Talk:Amazon (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Amazon (company):

  • Images
    • Update Amazon Prime Logo
    • Update image of Kindle
  • Add information about the Amazon Echo
  • Add Perl with Java & CPP

Is it really a technology company?[edit]

I think that calling it a tech company in the first line is wrong and inaccurate. It is simply an online store. It doesn't develop technology, not at all. It is one website, that sells things, an online version of walmart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.67.207 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, except for all the technology products they've developed, then sure. Kuru (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2019[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: Consensus to not move as Amazon is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. (non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)



Amazon (company)Amazon.com Inc. – Per WP:NATURAL, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and Apple Inc.. Hat tip to @Station1: for alerting me to the WP:NATURAL essay/policy. Note: if consensus supports, this will require an administrator or non-involved editor with page mover permissions to complete the move and perform a round-robin page swap to suppress the redirect. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Unlike Apple Inc., its not "Amazon.com" outside the US, for example its Amazon.co.uk in the UK, see Amazon (company)#Website however the proposed move includes "Inc." in the name so its not the same as the last title. Also note that the EB is at Amazon.com not "Amazon.com Inc." either way I'm skeptical about this move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly right...in Canada, it's actually Amazon.com.ca Inc. as the legal name and Amazon.ca as the common name. Nevertheless, Amazon.com/Amazon.com Inc. is the ultimate parent company, per either WP policy, of the overseas subsidiaries.--Doug Mehus (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, that's not right. Amazon.ca is also operated by Amazon.com, Inc. (this company), like all other regional websites. No Amazon.co.ca Inc. or Amazon.com.ca Inc. exists in the country. Lordtobi () 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Lordtobi, I didn't look up the Canadian company with Corporations Canada or provincial corporate registries, but Canadian packages show the Canadian entity as "Amazon.com.ca Inc." or "Amazon.ca.com Inc." (can't remember which) Doug Mehus (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, interesting, there appears to be a lifeless holding in Delaware (where an "Amazon.com.ca, Inc." exists, but also an "Amazon.com.dedc, LLC", "Amazon.com.nddc, Inc.", "Amazon.com.tc 2, Inc.", and so forth; you can check here); Amazon.ca's CoS uses both "Amazon.com.ca, Inc." and "Amazon.com, Inc." interchangeably, while all footers uniformly say "Amazon.com, Inc." It's a dilemma. Ultimately, though, this should have no effect on this RM. Lordtobi () 19:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Lordtobi, True, but I disagree with comments below (not necessarily yours) that RMs should be closed because of opposition to the move as proposed. A consensus-determining editor (or, ideally, administrator) should be able to determine, from the replies, which option is favoured or if no option is favoured. For example, my "read" of this consensus, at present, is that the move as proposed by me is definitely opposed. There may be emerging consensus to move to Amazon without the dab qualifier, though Amazon.com does show a fair degree of support, but likely not enough to be construed as consensus. So, while it's complicated when multiple alternate proposals are discussed within an RM, since it's not a vote, I think it's OK to use an existing RM discussion to find consensus for an alternate move.
It's funny you mentioned Amazon.com.dedc Inc. as I've definitely seen that holding company name. I'd just argue that Amazon.com.ca Inc. is slightly more than a shell company that the former is because it is the name of the legal entity they use to operate in Canada (though it's interesting they use a U.S.-incorporated entity in Canada and not a Canadian-incorporated entity). The U.S. must have more corporate friendly laws, I guess. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative move proposal: Move to Amazon.com per WP:COMMONNAME and Apple Inc.. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Added comment from Page Move Proposer: Ultimately, this article is about more than a company, but it probably should be further split, but I'm not sure how, with this surviving article focusing on the U.S. domiciled publicly-traded parent company (for which either Amazon.com or Amazon.com Inc. is the most appropriate company name). In short, it needs cleanup. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply With respect, looking through the previous move proposals, which I appreciate you adding, @Netoholic:, I saw an extremely weak consensus of moving from its previous title of Amazon.com as opposed to the previous move requests prior that which favoured not moving or no consensus. I'm fine with making this article strictly focused on Amazon.com, the publicly-traded corporation, and splitting off all of the divisions and products into separate articles, potentially even making an Amazon (online retailer) article, but the corporate parent company article—this one—should be Amazon.com or Amazon.com Inc.--Doug Mehus (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong oppose Per WP:CONCISE. That title is word salad.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
But I noted you opposed moving to Amazon (company), possibly strongly opposed. What about the alternative proposal, or some other proposal?Doug Mehus (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I support moving to Amazon.com, since it's "Amazon.com Inc." and not "Amazon Inc."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, watch this page, if you're not already, and when this move request has run its course, I'll propose reverting to its previous name, Amazon.com. Successive past move attempts resulted in the page not being moved; only last time did the move proposer "get lucky" on weak consensus.--Doug Mehus (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent example, @UnitedStatesian:. Salesforce.com even uses just Salesforce in its company name yet its article name is a concise and natural Salesforce.com. And, it does have global subsidiaries just like Amazon.com. I think the most recent page move won on weak consensus and, thus, there wasn't actually consensus to move it to Amazon (company).Doug Mehus (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Amazon.com – for those concerned about the use of ".com" outside of the US, would it not solve the problem to have ".com.ca", ".com.jp", ".co.uk", etc. redirect to this article anyway? WikiRedactor (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @WikiRedactor:. Prior move proposals have either failed or resulted in no consensus, only the last time did it pass on weak consensus to move to a cumbersome Amazon (company). @Station1:, @George Ho:, @Lordtobi:, @FF-UK:, and @Zxcvbnm: all made excellent points on keeping it at Amazon.com. Unfortunately, they seemed to have been outnumbered, narrowly, by a bunch of Google stats-focused newbie editors. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talkcontribs) 02:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, technically the official name of the company may be "Amazon.com Inc." but per usual convention we defer to the common name, not the official name. In this case, the common vernacular, and overwhelmingly the name used in reliable sources, is plain "Amazon".[1][2][3][4][5][6] It's also the way the company refers to itself, other than in its official name: [7][8] All in all, nothing has materially changed since the consensus to move to the current name two years ago, and the same arguments still apply. Crouch, Swale, also makes a good point that, outside of the US, in markets in Canada, the UK, and other European countries, the website itself is not even at amazon.com so it's better to retain a more neutral WP:WORLDWIDE title.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose per Google stats-focused newbie editors, and WP:COMMONNAME. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name. Please don't keep trying to add .com, as it is not the companies common name worldwide. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Amazon.com per WP:COMMONNAME. Countries that don't use the .com TLD still say dot-com company: es:Empresa puntocom, fr:Entreprise point com, ru:Дотком. It's fewer letters to type ".com" and fewer syllables to say "dot com" than "company" and it contains more information specifically to the actual subject. "Dot com" tells you you it's a company, it's an Internet enterprise, and it resolves any doubt that this is about the Amazon internet retailer, not just any company that might happen to also be called Amazon. Adding Inc. doesn't clarify any of the above questions and is included only in cases where it's the simplest route to disambiguation. Not impressed with bashing newbies, btw. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, common name is just Amazon without the .com or Inc, as used on nearly all their services.Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Amazon per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (see pageviews). The river is already at Amazon River and the dab page is getting 700 views per day, too many for a dab page, most of whom want Amazon.com. - Station1 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are going to move it, I too would suggest moving it to Amazon. The river is primarily known as "The Amazon" or "Amazon River," but not simply "Amazon." Calidum 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Per @Station1: and @Calidum:'s comments above, I have been reluctant to move Amazon (company) to Amazon due to the "Amazon River" being, historically, the WP:COMMONNAME and my own personal preference for having disambiguation pages without parenthetical qualifiers—that is, (disambiguation); however, I think if surveys were conducted, when asked, the majority of the world's population would equate "Amazon" to the e-commerce and cloud storage company and not the South American river. Moreover, it does seem to be an emerging, if not the predominant trend, to have articles occupy the non-parenthetical qualifier page name and have the disambiguation page moved to a parenthetically-qualified page. So, I'd support @Station1: and @Calidum:'s alternate proposal to move to Amazon and move the disambiguation page to Amazon (disambiguation). --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Uhh, no. The Amazon Rainforest or Amazon River are easily the primary topic for "Amazon", regardless of how well-known the company is. The fact that the company is named for it/them makes that abundantly clear.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Zxcvbnm I personally prefer Amazon.com or Amazon.com Inc. here and would also prefer Wikipedia used WP:OFFICIALNAME, but consensus seems to be that WP:COMMONNAME is preferred. So, what exactly is "the common name" then? I thought it was prevailing global popular sentiment/thinking? In this way, common name can change such that, as the winds of societal thinking shift, what is WP:PRIMARY one year could be displaced by something else in 5-10 years from now.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I would assume that it's common sense that people don't append "Inc." when they say "Amazon". So it's either "Amazon" or "Amazon.com". Per WP:NATURAL, we should choose the most common name that doesn't conflict with other pages, which makes it clear to me that it's "Amazon.com", which is also a fairly common way of referring to the company.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The company is widely known as Amazon and few know its legal name is Amazon.com. Per WP:COMMONNAME let's be reasonable and keep the name Amazon.XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose this move. "Amazon" is the most valuable brand in the world[1]. You'll notice that every major news outlet including outlets like Bloomberg, NYT, CNBC, etc. all refer to "Amazon.com, Inc." as simply Amazon.75.172.212.65 (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, which is overwhelmingly just "Amazon", not "Amazon.com" and certainly not "Amazon.com Inc." But obviously not primary, given the existence of the river. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: How can you say it's not WP:PRIMARY, though? Isn't that based on the global public thinking, or popular sentiment, at the time? That is, prevailing public opinion globally? If asked, I suspect majority of the world's population would first equate Amazon to the e-commerce and cloud storage company than to the South American named river. Thus, it seems like moving Amazon to either of Amazon River, The Amazon (per above), or Amazon (river) makes sense and is broadly consistent with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARY. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Because blatantly the river and its derivatives are primary. No, really I wouldn't think most people do think of the company first. They think of the river/rainforest. And it certainly trumps the company in long-term significance (which we also take into consideration when determining a primary topic). Frankly any argument otherwise is pretty laughable. And note the river is already at Amazon River, so there is strictly no one primary topic here already. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: Ordinarily, I'd agree with you and opt to keep the Amazon River as primary topic as I prefer dab pages without parenthetical qualifiers, but since Wikipedia consensus on these matters favours assigning WP:Primary to one of the topics and to a disambiguation qualifier to the dab page, I think we should be considering moving either Amazon River to Amazon or Amazon (company) to Amazon consistent with WP:PRIMARY and WP:COMMONNAME. Otherwise, how do you square the circle that CNN is at CNN and not Cable News Network (which also seems off-side with WP:ACRONYM) or numerous other examples which are too many to list here? I think these are rational questions we need to be asking. --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: Note, too, that EBITDA is at Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, which seems consistent with WP:ACRONYM but which seems inconsistent with WP:ACRONYM. Thus, either CNN should be at Cable News Network or Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization should be at EBITDA.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
"since Wikipedia consensus on these matters favours assigning WP:Primary to one of the topics and to a disambiguation qualifier to the dab page". No it doesn't. Not if there's no obvious primary topic. We have many disambiguation pages where there's no primary topic. I see no connection between CNN and EBITDA and Amazon! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
As necro says, this may be drifting a bit off topic, but the relevant policy here would be WP:ACRONYMTITLE: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. I think it's reasonable to say that many people familiar with CNN don't actually know what the acronym expands to, since it's rarely referred to by anything other than the acronym. Colin M (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We orchestrated this move last year with overwhelming consensus to favor the WP:COMMONNAME over a WP:NATURAL disambiguation formed from the company's legal name (note: not the trade name). The present name avoids the wrongful presumption that, despite actually being the company's legal name ("Amazon.com, Inc." -- with a comma), the title "Amazon.com" just refers to the Amazon.com website run in the US, although it refers to the company Amazon.com, Inc. that operates all regional websites (including Canada), builds Echo/Kindle devices, is traded on NASDAQ, et cetera. This clarity issue would still be a problem, as commented by other editors above, and it will probably not be fixed by making the "natural" disambiguator excessively long, where it already feels unnatural from the get-go. I can already envision a new RM saying "Amazon.com, Inc. is only the company that operates the US website, therefore ..."; we wouldn't want that. The present title is the company's trade name (as represented in every public representation), its common name in pretty much every source, and fine to keep here, even if it requires a parenthetical disambiguator, and there is no problem in using one. That said, I would support a move to just "Amazon" per WP:PRIMARY, though that would require additional WP:RECENTISM judgment and, more importantly, a different RM. Lordtobi () 18:41, 31 October 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019[edit]

The following discussion 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.


I would like to add the following as a subsidiary, in alphabetical order (under Goodreads):

Health Navigator[edit]

In October 2019, Amazon finalized the acquisition of Health Navigator, a startup developing APIs for online health services. The startup will form part of Amazon Care, which is the company's employee healthcare service. This follows the 2018 purchase of PillPack for under $1 billion, which has also been included into Amazon Care.[2]


Thank you! 73.32.97.198 (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Done, 73.32.97.198. Thank you for following the format request of what you want done. : ) Doug Mehus (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-overtakes-google-apple-worlds-most-valuable-brand-2019-6
  2. ^ Shu, Catherine. "Amazon acquires Health Navigator for Amazon Care, its pilot employee healthcare program". Tech Crunch. Retrieved 31 October 2019.

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 2 November 2019[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. The consensus is very clear that the long-term significance of the Amazon river and its surrounding rainforest, let alone the many other significant uses of the term, prove a lack of primary topic. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)



– Going on the strength of the previous discussion, where "Amazon" was preferred over "Amazon.com", it is worth noting that as far back as Pageviews Analysis will go (link), the namespace for "Amazon.com" and later "Amazon (company)" have surpassed the other noteworthy topics by a significant margin (save for August 2019, which reverted to a normal pattern the following month.) No other topic on the disambiguation page is spoken of in common speech as just "Amazon" without some type of qualifier (ie. rainforest, river); I would argue that the company meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARY. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support this move. "Amazon" is the most valuable brand in the world[9]. You'll notice that every major news outlet including outlets like Bloomberg, NYT, CNBC, etc. all refer to "Amazon.com, Inc." as simply Amazon. 75.172.212.65 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Amazon is so big nowadays that anyone looking for the rainforest or the river knows to disambiguate their search. Saucy[talkcontribs] 16:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are several highly probable search terms (and dozens of other lesser articles) that there is absolutely no reason for a primary here. --Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposethe Amazon has long-term significance over the company. "Amazon rainforest" may be common, but just "(the) Amazon" is as well [10][11][12]. There are also enough other items in that list that are highly probable search terms that having a disambiguation on the base title is the optimal solution. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons listed above by Gonnym and Þjarkur. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the long-term significance of other topics with this name. Dekimasuよ! 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify in light of some of the comments below, "the Amazon" and "Amazon" are equivalent for naming purposes, so the titles do, in fact, conflict. Having many hits at a base-title disambiguation page in and of itself is not an indication that there is a problem. If there are multiple major topics with similar titles, that setup is correct and the disambiguation page would appear to be working properly. Dekimasuよ! 14:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that many hits at a disambiguation page may be an indication of a problem in some cases. I agree that "if there are multiple major topics with similar titles, that setup is correct", provided that there is no primary topic among those major topics. In those cases, diffusion from the dab would be be diverse and such pages are sometimes unavaoidable. In this case, based on usage, I think there is a primary topic. Station1 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the oppose comments above. The Amazon forest and Amazon river would seem to hold the long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The above oppose comments all cite long-term significance of the term "The Amazon", "Amazon Rainforest" or "Amazon River", but not "Amazon". Page should be moved to "Amazon" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARY. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
That second link is about primary sources. Not sure what you could've meant to link to, as I think there's only one guide regarding primary topics. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Fyrael, Disagree here. Apple Inc has another company in AppleCorps as I understand it, so it's got not just a generic Apple to compete with, but another company (albeit not one as well known). Also, the fruit apple is still more common and obviously primary relative to the tech company. By contrast, I would argue most of the world associates Amazon with the tech company, not the South American river. WP:PRIMARY can change based on prevailing global sentiment, which I think has clearly shifted. Moreover, the most recent consensus in favour of the move was arguably weak when you consider three or four past move attempts failed; in short, the previous page move requester got lucky. So, consensus, if anything, is mixed, and it's clear to me the current page name is unsatisfying to all concerned.
Thus, we need to decide whether the tech company or river is WP:PRIMARY. If so, then Amazon should be this page's name, with Amazon moved to The Amazon or Amazon River consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. If, for some reason, consensus is that the river is still WP:PRIMARY, then we should at least consistent moving to Amazon.com, per WP:COMMONNAME and per Lordtobi and myself above who noted that Amazon's divisional subsidiaries are named Amazon.com.ccTLD. Thus, every subsidiary is a spinoff off the Amazon.com in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME.--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the user was only pointing out that WP:PRIMARY is incorrectly mentioned here. WP:PRIMARY discusses the use of primary sources for verifiability. It does not discuss article naming, as oppose to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which was mentioned alongside). Lordtobi () 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, you have misunderstood quite a few things here. For one thing, please stop linking WP:PRIMARY. If you follow that link you'll see that it's not what we're talking about. Also, if you actually follow the links in the proposal or read the proposed titles, you'll find that the river article is not currently titled Amazon and this is not a proposal to change that article's title. It has not been proposed that the primary topic be moved from the river to the company. The decision here is between making the company primary or keeping the status quo, which is that no topic is primary. Amazon is currently a disambiguation page. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Most of our articles follow WP:THE (dropping the "the") and readers looking for "the Netherlands" will only enter "Netherlands". – Thjarkur (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Þjarkur The fact that you said most implies to me that there articles beginning with the initial article the. Thus, we're justified in naming the river The Amazon per WP:NATURAL, in addition to WP:COMMONNAME. We could also invoke WP:IAR for renaming this article to Amazon, but I don't think it's necessary. There are established articles and policies which support this naming convention. --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I meant to point out that "Amazon" and "the Amazon" are equivalent for naming purposes (like Dekamisu says here above) even though an article on the forest/river could be under either one. For that reason there is a title conflict and why I feel a disambiguation page is the best option. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying re: potential title conflict, though I don't think that applies here. The only way this comes in to play, I think, is if the database ignores initial articles for the purposes of filing and sorting. Otherwise, I note that titles are case sensitive so it's conceivable to think we'd have two articles titled the same, for different subjects, with one article using lower case letters and others using a different casing. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per commonsense and it's a river. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It barely has the combined views of the other topics and clearly fails long-term significance. This is not primary for the same reason Apple Inc. isn't primary. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose there are as noted several significant uses even though there often called more than just "Amazon" but there are also many lesser uses of "Amazon" no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:PRIMARY, WP:COMMONNAME, the comments above (notably, XXeducationexpertXX), and as nom of previous move request. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The word Amazon dates to 1398 in English, says the OED, from its origins as Ἀμαζών in ancient Greek. Circa 500 to 1000 BC? I'm not sure. I'm willing to be convinced that this ancient term which once referred to a warrior tribe, and then was applied in the 16th century the Amazon river, one of the worlds largest, if not largest rivers and river system, and the vast geography of the Amazon basin, now mainly only means the online retailer. Perhaps Amazon.com has superseded all these prior usages, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Some editors here say it is so, but if so, then you should be able to easily cite copious evidence. You might see on the Internet Amazon used to mean the company more than the Greek or the South American Amazon, but the Internet isn't everything. What about all the books in all the libraries? And all the periodicals? Is "common" only what was published in the last week? I'll change my mind, but show me proof. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dennis Bratland and others. The term has a long history and many uses. Amazon is a big company but supporters haven't demonstrated that it's the primary topic here. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The river is not widely known as simply "Amazon" while the company is. Calidum 04:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes it is! It's known as "the Amazon". Given we don't use the definite article in article titles, of course it's known as the Amazon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Necrothesp, The fact that you had to add the initial article the to that indicates, strongly, that the river should be moved to The Amazon and this article should be moved to Amazon. Each should have hatnote references to the other article and to the dab page at the top of the respective articles. What is clear is that there is extremely weak consensus for the current naming of this article. Whether it should be Amazon or Amazon.com, it's clear to me the community does not like the current naming convention and will continue to see further page move requests until one that is supported by a strong plurality of the community is achieved. --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Good grief, please read WP:THE. We do not name articles in this way. We do not make exceptions for no good reason. Where is it obvious that the community does not like the current naming convention? I take part in many RMs. The naming convention is applied without much demur again and again. It is not unpopular with most editors. And this is certainly not the place to get it changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because, to quote the closer of the previous RM, "Amazon is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE." The dab page is getting 700 hits per day. That's high, indicating many more people than necessary who want to be somewhere else wind up on the dab page. Based on page view proportions showing Amazon.com gets 6 times the views of the river and more than 4 times everything else combined, probably 500 or more of those people want Amazon.com.[13] There's no reason to inconvenience them. Putting a hatnote on Amazon.com will keep the status quo for the minority seeking the river. Station1 (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll assume it was an accident that you left off 2 of the 4 topics that are listed as common targets at the top of the DAB page. Here are the actual monthly averages over the past 2 years of the top terms: Amazon (company) 343,986; Amazon rainforest 95,421; Amazon river 63,743; Amazons 48,372. Just the other top three combined total ~206k compared to 344k. So, since my guess at next highest topic (Amazon basin) got ~20k monthly and assuming the other 50+ topics taper off from there, the company gets as much or maybe a bit more than the combination of all other topics. Nothing remotely close to 4 times. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Amazon rainforest and Amazon basin would never properly be titled "Amazon" (not to mention there's some duplication of views since they're both closely related to the river); therefore there's no title conflict. Amazons is admittedly a closer call, since we could theoretically title the article after a singular Amazon warrior, but I think the current title is better, and even if we added that article in, that would only change the company views to 3x everything else vs 4x. But even by your calculations, if the company gets 6x the next highest and "maybe a bit more than the combination of all other topics", that would still qualify as WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. However, my main point is that hundreds of people per day are inconvenienced by the current setup for no reason. Station1 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Any entry on the dab page is there because it can plausibly referred to by "Amazon" and is therefore relevant to this discussion. And the fact that the dab page is frequently hit says nothing whatsoever about one topic being primary over others. After a reader hits the dab page they may go to any article. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
A reader may go to any article, but in this case, objective data suggests the majority go to Amazon (company). That majority does not benefit by the current setup. Station1 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you have described the benefit of having a primary topic in general. It is not evidence for the company being the primary topic. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The usage statistics are the evidence. If you need further confirmation, just type "a" in Google's search bar and see the first suggestion on the dropdown menu. Station1 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Station1 here. Either we prefer dab pages to have no parenthetical qualifier or we don't. If we prefer the former, and I should note that I wouldn't be opposed to that, then we should undertake a mammoth bulk page move exercise whereby there becomes no primary topic and we default to a dab page. As I suspect the community has no interest in this, then how Amazon can be for anything besides the e-commerce company baffles me!--Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean this as no insult, but I'm guessing that this is the first time you've been involved in a primary topic discussion because you don't seem to get what we're deciding here. This is NOT a debate about naming conventions. If you read our guidelines for disambiguation pages you will see that whether or not we have "(disambiguation)" as part of the title simply depends on whether or not there is a primary topic for the term and is very intentionally decided on a case-by-case basis. We will absolutely not be making blanket changes to our disambiguation page titles, no matter what happens in this discussion. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Frankly laughable. In terms of long-term significance, the river system and area are quite clearly far more notable than the company. Even in terms of current usage there's no primary topic. People arguing that this move should happen because the former is known as the Amazon clearly have no knowledge of Wikipedia naming conventions and should read WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but in what possible universe is the company more notable than the river system, one of the most famous in the world, that has been referred to by that name for hundreds of years? This is honestly one of the most ridiculous RM nominations I've ever seen. The river system/basin/rainforest are almost invarably referred to just as the Amazon, whatever name we may have given them. We did that for disambiguation purposes, just as we put "(company)" after the company for disambiguation purposes. Claiming that the company should be moved to the default name just because it's the only one that has a parenthetical as opposed to a natural disambiguator (or isn't used with a definite article) is frankly ludicrous and a complete misreading of Wikipedia naming conventions. Any of the geographical meanings could be and commonly are just referred to by the default name too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative support, as mentioned in the previous discussion. This topic is the most notable to just be called "Amazon". I would argue that Amazon River and Amazon basin are more notable, but I see no reason for either to be moved from their current naming. Having this topic as primary for a full-title match on "Amazon" is certainly better than having the DAB page in that place. WP:RECENTISM might apply, but I doubt that Amazon is a fad that we won't hear from again in the coming decade(s). Lordtobi () 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. No clear primary topic. It's concerning that this isn't immediately apparent to everyone. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Apple/Apple Inc. and all the other reasons I already strenuously wrote about at Talk:Amazon earlier this year. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I agree with Xezbeth that there is not a clear primary topic. Aoba47 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2019 (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.