Talk:Shinola

Dispute

Perhaps you should just accept that things are not significant to mention in Wikipedia merely because you want them to be. The topic has been discussed, and the kind of reflexive inclusion policy that you are trying to push here was soundly defeated. If you think you can overturn that through the appropriate channels, have a go at it, but you cannot declare this article exempt from the consensus. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The additions are just fine. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS and that does not exist for the removal of the items. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the right place and you have misapprehended the applicaility of your alleged consensus. You are in violation of WP:Edit warring and are about to violate WP:3RR Consider yourself warned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

They are not "fine" until they have been sourced according to relevant standards. "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." 20:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.14.87 (talk)

Related dispute 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Move request

A move discussion is taking place at Talk:Shinola#Requested move 13 May 2018 which may impact this article. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 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: Not moved. No consensus for this move. The original brand, though defunct, is considered, by those who know shit from Shinola, the primary topic by virtue of long-term significance. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• Shinola → Shinola (shoe polish)
• Shinola (disambiguation) → Shinola

– The defunct shoe polish brand simply isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It gets fewer views than the modern Shinola (retail company)[1] - which produces a Shinola shoe polish. It appears that many readers are being misdirected to this article when they're really looking for the modern company. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the modern company has also made shoe polish, then Shinola (shoe polish) is insufficiently disambiguated and should redirect to an article or disambiguation page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC) (edit: apparently a parenthetically disambiguated title can also a have primary topic, which would be the historical company in this case. —09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC))

• Support per nom - no clear primary topic. Move disambiguation page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Page views are only one metric for determining a primary topic. Long-term significance is another, and the shoe polish has it as (1) the original source of the name used by all the other topics and (2) a cultural phenomenon on its own via the saying know shit from Shinola (which is likely the reason anyone still knows the name). For these reasons, previous consensus at Talk:Shinola (retail company) found the shoe polish to be primary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the discussion at Talk:Shinola (retail company). The shoe polish brand is still the clear primary topic; it's even entered common American English. I know that and I'm English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The page views have changed - the modern company now gets more views than the defunct shoe polish brand. The modern company is also no longer known as "Shinola Detroit", they go by just Shinola. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the modern company makes Shinola shoe polish after resurrecting the brand. In the current situation, it's likely that very many readers are getting sent to the wrong article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The long-term significance clause trumps it for me. And that's definitely the shoe polish. In any case, the hatnote means if people were looking for the company it would only be one click away, exactly if it would be if they were sent to the dabpage. No problem there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the discussion at Talk:Shinola (retail company). The shoe polish brand is still the clear primary topic; it's part of a common American English phrase. I know that and I'm from Detroit, and the new company has not supplanted the shoe polish -- it basks in reflected glory. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - amply covered reasoning in the prior move request. -- Netoholic @ 07:02, 4 October 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.

Horse & Cart

This self-published blog by a marketing agency adds nothing useful to the article IMO. It's equal parts self-promotion and advertising for the modern retail brand. We already mention the modern brand under § History. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It provides context, blending the history with the successor business. It helps show the long term popularity of the phrase in question, and the worth of the brand. I think it is useful, enlightening, and enhances the article. YMMB, but I disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, the modern brand is already mentioned. Self-published sources are not generally reliable, and the opinion of a non-notable msarketing consultant is extremely unduly weighted here. Why should readers care what this person thinks about "brand resuscitation", "marketing-savvy folks in Detroit", or "a short list of long lost but not forgotten brands"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You gutted the article from what it was here. We need other editors' opinions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for outside input. Till then the disputed text should be removed per WP:ONUS. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not about to WP:Canvas. Nor will I bother to WP:Edit war. We should wait for that consensus to build, however ...

And while we are waiting on consensus, maybe the editors will weigh in on whether your version of the artile or the prior one here serves the readers better.

Meanwhile, real life beckons. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There are fora that exist specifically for requesting input on content disputes. That isn't the same as canvassing. Building consensus is, as I said, the responsibility of those wishing to include disputed content. The ball is in your court now. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)