Talk:Moxie

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmaloney63.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for a decline[edit]

There seemed to be a lack of reasoning for why moxie declined... Maybe that could be explained more? Maybe due to an increase in competitors? Cmaloney63 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it does taste like battery acid, so there's a place to start. --Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2022[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 section.

Result
No consensus. Closure requested at WP:CR <permalink>. See no agreement below to rename these pages as proposed. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few weeks to garner consensus for name changes. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Moxie (film) has been getting most of the pageviews. While I expect the numbers to trend downward somewhat (see WP:RECENTISM, the movie was released last year) they do indicate that there a WP:NOPRIMARY situation here. 162 etc. (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support per nom. No clear primary topic for this title (even though the soft drink is the eponym of the word "moxie"). The safest bet might be to move the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – better to disambiguate. No primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to have a broader discussion about what the parenthetical disambiguator for this article and other similar articles should be, as I think we should try to have some level of consistency here per WP:CONSISTENT. Should it be Moxie (soft drink) or Moxie (drink)? It looks like similar articles have used both, and that article titles have been moved back and forth between the two over the years. Just a few examples I've found: Big Red (soft drink), Crush (soft drink), Squirt (soft drink), Sunkist (soft drink), Slice (drink), Sprite (drink), Surge (drink), Tab (drink), and Vault (drink). Rreagan007 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Is it common knowledge in the USA that the English noun "moxie" is derived from a soft drink? Because it certainly isn't in the rest of the world. I'd argue that the primary topic is the noun rather than the drink or the film. Renaming the article might lead readers to assume that the noun is unrelated if they don't read the article in full. Barry Wom (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the film has 16,504 views but the drink only has 7,484[[1]]. Also its not just between those uses as there is also Moxie Mountain who's name probably predates the drink. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I initially thought there was no clear primary topic, but upon learning the word was coined from the soft drink there's a clear longterm significance claim here that overrides pageviews. All other uses of the word likely stem from the name of the soft drink. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the drink is the primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the primary topic should be boldness if there is one, and not this soft drink -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very definitely not the primary topic. Whether the word is based on it or not, that is now far more notable. Moxie (drink) would be fine though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mnmh. So we have the movie, the slang term, the movie, and a few others (a boat, a DJ). We're riding for the long term here -- what will be the situation in 20 years, in 50? We don't encourage "move it now, then maybe in 20 years move it back" (we could, but we don't).
All of these are obscure now and will be even more so then, but the movie will probably be completely off the radar, while the soft drink and the term -- even if extinct by then -- will be popping up in the odd reference here, old local histories and stories and movies set in old-timey days, retro Ted Williams ads and whatnot, and some non-zero number of people will be wanting to find out "what is that".
So no on the movie, in my personal opinion. So then (not counting the boat and the DJ and the album etc. which I don't, much) we have two competing entities: drink and term. Well but we don't have an article on the term. All we can do is point to the dictionary definition. Essentially, those are the only two meanings that much matter, and we don't have disambig pages when one of the two uses is a just a pointer to a dicdef.
If the term was notable and deep enough to have its own article here, which many words do, that'd be different. But its apparently not. So... since there's only one important use that we actually have anything to say about, that makes it primary topic. So oppose I guess. (FWIW I recommend a short section in the drink article about the term (there's probably not enough for a full article) and that would kind of solve the issue.) Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I have done this at Moxie#"Moxie" as a slang term. (The etymology of the brand name is covered elsewhere in the article, but could be moved to that section I suppose.) Thus the article Moxie includes our coverage of both the soft drink and the slang term. Since both main meanings are in the one article, that article should definitely be the primary target I would think. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an etymology for the term, and not the topic of the slang term. The slang term is still not the soda pop article, since it is a synonym boldness, audacity, spunk, and we have an actual article on that topic, boldness -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The opposition so far seems to be based on the notability of the word "moxie", as opposed to the notability of the soft drink. I'd argue that this is an example of inherited notability. Per WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." We could extend that reasoning to say that the notability of the word "moxie" should not be inherited by this namesake brand. Further, per WP:DPT, being the original source of the name is not determinative when it comes to primary topics. 162 etc. (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even tho the slang term "moxie" is not very notable, it's probably the second most notable meaning, second most searched on, for the sting "moxie". (Well, maybe the movie right now, but in a couple-few years the movie will most likely drop to to third.) So then you have Moxie, the soft drink, as the only notable use of the word, so that would lead to an Oppose vote, as the current situation reflects that. Particularly since people looking for the slang term "moxie" would now best be directed to that section of the soft drink article. Herostratus (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, I think this is an Americocentric view. I am from the UK and perfectly familiar with the noun "moxie". But until very recently I had no idea the soft drink even existed. This is almost certainly common outside North America Barry Wom (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the term itself derives from the drink, I think the current disambiguation is ample. --Simtropolitan (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited, so the notability of the term is not inherited by the drink; that would mean that this is not the primary topic, since the term is not the drink. And this is not the term article, and the topic of the meaning of the term exists in a different article, not this one. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moxie&oldid=1212527170"