Talk:Puma

There is also a German WW2 armored car with (official?) name "Puma". SdKfz 234/2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Panzerspahwagen

What about puma brand?

• Slang usage seems to be invention - he's tried it on Wiktionary as well. Jeff Knaggs (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

and so much fun things for women shoes!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.80.21 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2018

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. Lot of assertions and hunches were put forward at both sides, but there is reasonable contention that the term is ambiguous enough and we can't be certain about readers' intentions, so the dab page should be the default (and current) solution. In the meantime, JhunterJ edited the dab page to point to Puma (species) instead, so that we can get more data for an eventual RM. No such user (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Puma → Puma (disambiguation) – and redirect Puma to Cougar. I am asserting that "Cougar" is what the user is most likely to be looking for when searching for "Puma". Page views indicate Cougar is the most popular entry from the list of disambiguation entries (but not all views of Cougar derive from a search for Puma), and Cougar commonly-named Puma has greater long-term significance than the sports brand. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: care to share those page view data? --Gonnym (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym:. I was looking at [1] Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Page view data comparing page views for genus and the species versus the top eight other most visited items on the DAB page, the animal gets less than 50% of page views, meaning it fails the first prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. [2] This, combined with the prominence of Puma (brand) which mounts a (weak) challenge to the animal's claim to the second prong of PT, and the fact that there is confusion between the genus and the species, means a DAB page at the base name is best.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just took a look at the Puma (brand) page. The "brand" is a puma, a cougar. And it is represented by a puma stylized in red or white. So it looks like even the puma shoe company regards "cougar" as the primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Certainly appears to me to be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cougar per WP:ASTONISH. A "puma" is a cougar, as is a mountain lion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – "I am asserting" is not a primarytopic criterion, and the evidence otherwise is weak. Best to disambiguate the ambiguous term, as now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, when asked to provide evidence for the "I am asserting" claim Shhhnotsoloud loudly linked to this, which seems to back up the assertion. Just pointing it out in case you missed it (this stat would have been better in the nomination). Long-term significance seems to finish the job and tip this to cougar. I was tempted to canvas Amsgearing, and had the ping set to go twice, then decided to stick to the letter of the law. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  Randy, I had indeed looked at that. It shows Cougar being pretty popular, but does not have anything to say about how often Puma is used to refer to Couger; I would think that's a smallish fraction of the Cougar usage. Anyway, around my parts we call them mountain lions. The term Puma is too overloaded. Dicklyon (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Randy Kryn. StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per stats from Patar knight. Would suggest using "Puma (X)" redirects on the dab page for the various meanings and revisiting the numbers in a few months, to measure who is seeking what by "Puma". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia:WikiPuma. meow? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Instead of closing as "no consensus" which I think is justified, I'll just leave my reasoning as a comment, FWIW. Support is currently favored 6 to 3, but, of course, we all know WP is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and these are not votes that we count. What matters here are strength of arguments. The nom has some numbers but these are ably challenged by Patar knight's numbers and Dicklyon's counter argument, so that's a wash at best, but Randy Kryn with his ASTONISH argument also points out that the nom is also relying on the historical significance of puma meaning cougar. I actually think the numbers work in favor of the opposing view. Four of the supports are empty or nearly empty. IIO and RReagan007 have literally nothing to say. Necrothesp, and Anselm only endorse the nom and Kryn arguments. On the oppose side Patar knight offers a strong numbers-based argument which JHJ endorses, and Dicklyon also points out the flaws in the nom's conclusions about the numbers. I'm definitely discounting the historical-significance angle, because as I've long held I believe it's already adequately represented in the numbers and does not warrant separate additional consideration, but I realize that's not (yet) a consensus-supported view so I'm refraining from closing. And, since I'm not closing, I'll throw in my 2 cents... --В²C ☎ 06:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Puma brand alone gets about 2000 hits per day average. While Cougar is closer to 4000, we have no reason to believe even half of those are from people searching with "puma", while anyone searching for the brand is likely searching with "puma". And then there are all the other uses of "puma" listed on the dab page. Just because many of the others uses are derived from the cat does not mean people searching with "puma" are looking for the article about the cat. In fact, the popularity of the brand and all the other uses, they probably aren't. The evidence indicates that cougar is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "puma", and historical significance is no excuse to send so many people to an article they are not seeking. Therefore I see no basis to displace the dab page from the basename and make Puma a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Cougar as proposed. --В²C ☎ 06:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - unlike B2C I would take the long-term significance angle seriously. As one of the bullet points at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, long-term significance is part of WP policy and works very well for articles such as Apple and Bell - these may not dominate page views, but represent the article you would expect to see at that title even if you looked 1000 years in the past or future. However, in the case of the puma, it doesn't seem there's even a clear definition of which precise animal the term refers to, given the conflicting definitions at Puma (genus) and Cougar. As such, and given the other competing interests, it seems best to retain the dab page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is only one living species in Puma, so it is really quite clear which animal the common name refers to. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sports brand is likely the topic looked for by readers when searching Puma. Puma is just one of the many alternative names for the lesser known cat species that North Americans call cougar. I don't see how this alternative name has a greater claim to topic primacy than the third largest sportswear manufacturer in the world, especially for a redirect. Since the discussion isn't about the sports brand, the disambiguation page should remain where it is. Flooded with them hundreds 10:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Lesser known"? It inhabits almost every country in the Western Hemisphere. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. "Long-term significance". That's why the brand uses a puma in its logo. The brand can get its own hatnote atop cougar if that's an issue. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the stats, per common sense, and per Srnec. Personally, I always thought of the animal only as "puma", of brand as "puma brand"; and whenever I heard cougar, well, only one thing comes to mind which is not even mentioned in the discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:17, 3 November 2018 (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.