Talk:Apple (disambiguation)

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

Organization[edit]

does anyone else think that Apple Computer should be moved after APPLE (the satelite) due to alphabetizing? or perhaps Apple Records should be moved to after Apple Computer due to its greater importance over a non existant article (APPLE)? -mysekurity 21:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nonexistent article should be last. However, Apple Computer should be first (after the fruit). I'm even in favor of putting
For the brand of computers, see Apple computer.
on the page for the fruit. HereToHelp 11:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old cut-and-paste moves affecting this page[edit]

disambiguation[edit]

Ever time I search apple it come up with the fruit so can some make the disambiguation as the search page.

SaiyanEmperor2008 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)SaiyanEmperor2008[reply]

You would need to discuss this on a wider level as the fruit is obviously the primary usage for the term. If you think a move is in order then set up a discussion and file a request at WP:RM. Keith D (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dual primary topics[edit]

As followed on iOS it seems sensible to have two primary topics here, the fruit and the computer company. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iOS is not even an example of primary topic disambiguation, which only applies where the page includes "(disambiguation)" in the title -- indicating that the primary topic is at the base name. iOS is an example where the most common uses are placed at the top of an otherwise ordinary disambiguation page. That is not primary topic disambiguation. On this page, the apple corporation is already at the top of the list after the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at talk) at 01:08, 25 February 2012|Talk:Apple - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge The Apples to here[edit]

Same as The Apple was merged here, The Apples should also be merged here. That's just partial disambiguation. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not partial disambiguation. Since the set of things ambiguous with "The Apples" (i.e., that users my seek by typing "The Apples" into the search box), leaving them separate seems appropriate and best for the readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2020[edit]

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. I note with dissatisfaction that the talk page was inexplicably semi-protected, a completely absurd decision. There have been many, many discussions on Wikipedia before with sockpuppets, and we were able to survive. Talk pages should never be locked during a debate. (It's especially ridiculous in an RM discussion, which is so explicitly WP:NOTAVOTE.) Anyway, even a casual reading of the arguments here shows that the fruit is still widely considered to be far more significant than any other use. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 06:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– I see that the disambiguation page are more likely have two primary topics instead just one primary topic per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, one topic regarding the fruit and another regarding the $1 billion market cap technology company. In educational purpose or scholar, Apple is a fruit and should be maintained for long-term significance and educational value. But in modern/contemporary times, anyone who think the Apple are more likely think the company with more than $1 billion market capitalization which is one of the largest and most well-known company in the world. The company's name derived from fruit name, but because I see it at the pageviews (Apple inc. included), there is WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC because there is a presence of the company which also claimed as primary topic in contemporary times while the fruit with the same name as the company derived from is essentially a primary topic for long-term significance. The Google search also refers word "Apple" as primarily the company, not the fruit, which is similar to how Kiwi (bird) vs Kiwifruit (when searching "Kiwi" it is more likely refer as the fruit). The dab page should be repaired to have two primary topics. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF : brand new IP editor straight into major page move and familiarity with RM related guidelines In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is now semi-protected; IP editors can no longer contribute to this discussion. Certes (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @Certes: In ictu oculi (talk)
I didn't protect the page. I'm just noting that the proposer can't respond to points raised below. Certes (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Berean Hunter Why has this talk page been protected? Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Apple Inc. has four times more pageviews than Apple, four times more incoming links, and dominates search results. The fruit has obviously been around longer and "feels more encyclopaedic" but, after forty years in business, we must reluctantly conclude that Apple Inc. is not a flash in the pan and passes the 10YEARTEST. We are constantly fixing wikilinks suggesting that iThings are marketed by a fruit, and if editors are SURPRISEd to find the fruit at the base name then readers will be too. We can cope with the one-off task of changing existing links. Moving from the established titles would be a courageous move but a correct one. Certes (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per above. Apple Inc. has become the secondary definition of Apple, and people are more likely to search for Apple Inc. instead of the fruit. Goose(Talk!) 23:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: If consensus is found to move the pages, we might consider doing this as a planned process akin to TfD. Firstly, announce the decision, then give us a few days to fix the existing links before finallly moving the pages. That might be less disruptive than waking up one morning to find that the pages have moved and two thousand wikilinks are suddenly broken. Certes (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestion. There are more than two thousands wikilinks that needs to be fixed. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If you want to put Apple Inc. at the base name, just do that. Moving the disambiguation page there doesn’t help anybody. I would also suggest moving apple to apples to avoid using parenthetical disambiguation. -- Calidum 02:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: To give a note, "apples" is plural name of apple. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No if there isn't a primary topic we don't randomly pick one (WP:NOPRIMARY) and such a move would break many external links pointing to the fruit. Per WP:PLURAL we don't title like that, see for example Oranges redirects to Orange (fruit) and Orange is a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t need a lecture. And I shouldn’t need to remind you of WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. -- Calidum 01:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calidum I wasn't giving a lecture I was just pointing out that neither of you're points are likely to be that convincing. As I noted WP:PLURAL (PT) gives Oranges redirecting to Orange (fruit) as a textbook example of a plural being (relatively) unambiguous even if the singular leads to a DAB page. Given also that there was also a move request for orange(s) that failed I don't think IAR or NOTBURO likely applies here and I doubt that this argument would succeed but given that that was back in 2015 we might be able to reconsider on that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that discussion :( Red Slash 06:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support given that the company as noted is well known and important to and there are several other uses on the DAB page, no clear primary topic for the singular. Keep Apples redirecting to the fruit per WP:PLURALPT since although there are a few things called "Apples" on the DAB page and the company's products are sometimes called "Apples" that doesn't seem to be that common and when I Google Apples most of the results are for the fruit even though the company't products are there. Strong oppose moving the company to the base name per the above about incoming external links and the long-term significance of the fruit. Also Britannica uses "Apple Inc.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article doesn't discuss about moving the company title (Apple Inc.) into base name (Apple). The company was not affected by this RM and will maintain the current title as this official name. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that natural disambiguation works well for Orange S.A. (if you'll forgive my comparing apples and oranges). Certes (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the move occurs, we should review redirects to Apple. Most, such as Malus domestica and Apple peel, should change to target the fruit article at its new name but a few, such as Aplle and Apple production, might be better left pointing to the dab page, with pages which link to them being edited instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes (talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. This proposal doesn't involve moving Apple Inc.. There can't be "two primary topics": there can only be one, or none. The current arrangement infers the fruit is the primary topic; this proposal effectively says there is no primary topic. The problem with this proposal is that if x% of users go to "Apple" because they want the fruit, and y% go to "Apple" want the the company, then 100% of users going to "Apple" would end up at the disambiguation page, one click away from the thing they wanted, and so 0% are satisfied in one click. In the current configuration, x% of users are satisfied in one click. Obviously x is larger than zero, so the current arrangement is better than the proposal. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There can't be two primary topics, but the disambiguation page can emphasise two topics where 99% of readers are likely to want one or the other, as in New York. Certes (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    New York is a perfect example of why this page should not be moved. When New York was the article about the state (one of two possible primary topics, but the one with fewer views, similar to apple vs Apple Inc), about 41 people per day went on to the dab page. But today more than 10 times as many people wind up on the dab page because it usurped the base name. Station1 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But in this case we have 2 topics that are different enough (unlike New York that could possibly use DABCONCEPT) and 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.. In this case we should probably land readers on a quick loading DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is a primary topic. Some people say it's apple and some people say it's Apple Inc, but most people say there is one. And if one's first choice can't be at the base name, it's better for readers that the second-best choice be at the base name. Station1 (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that better? At best we (the editors) are forcing some significant percentage of readers to load a large page that is irrelevant to what they were searching for (vs a relatively lightweight disambiguation page). And even worse, mistaken links to the "wrong" primary topic are less likely to be detected as they are not included in the DAB reports. older ≠ wiser 20:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For precisely the reasons Shhhnotsoloud articulated at this bullet. Detecting mistaken links may be easier for editors, but doesn't help readers. Station1 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How are uncorrected bad links good for readers? That is not even primarily beneficial to editors. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Well, with very few exceptions, incorrect links to primary topics do not get fixed, and incorrect links are an issue for readers, not just editors. And on Shhhnotsoloud's point, that's really addressed against the current guideline on primary topics, isn't it? Essentially it's saying that dab pages should never occupy a primary title. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, uncorrected bad links are not good for readers. But a quick glance at the first few hundred links to apple doesn't reveal any, so that doesn't seem to be a problem in this case. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying dab pages should never occupy a primary title; I'm saying that where there is a choice of two topics for a primary topic, it's better for readers for us to choose one than to choose neither. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As to Station1's point about some thinking the fruit is primary and some thinking the company is, that provides pretty strong evidence that there isn't a primary topic! Primary topics should normally be straightforward and obvious like Paris. See Hearts (and Talk:Hearts/Talk:Hearts (card game)) for an example where users asserted multiple topics should be primary (the organ, the card game, the suit and even the football club) which realistically provided strong evidence that there is no clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC long-term significance based on the fact that every major entry on the disambiguation is named for the fruit. Its even used as the primary example at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Some things should never be allowed to change. -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary topic is the fruit. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Apple Inc. is linked from both a hatnote on apple and the top of Apple (disambiguation), so turning apple into a dab page would benefit practically no one. If there were a proposal to make Apple Inc. the primary topic, that would be different discussion, but there's rarely a good reason to put a dab page at a base name when a primary topic is reasonably possible. Station1 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Watchers of that active page may be able to assist us. Certes (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The fruit is clearly the primary topic. The company was even named after the fruit. JIP | Talk 22:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Crouch, Swale. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the primary topic of apple is apple. Even to iPhone and Mac users. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: Yes regarding the academic purpose and primary long-term significance. But in modern times, the primary topic of apple is not clear and tends to be complicated. "Google search" when typing "Apple" are more likely see about a $1 billion market cap company than the fruit. The fruit only more notable than the company in primary sources like Books, but not in secondary source like websites. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that apples the fruit haven't gone away anywhere, and people are still using them in farming and as food regularly? Not the whole world is the IT industry. JIP | Talk 10:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JIP: have you worked out who the Indonesia IP is yet? I can't find on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple_Inc./Archive_10#Requested_move_24_October_2019 . Can't see immediate relation to the recently bulk-blocked Indonesia IP-farm on the Bangalore and Ford RMs. And despite the interest in Korean girl singers, isn't the same vote made by Kauffner in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple/Archive_3 .... anyone else any ideas? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My speculations now as irrelevant - striking comment from IP nom as has now been blocked by admin anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edible apple is the primary topic, Apple is not. Mikus (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The fruit is just too universal and has too much long-term significance to be trumped by the company, however famous that may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prefer to error on the centuries long-term significance of the fruit, as described on Apple#Society and culture and Apple (symbolism), among others. And as stated on Apple Inc.#Logo, Steve Jobs stated he was inspired by the fruit when establishing his company in 1976 (only about 44 years ago, compared to centuries of human experience with the fruit). Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, apples have been around for millions of years, Apple.inc for less than half a century. JIP | Talk 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sorry, it's going to be a hard sell to convince me the fruit is no longer the one and only primary topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder if, on a global basis, on any given day, more people eat an apple or more people use an Apple device? Just a thought. Station1 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody should close this RM right now as this RM was proposed by an anonymous user and this talk page has been protected till 18:29, 29 September 2020. Also, the nom has been blocked for 1 month. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move[edit]

Red Slash Why did you close the RM? This RM was proposed by an anonymous user and this talk page has been protected till 18:29, 29 September 2020. Also, the nom has been blocked for 1 month. So, I believe that discussions shouldn't be closed while the nom is blocked. Neel.arunabh (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neel.arunabh The IP in question was blocked as a sockpuppet- that alone would be sufficient reason to close the RM, as per WP:DENY. We definitely shouldn't be leaving it open until a block expires for a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t participate in the RM or move review but just want to say that the nom was off by a factor of 2000 when they referred to the corporation capitalized at one billion. It’s two trillion. That’s double the entire US fruit industry.

Most of the opposition here seems to be conflating PRIMARYTOPIC with either “most important” or “what I think of first” with little to no consideration for what users searching with “apple” are likely to be seeking. And to deny the historical significance of this remarkable business and its transformational products as covered in reliable sources, is mind boggling. Sure the fruit has historical significance too, from the forbidden fruit to Johnny Appleseed, but that supports a dab page, not PRIMARYTOPIC. When this RM is proposed again someone please ping me. —-В²C ☎ 13:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: What would you do with Apples (plural) if this was moved to Apple (fruit)? do you think that even though there are a few obscure uses and the company's products can be pluralized that the fruit is primary for the plural per WP:PLURALPT? Google results do mainly return the fruit though there are a few results for the company. I'd say that the fruit is clearly primary for the plural by long-term significance and possibly also by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oranges redirects to Orange (fruit), the plural of which is the primary topic for the term "oranges". Similar treatment for apples would seem appropriate. Certes (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, anyone searching with "apples" is almost certainly looking for the fruit. The fruit is the PLURALPT. --В²C ☎ 05:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Apple which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_(disambiguation)&oldid=1220290903"