Jump to content

Talk:Amazon (company)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2003:71:4e16:4b74:71a3:7d52:c37d:2ef1 (talk) at 00:02, 24 February 2018 (→Online vs. offline delivery profits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Net income inconsistent

The operating income is listed as $178MM in the red. The net income is listed as -$241MM in the red. I think that if the net income is negative $241MM it should just show $241MM in the red, not -$241MM in the red. ((subst:unsigned2|11:20, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)|Timmattison}}

Problem

Hey clicking on the page in the article forwards you to gnaa.press, this needs fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.102.153 (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly

Amazon has been accused by several experts, news organizations and the President of the United States of being a monopoly. I think this is enough scrutiny to warrant a few decent paragraphs in the controversy section of the article. Since the talk about Amazon being a monopoly is so widespread, I implore you to search 'Amazon monopoly' on Google News. --JT2958 (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Trump's comments are more related to Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post than anything related to monopolies. If an anti-trust case is filed, obviously it will be relevant. Without one, it's merely speculation. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews

Regarding this paragraph:

Following the listing of Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson, a disparaging biography of Michael Jackson by Randall Sullivan, his fans, organized via social media as "Michael Jackson's Rapid Response Team to Media Attacks", bombarded Amazon with negative reviews and negative ratings of positive reviews.

I believe that it is too trivial to be included in this article. It has a small spot in the more comprehensive Amazon.com_controversies, but I see no reason why it would hold any significance here. The section in question is long enough and already contains a link to the full article. It doesn't need mention of a few negative reviews on a book from 2013. 72.196.125.111 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support the removal from this article; it's not notable enough here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2017

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: No consensus.The arguments from both the sides balance out.A new RM may be launched with a proposal to set Amazon (company) as the destined move-target.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com → Amazon (online retailer) – At this point, it's not just referred to as "Amazon.com" anymore. Today, Amazon encompasses a variety of products made by Amazon themselves, putting them on par with companies like Apple and Google and becoming more than just that online retailer we all knew in the 1990s and 2000s. I realize I put "online retailer" in parentheses, but I cannot think of a better description to put in there; please comment if you think something else should be in the parentheses. But the bottom line is: ".com" has to go. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on move rationale

FF-UK (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Well, the company's American website. I am not really sure what I think of this proposal (if Amazon.com is the company name, it may be the most suitable title after all), but over here in Europe we definitely don't call it "Amazon.com", nor do [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] refer to it as such "all over" them. I just don't like country-centrism. LjL (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any argument about the fact that plain Amazon would be a better title if it were available. But since it's not available, there is a choice between the actual name of the company or an artificial parenthetical qualifier that we make up. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but many people prefer natural disambiguation when available, per WP:NCDAB. In addition, four of the websites cited are in foreign languages, which we normally don't consider on English WP. And technically speaking, the UK web site is of an affiliate; it states "The Amazon.co.uk website ... is part of the Amazon group and is ultimately owned by Amazon.com, Inc., ... The Amazon.co.uk website is operated by Amazon EU Sarl, a Luxembourg-based entity". The actual name of the parent company is the same wherever you live in the world, even though wherever you live in the world, you probably call it just plain Amazon. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LjL "country-centrism" has nothing to do with it! A) because Amazon.com is the name of the company which is the subject of the article. B) because ".com" has NO country connotations, it is open to all, eg: britishairways.com and rolls-royce.com and bp.com and rbs.com. (.us is the American TLD, not .com!) As for what non-US Amazon websites call it, check the bottom line of any Amazon website, you will see Amazon.com there. Please stick to the facts, the most important of which is that the company name is Amazon.com FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What a subject is officially named is less important that was it's commonly called — and I must agree with the nominator that the company is indeed much more commonly known simply as Amazon (e.g.). Our disambiguation guidelines allow for either natural disambiguation using a less common form or parenthetical disambiguation, and in this case I favor the parenthetical form for its clarity and better reflection of common usage. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for Amazon (company) Investor relations are a bad example because of their intentionally formal writing style. Amazon commonly refers to themselves as just Amazon instead of Amazon.com. Here are some examples:
Furthermore, like Huw said, it's perfectly acceptable to use the common name rather than the company's official name, and people undoubtedly call it Amazon more often than Amazon.com. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Oppose (switched to Support, see below) – From a "gut feeling" standpoint, I would say that the WP:COMMONNAME is just "Amazon". However, when checking diverse sources, "Amazon.com" is still in wide use. Besides, we need a disambiguator to distinguish from the Amazon river, and "Amazon.com" is as good as "Apple Inc." – we don't have "Apple (electronics manufacturer)". However, if the move is approved, I would suggest "Amazon (retailer)" rather than "Amazon (online retailer)". — JFG talk 04:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be OK using just "retailer". ╠╣uw [talk] 18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Common use is a credible reason, as already noted. Just scan the headlines at the Associated Press, the BBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or practically any other major source: they principally refer to the company simply as Amazon. However, since that term by itself is ambiguous, we have to choose between natural or parenthetical disambiguation. I see the reasons for wanting to go with the existing Amazon.com, but I also see why it's not ideal. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be logical! If you enter Amazon by itself you will reach the appropriate disambiguation page, so there is not a problem. This silly request comes up regularly (here, here, here and here) and it is always rejected. Why are we wasting our time? FF-UK (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not illogical to note that Amazon.com isn't a great title for this article, given that it's demonstrably not how sources refer to the company. Since disambiguation of some kind is required in this case, the question is simply one of natural versus parenthetical.
I dislike "Amazon.com" because it's out of step with common usage, and (in part because of that) could confusingly suggest the article is simply about only the domain or website-based portions of the company's diverse operations.
I like "Amazon (online retailer)" because it correctly conveys that the company is simply called "Amazon" — which per an enormous abundance of reliable sources, it is. The clarifier also makes it clear that the article is about the larger organization, not just a website. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp This is a completely invalid argument, this is NOT about URLs, it is about the name of the company, and that is Amazon.com FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:COMMONNAME is now an invalid argument?! Okaaayyy... -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp Please respect the truth and do not distort the comments of others! It is your reference to URLs that is invalid, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. There is absolutely nothing in WP:COMMONNAME that suggests that there is a problem with the current name of the article. If you cannot be honest, be silent. FF-UK (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the arrogant, insulting manner. And please don't accuse an experienced editor of dishonesty again. If you don't think that COMMONNAME means we should use the common name (i.e. Amazon) then I wonder what you think it does say? My mention of URLs was merely pointing out that it isn't commonly known as Amazon.com, since in countries outside the US it doesn't even use that URL, let alone that name (which it doesn't even commonly use in the US). Obvious, I should have thought.-- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly pointed out, "Amazon" is not a valid name for this article because it has many other meanings, and most of those existed long before Amazon.com came into existence in 1994. Therefore the article must be called something else - that is not debateable. It ought to be obvious that the sensible name is the actual name of the company, which is what the article is titled at present. I have yet to see a single argument that Amazon.com is in any way inconsistent with WP policy, all I see is a lot of nonsense from people who cannot get past the fact that the actual name of the company includes ".com". FF-UK (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FF-UK: The argument from Wikipedia policy (once again) is that COMMONNAME doesn't support Amazon.com since that's not how it's commonly known, as evidence from reliable sources shows. The infrequently-used official name is not our only title alternative; we can adopt a parenthetical form like "Amazon (company)" which both reflects common usage (people call it Amazon) and indicates which meaning of the ambiguous term "Amazon" the article is about (the company). ╠╣uw [talk] 10:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
╠╣uw [talk] That is a remarkably narrow and highly selective reading of COMMONNAME which shows the same lack of honesty as is being demonstrated by so many other proponents of this ridiculous suggestion! Let me take you through what COMMONNAME actually says:
"A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:"
"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." "Amazon.com" clearly fits that description perfectly.
"Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." There is no dispute that "Amazon" is a natural title, but as it is unavailable, then that is a moot point! What matters is that there is nothing "unnatural" about the actual name of the company.
"Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." "Amazon.com" meets that criterion exactly. "Amazon (company)" does not. (There are many Amazon companies, quite a few of which have articles about them on WP.)
"Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." There have been NO suggestions of titles which are shorter than "Amazon.com".
"Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." "Amazon.com" is fully consistent with other titles of articles which are about campanies with ".com" as part of their name, a few examples: Ancestry.com, JD.com, ASOS.com, salesforce.com, lastminute.com, Booking.com, Hotels.com, Priceline.com
"These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice." That "simple and obvious title" is the one already in use. FF-UK (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FF-UK: I understand you feel strongly on this matter, but others are not being "dishonest" or "ridiculous" to propose and fairly consider alternatives to your preferred title. Please assume good faith and be polite to your fellow editors.
As to COMMONNAME, nearly all its listed goals support a parenthetical title like "Amazon (company)" as well or better than "Amazon.com":
  • Recognizable — Yes, arguably more so than Amazon.com, based on usage in reliable sources.
  • Natural — Yes, again more so than Amazon.com per reliable sources.
  • Precise — Yes: the title makes it clear that the article encompasses the whole company; the current URL-based name might inappropriately suggest it's about only the website or operations related to it.
  • Concise — Yes. Whether we add ".com" or "company", both titles are quite brief. Remember too that conciseness isn't simply about being as short as possible; "Amazon (company)" is both short and clear.
I'm not saying that Amazon.com is wrong or unacceptable, just that (as shown before) it's out of step with common usage, and that a parenthetical is as good or better in most respects. ╠╣uw [talk] 07:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
╠╣uw [talk] Why should I assume "good faith" when "good faith" is notably absent from both the reason given for the suggested change, and many of the false arguments put forward in support of a change? This has nothing to do with any preference I may have, but everything to do with the anonymous IP editor who has put forward a move request which is not based on fact. The reason given is: "At this point, it's not just referred to as "Amazon.com" anymore.", this is patently untrue! It is an obvious falsehood as is clearly demonstrated by the following recent references from reliable sources: Amazon.com announced Thursday that it is seeking a second North American headquarters, Better Buy: Amazon.com, Inc. vs Google, With Amazon.com looking for giant new HQ, Bay Area raises hand, Former Amazon.com analyst pleads guilty to insider trading, Forbes The World's Most Innovative Companies #3 Amazon.com, Amazon.com @amazon Official Twitter of Amazon.com, Amazon.com delivers price cut promise as it completes Whole Foods takeover, FTC clears Amazon.com purchase of Whole Foods.
Your comment "the current URL-based name might inappropriately suggest it's about only the website" is a very obvious distortion, the current title of the article is the actual name of the company, suggesting that it just refers to the URL is deliberately misleading on your part!
I suggest that you actually read WP:CRITERIA again, it very clearly states that "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", that means exactly "being as short as possible" despite your false claim. Honesty IS important, and claims to the contrary are completely against the ethos of WP. FF-UK (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FF-UK: I don't think anyone's literally suggesting that the company's never referred to as Amazon.com. The point is simply that it's referred to far more frequently simply as Amazon, as we can see from a survey of all the relevant articles at a host of major reliable sources.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
As for the conciseness criterion, yes: it says that it shouldn't be longer than necessary to identify the article's subject, but that identification must at the same time be clear. Given that the subject is all of Amazon, the title "Amazon.com" has at the potential to be problematic — particularly since (as others have noted) people in the UK and elsewhere don't even know the website as amazon.com (but rather as amazon.co.uk). ╠╣uw [talk] 10:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
╠╣uw [talk] You just keep repeating the same disinformation! I have never disputed that "Amazon" is a common name for the company, but it is not available, so no point in going on about it! Likewise, referring to the website URL is also just disinformation, the article is not named for the US website. It is named after the subject of the article, a company called "Amazon.com" (that is the WHOLE company, not just some part of it). As a UK citizen, I have no difficulty at all recognizing that simple fact, and the WP article title cannot be expected to cater for the ignorance of a few folk who are unaware that there is more to Amazon than a shopping website in their own home country. The article actually does a pretty good job of explaining what Amazon.com consists of, that is its job, it is not enough to just read a title and expect to understand the entire subject! What is clear, beyond dispute, is that WP:NCDAB states "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". FF-UK (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per the reasons stated above, and I would point out that with time the name will likely move farther away from being called Amazon.com as it opens brick-and-mortar stores and enters other industries. If it wasn't competing with the river, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrrho the Skeptic This is a completely invalid argument relying on baseless speculation! The name of the company is still Amazon.com FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Amazon (retailer) (switched from Mild Oppose; see above) – I digged a little deeper in searches, removing false positives on the online stores themselves and sticking to news for a clearer picture of current usage. Compare a search on "amazon.com" (1.2 million hits) with a search on "amazon" and "retail" (1.9 million hits). Notice how almost all titles of press articles only say "Amazon" or one of their services ("Amazon Prime", "Amazon Hub", etc.), not "Amazon.com". This fact swings the pendulum towards the WP:COMMONNAME being just "Amazon". As mentioned earlier, the disambiguator "(retailer)" is sufficient, especially given Amazon's recent expansion into physical stores. — JFG talk 14:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too would be fine with just Amazon (retailer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid argument, Amazon.com is far MORE than a retailer! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do like claiming people you don't agree with have invalid arguments! It is, but it's still primarily known as a retailer. Amazon (company) would also be fine. Or are you now going to claim it isn't a company either? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most people (in the United States) refer to the company as Amazon, so Amazon (retailer) would be a better name. Andrewwiki (talk) 9:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Amazon.com is far MORE than a retailer! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Most preferable to typing the whole proposed title with wordy disambiguating phrase or "(retailer)". Also, what about 1000+ users (go to Gadgets tab of user preferences for stats) who disable the dropdown list of search suggestions? Multiple news articles may use "Amazon", but others also use "Amazon.com". Also, books use "Amazon.com", like one about big data and others about Amazon.com. Scholarly articles also use Amazon.com. Rather than rely on what just numbers say, we must dig deep into different types of media, like news articles, books, and scholarly articles. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, the simple target here would actually be Amazon (company) (currently also redirects to our article), since Amazon is unavailable but "online retailer" appears to be too inaccurate for our purpose (they are much more than that), and company would generalize that. However, how would we benefit from this move? The .com already serves as a natural disamibguator (like in Apple Inc. or Valve Corporation), a depictive disambiguator would have the same effect. Furthermore, as was correctly stated by vaarious others, Amazon.com, Inc. is still the company's legal name, and amazon.com their web address. Lordtobi (✉) 07:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Nobody knows Amazon as Amazon.com even if that is the official name. Amazon also refers to themselves as Amazon without the .com . Common usage should have preference over official company name that noone knows about, those can be in the article. I think (retailer) is best than (online retailer) because amazon owns brick stores now like that one supermarket without cashiers. -Talianos「talk」 08:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
>Talianos Please do not make completely false statements when voting! It is clearly ridiculous to claim that "Nobody knows Amazon as Amazon.com". FF-UK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
>FF-UK Please do not take every single word that people say literally. Nobody doesnt mean 100%, but almost nobody. It is a figure of speech. -Talianos「talk」 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for Amazon (company) Amazon is much much bigger than "online retailer" or "retailer" (Video/movies production,Advertising network,IMDb, Whole Foods acquisition,collection points, AWS etc.). I agree with nominator that Amazon.com is outdated and we should change, but I think we should go for Amazon (company).Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jone Rohne Nester As long as the name of the company which this article describes is Amazon.com, then it is plainly ridiculous to suggest that "Amazon.com" is an outdated name for the article, it IS what the article is about! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FF-UK Amazon.com refers to a WEBSITE, however this article is not about the website, but about Amazon company. It's a big difference, so you are absolutely wrong saying that this article is about Amazon.com; it's not - it's about the company, not the website. Outlook.com - is a good example, article is about the WEBSITE and is named accordingly,- with gTLD .comJone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aditshah00 That is absolutely untrue, the name of the company remains Amazon.com. FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shivertimbers433 That is a completely irrelevant comment as "simply Amazon, sans the .com" is NOT an available name. FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with Amazon (online retailer). Amazon is not only in the retail business and this name is quite inaccurate (consider AWS for example). Neutral for now with the rest of suggestions. Taha (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support '(update)' creation of parent and subsidiary style similar to that of Alphabet Inc. and Google where 'Amazon.com, Inc.' would refer to the parent company and 'Amazon (online retailer)' would refer to the specific online retail part of the company. This would merely mean separating online retail from the 'Amazon.com' page into its own article, this would then fit in with the 'Amazon.com' template: Template:Amazon and align with how Google/Alphabet and Apple have been presented on Wikipedia. TGB13 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TGB13 That is irrelevant as that is not the subject of the requested move. FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FF-UK On the contrary sir, please see this quote from the original request: 'please comment if you think something else should be in the parentheses. But the bottom line is: ".com" has to go'. I have commented something else I think should be in the parenthesis, it also fits the 'bottom line' of the request of ".com" having to go. Now, do you have an opinion on my proposal? As far as I'm aware it makes sense as it is already in use in other contexts. TGB13 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as 'online retailer' is not an accurate description of the company. Amazon (company) or similar accurate description, I would be ok with. Though I think it's fine now. Isenta (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, though I believe it really should be Amazon (company), as Amazon (online retailer) is just bizarre. The main company's legal name may well be Amazon.com, Inc., and that should be indicated inside the article, but that is definitely not the most common name anywhere, and particularly not in Europe, where Amazon is accessed through TLDs that have nothing to do with ".com", and those sites rarely mention "Amazon.com". The fact that "Amazon (company)" or "Amazon (online retailer)" are also not the common names is mostly irrelevant, because parenthetical titles are used in Wikipedia for disambiguation and the parts in parentheses are never really intended as part of the common name. "Amazon.com" could be a suitable natural disambiguation in the United States, perhaps, where "Amazon.com", while not common as "Amazon", may plausibly not be uncommon, but the fact that it's unheard of in Europe just rules it out as a good worldwide candidate. LjL (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LjL Please stick to the facts! "Amazon.com" is the name of the company, this discussion is NOT about URLs or TLDs, but what the company is actually called. "Amazon.com" is absolutely NOT "unheard of in Europe" and is the name which ALWAYS appears at the bottom of EVERY Amazon website, no matter what URL is used, because "Amazon.com" is THE NAME OF THE COMPANY! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a number of "facts", largely involving Wikipedia guidelines on names and how they apply to Amazon. What you seem to be doing above is basically shouting at me, so maybe, don't. To reiterate: the legal name of the company almost approaches irrelevance if it's not the WP:COMMONNAME for most people, and one seriously really tiny mention that the page is "© 2010-2017, Amazon.com, Inc." at the very bottom of EU pages definitely doesn't change that fact int the least. LjL (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Discussion in response to Support. Nobody I know here in Britain calls it Amazon.com. For a start, its URL is Amazon.co.uk here, not Amazon.com. Universally it's just known as Amazon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, Amazon.co.uk is a URL, it is not the name of a company! All orders placed with Amazon by UK customers are handled by a European subsidiary called "Amazon EU Sarl". There is a UK subsidiary, it is called "AMAZON UK SERVICES LTD.", but so what? FF-UK (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody calls it Amazon.com, that's what! Why would they? They call it Amazon. I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it Amazon.com. People say "I bought it on Amazon", not "I bought it on Amazon.com". Ergo WP:COMMONNAME applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BUT, nobody calls it "Amazon (online retailer)" do they? So how could that possibly be better than the actual name of the company "Amazon.com"? (And, your limited experience of what people call it is clearly unrepresentative, as there is so much evidence that people DO call it "Amazon.com" including Amazon.com themselves!) In any case, the article is about ALL of the activities of Amazon.com, not just online retailing! FF-UK (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think possibly you're missing the point that we use common names in article titles and if common names are ambiguous then we use parenthetical disambiguation. Maybe you don't agree with this, but it's been Wikipedia practice for many years. No reason to make an exception here. The fact the company uses it is irrelevant. See WP:OFFICIAL. It's what people commonly call it that's relevant. And, given it's a global business, that's people all over the world, not just in America. And take a look at the British website. Where does it say Amazon.com? Everywhere it just calls itself Amazon. Oh look, that's the same on the American website. Amazon, not Amazon.com (the latter only in the URL). So how on earth can anyone claim that its common name is Amazon.com? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is you who is missing the point and suggest that you check the facts! A google search for the SPECIFIC term "amazon.com" returns over 530 million results, a google search for pages on which both "amazon" and "retail" appear returns only 64 million. "amazon.com" seems like quite a common name to me! FF-UK (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FF-UK: When there's a parenthetical addition to one of our titles, that doesn't mean that people in common usage refer to the subject that way. It's Wikipedia's clarifier, used to distinguish between otherwise identically-named subjects. For example, our article on English poet John Smith is sensibly titled "John Smith (English poet)", a title that makes it clear that the man was known as John Smith, and that he was the John Smith who was an English poet.
The same goes for "Amazon (online retailer)": it correctly conveys that the subject is commonly known as Amazon, and that among our many Amazon articles it's the one about the online retailer. Like the nominator, I'm fine considering better alternatives if anyone has any they prefer. Perhaps just "retailer" would suffice, given that they now operate a handful of brick-and-mortar locations... ╠╣uw [talk] 18:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw - That does not alter the fact that 530 million page references on google provides more than ample evidence that "amazon.com" is very very common! What I have not seen here is any valid reason why any alternative to "amazon.com" would be advantageous. FF-UK (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of those pages simply include links to the website at "amazon.com"? We can't assume that every appearance of the URL counts as the company being referred to primarily as "Amazon.com". (For instance:[13],[14], etc.) ╠╣uw [talk] 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the motivation behind this ridiculous attempt to change the name of the article when the present name is the actual name of the corporation described in the article? The only alternatives suggested refer only to parts of the business, not the whole. FF-UK (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think that the online retailing business is the main or best-known business of the company? Or that it (and the rest of the business) is commonly known simply as Amazon? Or that WP:COMMONNAME, a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, should apply in this instance? Really? That's what I find ridiculous, frankly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I think that WP:COMMONNAME should apply, but that does not alter the fact that, as there are many valid uses of the name "Amazon", and the subject of this article is most certainly NOT the primary use, then "Amazon" is not an available title for this article. Therefore we need disambiguation. Natural disambiguation WP:NATURALDIS is the appropriate method, and the policy requires "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." The formal name "Amazon.com" is not only fully explicit, as it contains the simple term "Amazon", but is also in common use, and thus complies fully with the policy. FF-UK (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a lot of emphasis on retail in this discussion, but I urge editors to note that cloud computing is an increasing part of Amazon.com's total business, representing 10% of Amazon.com sales in the first half of the current year, but 110% of the operating profit in the same period! In other words, Amazon.com would have been a lossmaking corporation were it not for cloud computing. (Also consider the B2B and hardware manufacturing businesses which do not count as retail.) Take note of this CNBC article: "Soon people won't even think of Amazon as a retail company, says analyst"! FF-UK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We could probably go for "Amazon (company)" instead, but that should be raised in a separate move request. We must first decide whether to move away from "Amazon.com" to a parenthetical disambiguator. — JFG talk 09:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my point above. "(online retailer)" is just not the proper disamibugation, and "(company)" would be far more preferable, however, it comes that ".com" is a far more handy natural disasmbiguator, which is far superior to a standard disambiguator (see my examples above). Lordtobi (✉) 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I continue to be amazed by the number of editors who are stating an opinion, but seem unaware that the actual name of the company we are discussing is NOT "Amazon", it is in fact "Amazon.com"! Changing away from that is not going to make it any easier for WP users to find the article, if they type Amazon they will still reach the disambiguation page. As things stand, if anyone searches WP for Amazon (company) or Amazon (retailer) or Amazon.co.uk they will still be taken directly to the Amazon.com page. I have yet to see a logical argument which would support the idea that one of these parenthetical disambiguator names, none of which represent what people actually call the company, is better than the real name. FF-UK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah so you refer to the company as 'Amazon.com' when discussing it in conversation with peers? I, and most others it seems, refer to it as Amazon and all seem to understand perfectly well what we're talking about without using its domain name. The use of parenthesis in the article title clearly isn't what people use when referring to the company, hence why it is in parenthesis. The company is referred to as Amazon, and therefore I feel that's how it should be referred to on Wikipedia, with suitable parenthesis for disambiguation as is used on many articles. I don't think anyone here is disputing the actual company name, it is obviously Amazon.com, I think the dispute lies in how it is and should be referred, an important difference. TGB13 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the point is that, either way we put it, the Wikipedia article title will not exactly line up with common name, as the common name page Amazon is taken. I sure think you wouldn't go up to your friend and say "Hey, what do you think about the Amazon (company) Echo"? Yes, "Amazon.com Echo" is just as incorrect, but the point FF-UK is trying to deliver is that the .com appendix far simplifies the disambiguation process, as it is part of "Amazon.com, Inc." company name. I have given enough reason and examples above with moving this page from one (natural) disambiguator to another (parenthetical) is useless, and actually a bad decision. Think this way: Everyone wanting to find out about the company will either type in "Amazon", "Amazon.com" or "Amazon.[their respective TLD]", all the ones that get the first result will find the river, go for disambiguation, and then land here, while all others will be redirected here. Moving the page would merged option two with option three, as such cause more server traffic (minor, but still), and not help anybody. No one would type out "Amazon (company)" when looking for the article. Lordtobi (✉) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is doubting the ability to navigate to the page, if they are I feel they are missing the point. For me it is a matter of the company being more than Amazon.com, it is Amazon.co.uk etc., its cloud services, Prime, music, film, tv. You are correct, no one refers to it as 'Amazon (company)', but that isn't how parenthesis is used, it is there if it is needed. If someone spoke about 'amazon' you would say 'Which amazon? The river or the company?', this will be what the parenthesis is used for. The common name for the company is most definitely 'Amazon' and not 'Amazon.com', that needs to be reflected on the article in my opinion. The debate isn't about how people are going to find the page, that's been made very simple with lots of redirecting, it's more the fact that some people feel the article title should reflect it's common name, and the parenthesis is there if required. Parenthesis are there as and when required, that's all it would be used for here. The same as the Amazon river article could easily be titled 'Amazon (river)'. TGB13 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will editors please concentrate on FACTS rather than misinformed opinions!
There is a page titled Amazon, it is a disambiguation page which lists no fewer than 67 pages dealing with subjects related to the word "Amazon". Amazon is NOT available as the title of a particular article, and is NOT in use for the article on the river as some people seem to believe, that article is Amazon River.
The page Amazon.com starts with the words: "Amazon.com, Inc., also known as simply Amazon. There can be no possible confusion as to what the page is about, therefore there is NO logical reason to change it.
It is completely normal for the WP articles about major corporations to have the company's formal name as the article title, sometimes followed by a "commonly known as" comment in the first part of the lede. Some examples:
Volkswagen Group - but we refer to them simply as VW.
Royal Dutch Shell "commonly known as Shell".
Apple Inc. - but we refer to them simply as Apple.
CVS Health - but we refer to them simply as CVS.
General Motors "commonly known as GM".
Ford Motor Company "commonly referred to simply as Ford".
General Electric - but we refer to them simply as GE.
TGB13 writes: "For me it is a matter of the company being more than Amazon.com", but that is absolute nonsense. Amazon.com Inc. IS the name of the public corporation, all other businesses and companies in the Amazon group are subsidiary to Amazon.com. Clearly an article titled Amazon (online retailer) would exclude many parts of Amazon.com, as would Amazon (retailer). An article entitled Amazon (company) would not indicate WHICH of the many Amazon companies it was about! (Bear in mind that there are already many other articles which deal with specific parts of the Amazon empire). Those that prefer the "company" disambiguator should bear in mind that it would only be a reasonable and accurate title if it were Amazon.com (company), but that would also be an entirely pointless exercise. Please do not keep making facile attempts to fix something which is not broken! FF-UK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in continuing this discussion when valid points are ignored and instead certain points are cherry picked to be pulled apart. No one is 'confused', we all know what the article starts with, we all know the actual name of the company, we all know we can just type in near enough anything into the search page and we will be redirected to the page. But again these points continue to be used and valid points are ignored. It is merely a case of using the company's common name rather than official name, which in fact, is preferred by Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Which also gives many examples of articles named after their common names rather than their official names, to balance your examples of formal names over common names. Nevertheless, the point about the differences between Amazon as a company and its various subsidiaries is probably the most important here, and that's where I feel my opinion has changed, so I present the following compromise: would it make sense to follow the system used for Google and Alphabet Inc. on Wikipedia? So 'Amazon.com, Inc.' would be the equivalent of 'Alphabet' and therefore describing the parent company, then create a page to describe the online retail subsidiary in the same way other subsidiaries have their own pages such as Amazon Echo etc. It does feel strange that Amazon Echo has its own page, yet Amazon online retail doesn't and is instead combined in the parent company page. That system has worked successfully for Google's evolution, I feel it would work well for Amazon's too. TGB13 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline

Since this discussion is getting out of hand, I would like to summarize the following key points which sould be regarded for this discussion:

  • This discussion focuses on the proposed move to "Amazon (online retailer)", not "Amazon (company)" or anything similar. From my comments above, you should know that Amazon has more business than just online retail (such as operating AWS, developing and producing Echo/Alexa, providing music and video streaming services, printing books and serving as book publishing service, digital games market, etc., etc.), wherefore company would be a better parenthetical disambiguator, if one had to be chosen. However, if you prefer the "not 'online retailer'" option, you should keep in mind that this discussion focuses on 'online retailer' and as such you should oppose this proposal and wait for a discussion on "Amazon (company)" that will likely follow up once this discussion is closed.
  • Fact is: the company's legal name is Amazon.com, Inc., however fact is also that the common name for the company is simply Amazon, this pointed out in the lead and should, from my knowledge, be common consensus, regardless of region and respective top-level domain. I doubt that anyone, neither British, nor American, nor German, usually refers to the company by "Amazon.com" or its full, legal name. @FF-UK: It appears that the legal name is your primary argument, and I agree that it plays a role, but it should not go against WP:COMMONNAME in te way you put it.
  • The problem: The page Amazon is already occupied (I would have said by the river, but I were corrected and have cecked since that it is actually a disambiguation page). This means that we have to decide between a natural disambiguator and a parenthetical disambiguator. Both actually have about the same effect, the only difference is that a forced piped link could be avoided with a natural disambiguator: See that, from every page where you wish to link this page, you could either simply say [[Amazon.com]] or have to pipe out [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] (if you prefer only Amazon to be displayed, [[Amazon.com|Amazon]] can still be used can still be used, even if this page retains its natural disambiguator. There is nothing wrong with either solution, but obviously I prefer the prior case, as it is cleaner in code and it is not wrong (some say that Amazon.com is wrong, but it is not, trust me), but obviously consensus will decide on which to use.
  • Bottomline of my bottomline: Please discuss wether to use a legitimate natural disambiguator (.com) or an unfavored parenthetical disambiguator (online retailer)! If this discussion fails you can still discuss if you wish to a legit parenthetical disambiguator (company) later on. Lordtobi (✉) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have pointed out above, the existing name is entirely consistent with WP:CRITERIA. As stated in WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". WP:COMMONNAME also tells us that "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used", so please consider that Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia.com and Oxford Reference all use "Amazon.com" as the title of their respective entries. It is also worth remembering that the company has been called "Amazon.com" since it first went online in 1995, and the title of this article has always been "Amazon.com" since the article was created in September 2002, 15 years ago this month. FF-UK (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See that I don't actually disagree with you; yes, Amazon.com is correct and well enough to use naturally disambiguated, but keep in mind that other encyclopedias are just "among the sources that may be helpful" (as you quoted from COMMONNAME), not the defining opinions (they are also usually edited by professionals who don't usually go by popular opinion, unlike Wikipedia). You and I cannot deny that "Amazon" is more frequent than "Amazon.com" in reliable sources and among the masses (the company's own pages and logo also just use "Amazon", except for the copyright claim, which incorporates the legal name), and as such would apply to COMMONNAME. But since COMMONNAME would lead to a parenthetical disambiguator, NCDAB gives use the choice between a natural and a parenthetical disambiguator, although the prior is preferred by NCDAB, it forces neither. Yes, Amazon.com is the nicer way to go, but in the end, the consensus (which should be reached with this discussion) will decide. The back-and-forth, what is correct and what is not, is nonsensial, as both versions are correct, one is preferred but not enforced by Wikipedia, but consensus should always have the last word. Lordtobi (✉) 20:14, 7 September 2017 (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 19 September 2017

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: Move. There are good arguments on both sides. However, the majority of participants in this discussion as well as the previous one find the present title more problematic than the proposed one, which has the benefit of including the actual common name, "Amazon". As such I find consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 18:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Amazon.com → Amazon (company) – Per several proposals in the previous move request, I am suggesting a move to "Amazon (company)", especially with regards to WP:COMMONNAME. — JFG talk 15:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before you take part in this discussion, please consider the following details. These have been blown way out of proportion in the previous discussion and need to be addressed before it becomes as heated again:
    1. "Amazon (company)", because it appears more often in the "Amazon" form than in the current one, perfectly applies to WP:COMMONNAME, as JFG correctly states. However, you will quickly realize that it creates a parenthetical disambiguator, meaning a phrase that needs to be appended artificially to the seach term.
    2. "Amazon.com", derived from the company's legal name "Amazon.com, Inc.", does not actually go against WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, it is used in reliable source often enough to apply to it, even if not as common as "Amazon", however, it serves as a natural disambiguator.
    3. WP:NCDAB tells us the following: "Natural disambiguation. When there is another term or more complete name that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use."
      WP:ATDAB deepens it further, saying "Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."
      Given this, Wikipedia strongly ask us to value a natural disambiguator higher than a parenthetical disambiguator.
    4. The decission on you now is if, based on the above three points, if you prefer a natural disambiguator or a parenthetical disambiguator.
    5. Please do not judge based what top-level domain your local Amazon website is on. The article is currently named after the company's legal name "Amazon.com, Inc."; is not named "Amazon.com" because the majority of readers is from America, and we would not rename the article "Amazon.co.uk" if the majority was from the United Kingdom. The German article is not named "Amazon.de" either.
As you can see, WP:COMMONNAME is not the answer to every problem in life, there is a lot to consider. Now that you have read through this, please carry on to comment below. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Investor relations are a bad example because of their intentionally formal writing style. Amazon commonly refers to themselves as just Amazon instead of Amazon.com. Here are some examples:
It's perfectly acceptable to use the common name rather than the company's official name, and people undoubtedly call it Amazon more often than Amazon.com. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for a different compromise. Apologies, I will copy and paste from my previous points as it was ignored: would it make sense to follow the system used for Google and Alphabet Inc. on Wikipedia? So 'Amazon.com, Inc.' would be the equivalent of 'Alphabet' and therefore describing the parent company, then create a page to describe the online retail subsidiary in the same way other subsidiaries have their own pages such as Amazon Echo etc. It does feel strange that Amazon Echo has its own page, yet Amazon online retail doesn't and is instead combined in the parent company page. That system has worked successfully for Google's evolution, I feel it would work well for Amazon's too.TGB13 (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A website is different from a corporation. Having separate pages for the two separate concepts make sense. However, I don't believe that Google/Alphabet pages actually work that way yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know a website is different from a corporation. There are parallels with the two situations. The Google/Alphabet pages do work like that, look at their template pages: Template:Alphabet Inc. and Template:Google Inc.. Clearly shows the parent company and subsidiaries, the same situation as Amazon finds itself. 'Amazon.com Inc.' is the parent company and 'Amazon (retail)' would be the online retail website. Look at the amount of products and services that have their own page: Template:Amazon; yet the retail website, probably the most famous and most used, doesn't have one! It's instead merged with the parent company page.TGB13 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

2602:306:3A54:5B60:BCEE:A6C8:3CFA:EC51 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. AdA&D 02:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation tax controversy

Amazon attracted controversy for not paying enough corporation tax. This attracted enough news coverage to get a mention in the first paragraph in the section sub-titled "Controversies". Vorbee (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you asking? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

Is there anything I can do to help improve this article? I see it has no tags but I'd like to contribute in any way I can. MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Talk:Amazon (company)/GA2 for some previous suggestions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Industry

I'm just curious as to whether others think that it isn't exactly correct to say that Amazon is just in the Online Shopping industry. I feel like considering it has various electronic products of its own including tablets, voice assistants etc. that it therefore is also part of the Consumer Electronics industry. Additionally, Amazon owns Twitch.tv therefore are they not also providing a Video Streaming service, and Twitch has its own Windows application so therefore Amazon also partake in Computer Software. Also I doubt anyone will dispute that they are definitely an Internet industry company. Any thoughts on the above suggestions? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Online shopping is the primary industry of Amazon.com, Inc. and has been since their inception. Many other indistries are purused by its subsidiaries (e.g. cloud services by Amazon Web Serivces, Inc.). Since the corporate structure is not 100% clear to the public (such as us), we should IMO only include the primary industry. Lordtobi (✉) 12:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordtobi: That doesn't matter, see Microsoft for example which has Video Games as one of its industries. Their subsidiary Xbox is responsible for this, however it is noted on the parent company's page also, therefore it should be the same for Amazon. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft's industry listing appears to be a mess, and not in a good way. Infoboxes should note what is essential to the company, not everything there is about it. Adding more and more industries to it would only grow the infobox into infinite dimensions, so let's not do that. If we found a few categories that define Amazon, we can surely add them, but better have a compact list--like three entries--than a long, uncomprehensive list. Lordtobi (✉) 12:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Microsoft listing is quite a mess. Internet is one listing we could use which would encompass a large amount of what Amazon does. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Online services" (or similar) would algamate multile of your proposals if I see that correctly. Lordtobi (✉) 12:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Online Services would encompass their software as well as their video streaming services and possibly also Online Shopping. Is their number of consumer electronics prevalent enough for it to be listed as an industry? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Online vs. offline delivery profits

It may be noteworth and relevant how Amazon's profits devide between offline and online delivered products, i. e. downloads/streams vs. goods physically delivered to your doorstep or a PO box. --2003:71:4E16:4B74:71A3:7D52:C37D:2EF1 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amazon_(company)&oldid=827309210"