Jump to content

Talk:Vans (disambiguation)

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

Requested move 30 August 2022

[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.

result:
No consensus. Strong args in both camps and yet after more than a month and two relists, still see no agreement below to make these changes. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new rationales, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to rename these pages. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PLURALPT there is no clear primary topic, the brand gets more views (15,024) than the vehicle (12,174) and the name has 15[[1]]. By long-term significance the vehicle would clearly be primary. Category:Vans and Commons:Category:Vans are about the vehicle and Commons has the brand at Commons:Category:Vans (brand) but Vans (company) may be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. There are eight entries listed upon the Vans (disambiguation) page [nine, if Vans Valley (disambiguation), which lists two entries, is counted for both], with no indication that the shoe and apparel company has left such an oversize imprint upon history as to dwarf the notability of the remaining seven (or eight) entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very clearly the very commonly used plural of the very common vehicle is as primary as the brand if not more so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly not as commonly as windows. Who on Earth would search for van by typing "vans"? No such user (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • By 1 criteria the brand is primary and by the other the vehicle is primary. A DAB at the base name is the best compromise for our readers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's what WP:PLURALPT explicitly addresses: Since normally users can be expected to search/link for/to topics using the singular form, searching/linking with a plural form is likely to be for a topic named with the plural form, when applicable. Example: Queens, the New York City borough, is the primary topic for the plural form of "queen". Still, there is no evidence that anyone is inconvenienced by the current setup. For the setup you propose, everyone looking for the brand would be. No such user (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • At the top PLURALPT says the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular and the 2nd part of the point you quoted says At the same time, since readers and editors expect plural redirects, Parachutes is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the device rather than being about the Coldplay album. which I added in response to the queens example, see talk. This is less than what's being asked here in that no primary topic rather than Chairs, Cars and Parachutes. Readers and editors expect plural forms to redirect to the singular so even those looking for the brand will at least expect it to be disambiguated. Unlike My My My! where only the song could be meant this is clearly ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • You omitted a significant class of exceptions from that very same paragraph: the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form. Even your own evidence of pageviews (15000 for Vans, 12000 for van) suggests that this is the case here, and that this is no different than the Queens vs queen example. PLURALPT specifically advises considering the choice on case-by-case basis: Using a plural as a separate primary topic is not specifically encouraged or discouraged; this page only describes the conditions where it is appropriate to do so. Personally, I would be surprised if Chairs, Cars and Parachutes would lead to a brand or an artwork. But Vans is a big enough household brand that justifies being a separate primary topic, such as Snickers or Skechers. No such user (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't buy the "look how many entries on the dab page" argument, when none of them is actually called just "Vans". It took me a while to even realize it's a plural of van and I can't figure out why would anyone search for it like that. It's a worldwide apparel brand, and everything else on the dab page dwarfs it by pageviews and importance. No such user (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not really seeing the WP:ASTONISHMENT factor here. This is one of those cases where the plural form of a word has a meaning more used than the actual plural form of the word that represents the singular version. That, and I think No such user hit the nail on the head for any other issues I could mention with this move. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: For what it's worth though, I went ahead and created Vans (brand) as a redirect towards Vans per the valid point the nominator makes. A reader may arrive on the English Wikipedia from Wikimedia Commons and expect the title "Vans (brand)" to get them somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those cases where the plural form of a word has a meaning more used than the actual plural form of the word that represents the singular version. Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. There's a van sales place just down the road from my house. Guess what they sell? Vans! No, not shoes, but commercial vehicles. The plural is incredibly commonly seen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have agreed with this statement like 10–20 years ago, but that's not really the case anymore, especially considering that in the automotive industry, the line of distinction between an SUV and a van has become so blurry that most vehicle manufacturers have stopped manufacturing their van models but still make SUVs. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely, definitely not the case in the UK (or, indeed, in the rest of Europe), where "van" is the common name for any commercial vehicle smaller than a lorry and vans are seen everywhere. Pretty much every tradesman has one and courier companies, the Royal Mail, etc, have large fleets of them. See Van#United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd never heard of the brand until I came across the WP article though I did see someone a week or so ago wearing a "Vans" shirt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom—blindlynx 00:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per jaw-dropping amazement. Good grief. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:PLURALPT, just like Planters does not redirect to flowerpot, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the proposal is not that Vans should redirect to Van, but should be a disambiguation page. The shoe brand is simply not the primary topic for this word, but it is not being suggested that the plural of the vehicle is. Given the notability of both, there is no primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If somebody types "Vans", they are certainly looking for the Vans brand, not the article for the vehicle, or they would've searched "van". For the few who do end up inadvertently on the Vans page, there is a header at the top of the article to redirect them to the vehicle van page--directly--plus a link to the disambiguation page. The direct link to the vehicle page from the Vans article serves as just as many clicks for users inadvertently looking for the vehicle page as it would if "Vans" were a disambiguation page; however, making it a disambiguation page would add an extra click for the people who were looking for the Vans article all along. It's 1) entirely unnecessary for those looking for the vehicle page because there is a clear link for the vehicle at the top of the Vans article (serving the exact purpose landing on a disambiguation page would serve), and 2) adds an extra click and detracts from the experience for people who were looking for the Vans page. -- Spongeworthy93 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm very surprised there are users who think this is astonishing. Vans is not a lowly-viewed article, especially compared to Vans (disambiguation). It's even viewed more than Van! What proof is there that people searching it don't want this article? None, IMO. A DAB page would be a clear roadblock. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PLURALPT. Vans could refer to van. cookie monster 755 03:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "Vans" is too common a word, and some people are assuming that everyone would know that brand (I didn't know there is a brand of shoes called Vans until very recently, it is not the primary topic. Hzh (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vans can refer to many subjects, the Vans brand is not the most common.Plasamas (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:No such user - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per August 2022 WikiNav clickstream data. Despite the prominent placement of Van in the hatnote of Vans, almost no clicks go from Vans to Van. Those at "Vans" are not looking for the vehicle, and those looking for the vehicle are not at "Vans". Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom. I am not convinced by the counterexamples provided. For example, there is no article for the singular snicker, which redirects to laughter, so it makes sense for the company to be at Snickers. Very few people actually search for the singular "snicker" (5 a month per [2]). Even fewer would search for the plural expecting the form of laughter. Vpab15 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vans_(disambiguation)&oldid=1241376719"