Talk:Rare (company)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 12 May 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: (1) Rare Ltd. → Rare, and (2) Rare → Rare (disambiguation) – czar 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Rare Ltd. → Rare Ltd – I hope nobody jumps down my throat, but I've discovered that in BrEng the full stop is omitted from abbreviations that consists of the first and last letters of a word. Not just that, but Rare's official pages also excludes the full stop from "Ltd". It makes sense to be faithful to not only the language but how Rare portrays their name. I hope nobody finds this irritating and please bear in mind that I hate WP:ENGVAR and am neutral on this matter - I just thought it should be done. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC) JAGUAR  14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom; seems like that's how they do it Red Slash 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I couldn't find any usage of Ltd (with or without the period) on the company's website. Also, the company has been a fully owned subsidiary of an American company (Microsoft) since 2002, so I'm not sure ENGVAR would apply. Calidum T|C 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't Rare (company) be best per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)? It's better known as Rare by itself than with the Ltd with or without the period. (Also I'm with Calidum on the whole association of Rare with a specific variation of English.) – czar 19:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the sound of Rare (company), but they are a Limited company and it's the law to adknowledge it, but disregarding that they use the 'Ltd.' in all official pages. JAGUAR  11:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Its name on Wikipedia has nothing to do with law. It's known as "Rare" and not "Rare Ltd" in our reliable sources so its common name is "Rare". Since that name is obviously taken (disambiguated with other Rares, though one might be able to argue that it's the best known of all the Rares...), the company needs a disambiguator. "Rare Ltd" would be a fine disambiguation if the company was actually called that even occasionally in the sources, but it isn't, so "Rare (company)" would be best. It's also what the company naming conventions recommends as the default. – czar 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting the law was related to Wikipedia but most of Rare's official pages allocate it as "Rare Ltd", but there is a large amount of ambiguity whether or not its official name is Rare or Rare Ltd? We could even be brave enough to rename this to just 'Rare'! A brief look at Rare suggests that the company is by far the most notable and the most covered out of any of the other mentions on the disambiguation page. But if not that, then Rare (company) would suffice. I'm on the fence on renaming it altogether, as there is nothing technically wrong with Rare Ltd either. JAGUAR  16:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Traffic in the last 90 days:

  • The company is far and away the most trafficked article of those disambiguated at "Rare", and consistently (with no major spikes). I think there is a case for moving the company to remove the disambiguator. If not, then I think the "(company)" parenthetical disambiguation is the most appropriate since Rare rarely (ho ho ho) uses the "Ltd" in what I see online right now. – czar 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • LMAO. Can't believe I actually suggested something that has a chance of being the right decision! Who here would be in favour of renaming this article to just 'Rare'? The information you gathered suggests that this article is by far the most popular and if not, the most notable, which would constitute it being renamed and its disambiguation page being renamed to Rare (disambiguation) as appropiate. Given this new information I'm not sure if we should open a new move request or gather more opinions on this. JAGUAR  16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I already left a notice on the disambig's talk page so let's leave this open, see if it can't get a few more bites. If there is no reply after another week, we can just close this and try a bold move (since this is considered advanced notice). If there's an issue after that it can go to RM, etc. – czar 17:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: it's been a week and nobody has objected nor is it likely that this will come to any other attention, so should we continue with the move? JAGUAR  13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ done – czar 13:43, 24 May 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.

Machinima documentary

@Czar: Can this documentary be used in the article? It is not on the list of reliable sources but it has a lot of valuable information. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer, it could be okay (I think Machinima's reliability will vary between the type of program) but even still we're best with text sources, which are easier to back up and reference. If these videos were to go down—like with GameTrailers—we'd have a whole lot of unreferenced link rot on our hands. The documentary series would be good as {{external media}}, though czar 08:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2016

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: Move Rare to Rare (company) and Rare (disambiguation) to Rare. SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ~~~~

Rare → ? – After this article's move to its present title, a few editors have expressed concerns at different venues on Wikipedia over the low participation of the RM, and whether this article is actually the primary topic for "Rare". I am therefore starting another RM discussion to determine consensus from wider discussion. If you do not think that this article is the primary topic for "Rare", please suggest a new title for this article, and specify which page should be moved to Rare in place of the current article. If this discussion results in no consensus to move this article, it should stay at its present name. sst✈ 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Move to Rare (company) or any other. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain current title. The company is far and away the primary topic for those looking for "Rare". (See pull-out box in previous discussion.) Any other interest in "Rare" (e.g., Rare meat) is accompanied by a signifier (e.g. "meat"), but "Rare" itself (and in the ways that it's linked) refers to the company. czar 19:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain- Landing here is appropriate to me. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain Rare is by far and wide the most searched for name of its kind. No need to disambiguate. JAGUAR  23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep status quo. The pageview statistics from above are compelling evidence that this is the primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename to Rare (company) since this is an adjective for rarity also covered somewhat at scarcity. Special:prefixindex/rare a set index can be built -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain as per arguments already stated. Seems to fulfil primary topic criteria. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC
  • Keep as "Rare" and include disambig link to a disambig page - WP:COMMONNAME, since no-one but a corporate lawyer/WikiLawyer would say Rare Ltd. and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since the several other "Rare ***" titles are significantly less in traffic and would be better suited to a disambig page, i.e. keep the current set-up. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • See comment below for more recent details of argument including alternative support for "Rare → Rare (company)" + "Rare (disambig) → Rare". Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Rare (company) or Rare Ltd or any other uniquely-disambiguated title, and move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare. The word "rare" is a common English-language adjective, and no evidence other than self-reference to wikipiedia searches has been offered that this company is the primary use of the term. A search for the word "rare" is much more likely to be for generic uses of that adjective, by a reader looking for articles on rare items (the concept of "rarity"), than for this 30-year-old company.
The support for the current title reflects the WP:RECENTIST WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of Wikipedia's very unbalanced demography of editors. That demography is massively skewed towards young male editors, a demographic for whom video games is far more important than the much more diverse demographic of en.wp's global readership.
That recentism takes no account of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's other test: that of long-term significance. The company's lack of long-term significance is easily demonstrable by the test set out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: analysis of reliable sources. For example, try a GoogleBooks.uk search for "rare". (Note I used UK, since Rare Ltd is UK-based, so this test is most likely to favour the company). The first 40 hits include 8 mentions of "rare earth", a few less of "rare books", one or two for rare meat, and none for the video games company. I stopped counting and continued scanning on to page 10, for a total of 100 hits: plenty more mentions of "rare earth", and still zero for the video game. Zilch, nil, nada, nowt, nothing.
The issues here might be different if the word's other meanings were a proper name. But the company's demonstrable lack of long-term significance is compounded by its use of a common adjective as its title. It is perverse to the point of folly to try to hijack the primary usage of a plain English adjective, and attach it to a company which has existed for only one generation.
What next? If companies start calling themselves "Big", Small", Hot", "Cold", "Young", "Old", "Heavy", "Light", "Smelly", "Sweet", "Shitty", "Nice", "Tasty" and so on, do we start assigning those companies primary topic status for the whole of the English language? That privatisation of language is a marketer's delight, but a usability nightmare.
The folly of this approach is unintentionally illustrated above by User:Drcrazy102, who writes no-one but a corporate lawyer/WikiLawyer would say Rare Ltd. Actually, a few seconds checking would have shown Drcrazy102 that the company's own Twitter handle is @RareLtd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry BHG, I don't tend to search on social media for a company or info pertaining to a company when doing Wiki-editing since any idiot can post on such social foras, but fair enough then. However, would you say in casual conversation to a friend/parent/etc. "Oh yeah, have a look at Rare Ltd.'s info on Wiki. It's got some good info on the company." I highly doubt you (or many editors) would, because using "Ltd.", "Pty.", "Co.", etc. isn't something the average person does, it's something typically reserved for corporate and Wiki lawyers.
FWIW, I don't think there is anything wrong with going Rare (company) and I would support that - with the current page name being used as a disambig - as a suitable alternative. I'll also admit that one of the flaws in the statistical count used in my argument above is that it would include anyone searching for titles under "Rare ***" as well as those searching for Rare, the company, potentially making the stat count much higher than it would be for people searching for Rare, the company - per the note you just left. At any rate, hopefully this gets cleared up cordially. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
do we start assigning those companies primary topic status for the whole of the English language? When it's the primary topic, yes. try a GoogleBooks.uk search for "rare": which is why we don't use a single measure, like ghits, for this. (Google delivers results based on information is has collected about you.) On another note, there's nothing wrong with using a company suffix (e.g., Apple Inc.) as natural disambiguation if appropriate, but we're discussing the primary topic. Unless you're prepared to argue that "rare earth" or a generic concept of "rare" is a more prominent usage than the company, recentism is a red herring, as we've already shown how the company is itself best associated with that term by an order of magnitude. czar 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102:, I didn't search on social media either. I just looked on the company's own website for how it describes itself. Your assertions about "the average person" are no more than a reflection of your own views; but the company's twitter handle is evidence of how the company presents itself to those average people. However, I'm glad that you would support Rare (company). I am not too concerned about which disambig is used, so long as there is a disambig.
@Czar: your reasoning seems to be that it's the primary topic because its the primary topic, a circular logic with no evidence offered other than Wikipedia viewing stats. That's all pointlessly self-referential.
You ignore several crucial points:
  1. Assigning away the ordinary common adjectives of the English language to companies which achieve prominence is a very different matter to choosing between proper nouns. The ordinary use of the word "rare" is as an adjective, but you appear to be trying to compare the company's only usage with other instances of its use as a noun.
  2. The second pillar of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is long-term significance. You offer no evidence of the long-term significance on the company, nor even any inductive reasoning on how something which has existed for only 30 years can have greater significance than an adjective widely-used for hundreds of years
  3. Ignoring the long-term significance is pure recentism. It's not a red herring; a hardcore recentist approach is the only basis on which a company only 30 years old stands any chance of being regarded as the primary topic.
  4. Primary topic status is not based on your false test of any other usage being more prominent. It is based one usage being more prominent than all other usages combined.
  5. One of the crucial tests set by en.wp policy is usage in reliable sources. The company's name simply doesn't register on any broad search of reliable sources. I showed a Google Books search, but the same results are demonstrable by searching academic journals (e.g. through Google Scholar), or news sources (whether through Google News or any other major broad news source, such as newspaper archives). It's not even an also-ran -- it is barely-detectable.
There are perfectly simple alternatives to this hijack, such as Rare Ltd (per Apple Inc., and following the company's own usage to its 90,000 followers on Twitter). If the natural dab of "Inc" works for one the world's most prominent companies, there's no reason why that approach can't work for a much smaller business.
I am not aware of a previous situation where editors have been so foolish as to try to abuse WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to try to hijack a common adjective for corporate purposes. I doubt that anyone has previously considered the need to spell out such folly, but given the persistence of some gaming fans here, I think that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be amended to specifically exclude this sort of word-grab.
Those promoting this language-hijack are showing scant regard to how language works, and no concern for the linguistic consequences of wikilayering their way to deprive ordinary words of their ordinary, everyday meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl:, normally I have high regard for your posts, but you do seem to be showing a tiny lack of good faith by accusing editors of abusing policies, the assumption that all here are "gaming fans" - and feeling the need to link WP:PRIMARYTOPIC no less than five times, which seems just a little excessive.
To call it a "language-hijack" is certainly your entitled opinion, but that's all it is, just as your comment that Dr Crazy's "assertions about "the average person" are no more than a reflection of your own views" can also be applied to your own statement of "A search for the word "rare" is much more likely to be for generic uses of that adjective"
Having said that, I'm now kind of ambivalent about my own cast, and have struck my vote - I possibly agree with your sentiments, but not the way you put them forward. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: I am sorry that you feel my post was too assertive.
However, I think that "language-hijack" is an apt and proportionate term for what is being attempted here. The effect of the current title takes an ordinary adjective, a basic part of the language, and allocates it to a commercial business. And when we do actually have a games fan in this discussion who supports that language-grab being extended to any number of adjectives, then it's time for a wakeup call. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I too have usual high respect for your posts, but I think that utilising stereotypes like "young male editors" and "gaming fans" to make a point here is a bit out of order. The company's Twitter username is irrelevant, they probably added the Limited abbreviation because 'Rare' was already taken, my guess. JAGUAR  20:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Jaguar, the predominantly young male demographic of editors is not a "stereotype". It is widely documented through academic research, as is the resulting systemic bias towards topics most favoured by young male editors. Compare the intensive coverage of football and video games with the sparse coverage of topics which don't rate so highly in the interest that demographic: Africa, the history of commerce, or the labour movement.
In that respect, those editors are doing great work, writing about what they know and what interests them; that's commendable and very welcome. The problem is that I repeatedly observe that a significant proportion of the editors interested in those topics act at RM discussions as if they regarded primary topic status as some sort of badge of honour. I have repeatedly seen they pursue it while ignoring long-term-significance, and I have observed several cases of open hostility to even considering long-term-significance.
In this case the previous move was closed[1] by Czar, who had not only participated ([2], [3], [4], [5]) in the discussion zie closed, but was actually the person who proposed the title finally adopted. That a WP:INVOLVED editor appears to edit mostly in the field of video games ... and in that previous discussion was supported only by User:Jaguar. The said Jaguar says of this company (Rare Ltd) that one of the only subjects on Wikipedia in which I have genuine professional knowledge about[6].
So there were have it: the current title is indeed the work of two gaming enthusiasts, one of whom flagrantly ignored WP:INVOLVED, and the other of whom hints that they may have WP:COI issues .. and neither of whom even mentioned long-term significance.
I don't know whether either of those two editors is young and/or male. I assume youthfulness, to give them the benefit of the doubt, because I hope that older editors would act with a little more maturity and more distance from the topic. If that assumption of youthfulness is wrong, then I apologise for that.
But I make no apology at all for pointing out that whatever the motivating factors, the identifiable gaming fans in these two RM discussions have displayed some very bad behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(1) The above claims are outrageously presumptive, do not assume good faith, and are clearly afoul of our basic civility dos and don'ts. I won't be responding to future pings and I recommend that others do the same. (2) WP:INVOLVED presumes a dispute. The RM discussion was properly advertised and uncontested—it was perfectly reasonable to close it without a third party. To use a turn of phrase more precisely than it was used above, this is textbook wikilawyering. czar 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I know! I don't think I've ever come across anyone more bigoted and ridiculous on wiki before! JAGUAR  00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You know, it's people like you who make me despise this place most of the time. If you want to get some kind of reaction out of me, you're not going to get it. Firstly, you twist my words The said Jaguar says of this company (Rare Ltd) that "the only subjects on Wikipedia in which I have genuine professional knowledge about", when in fact the opening of the review states that Rare is one of the only subjects on Wikipedia which I have intimate knowledge about. You then use this hastily-typed jest of mine to assert a clueless WP:COI accusation on me, saying that me and czar shouldn't be contributing to this discussion because apparently we're not entitled to. You then showcase the most downright absurd bigotry and aggravating bullshit I've ever seen: resulting systemic bias towards topics most favoured by young male editors. You admit that you don't know if we're young males, but then contradict yourself saying that "older editors would act with a little more maturity", which is relevant, how? Just... why? You're taking this little move discussion so seriously that you're not only ignoring WP:AGF, you're throwing these ridiculous accusations at us. Yes, me and czar have contributed a lot to Rare articles, especially at WP:RARE. Does that not give us an entitlement to voice our opinions here? Just because I like a topic doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion. I just can't believe this. I'm in the middle of being so pissed off but I find it humorous because I've never heard so much crap in one paragraph, by a seemingly 'experienced' admin. JAGUAR  01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I apologise for inadvertently omitting the the first two words of that quote, I have amended it in the same edit as this comment. That was an error, and the meaning you inferred from it was not what I intended to convey. For the record, I do not claim that you don't know about anything else.
However, the point I did intend (and made explicitly) still stands: you claim genuine professional knowledge of this topic, which clearly implies a WP:COI in conducting the GA review. Please explain why that genuine professional knowledge of the subject of this article does not constitute a COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Two things BHG; first, a genuine proffesional knowledge of the topic may simply involve working in the gaming industry ... which has nothing to do with COI - leading to the second point I wish to make. BHG, you are assuming bad faith as well as making this discussion far too aggressive with your language choices and responses. When you state "yeah, but that's just your opinion"despite my use of "some", "typically reserved for", and other probability language, you make an editor annoyed at you. When you allege that a Wiki-editor has a COI, you make an angry enemy. You seriously need to consider backing off for a day or two, toning down your language and responses and consider being a lot more civil in your responses - in both the real-world meaning and the spirit of the Wiki policy - before you start trying to "resolve" this move discussion. I have seen some of your other work at ANI and I don't think that this discussion is an isolated case of you being a tad out of touch with other editors, not even just telling it as it is - this is your behaviour for at least the past few days - so take a chill pill, a couple of days off Wiki and then come back to the discussion with a clear and civil head on your keyboard. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Drcrazy102: it may involve something innocuous, but it raises an obvious concern. That's why I wrote hints that they may have WP:COI issues and implies a WP:COI in conducting the GA review, and asked Jaguar to clarify. Instead, Jaguar blustered angrily.
Even if Jaguar's involvement is, as you speculate, just "working in the gaming industry", there is a form of COI involved in helping promote to PRIMARYTOPIC or GA a topic related to your area of professional work. Maybe some ppl would feel that COI is too strong a term, but it's not a disinterested position.
The bottom line here is that regardless of whether there is a COI, two editors closely-vested in the subject at hand (in the sense of it being their favoured topic area) drove through a problematic renaming which one of them closed as a WP:INVOLVED admin contrary to the guidelines, achieving a change which was not hinted at in the initial proposal and which half the participants did not comment on.
There's a problem here. If I come across as a little short-tempered at the moment, that doesn't alter the facts of what has been happening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) @Czar:, re-read Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves, and then tell me which bit you think applies. Hint: the result was not unanimous, because only 2 of the editors participating supported the proposal to remove the dismabiguator. One of those two was Czar, who moved[7] the page and closed[8] the discussion less than 3 days after it was relisted[9] by an uninvolved editor. That's straightforward WP:INVOLVED.
Calling me names won't alter the fact that the WP:INVOLVED problem is real. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I view the previous RM as uncontested/unanimous, but more importantly, I view it in line with the five pillars (after a week of silence—bold, not reckless). But in any event, it's fine to challenge that (civilly...), hence this discussion. Pinging the editors from the previous, invoked RM as a courtesy for their second opinion: @Red Slash and Calidum. Also the COI stuff above is harassment. I have genuine professional knowledge of the history of education and the history of technology—it doesn't constitute a COI. If Jaguar potentially had an undisclosed financial stake or stood for personal gain, there's a fair way to ask that, but suffice it to say that I've already commented on the inappropriate tone issues. czar 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Czar:, re-read Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves again. The test is "unanimous", not "uncontested", and only 2 out 4 editors supported -- or even commented on -- your proposal to strip the disambiguator entirely.
The discussion had been relisted, and the 7 days of that second listing period had not expired.
Your rush to make an WP:INVOLVED closure contravenes the closing instructions on two points. It is very shoddy conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I think your accusations have already been said more succinctly. Another editor will take them up if they are profitable. czar 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Section Break 1

  • Rename to Rare (company) since the previous discussion was bad all the way around and would probably have been reversed had it gone to WP:MR. It was poorly attended because it originally dealt with a period difference. When it was changed in the discussion mid-way through to move the disambiguation page, it should have either ended with a new multi-page requested move started over or listed the Rare to Rare (disambiguation) move to increase participation in the discussion. By not doing this, it turned the discussion into a malformed request that should have been rejected. Only two of the four participants in the previous discussion agreed with the final outcome and it was closed by an involved admin against the closing instructions of requested moves. The previous discussion had no discussion about the company passing the second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the long-term significance. Rare meat (Temperature (meat)), Economic rarity (Scarcity) and Species rarity (Rare species) all have long-term significance over the company and were never discussed in the previous discussion. Since the company fails the second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it should me moved and Rename Rare (disambiguation) to Rare since there is no primary topic that could fulfill both aspects. It would be helpful if this could be added to the request to increase participation. Aspects (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain, for reasons stated above. – Rhain ☔ 06:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: - I didn't find your post assertive, more patronising and borderline insulting. And I have to say that you're repeating that behaviour by amongst other things linking to WP:INVOLVED six times in your recent comments. Can I seriously ask if you're doing this on purpose, because the way you're presenting yourself in this thread is way out of kilter to how I've seen you behave in the past. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I know some of the language I wrote last night might have been hasty and I was prepared to apologise for some of my words this morning, but I log on to see that BHG still doesn't get it, and that she's still displaying the same odd behaviour. I have seen her posts occasionally since I was first active in 2010 and I thought she was among the most respected and rational-minded veteran admins on here, but last night has made me lose all of my respect for her. I don't know what's going on, but her behaviour is borderline trolling, saying that I have a conflict of interest because I take an interest in Rare. If I was a shareholder of the company, or if I worked for them (which I don't), then yes, that might constitute a COI. But no, I was a child who woke up every morning to get on my Nintendo 64 and play Goldeneye before school in 2001-2, so my personal interest in the company and the fact that I've helped bring up around 20 or so Rare GAs cannot restrict me from voicing an opinion, like BHG is trying to enforce here. Also using the absurd notion that the dominant "young male editors" in this field aren't able to contribute because "older editors would act with a little more maturity and more distance from the topic". Nobody is questioning anybody's maturity here so I don't know why she brought that up. I don't want to comment here any more but I feel like something has to be done to set things out straight. She's misinterpreting everything and taking it all out of proportion, and I don't know why, quite frankly. I think that Rare should retain its original name because firstly (to state the obvious), they're simply called 'Rare', nothing else. Secondly it's by far and wide the most searched for topic, as evidenced above, so there is no need or reason to disambiguate. Rare is among the most famed and notable video game developers, so nobody is disputing whether or not this should not have a simple title. Or is that a COI, BHG? JAGUAR  14:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Jaguar, you reinforce my points, in two ways. 1/ by continuing to ignore the question of long-term significance, which is the other part of primarytopic; 2/ by noting (irrelevantly) that "Rare is among the most famed and notable video game developers" as justification for a "simple title", which supports my point about a tendency amongst some video-game editors to take a game-centric focus in these discussions rather than considering the wider usage of the word. (I assume that your point is true; my concern is the narrow context in which you frame your assessment).
It's a pity too that you are full of criticism for me, but apparently unconcerned that the current title was imposed by an involved admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I think czar had every right to move it. He explained his reasoning very fluently above. JAGUAR  15:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Fluency is lovely, but a basis in policy in what matters. The policy is that wp.involved admins may close in cases of unanimity, but in that case there was support from only 2 out of 4 editors.
Czar clearly lined to the policy, which is clearly worded. It's astonishing that you both continue to misrepresent it, just as you both misrepresent the policy wrt WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
He just explained everything yesterday. I think everything you mentioned is invalid. JAGUAR  23:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
What an extraordinary reply.
For now, just try one point: have you actually read WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Are you really still supporting Czar's repeated claim that policy is to exclude a term from consideration as primary topic unless it consists of an unqualified use of the same term? Seriously? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Rare (company) and Rare (disambiguation) to Rare. When I saw this, I immediately thought of RARE Hospitality International, Inc., formerly independent but acquired by Darden Restaurants in 2007. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Long-term significance is not some set component of determining primary topic. (There is no single criterion for determining primary topic. – the guideline) But to address it as a concern of its own accord: this company is the longest enduring item by the name of "rare". Yes, rare meat has more enduring significance in human history than even a major company such as this, but the two are not in competition—those types of "rarity" terms are already disambiguated. The question is whether this "Rare" is what readers would expect to find at this location (no, that doesn't include their local steakhouse), and by the hits metric repeatedly cited above, it is. There isn't a single other disambiguated version of "Rare" that comes close to the amount of source coverage and sustained interest that this topic has received. The company is recognized by every major measure as among the most iconic in its field. And I haven't seen any counter-evidence, such as a Google ngram search or something of the like, arguing that any other single or combined usage of "rare" occurs in greater historical frequency than has been shown to occur for this company. czar 23:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Czar, here's is why I got frustrated.
1/ Straw man, I'm afraid. My complaint was not that you failed to take long-term significance as the sole criterion; my complaint remains that you excluded it entirely, and offer no justification for doing so. That's why I complain of recentism.
2/ There is no policy basis for excluding a topic from consideration for the primary slot because it is already disambiguated. (For an illustration, look at Churchill (disambiguation), and then check out what is the primary topic for Churchill). That disambiguation of "rare meat" is is an artefact of the en.wp titling, not of how the word "rare" is used in the real world (wp could reasonably assign the title "rare" to the meat, if editors chose to do so; might not be the best choice or even a good choice, but it would be reasonable).
3/ The question to ask is "what is 'rare' most likely to refer to?" .. which you helpfully answer by pointing to rare meat. Don't forget rare earth metals too, or the generic concept of rarity. You have actually conceded my central point: that the LTS of other meanings eclipses that of the company; but don't appear to see the significance of that.
4/ As to evidence, see my first post in this RM discussion (dated 20:50, 28 January 2016), which includes that evidence from a google books search; I could find no mention of the company in the first 100 hits. So it is surprising that you still claim to have seen no such evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
We've already talked through these points above so I have nothing to add besides that books and academic journals have their own implicit biases in the subjects they cover. czar 01:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you haven't responded to most of those.
And I'm fascinated by your claim that the types of sources noted by en.wp policy as the most reliable are biased -- presumably you mean against video games. Rather than just a vague wave, it would be helpful if you would elaborate on the nature of this massive bias you allege among publishers, and how it is relevant to this discussion.
You first claimed "no evidence", then when reminded that it had already been posted, you claim that one of the . What with you ignoring LTS, wrongly excluding pre-disambiguated terms, and now excluding the std policy-commended tests of reliable source coverage as sobiased against your favourite topic that even a zero-hit-rate is disregradable... you give a strong appearance of having gutted the primarytopic policy in order to drive through your wp-involved closure taking 2/4 votes as a consensus. Maybe you'd be kind enough to set out which other parts of the relevant policies you feel should be disregarded? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
BHG, I'm done with the condescending hyperbole and I'm wholly uninterested in arguing with you, so this will be my last attempt to satisfy your questions—otherwise, we obviously disagree and are getting nowhere, and these circumstances will only resolve when we (a) don't write reams of text and (b) let others contribute towards consensus. So: Google Books is not complete—it's missing libraries of periodicals and trade publications. I said above that the guideline already notes that ghits is a terrible measure of popularity, worth, etc. It's only good for finding the things that it has indexed. Google Books is going to be naturally predisposed to not indexing video game materials, which are predominantly not in book form. Additionally, video game industry will not be a prominent subject term in an academic journal search because, lo, academic journals do not take up that topic. This is a systemic bias, not one of active choice—of course JSTOR is going to be better for finding academic book reviews than video game industry-related periodicals. It should surprise no one, but we are foolish if we take any single search (or poll or study, for that matter) to be indicative of completeness. Rare, the company, has the foremost prominence because of its presence in the field and the way that it's cited/mentioned—not because Google ranks it above your local steakhouse and any other "Rares" that it finds more important for you. I consider this fundamental search engine knowledge so forgive me for assuming I didn't need to write it out. WP traffic records, on the other hand, show a definitive pattern of general interest in a topic. If Rare had even any remote competition among the other entries known as "Rare", there would be no contest, but it's literally an order of magnitude greater in traffic than its nearest neighbor. The major factor is whether another namesake would conflict as the primary topic, and I don't see one that does. Is it rare meat? Because I don't see how that is confused with "Rare"—it requires the qualifier of meat or economics or species or else it means nothing. Even all of those uses together do not approach the standing of the company. Likewise, a company like Nike or Virgin doesn't have the primary topic only because it has a conflict with very obvious terms (namesakes?) that both occupy the same spelling and have greater long-term significance. Rare has no such competitor because there is no single concept of "Rare" or "Rarity" that is more than a dictionary definition, but the company is widely known as the definitive Rare beyond the confines of the industry. It doesn't mean that will show in your search of choice, though (as relevance ranking works with respect to any common word). This leaves arguments along the lines of not liking it or slippery slopes or the type of invective protested above. I'm done with this line of inquiry. Please do not ping me about this again. czar 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Czar, you are making very heavy work of things which are actually quite simple. For example:
  1. Your point about personalised search output is a red herring. Try adding pws=0 to turn it off, and the Gbooks search is https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rare&tbm=bks&pws=0 ... which still gives not a single mention of the games company in the first 100 hits.
  2. Read WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term". The policy gives the example: the article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny".
    Throughout this discussion, you have repeatedly misrepresented this part of policy, by pretending that it is the inverse of what it actually says.
    The policy is not explicit about ptopic redirects to multiple word targets, but practice is clearly to do it: see fof example the high-profile examples of Churchill, Lenin, Soviet, Eisenhower.
  3. It's entirely true that Google Books is not complete—it's missing libraries of periodicals and trade publications. The clue is in the name; it's a collection of books, not periodicals or magazines.
    Any generalist collection of reliable sources -- newspapers, books, magazines, whatever -- shows that word "rare" is overwhelmingly used to denote the concept of "rareness", for which the wikipedia article is called scarcity. You have not offered any evidence of any generalist collection of sources which gives difft results.
    search typementions of games company
    in first 100 hits
    Google Books 0
    Google News1
    Google Scholar 0
    JSTOR0
  4. Instead you simply exclude all the usage tests which your choice fails: Gbooks, Gnews, JSTOR, Google Scholar.
  5. So if we want to select a primary topic, that's it: scarcity. Other uses such as rare earth or rare meat are an order of magnitude less prominent, and the video game company is near-invisible in all the checks I have done of generalist collections of reliable sources. I am sure it is there, but too infrequently to show up in small samples.
  6. Naturally, if an editor is writing an article, they will draw on specialist sources. That's right and proper ... but it's not the way to test for a primary topic. If a topic is covered only in the specialist press, that's a pretty good indication that it is unlikely to be the primary topic -- unless the alternatives are equally obscure. In this case the alternatives are demonstrably not obscure, and don't forget that they too will be covered in their own specialist publication.
    article90-day pageviews
    Scarcity 23704
    Rare Ltd 42376
    Rare (David Bowie album) 8038
    Temperature (meat) 38896
    Rare species 13608
  7. By your inversion of the policy on primary redirects, you avoided a comparison between the page view stats for the company and its most-viewed alternatives. So I have compiled the 90-day pageview stats for some of the items on the dab page are in the table to the right, giving a total of 126,622 pageviews.
    Note that even tho it is occupying the ptopic slot, the company gets less than twice the page views of scarcity, and only ~10% more than for rare meat.
    So, contrary to your claim that the company is literally an order of magnitude greater in traffic than its nearest neighbor, it's barely ahead of the 2nd item, and only 33% of the hits for a subset of the alternatives.
Result: the company fails ptopic by every measure tested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
How will anyone confuse Rare with Temperature (meat)? JAGUAR  21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Rare (company) - the primary topic is the dictionary meaning, the closest matching article is scarcity. -Zanhe (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Retain for reasons stated above. Idealist343 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to "Rare Ltd." for the overwhelming reasons stated above, and also for others. A quick Google search should be enough to indicate why the current title is a bad one. Removing cases where the term "rare" refers to scarcity, the top 10 google targets are 1) An American charity organisation; 2) an American conservative newsfeed; 3) an Australian advertising agency; 4) the games company. What's more, I had to remove the scarcity meaning because that was the overwhelming meaning of the word "rare" when googled. As it is in daily life. In fact, when I tried to search just removing the words rarity and scarcity, 9 of the top 10 ghits were still for uses where the word referred to rarity (mostly rare disease information - and you can add a 90-day page search of over 18000 for "Rare disease", too). Rare primarily means scarcity, and in those cases where it doesn't it still doesn't primarily relate to a game company. It's also definitely worth noting that - despite not being wikilawyers - the company itself is called "Rare Ltd." at the top of its own website, as well as on its Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube feeds, and on its FaceBook page. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Grutness...wha? 11:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Rare (company). Considering that "Rare" is a plausible search term for scarcity, Temperature (meat), and rare species, let alone the other topics actually titled "Rare", the evidence above suggests that the company doesn't qualify as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain t/c 16:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Dohn joe is right about the dab page: if the company's article is moved, Rare (disambiguation) should go to the base name Rare.--Cúchullain t/c 15:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move – clearly no primarytopic. I would have preferred to see a proper multi-RM at Rare (disambiguation), but the point is clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: I did not start a multi-RM because I only wanted to determine whether there is consensus that the current title is appropriate. sst✈(conjugate) 08:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Rare (company) This video game developer is certainly not the primary topic for this term. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I already !voted above to keep the status quo, which I still believe is the right way to go. If the company article gets moved, however, we should move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare - not redirect Rare to scarcity or anything like that. "Scarcity" is not the primary dictionary meaning of "rare", let alone the PRIMARYREDIRECT for it. Dohn joe (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Your !vote above was cast on the basis of pageview statistics. However, I demonstrated above that the company has only 33% of the total pageviews of a subset of the items to which rare could redirect. Further data from Grutness reduces it to 29%, and there are more items on the dab page whose hits haven't been measured. That is way short of the primary topic threshold, so I an astonished that you "still believe" the company is the primary topic.
      I showed above how the company fails another measure of a ptopic, viz. prevalence in non-specialist reliable sources: it barely shows up at all in any generalist collection. Even Czar, who proposed the company as primary topic then imposed it as a wp-involved closer, acknowledges that the company shows up only in specialist sources. And nobody has even tried to argue that company is primary in long-term significance. So what on earth is the policy basis for any continuing belief in the primacy of the company? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      Well, there's WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Any word as a word will of course appear most frequently in any search of sources. But WP is not a dictionary - there has to be encyclopedic content for a word or phrase. This is why many synonyms of "rare" are redlinks - see infrequent, unlikely, atypical, underdone, etc. There's also WP:NOUN - we nearly always title articles with nouns - and editors and readers nearly always link to and search for nouns. Look at what links to Rare here. In the first 500 links, I found one mislink to a dictionary definition usage of "rare". The policy recommends redirecting an adjective to a noun form - or a separate dab page. The first is fine when there is one clear definition, or when the adjective form itself does not have an encyclopedic topic, but neither of those is the case here. There's also WP:partial title match. Rare species has nothing to do with a primarytopic inquiry into "Rare".
      In questions of primarytopic, we start with the universe of "things called 'X'", and ask if one of those things is viewed more often than the other topics, and cross-check it with long-term significance. Here, we have a disambiguation page of things actually called "Rare", and this company meets both of those criteria. Dohn joe (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed, there has to be encyclopedic content for us to link to. Which in this case there is: scarcity. "Rare" has other, subsidiary, meanings ... but scarcity covers the core of the most important meaning.
        You seriously misread WP:NOTADICTIONARY. It says:
        "This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are."
        That means that in the encylopedia we have an article on the concept of "rare", and its many rough synonyms. The article is currently named "scarcity", but with only minor modification the same article could be called "uncommon"/"uncommonality", "rare"/rareness etc. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the precise title is less important than the concept. We do indeed title articles with nouns ... but the adjective "rare" conveys the exactly the same concept as the noun "rarity". So the primary meaning of the adjective is exactly the same. (Note that the Oxford dictionaries list "scarce" as a synonynm for "rare").
        You try to distinguish this from cases where there is "one clear definition". That is as close to the case here as makes no difference -- the "rarity" meaning is the one conveyed by over 90% of the cases where the word "rare" is used in general publications.
        You also make the mistake of failing to consider WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I don't know what the problem is, but you and Czar and Jaguar all adamantly refuse to accept the clear opening sentence there: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term". Instead you are focusing on the word rather than the concept ... which is also exactly what WP:NOTADICTIONARY warns against!
        You also seriously misunderstand WP:partial title match. It is mostly about the distinction between a set index and a dab page. A dab page includes things which may commonly be referred to by the term alone -- so rare (disambiguation) rightly includes (inter alia) the concept of rare/rarity/scarcity, "rare" as a cooking technique, plus some music albums etc. It doesn't matter that the more usual term for an item is longer; the ambiguity arises because the unqualified single word is also used.
        Your comment about things actually called "rare" misses that point. Things are "actually called" a variety of names, some of which are shortened forms of longer terms. So the company which is actually called "Rare Ltd" is also actually called "Rare", just as the food actually called "rare meat" is also actually called "rare".
        I can get that some of these issues are quite involved, and that a sequence of good faith errors can lead an editor down the path of considering the company as a candidate for ptopic.
        But what I don't get is that at the end of that path, some editors seem to overlook the principle of least astonishment. If the outcome of the path of reasoning is that a very common word primarily refers to a company whose prominence is in such a narrow niche that it barely registers in general sources ... why aren't alarm bells ringing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        A sequence of good faith errors, indeed.... First, Scarcity is about the encyclopedic topic of economic scarcity, not the dictionary definition of "scarcity" - so that article only covers one small meaning of "rare" - economic rarity.

        Second, from WP:NOTADICTIONARY - yes! look at the concepts. Rareness is a redlink - we have no article on the concept of rareness! Rarity and Rarities are disambiguation pages - for things called "Rarity" or "Rarities". Rare (disambiguation) is its own, separate disambiguation page - because topics named "Rare" are treated differently than topics named "Rareness" or "Rarity" (or Scarcity, for that matter).

        Third, you really should look again at WP:partial title match. It is nothing to do with dab page vs. set index - it is dab page vs. search index. A dab page at "X" really is for "things called 'X'". It is not a search index, so "things containing 'X'" or "things related to 'X'" are not included, or sent to a "See also" section. Which is why "rare meat" and "rare species" are irrelevant here - rare meat is not called "rare" - it's called "rare meat".

        The whole point here is to make things as easy as possible for our editors to edit and our readers to navigate. Given the page view statistics from above, it is clear that when editors and readers type in "Rare" by itself, they want the article on this company. Sending them someplace else, just because it doesn't make sense to us, or because we've never heard of the company, ignores this evidence, and makes the encyclopedia just that much more difficult to use. Dohn joe (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

        I completely agree with Dohn joe. Per WP:PTM, I don't know how anybody would confuse a multi-million pound company with Temperature (meat)? Or anything else in the disambiguate page for that matter. I think BHG's rhetoric is wrong and another example of admin elitism. JAGUAR  14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Oh dear. Jaguar. The only suggestion that anyone would confuse a multi-million pound company with Temperature (meat) is that made by Jaguar, so it's a perfect straw man. Naturally, when each topic is described in that way, the two are readily distinguished, just as each of them is equally readily distinguished from a music album of this title. That straw man is just the latest in a long series of red herrings manufactured by the promoters of this company; this latest one is not just red, it's glowing in the dark and flashing.
          The reason that we have a disambiguation page is to list topics which may have a variety of other names, but can also be described by the single word rare. This explained at WP:PTM: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context". Why are the fans of the company so keen to point to WP:PTM, but so unwilling or unable to read that sentence and the examples which follow it?
          Why are the fans of the company so unwilling or unable to read and understand the reasons set out in WP:PTM why Abraham Lincoln is listed at Lincoln (disambiguation), but composer Harry J. Lincoln is not?
          The fans of the company are also unwilling or unable to read and understand WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. That section makes it quite clear that a the primary topic for a term need not have the same name as the redirect, and that the scope of the redirect target may be broader. That is the case, for example, with scarcity, which discusses rareness in a broad economic context.
          I come back again to the point I made above. Some of these steps involve complex and subtly nuanced distinctions; it easy to get lost in the labyrinth. But the end result is fairly simple: the loyal fans of this company have reasoned their way to the ludicrous claim that a very common word refers primarily to a company whose prominence is in such a narrow niche that it barely registers in general sources. Never mind all the details; the folly of the outcome is so great that simple common sense should flash loud and bright warnings at any good faith editor who wasn't simply promoting the company and/or video games.
          The charge of "admin elitism" is just unfounded name-calling. Jaguar's ally Czar (whose blatant and unrepented wp:involved move created the current title) is an admin, but 6 of the 9 editors opposing this language-grab are not admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
I will make the point re this statement immediately above: Given the page view statistics from above, it is clear that when editors and readers type in "Rare" by itself, they want the article on this company. It means no such thing. It provides zero evidence as to what the reader wanted, only evidence to the fact that a reader navigated to the page. It is pure arrogance to think that anyone of us can deduce what millions of readers "want" or are searching for. A very poor argument for a title decision. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Usage is one of the two main considerations at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; we use page view statistics to determine usage all the time. Dohn joe (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree completely, page views are indeed an element in evaluating Primary topic, but they only indicate how many times the article was navigated to and provide no evidence as to "what" the reader represented by each of those views was searching for. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Mike Cline is quite right that page views provide no evidence as to "what" the reader represented by each of those views was searching for. But the problem goes deeper: they provide no evidence that the reader was searching for anything at all.
On-wiki search is only one of a wide variety of routes by which readers can reach a page. Other pathways include external search (e.g. via Google or Bing), links from elsewhere in the internet, and internal links from other pages on Wikipedia. The very crude data made available to editors does not allow us to analyse or compare those pathways in cases such as this.
Those internal links can massively alter the flow of readers: frequent and prominent links boost pageviews. Even a brief mention on front page guarantees a lot of hits; my DYK entries on obscure politicians and judges now routinely get ~1500 hits in the 12 hours they are on the front page, instead of their usual ~5 hits/day.
In this case, the games company is part of a topic area which en.wp covers in vastly greater detail than other areas, so there are massively more links to its topics, with much greater prominence. There are 40 Good articles about Rare Ltd and its products, but only 9 GAs on 20th-century novels, and 81 GAs on paintings from any time or place in the whole of human history.
That massive systemic bias means that there are way more links to some topics than to others. There are 1360 WikiLinks to Rare, a company with only ~200 employees. That's nearly twice as many as the 723 links to Serco (~£4Bn/year income, >100,000 employees), and about the same as the 1396 links to Sainsbury's (~£24Bn/year income, >160,000 employees). It's ~50% more links than 943 links to Škoda Auto (>US$12Bn/year revenue, > 25,000 employees).
It's great to have so much coverage of any topic. But the resulting pageview stats are the product of the unbalanced state of Wikipedia. The noise is a feedback loop, not a reflection of the real world. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The page hits are, in this and many similar cases, extremely misleading. Yes, Rare had 42k hits. How many of them were from people looking for the company? It's impossible to tell. Chances are quite a lot of them were from people who went to that page thinking they were going to a page about a David Bowie album, or a page about cooking meat. Yes, it's It's not impossible that a significant proportion of those who eventually got to Rare (David Bowie album) or Temperature (meat) (or Scarcity, for that matter) accidentally arrived at Rare first by mistake - especially given that Rare Ltd isn't the biggest Google target for the word rare (even once its use purely as an adjective is discounted). You need to think like a Wikipedia user, not like an experienced Wikipedia editor who knows all the ins and outs of the site. Yes, it's difficult to see how anyone could confuse a multi-million pound company with Temperature (meat). But how easy is it to confuse Rare with rare? Because that's what Wikipedia users would likely be typing. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How many of them were from people looking for the company? It's impossible to tell. No it isn't. Note the metrics in the original RM: "Rare Ltd.: 68.5k"—that was unique for the company at its distinguished location. You're also welcome to compile the historical view counts for "temperature (meat)" in the same period, though the comparison is fallacious in the first place to think that people are searching for "rare" as a concept without a qualifier and expect to get meat, economics, etc. (And for the record, temperature (meat)'s counts above are inaccurate—they count a single day spike that itself constitutes over 25% of the total—should be more like 28k total.) I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, "Rare Ltd." may have generated 68.5k then, as you say, but "Rare" overall currently generates only 42k, and a quick doublecheck of the viewcount shows that in the last 90 days, the redirect "Rare Ltd." only got 5.6k hits. Your proposed figure-shuffling to get 28k for "temperature (meat)" due to a spike perhaps also needs to be considered for the massive reduction in overall hits for the term "Rare". And I stand by my comment. While it was easily possible to see how many people in May were searching for the company, it clearly isn't now - unless you are suggesting that 68.5k out of a total of 42k were searching for the company! Grutness...wha? 00:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Section Break 2

  • Move to Rare (company) (Rare Ltd would be fine as well), and move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare per Dohn joe. No such user (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Rare Ltd. A clear case of language hijacking of the common adjective "rare" as per the overwhelming evidence given by BrownHairedGirl. Support her motion to amend our policies so further language hijacking such as this is explicitly ruled out. Her reference to our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS seems correct, too: non-hardcore-gamers (still the overwhelming majority of our readers worldwide) typically wouldn't even have the slightest idea what this company is or produces.
    Furthermore, as shown by Grutness, not even a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as regard to Rare (company). If "Rare Ltd." is good enough for them on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook, then it's going to be a decent choice for us.
    Move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare for now, as a possible new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs to be calmly and carefully chosen on a tabula rasa. --PanchoS (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator – if this page is indeed moved, remember to clean up all links after the move (using AWB or other suitable methods). sst✈(conjugate) 15:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments about user conduct do not belong here. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I want to propose that BownHairedGirl be prevented from commenting here again. Her statements have been provocative, offensive, hyperbolic and at best assuming bad faith. Last night she posted on Snuggums' talk page that she believed Snuggums (who made a good faith no-consensus close of this RM) had a WP:COI because he's in the middle of reviewing a GAN that has nothing to do with this discussion. She's stated WP:INVOLVED and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a dozen times throughout this discussion, which can be interpreted as canvassing. A few days ago she similarly threw a COI accusation at me because I reviewed Rare's GAN last week (despite me not having any idea of this RM at the time), and she also shows regard for Wikipedia's overall improvement as "massive systemic bias" because Rare has a total number of 40 GAs, which seems disproportionate compared to other topics. She thinks me and czar have a mighty alliance, and calls us the "two main protagonists". She first quipped that young male editors aren't mature enough to contribute to this discussion, but when I tried to tell her that she shouldn't use stereotypes she had to say I had a conflict of interest with the company, and that made me feel like I wasn't entitled to an opinion. Czar is the most rational-minded and helpful admin I know, but yet she takes the time to insult both me and him. I keep wanting to ignore this discussion because I know whatever I say is going to inflame the situation; but she's pinged me a total of six times over the week. I read her message on Snuggums' talk page this morning and I was so pissed off that I deliberately closed my browser and decided that I should return in a few hours with a cool head, but the way she's so persistent, insulting and illogical makes me even more pissed. BHG is not helping this discussion at all, she's making it worse and her excessive linking, pinging and bickering about policies is bound to alter the opinions of everybody in this discussion, which to be honest, I think has. She's putting me off editing Rare articles, which is a topic I enjoy. What everyone wants is for a neutral admin to overlook this discussion, and see who's being out of line here. We need cool-minded people to see if this should indeed be moved, not aggravating warriors who make other editors feel put off. JAGUAR  16:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar:, if you want to make comment which is wholly about me, please ping me.
If you want some sort of topic ban from me on this page, then take it to WP:ANI. But beware of WP:BOOMERANG. And frankly, if you really think that linking to a policy several times in the course of a long discussion, is a form of WP:CANVASSING, then the ANI discussion could be fun. Imagine someone citing policy in the course of a debate, to sway that debate! Scandalous!
The cosy nexus of video-games-focused editors which drove through the move to the current name using a wp:involved admin has been the main defenders of the current title. You and Czar have wikilawyered your way to an extraordinary defense of an absurd hijack of language ... and you don't like being called out on that.
Last night, this discussion was closed by a non-admin, in a bizarre and unexplained closure which contravened the warning against non-admin closures of contentious debates. When asked for more explanation of the finding of "no consensus" when !votes were 13:5 to move, it turned out that the closer had missed many of the crucial points of the discussion. I like Snuggums, and had assumed that this was an error in good faith ... but then it turned out that you and Czar and Snuggums had just been the sole 3 collaborators on a related topic. As I told Snuggums, I want to believe their good faith, but this looks very dodgily cosy.
Thankfully, Snuggums responded very honourably, and reverted the closure with good grace. I thanked Snuggums, and didn't post about it here ... but I given Jaguar's total lack of concern about Czar's blatantly forbidden wp:involved closure am sadly unsurprised that another dodgy closure would be challenged.
I have no desire at all to put anyone off editing any articles, and I have repeatedly welcomed the efforts which you and others make to expand en.wp's coverage of your chosen topic area. As I have repeatedly stated, my concern is that the well-documented systemic bias in our editor base has in this case led to an absurd hijack of a common piece of language.
Anyway, you know where ANI is if you want it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm never going to ANI, I posted it here because I think your contributions to this RM aren't helpful to anyone; they're based on purely provocative accusations, like you just said that me and czar are Wikilawyering. I think it's in everyone's best interests if we left this alone. JAGUAR  20:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Several of the people commenting in this discussion could use a break from it. You've all said your piece, and folks can read all your comments in deciding their own votes. At this point, continuing the back and forth isn't bringing us any closer to consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 21:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. "I'm never going to ANI" - to be decided.
  2. "I posted it here because I think your contributions to this RM aren't helpful to anyone" - should have been a request to BHG's talkpage, not the RM discussion.
  3. "I think it's in everyone's best interests if we left this alone." - should have occurred a few days ago IMO, or been moved into a different discussion section.
Now that I've had my piece (both here and below) with all annoying editors here (good and bad); let's allow any new editors a chance to talk, discuss and !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - There is a minor consensus growing for @Jaguar, Czar, and BrownHairedGirl: to stop overrunning the discussion. I previously attempted to curtail this and now we also have Cuchullain requesting that the editors also stop derailing this move discussion. So I am making a formal request to the three parties - stop bludgeoning the conversation and take it to the Dramaboard (where for once, it might solve a problem). Jaguar and Czar, the previous close does look "dodgy" considering the Admin-status (read; supervote) and "no-consensus" that would have typically resulted in a "no move" judgement. BHG ... you know what I've said, some of it in haste and ill-worded, but I've explained this to you further on your talkpage and have agreed with you on the conduct issues but there is room for a boomerang on all parties. To all editors; take a chill pill, focus on the move and address conduct behaviour on editor talkpages or the Dramaboard (and do so in a civil manner without name-calling or editor bashing). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. I had not posted to this discussion for two days. The issue of the now-reverted closure was dealt with on the closer's talkpage. However, when another editor chose to post here to complain about my challenge to a closure which even the closer acknowledged was mistaken, I replied to set the record straight. Over&out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It's the response to the out-of-line complaint that matters since it begins further derailment. I know why you did it, and fair enough, but it should be discussed on the user talkpages, taken to ANI or dropped. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to move both the Jaguar's out-of-line complaint and responses to another venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
To hell with all this "I dare you to take it to AN/I" business. I've left a brief note at WP:AN/I. This discussion has become too long, too angry, and too messy. Grutness...wha? 22:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I really didn't want this to go further at all, but I've disengaged from commenting anything off-topic from this RM now. Something on topic though, are we going to go ahead with the move/non-move soon? JAGUAR  23:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully an uninvolved admin will come and have a good look WRT closing it soon - as per comment at AN/I. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Section Break 3

Has anyone consider WP:ANRFC and seeking an official closure froma neutral party?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully an uninvolved admin will be along sometime soon, as per the comments at AN/I Grutness...wha? 05:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
They already did above with the refactoring. But if you'd like a closure it helps to ask.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - at ANRFC. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rare (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rare (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Milton Bradley

The article doesn't mention Rare's NES partnership with Milton Bradley. Any sources on that? czar 18:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rare_(company)/Archive_2&oldid=1090398410"