Talk:Dockers (brand)

Copyvio?

The latest edits smell like a copyvio to me, especially with all the specific terms and ® ™'s around... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, even if it's not intended to be an advertisement it's written so poorly that it reads like one. It needs to either be rewritten or pruned. --163.120.74.80 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any google-proof but the last "organic" version was here, however, a lot of useful stuff has changed since then. I am trying to assume good faith but only User:Rodrgz knows for sure. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Only good faith was intended when I began editing this article. I hope I have fixed the rough edges that existed before.Rodrgz 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Advert tag

I've added the {{advert}} tag here, especially directed at the second paragraph.

The whole article needs rewriting, so that it ends up with a) a description of the product, and b) some notes on it's cultural significance. A nice picture would help too, eg. a picture of the product and not its Logo!

And who-oh-why is there a vanity puff for the CEO in there? Seeing that really makes me suspect the motives of the editor, after I finish this edit I'm going to strip that paragraph from the main article too. EasyTarget 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know who Ed Siegel and Joe Middleton are? American footballers or baseballers, perhaps. Are they notable in this context or is this more promo stuff? Well, now I must off and reclaim my lost male-aesthetic! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

sunglassses

They also applied their brand name to discount sunglasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.136.166 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 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: No consensus to move. The nomination was a bit lacking, with no apparent reason given to move and no clear answer for what to do with Dockers after a move. It is never helpful to assume that everyone will automatically comprehend, let alone agree with, one's logic in proposing a move, which is why we typically provide rationales in our nominations. Sources are also good. Pageviews. Book results. News results. Etc. The lack of a rationale may have led to the first several responses, all of which opposed the move. A belated case for a lack of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was eventually made, but by that point it was too late to realistically craft a consensus. Claims of primary topic or lack thereof for the brand at the pluralized title Dockers (considering the very relevant WP:PLURALPT) are worthy of a full discussion from the get-go. This wasn't it. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Dockers → Dockers (brand) – should be uncontroversial In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Without a proposed retarget for "Dockers", this is unnecessary disambiguation. Dohn joe (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also, preemptive oppose per WP:PLURALPT, assuming that the proposal is changed to retarget "Dockers" to Stevedore. Editors already expect this article when they link to Dockers - of 53 current article links, only 3 intended the Stevedore meaning of "docker". This is a well known international clothing brand, with links from U.S., U.K., France, Spain, Turkey, Bangladesh, and India-related articles. Readers expect this article, too. In November this article was viewed 3,261 times. The Docker article was viewed 3,066 times. While some of the Dockers-seekers undoubtedly meant the stevedore article, it is highly unusual for a plural form of a word to have more than a fraction of the pageviews of the singular form - let alone to have more views! Put aside any biases against commercial products, and think of what our readers actually want to read! Dohn joe (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe's comment. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)CookieMonster755
• Oppose per Dohn joe. -- Calidum 06:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Calidum, User:CookieMonster755 same question as to Egsan Bacon to you. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. If Dockers is just going to redirect to this anyway, there really isn't any reason to do this. If it isn't, then what is it going to be? Nothing has been presented in the proposal. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Egsan Bacon, what is the primary topic (absolute majority of all uses combined) of "dockers" in Google Books? DohnJoe hasn't given any evidence from Google Books.

In answer to your question, here are two options - since "dockers" means dockers in Google Books then option (1) is redirect to docker, option (2) is redirect to Docker (disambiguation) which holds the plurals as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support and redirect Dockers to Stevedore, since the primary meaning is the plural of the word docker, used in Britain and elsewhere as the common term for someone who loads and unloads ships. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support the move to (brand), but only if Dockers is redirected to the existing Docker (disambiguation) page, as I don't think that there is no universal primary topic. In Australia, Dockers primarily means the Fremantle Football Club. Counting incoming links isn't useful, as it makes sense that they are to the correct article, and 3200 vs 3000 is close enough to say that they are equal. You can't tell how many of the views for Dockers wanted the worker, and how many of the Docker wanted the pants; nor how many of either wanted the football club(s). The-Pope (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support the move to (brand), and redirect Dockers to Docker (disambiguation), which I updated to reflect the current status of two primary topics, one for the singular form and another for the plural form of the word. I've disambiguated the links, so this should be an easy change to implement. The long hatnote on Dockers reflects the weakness of the case for a primary topic, especially in the UK and Australia. I had to fix several links, such as to Dockers (film), and add that title to the dab page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  There's only one primary topic for a title (or zero, if no primary topic). "Docker" might have one primary topic and "Dockers" might have another, but if the dabs are combined, the primary topic for the dab page is the one that results from navigating to the dab page's base name. Other arrangements are made in unusual situations, but those can be discussed on the dab page's talk page. Or split the "Dockers" disambiguation from the "Docker" disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not proposing this. We don't normally split [FOO (dab)] from [FOO plural (disambiguation)], either a redirect to docker or docker (disambiguation) is fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Request this be relisted - I would consider the oppose from DohnJoe to be lacking in any substance since no evidence that the clothing brand is more common than docker as use for "dockers" (small d and capital D indestinguishable) has been presented. The three other opposes appear to be simply repeating Dohn Joes objection that whether to redirect to docker or docker (disambiguation) has been left open. It was left open deliberately, for a discussion, as is common with redirects in RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Rename Dockers to Dockers (brand) and redirect Dockers to Stevedore, what's a logical thing as Docker already redirects there. Unfortunately, I don't see any good explanation why should Dockers, as a plural form of Docker, redirect to Docker (disambiguation) instead; however, if that's the final decision, it would also require Docker to be redirected to Docker (disambiguation). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:25, 21 January 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.

Extended discussion

In ictu oculi, Dohn joe doesn't actually need to give evidence from Google Books because Google Books is not the be all and end all of deciding what a primary topic is (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC barely mentions it at all, as just one of the possible ways of determining usage). Consensus simply doesn't feel the way about Google Books that you appear to. (example, example). (It's also worth noting that none of the other supporters in this discussion have mentioned Google Books in their reasoning.) And it's a good thing, too, that primacy isn't based off of Google Books, given that what comes up when you do a Google Books search isn't exactly the highest class of scholarly literature and given how messed up Google Books' metadata is [1], [2]. Google Books is a useful tool, but so is a screwdriver, and yet attempting to use one to chop down a tree is not the best way to go about things. Tools should be employed for what they're good at. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Egsan Bacon thanks for answering, but like it or not Google Books is our most convenient benchmark to the real world, real printed source reality. If you're not going to take the printed corpus of English books as a reference point then what is your reference point? Where are you going to find that the absolute majority use of "dockers" doesn't refer to real dockers but to a clothing brand? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support and make Dockers redirect to Docker (disambiguation). There is no primary topic here - the brand, Stevedore, and the Aussie football team can all lay claim to significance.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Shorten overview section and split into an overview and history section. Use past tense words instead of some present tense words, e.g. lands to landed, become to became. Put in text citations after quotation marks. Layout is good. Remove link to references connected to MSU library because others don't have access to these sources. Talon Rae Garman (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing for a class. The first section of the page could use a better organizational system. There need to be more sources attributed to the section discussing the history and dates of Dockers. The article would benefit from more external sources as the university libraries are not always accessible. Another suggestion would be to link the part about the origin of khaki pants to lead off on the history of how the brand got established. Also making a more comprehensive timeline would add to the quality of information. I like the section of company values, but I think it could be expanded upon in areas like company success or how it will sustain longevity. The article needs grammatical improvement and the syntax could also be improved. The quality of information is hard to grasp coherently as it lacks purposeful syntax. Clmalvitz (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2019

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: Moved. There is a narrow consensus that the term is ambiguous enough, particularly in a worldwide setting, that a redirect to the dab page will serve readers better than hosting the brand at the basename.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Dockers → Dockers (brand) – WP:ASTONISH no primary topic for the plural form, dockers frequently come in the plural form which would clearly be primary by PT#2 and the Stevedore article gets 14,704 views compared to 3,043[[3]] for the brand (although that doesn't show the Stevedore is primary since that includes people getting there with other terms). Either "Dockers" should become a DAB or it should be redirected to Docker (disambiguation). I don't think we should redirect to Stevedore since as noted that's probably not primary by PT#1 and incoming external links will probably point to the brand. See also the open Talk:Docker (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 August 2019. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Outcome of requested move (Docker (disambiguation) → Docker): no move. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think Stevedore is much of a consideration here, per WP:PLURALPT: Since normally users can be expected to search/link for/to topics using the singular form, searching/linking with a plural form is likely to be for a topic named with the plural form, when applicable. The football clubs are more relevant, but note that in the case of Millwall F.C. "dockers" is a former nickname (as of a century ago), and so an unlikely search term. Colin M (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  For Milwall it appears the nickname was "The Dockers" rather than plain "Dockers" which only appear 10x in that article. Despite the plural PT point I'd still be more worried about the occupation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  It seems quite odd to argue that "Docker" should redirect to the Stevedore article despite the software getting over 3x the views yet "Dockers" should be about the brand despite the Stevedore article getting nearly 5x that of the brand. Yes readers and editors may be used to seeing things in the singular but that shouldn't trump views and long-term significance. Rather in terms of primary topic its not a question of us selecting the best candidate of each term but rather if one usage if overwhelmingly more likely or significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  1) I didn't argue for that. I argued against making Docker a disambiguation page, which was the proposal under discussion in that other RM. I favour the status quo (Docker redirecting to Stevedore) over the proposed move, but I also explicitly said I'd prefer for Docker (software) to be the ptopic. I wasn't going to push for it there though, since I think if it were to be discussed seriously, it should be in a separate RM. 2) I think you're underestimating the significance of the plural issue. What % of users seeking information about the occupation will search for "Dockers" rather than "Docker"? I'd say 10% is a very generous estimate (<1% is probably more realistic). So take the page number of page views for Stevedore and divide them by at least 10. Suddenly the picture has changed drastically. While we're at it, we should also consider what % of readers seeking information about the occupation will search for Docker(s) rather than Stevedore(s), Longshorem(a|e)n, or Dockworker(s) - we might need to reduce that filament of remaining pageviews down further by, say, another 75%. Colin M (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  The numbers you cite are purely conjectural. I don't think at all unlikely to search for the occupation under the plural. It is as much if not more so a group term than a reference to any individual. My own awareness of term is entirely through plural usages. Such as the dockers in XYZ were on strike or similar. older ≠ wiser 01:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Um, I now see you're point, you're arguing one or the other which suggests that neither is primary, while its true that readers will still have 1 click if we make either topic primary (as with "Dockers" to) I don't think that's what primary topic advises, many terms such as Georgia, Washington, New York and Scarborough are DAB pages even though there might only be 2 major contenders, WP:2DABPRIMARY does suggest that there can be a lower threshold in such cases but that should usually be if its clear which topic is the best candidate which given the fact Docker has been disputed significantly with suggestions for either being primary suggests neither is. DAB pages are quicker to load and are less confusing than landing on an article anyway. While I agree readers are more likely to use a singular when searching I wouldn't suggest its as much of a difference as you suggest, I'd suggest its more like 1/4. What we do know is that the "Docker" software article gets more views than the entire Stevedore article but the entire Stevedore article gets more views than the brand. We don't know what the ratios are for each term but we can safely say that the Stevedore article isn't primary by usage for "Docker" but we don't know about the plural. But in terms of long-term significance and WP:ASTONISH the Stevedore article is primary for both "Docker" and "Dockers" and (as suggested above) Dockers could thus arguably be a primary redirect to Stevedore. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have never, ever, heard or read of stevedores being referred to as "dockers", and nominator currently doesn't provide any evidence of this being a valid usage either. (Edit: Although checking the other RM, it seems claimed this is a UK term? Maybe.) "Dock workers", sure. But "Dockers" is the pants brand. SnowFire (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Where are you from? "Dockers" is far and away the commonest term for dockworkers in the UK, where "stevedore" tends to refer to a more specialised trade. And given the UK was until fairly recently one of the greatest sea-trading nations in the world and the dockers were rarely out of the news, this is a very important usage. You have to remember that Wikipedia is international, not just North American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm American and dockers as a term for longshoremen is (or was) fairly common. older ≠ wiser 16:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm in the UK and have never heard the term "stevedore", only "docker(s)" is used here AFAIK. In any case uses of "Docker(s)" are valid competitors for the article currently titled Stevedore per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
        • To be honest "stevedore" is a fairly unusual term in the U.S. as well. I'd say longshoremen is by far the most common term here, followed by dockers and dockworkers. Perhaps it is one of those specialist terms that doesn't have wide currency outside of limited contexts. older ≠ wiser 16:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • US here. Per BKonrad, "longshoreman" is the term I've heard most frequently, followed by "stevedore". "Docker" is a way to do containerized builds and Dockers are pants. Fair enough that this is a legit term in the UK, though! Anyway, it seems a longshot that people who input the plural version - even in the UK - mean Docker singular, though (e.g. someone interested in people who crew ships is more likely to use "sailor" than "sailors"), so keeping the pants here seems an acceptable SMALLDETAILS thing. SnowFire (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire: please click this. thank you In ictu oculi (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an interesting search. Nobody would ever write "Dockers were" about the brand. And for the dock workers meaning - the relevant question is how people interested in the encyclopedic topic of port workers will look the issue up, not how the term might be used in normal writing. I'm not contesting that the UK usage might come up when writing a book, I'm contesting that UK readers interested in dock workers will decide to inexplicably use the plural form. See the Window vs. Windows example from Red Slash. SnowFire (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It is completely natural to look for a group term in the plural form. It strikes me as decidedly odd to search for the term in the singular than the plural. The term more often than not is used to refer to dock workers as a group rather than to the occupation as a singular concept or to any individual worker. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per SnowFire. Calidum 02:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Calidum, you cannot "oppose per SnowFire" on the basis that SnowFire is not aware of non-US English. Anymore than I can oppose because (not being American) I have never heard of these Levi Strauss pants (or trousers as non-Americans call trousers). Whether SnowFire has heard of something or not is not a policy or guideline on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support per English language as used outside of States. The Liverpool Dockers' Strike, "dockers were" test The Dublin Docker: Working Lives of Dublin’s Deep-Sea Port etc etc etc and real word books. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. The dockworker/stevedore topic is unlikely to be searched as plural "dockers"; the shoe brand is most certainly searched this way. --В²C ☎ 00:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Its probably likely enough that at minimum there is no primary topic per WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

firstly WP:PLURALPT obviously doesn't apply here, secondly dockers is extremely likely to be searched, just not by USA readers ... where does he get these ideas from? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• As one of if not the principal author of PluralPT, I think this is a case that neatly falls into it. No one would seriously consider the software to have PT claim at Window but it does at Windows. I see this as fairly similar. I do ***not*** support the arguments against the move based implicitly on NOTWHATCOMESTOMIND (come on, "docker" is clearly a legitimate way to refer to dock workers in the UK), but I do think PLURALPT is relevant. Weak oppose. Red Slash 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  I think that "Windows" should be a DAB page given that the part of a building and Window (computing) are also common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  The OS isn't usually known as just "Window" so I don't see how that's relevant, compare Turkey/Turkeys (country not pluralized) and Cricket/Crickets (sport not really pluralized) for example similar to the Orange/Oranges (colour not really pluralized) example. On the other hand both the building part (and Window (computing)) are known as both "window" and "windows" and because its not possible to distinguish from upper and lower case for the 1st letter this needs disambiguation. If DIFFCAPS was possible then like Ice cube and Ice Cube we could have "dockers" redirect to Stevedore and "Dockers" be about the brand while having "windows" as a DAB and "Windows" redirect to the OS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:SMALLDETAILS, as Dockers is the plural form._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How exactly is the difference between Dockers and dockers covered by WP:SMALLDETAILS? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the same manner as Queens does not redirect to Queen, Dockers is commonly known enough that it does not have to redirect to Docker._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Queen" and "Queens" should indeed probably be 2 separate DAB pages but I don't think the NY borough is primary but there was recently a RM (which I started) that was closed as no consensus). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support, usage of the plural term is ambiguous. The term is commonly used to refer to dock workers as a group term (and I'd argue this form of reference to the occupation is far more common than a singular reference to either the occupation or to any individual dock worker. older ≠ wiser 19:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly support because Dockers has multiple use cases. We should be disambiguating here. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:CDE5:FFA6:95D9:B057 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support and redirect Dockers to Docker (disambiguation) or to Stevedore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Note I submit people looking for Docker are about as likely to search with the plural "dockers" as are people looking for Ladder are likely to search with the plural "ladders". Well, the page view counts on ladder/ladders indicates only about 1% of Ladder viewers get there via Ladders. If someone enters "dockers" they are almost certainly looking for Dockers, not Docker, and we should take them to the article they are seeking. --В²C ☎ 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a false analogy as ladder in not commonly used as a group term. Dockers is commonly used to refer collectively to the workers as a group. older ≠ wiser 22:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you think 'ladder' is too dissimilar, how about sailor(s) or firefighter(s) (3.5% and 2%, respectively). If you don't like those either, maybe you can come up with your own suggestion. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Those work just fine and in both cases the plural is a redirect to the singular. older ≠ wiser 23:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So is ladders. B2C's point was just that the plural redirect gets very few hits (and therefore people are very unlikely to search using plurals - though I think there's a factor that somewhat confounds that inference, see below). Colin M (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The sailor(s) example is interesting compared to the Ladder(s) and Firefighter(s) examples in that "Sailors" gets more than 5% of the views of the singular article compared to less that 1% for the others. However indeed views aren't that helpful since as noted most people get to the articles from places like Google or follow internal links (and editors often bypass redirects). If both the singular are (relatively) unambiguous and are redirects to another article then the hits for both would be useful. If "Dockers" becomes a primary redirect to Stevedore the hits wouldn't be that useful since "Docker" is highly ambiguous with the software (meaning people looking for the software probably account for many of the views) and people looking for the clothing brand (or following an external link to it) would count incorrectly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a very clever approach. However, the big grain of salt comes from the fact that most readers arrive at the article either by clicking a link from another article, or from another site (particularly search engines). I don't know what the ratio looks like in practice. In theory, it could be that only 1% of readers of Ladder arrive there by the search bar, but of those few, 90% of them are searching for "ladders". I think that's preposterously unlikely, but I'm just saying, there are lots of degrees of freedom in the underlying math. I really wish Wikimedia released data about user searches - it looks like they briefly tried it in 2012, then quickly retracted the data because it had sensitive information. Would be really helpful in RM discussions. Colin M (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is not a gulf of difference between docker/dockers. I don't see how one could make any valid inference about whether people are more likely to search for either sense based on singular/plural. Seems classic case for disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 23:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This is quintessential WP:PLURALPT: Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form. In this case we can expect users searching for the dock worker topic to use the singular form and users searching for the shoe brand, which is always in the plural form, to use the plural form. We should organize and title our articles accordingly. --В²C ☎ 05:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Right, but the evidence that the clothing brand is primary topic for the plural form is weak. older ≠ wiser

If we discount the Stevedore use appropriately per PLURALPT then the evidence is clear. --В²C ☎ 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It makes no sense to discount the plural usage for a term that is commonly used in the plural. I don't think that is what WP:PLURALPT says. What is needed is clear evidence that the brand is the primary topic for the plural form. It is completely erroneous to exclude the occupation. That is not WP:PLURALPT says. When your flawed analysis is amended, there is no clear advantage to the brand. older ≠ wiser 20:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How commonly a term is used in the plural in general usage doesn’t correlate much with how likely it is to be used in the plural as a search term, which is what matters here. And that’s exactly the point made by pluralpt in the excerpt I quoted above. That is, users/editors “can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form”. That’s exactly what it says, literally. --В²C ☎ 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• To me in England, the primary meaning of "dockers" is as plural of "docker", which is a man who loads and unloads cargo ships. And in my experience, dockers are more often found as groups and bunches, rather than as only one. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, but when searching for the article about dockers would you use “docker”? Or “dockers”? --В²C ☎ 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, why not when the term is most commonly used as a group term? older ≠ wiser 20:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  And I'd note where Bookends and Parachutes go and that Pixies now goes to the creature and Freaks goes to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Why not? Because more typing! You’re imagining much more inclusion of the plural s in searching than is warranted for some reason. –В²C ☎ 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  True but that choice between singular v plural is far more of a WP convention than the choice of both 1st and last names for people, for example even though I live near a Newton when I hear the name "Newton" I think 1st of the scientist but its obvious that the scientist would have Isaac in front of Newton on WP (and it would never occur to me to search for just "Newton" if I wasn't familiar with WP), the same cannot be said of plurals for nouns even though I personally would search with just singular (I do sometimes check if the plural is properly represented). Although PLURALPT does point to the fact people are more likely to search with the singular WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT says "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." Notice the Ovens example that I added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, no one, certainly not me, is arguing that the primary topic for Dockers can't be the Stevedore article because the title is something else (i.e. Stevedore), so that's a straw man point you made there. We're arguing only what PLURALPT says: when a term has singular and plural forms, people are more likely to search with the singular. Now, normally, we do also redirect the plural to that same article (as with Ovens), but the exceptions are whenever the plural form has a distinctive well-known usage, which is exactly the case with the shoes brand Dockers, like with Windows, Sleepers, Vons, The Americans, etc. (but is not the case with "Ovens"). --В²C ☎ 18:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Born2cycle sorry if I gave that impression, I wasn't arguing that you were thinking that but merely pointing that out because a difference in NC we need to keep PRIMARYREDIRECT in mind far more than if its a surname (or similar). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Okay. We disagree about surnames too, though. If a person has a relatively unique surname (or first name or even nickname for that matter), I, for one, am apt to search for them with just that name. Einstein, Nixon, Flandis, The Juice, Reagan, Obama, Eisenhower, ... are all redirects to the expected article about the related person, because, anyone searching with any of these terms is highly likely looking for that person. There is no reason to keep primary redirect in mind any less for surnames than for anything else. The same consideration applies: what is a user likely searching for if using just that term when searching? If that term is a surname associated with one person more than with any other use of that term, then that's the primary topic, and primary redirect applies. --В²C ☎ 23:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes if a person is very well known relative to the other uses and are commonly known by a single name then it might make sense to have a primary redirect but we usually have to assume people will use the full name for people ("articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it"-WP:NAMELIST). However with plurals the usual rule ("the normal situation is that a plural redirects to its singular"-WP:PLURALPT) is that they point to the singular (though that's not always the case). While I agree most people won't bother to put an "s" on the end there's a reasonable enough chance of confusion here especially given the singular article gets more views and has more long-term significance. If the proposal was to make "Dockers" a primary redirect to Stevedore then it would be totally reasonable to say "wait a minute people searching with the "s" are more likely to be looking for the brand" but I don't think that's enough to make the brand primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  But the proposal is not about making the shoe brand primary; the shoe brand is primary and has been since the article was created in 2006. We’re talking about whether it still is primary and I see no reason for that to have changed. After 13 years with no complaints, I don't buy the confusion argument. There is an excellent hatnote on this article to manage that. The point is that pretty much 100% of people searching for the shoe brand will search with “dockers”, plural. The minority of those searching for the stevedore article with plural dockers are handled well by the hatnote. Changing this configuration is a step backwards for our users. —В²C ☎ 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  When an article is simply moved from a title to another in a RM typically the burden lies on those wanting a move but there is an argument that the burden should always lie on those wanting a primary topic as long as there are 2 or more "full" matches for the term, both the brand, stevedore and film are full matches for this purpose however this hasn't gained consensus yet. There was a previous proposal at #Requested move 4 January 2015 where 2 editors suggested redirecting to stevedore but it failed partly because it wasn't clear exactly what was being proposed and no evidence was provided. In this proposal I have clearly stated what should happen and provided evidence and the nom of the last RM (IIO) has also provided evidence. The hatnote has some 3 articles linked plus the DAB which is clutter. Furthermore WP:2DABPRIMARY suggests we have a lower threshold for cases where there are only 2 uses (or even 2 significant ones) but it doesn't suggest that we flip a coin to see which, instead we take them to a quick loading DAB page. WP:NOPRIMARY says "If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you're repeating the entire (weak) support argument in this part of the discussion. None of this refutes my point: this proposal is not about making the shoe manufacturer a primary topic because it already is the primary topic and has been that for years. Arguments about who should have the burden of proof doesn't change this fact. --В²C ☎ 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  The pageview stats, long-term significance, principal of least astonishment and GBooks search all support this proposal even though there may be reasonable counter arguments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The brand is not the primary topic; a quick Google Books search yields results such as Dockers: The '95 to '98 Liverpool Lock-out, The Dockers: Class and Tradition in London, Dockers - Their Life and Legacy on the Liverpool Waterfront, Dockers: the impact of industrial change, and even a book in French: Les dockers: Le port autonome de Marseille. Histoire des hommes. On the other hand there was almost no mention of the brand. Taking into account that Pixies redirects to the fairy and not the band, I see no reason why this should be any different. Neodop (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Move and redirect to dabpage (i.e. reluctantly support) - Didn't realize the term "stevedores" is synonymous with "dockers", but that's not the reason to "oppose", especially per WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. Starting to realize that "Dockers" would fail "naturalness" criterion of WP:CRITERIA and WP:NATURALDIS even for the well-known brand and would fail "recognizability" criterion for "stevedore(s)". Parenthetical disambiguation is best suitable for the brand, and the current title should redirect to the dabpage. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "would fail "recognizability" criterion for "stevedore(s)"". Not in Britain it wouldn't! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • All right, in Britain, but what about outside Britain? George Ho (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Amakuru: would just like to congratulate the closer on a good close. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: thank you, very good of you to say so  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)