Talk:Cunard Line

message: Why has this page been moved without discussion? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it back. Even Cunards own web pages are titled Cunard Line and  on the about Cunard Line page under our future say "we continue to extend the Cunard Line" Lyndaship (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Following the initial close, and the earlier close by  mentioned above, I promised to come back with some more data points and rebuttals of the arguments presented above in opposition. Here is what I would say:
*(a) Firstly, 's !vote observes that the BBC, CNN and the Guardian do use Cunard Line on occasion. That's true, but the question here, and which underpins most RMs, is which name is the most common name in use. I've run a simple Google search for pages in those three organisations and found the following:
:::
Source         	Hits for "Cunard" without "Cunard Line"	Hits for "Cunard Line"
BBC            	1,280                                  	80
CNN            	239                                    	60
Guardian       	1,010                                  	114
All Google hits	8,020,000                              	1,610,000
::What's clear from this is that all three sources have considerably more pages that say just "Cunard" than say "Cunard Line", anywhere.
* (b) 's oppose says ... which doesn't seem to be particularly true. Looking at the first few refs in the list:
:# -  (1999) - says "Cunard Line", although it's a 1999 article so quite old
:# -  (2018) - doesn't say "Cunard Line" anywhere. It does say "Cunard cruise line", but that's a descriptive phrase, not a proper name, and appears just so you know what Cunard is.
:# -  (2011); mixed bag. The headline just says "Cunard", although the first line does say Cunard Line"
:# - "Passenger Liners of the Western Ocean" is an offline book source, so I can't really view it, but it's also from 1957, so per WP:NAMECHANGES, it's of much less importance when assessing the present title.
:# - "The Nautical Gazette" - same thing; it's from 1919
:# - "The Only Way To Cross" - also old, it's from 1972
:# -  (2021) - says "Cunard" but doesn't say "Cunard Line"
:# -  (2017) - says "Cunard" but doesn't say "Cunard Line"
:# -  (2022) - says "Cunard" but doesn't say "Cunard Line"
:# - "Parry of the Arctic" - 1963 source
::So in summary, of the five sources from the 21st century, one says Cunard Line and the other four do not. I haven't looked at the remainder of the sources, but I doubt it's much different, and would like to see evidence if it is.
* (c) -  - the BBC/CNN/Guardian evidence above would suggest it has caught on.
* (d) -  mentions issues with the ngram and yes, that one is somewhat harder to get a clear answer given the difficulty of constructing a phrase which uniquely refers to this company. So maybe you're right, the ngram doesn't carry so much weight. 
*But anyway, overall, while there is no doubt that *some* sources use "Cunard Line", there is sufficient evidence of a WP:COMMONNAME here to make the move. And there's no doubt that "Cunard" is WP:RECOGNIZEable (more so in fact, because personally as a non-specialist I'd only ever heard of Cunard before, never Cunard Line); and obviously "Cunard" satisfies the WP:CONCISE criterion too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I picked 5 hits from the google results for Cunard mostly off page 10 as a first check. One did just use Cunard or rather Cunard's which I would hold is a shortened form used by journalists. The others though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4637240.stm uses Cunard Line in the prose, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-56481955 no mention of Cunard at all, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56263813 again no mention at all and then finally this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8236636.stm In pictures: Bus schools in Delhi slums, no mention. Lyndaship (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether it's a shorthand or not. WP:COMMONNAME simply asks us to reflect what the sources say. Hence, per the examples, it's Polio (not: poliomyelitis), FIFA (not Fédération Internationale de Football Association) etc. Similarly, because the majority of recent sources simply say "Cunard", not "Cunard Line", so should we. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  This is just a repetition of the previous discussion and adds nothing new. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am merely providing more detail as to why the oppose votes above are incorrect. Please provide some actual evidence to rebut the demonstrated evidence that there is a common name here. You didn't even give a rationale for opposing above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, you are just repeating the same, rejected, arguments. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have asked you to provide an explanation as to why my evidence above is incorrect; I am always open to being convinced, but so far it seems crystal clear that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Cunard" not "Cunard Line". If you have some evidence to the contrary, please provide it here, so I can understand why the proposal is being opposed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  previous contribitors have answered your question already, I don't propose to repeat it just so you can ignore it again. The consensus was that the title shouldn't be changed, please will you accept the will of the majority and stop trying to fight the same arguement all over again. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am literally just trying to find out why this article isn't being moved, and you're refusing to answer. There is no "will of the majority" here per WP:NOTAVOTE, that's not how discussions work. I need you to explain why my evidence is false, then I will drop this matter. Otherwise, if there are no arguments against the evidence, then the closer is liable to disregard the oppose comments. Looking forward to your evidence. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am not interested in playing your games, the previous objections still apply. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your evidence is deeply flawed being simply google returns for Cunard versus Cunard Line. I demonstrated above the BBC results were unreliable to support your POV. I've just had a look at the Guardian ones, on the first page 2 of the results relate to the Cunard Yanks and 3 to Nancy Cunard, looking further into the results many relate to Nick Cunard who is a photographer. Furthermore it strikes me that many results are from finding Cunard's (as opposed to just Cunard), maybe it's been used for a shortened form of belonging to Cunard or maybe belonging to Cunard Lines but either way it does not support that the commonname is Cunard. Would finding many instances of Sunak's be evidence the commonname of Rishi Sunak is Sunak? Lyndaship (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text: @Amakuru "" Even if the closer was to disregard the oppose votes, you have 0 consensus in your favor. The closers job is to assess consensus in accordance with policy. >>> Extorc.talk 08:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion