Talk:Dunlop Tyres/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Dunlop Tyres. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Requested move 20 March 2015
- 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: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Dunlop Tyres → Dunlop Tires – WP:TIES - The company is owned by US based company Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company(75%) and Japanese based Sumitomo Rubber Industries(25%), both of which self identify using the Tire spelling on their corporate sites[[1]] and [[2]] and publications, the same as Dunlop Tires[[3]] and [[4]]. Also the corporate headquarters of Dunlop Tires is located in Buffalo, NY, United States per this article. On Goodyear's corporate site, Dunlop is linked to and uses the tire spelling in documents and the main corporate website. While the company was originally a UK company, it is no longer and there are no tires manufactured by Dunlop in the UK anymore. While Goodyear sells tires under the name Dunlop Tyre in the UK and a separate company was licensed the name for sales in Australia, it is in name only for marketing purposes for the region and for the purposes of DBA, not the actual name of the company and how it self identifies within it's corporate structure. Hence, I would cite that the article has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation and therefore should use the English of that nation. re: WP:TIES - 74.104.150.176 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC) -
- Oppose - WP:ENGVAR, WP:RETAIN and WP:TITLECHANGES, etc, make clear we don't make a practice of changing English spelling variants for superficial reasons. Wikipedia is not a news site, and as covered in WP:RECENTISM, articles take a broad historical view. Historically, Dunlop is British and most of what there is to say about the history of this company is in a British context. Dunlop Tyres is a subtopic of Dunlop (brands), which is obviously a British subject. The idea that we would flip the spelling of every company article whenever they changed corporate parents would create chaos. Consider the recent changes in ownership of Rover, Mini, Chrysler, Ducati, etc. Is Holden next? Corporations are fickle, Wikipedia takes the long view. Admins should also note that 74.104.150.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be working very hard to undermine Wikipedia's policies on spelling variants, trying to remove non-US spelling at every opportunity, and this appears very WP:POINTy, and it's starting to become disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't just about a spelling variant, it's an actual company name. I am not doing anything to undermine policies, I just happened to come across this article in the process of looking at the whole tire/tyre issue on the motorcycle tire page, this one should be a no brainer to change to match the existing company name.74.104.150.176 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:ENGVAR, WP:RETAIN and WP:TITLECHANGES, and the historical references to the company when it was notable, which today it isn't so much. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Top 10 in terms of tire sales per brand name in the world.
- Support But think it should go to Dunlop, as seen in the arguments in the prior request move. Dunlop 'tyre' doesn't exist as a company anymore, it's Dunlop, or Dunlop Tire. It's not recitisim if it's a name change. Should we list it as Barnet, Middlesex? Also, finding another article who's naming you'd like to ask for consensus on in the same general topic (tires) isn't really that pointy, it's probably just human. ~ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose – WP:TITLEVAR is clear, and MOS:RETAIN also applies. I'd also apply WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no reason to change the established English variety, which is retained according to our article titles policy. The proposing user fails to under our policies on English varieties. WP:TIES only applies in instances where an article subject has strong ties to one particular English-speaking area/variety, as opposed to all others. This article subject does not have strong ties to any particular English variety, as it has ties to multiple such areas/varieties. As such, the existing variety is retained per WP:TITLEVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 05:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't about changing the variety as much as correctly identifying a company by it's actual name? I only referenced the strong ties because I knew the two of you would come here and use the same WP:TITLEVAR or WP:ENGVAR points, which I believe WP:TIES would overrule. Regardless of that, how does it not have strong ties to one variety when the company is located in the US, majority owned by a US company, and self identifies using the spelling Tire? We change Stadium names all the time when the sponsor and thus name changes, see Jacobs Field or CMGI Field, or other companies who changed their names like Phillip Morris who switched to Altria, or Blackwater changing to Academi or Apple Inc which changed it's name in 2007 from Apple Computer, or Panasonics name change, we honored those name changes, why shouldn't we honor this one? 74.104.150.176 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here and here they call themselves Dunlop Tyres, yet here it's tires. Kind of depends which country you pick how they "self identify". We don't actually rename articles to match every company's precise legal name; we use the common name when possible, only going further when disambiguation is actually necessary, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) which is derived from the policy WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Wikipedia:Official names is an essay on the common error of thinking we must bow to official names. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- It does not have strong ties to one particular country. It has ties to Britain, America, Australia. &c. If it has ties to more than one country, it cannot have strong ties. That's how WP:TIES works. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- It can certainly have strong ties to one country over others while also having ties to those other countries. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It does not have strong ties to one particular country. It has ties to Britain, America, Australia. &c. If it has ties to more than one country, it cannot have strong ties. That's how WP:TIES works. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here and here they call themselves Dunlop Tyres, yet here it's tires. Kind of depends which country you pick how they "self identify". We don't actually rename articles to match every company's precise legal name; we use the common name when possible, only going further when disambiguation is actually necessary, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) which is derived from the policy WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Wikipedia:Official names is an essay on the common error of thinking we must bow to official names. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't about changing the variety as much as correctly identifying a company by it's actual name? I only referenced the strong ties because I knew the two of you would come here and use the same WP:TITLEVAR or WP:ENGVAR points, which I believe WP:TIES would overrule. Regardless of that, how does it not have strong ties to one variety when the company is located in the US, majority owned by a US company, and self identifies using the spelling Tire? We change Stadium names all the time when the sponsor and thus name changes, see Jacobs Field or CMGI Field, or other companies who changed their names like Phillip Morris who switched to Altria, or Blackwater changing to Academi or Apple Inc which changed it's name in 2007 from Apple Computer, or Panasonics name change, we honored those name changes, why shouldn't we honor this one? 74.104.150.176 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- block This is now just trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not trolling at all, it's a perfectly reasonable requested move with merit, the problem is that people are taking it as an english versus english topic, when it's really not about that at all. This one is about correcting an article with an actual incorrect name on it. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- comment I don't know if this is Trolling, but there was a reasoned argument above why it should or should not be changed. Reading through the arguments, one could make a case either way, or for something along the lines of Dunlop Brand or Dunlop Tire Manufacturing Group or something like this. I think it's not Trolling, but rather, a new editor trying to make things consistent. There have been many times that articles have been changed from American English to British English, and (i.e. humor) that when someone attempts to change it back, the Commonwealth contingent comes out en force and blocks the move. That's not trolling, that's requesting appropriate moves. BUT! To that matter at hand, I again think that this should be renamed to the company name, as it legally stands. Cheers. ~ip user
- For the backstory, look at Talk:Motorcycle tyre. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, I saw it, I commented on that one as well. Just because the submitter of both these moves is the same thing, doesn't mean they shouldn't be viewed on their merits. Should Dunlop be moved? That's the question. I think it should be something, not Dunlop Tyres, as that company is just a small subsidiary of a larger company. Maybe Dunlop Tires, Maybe Dunlop Tire Manufacturers, maybe there should be an article about the parent company and the UK company. Still is the question at hand. ~ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- For the backstory, look at Talk:Motorcycle tyre. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article is about the brand and not the company. The brand was begun in Britain and the article has always been titled in British English and is also largely about the British operation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, it should be renamed to Dunlop Tyres (Brand) to avoid confusion with the actual company. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Since the brand is worldwide and the company is not, I think the brand is the primary topic. It's the company that should have a separate article as Dunlop Tires (company). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't even make sense, the brand is no more world wide than the company that owns the brand. Good Year Tire owns Dunlop Tire which uses the Brand Dunlop Tyre. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Since the brand is worldwide and the company is not, I think the brand is the primary topic. It's the company that should have a separate article as Dunlop Tires (company). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, it should be renamed to Dunlop Tyres (Brand) to avoid confusion with the actual company. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (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.