just in America). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. Again, raw Google results are not useful or instructive here. The question is "is someone who wants to know about the antebellum Southern aristocracy going to look that up via "Planters"? About the only case I can imagine is someone interested in flowerpots looking that up with "Planters", but Flowerpot doesn't really get that many hits at all, and 1/4 the number of hits for this article on the company. SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You do know that planters didn't just exist in the American South? They also existed in many areas of the British Empire and it's a very common historical term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, absolutely. I was solely using that article as an example. For other articles on this meaning of "planters" - is someone interested in people who manage a plantation, or farmers in general, going to investigate this encyclopedic topic with the term "planters?" I find this highly doubtful, myself. I could see them using "planter" perhaps but it's not a term that you'd just casually use in the plural when talking about the topic, which I will at least grant the "flowerpots" meaning of being true of. (You will see it in normal running text English of course, which is what Crouch, Swale's results turned up, but that's different than "title of the encyclopedic topic.") SnowFire (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:PLURALPT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:18, 20 February 2020 (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.

WP:NOPRIMARY agrees with WP:PLURALPT

The above move discussion did not pay attention to the NO:PRIMARY guideline. "Planters were" 180,000 "..planters is..". Gbooks indicates that planters means planters in most sources: planters + peanut 36,400 vs planters - peanut 49,600,000. Indifferent as to where planters redirects per WP:PRIMARYRED, as long as the title passes WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:PLURALPT says this:

Since most articles (like Chair) are at the singular, the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular. For instance, Chairs is a redirect page, which takes readers directly to Chair. For the rare articles that are in the plural, like Seattle Seahawks, there should normally be a redirect from the singular form (Seattle Seahawk). Such redirects can bear their respective templates, as well: {R from plural} or {R to plural}.

Why wasn't that applied? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2020

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: No consensus for this move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Planters → Planters (company) – GBooks indicates overwhelmingly that the primary topics of planters is planter, per WP:PLURALPT "most articles (like Chair) are at the singular, the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular". In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutral on the various options for coping with planters once the company is moved, but the company clearly is not Primary Topic for the plural. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It should probably redirect to the singular DAB page per WP:DABCOMBINE since most topics there are countable there would otherwise be nearly all entries duplicated on both DAB pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ASTONISH and my previous arguments, I agree with Dohn joe and SnowFire that the company is probably the most likely search target but I don't see how it clearly passes primary topic (in particular long-term significance) when as noted nether Google nor Images and Books return anything for the company, when in doubt its safest to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. While consensus can change, this is the same request as eight months ago with no additional reasoning behind it. This is a case where a plural form establishes a primary topic. -- Calidum 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Calidum, did you not see the previous section? I will repaste it

The above move discussion did not pay attention to the NO:PRIMARY guideline. "Planters were" 180,000 "..planters is..". Gbooks indicates that planters means planters in most sources: planters + peanut 36,400 vs planters - peanut 49,600,000.

(1) There was no consensus (2) there is additional reasoning WP:PLURALPT which was misread last time, (3) @Calidum: you failed to provide any reasoning last time "Oppose. Calidum 18:51, 18 February 2020" (4) @Calidum: you have failed to provide any reasoning this time other than linking to WP:PLURALPT which you have again misread. Please look at the the guideline WP:PLURALPT, please look at GBooks and then please explain why GBooks "Planters is" test is wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

So basically, you disagree with the previous outcome. Got it. -- Calidum 18:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm merely pointing out that (1) There was no consensus (2) there is additional reasoning WP:PLURALPT which was misread last time, (3) you failed to provide any reasoning last time "Oppose. Calidum 18:51, 18 February 2020" (4) you have failed to provide any reasoning this time other than linking to WP:PLURALPT which you have again misread. This is reality, it's there in bytes above. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per myself earlier this year......(fade to flashback)....... Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. There are four WP articles/redirects actually titled "Planter": Planter (farm implement), Planter (plantation owner), Planter (American South), and Planter, Georgia. Planters gets more pageviews than those articles combined. When you add the WP:PLURALPT preference for singular titles, the company article has established a separate primarytopic for the plural form. Dohn joe (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Dohn joe (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Dohn joe - two questions: 1. what is the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?

2. based on clicking the links above, what does "planters" overwhelmingly mean in GNews and GBooks? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, In ictu.

1. Long-term significance. Planters is 114 years old, an iconic, well-known provider of peanuts. Its Mr. Peanut advertising character, introduced in 1917, "had become the symbol for the entire peanut industry" by the mid-1930s. Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. There are dozens of books on Planters collectibles over the decades - see Planters Peanut Collectibles, 1906-1961, 1999. Planters has plenty of long-term significance.
2. Google news for "planters" shows an even split between the company, flower pots, and a movie. Google books for "planters" shows an even split between farmers and "church planters". Dohn joe (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

DohnJoe, Well thanks for answering but

Q1. wouldn't you agree that for Long-term significance. plantation planters are several 1000 years old, an iconic, well-known profession around the world and more notable even in American sources than a peanut company in America?

Q2. Reality check here - am I going crazy? or does Planters Peanuts not sponsor GBook searches outside the US? Can some other editor confirm to Dohnjoe that his seach link Google books for "planters" does not show a 33% 33% 33% spit for the US Peanut company, flower pots and a move and 0% results for actual planters. I don't know if this is a cookie issue, that Dohnjoe's cookies are producing that reading, but logged out my search results are dominated by books about plantations, agriculture, in short "planters". Can another editor comment and confirm to Dohnjoe that his search doesn't produce 50%+ results for the peanut company or anything like it.

Another non-US based editor please search and comment In ictu oculi (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

When I click on the News results link I only get 1 result for the company, its probably partly due to you're location that you get more for the company and indeed Books doesn't show anything for the company so I'm not sure what you're trying to show there? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I was just answering In ictu's questions, but apparently they didn't read carefully - as you saw, I didn't say anything about peanut company results in Google Books, just in News. My main point was in #1, to show that the company itself does have plenty of long-term significance. That, plus a clear pageview advantage, equals primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. You're right - but it was confusing as you obviously got US news results, and hence got am image of your US News cookies, where you got 33% for the company in US News. But in UK-Ireland news there was not a mention of the US company, why would there be? I presume that European, Australian, African, Indian, Asian, news would also not get your 33% of US News cookies. I now get it that you say GBooks produced no trace of the US company, which is the the same as non-US GBook searchers are getting. So I guess the issue here is why the rest of the world should submit to 33% of US News results for US editors and readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per previous RM. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I cast my vote as such due to the fact brackets should only be used in titles as a disambiguation and not in a single usage like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameshowandsportsfan2007 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Brackets are appropriate when an article isn't the primary topic and there aren't any other sufficiently common alternatives such as English language. It could potentially be moved to Planters Nut & Chocolate Company or Planter Nut & Chocolate Co. but is that only part of the company? since Planter Nut & Chocolate Co. currently is in several categories its self? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• In the interest of full disclosure, this was improperly closed and I have reopened it [4]. -- Calidum 17:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Calidum, Gameshowandsportsfan2007 only joined Wikipedia 31 October 2020‎. Yes Planters Nut & Chocolate Company would be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support clearly not the WP:primarytopic that said i don't care what we move it to. Moreover, the case that that an american company is the primary topic not a common object reeks of WP:BIAS. blindlynx (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mr Peanut Sculpture on Bench at Atlantic City 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Phone number

Do you know the number listed on the Peanut bag is WRONG!!! It goes to a Power Company instead of you....not good... 140.186.162.171 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)