Talk:Amazon (company)/Archive 2

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: Not moved.  walk  victor falktalk 04:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com → Amazon (company) – Hi can we move this page to Amazon (company) please because the website amazon.com is not the only ones for amazon like there is amazon.co.uk and others which means this page should add more locations and more informations or break some sections in to pages to free up space. Or at least move it to Amazon, Inc please. 90.219.226.61 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The company name is Amazon.com, with the full official name being "Amazon.com, Inc." Even on the other websites for the company (such as the .co.uk page mentioned above), the copyright at the bottom of the page states "© 1996-2014, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates" Per WP:COMMONNAME, it is quite reasonable to shorten this to simply Amazon.com as the article is currently named. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ok but this article only talks about the products in the us and only says it is other continents but does not tell you about amazon global nor products in others countries by amazon so I think we should change the name so that it talks about it in other country's and other domains. Or we can create different article for each continent like Amazon europe or Amazon africa. There is anyways a lot of information so adding othere informations for other country's would make the article too big so I think some section should be moved into its own article. 94.197.122.75 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it's working, no need to fix it. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ok thanks and it does not talk about the company globally only talks about the company in the USA it also doesent tell you what it does globally 86.135.248.210 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since ".com" is part of the official company name.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   01:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Most people do refer to Amazon.com as simply Amazon anymore (and even more probably forgot about the South American river altogether at this point), and they have expanded beyond e-commerce. The ".com" isn't necessary. Jgera5 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NATURALDIS, WP:UCN -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name of the parent company is Amazon.com, and as mentioned by Barek Amazon UK lists Amazon.com in it's legal disclaimer at the foot of the page. I do think the page could be improved by adding more information on non-US operations, but the title is correct as it is. Zarcadia (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact I've just added a Globalize/US template to the article. Zarcadia (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a case of WP:UCN. Looking at news articles, books, and the like, I see them use "Amazon" instead of "Amazon.com" to refer to the company. —seav (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The natural disambiguation title of "Amazon.com" is shorter, and therefore more preferable to me, than the parenthetical disambiguation title of "Amazon (company)".
 * Support. May be commonly called "Amazon.com" in the USA, but it certainly isn't in the UK, where it is commonly just called "Amazon". Don't know about elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if we're conceding that Amazon is now the most common term for the company, the current title is preferable to 'Amazon (company)' per WP:NATURAL.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   03:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. With redirect from "Amazon.com". Dmatteng (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (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.

Suggest removal or clean up of paragraph
I would remove this entire paragraph. It seems non-neutral and makes statements I find questionable. At the least it is in need of some rework or citations. 212.26.44.101 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Amazon also employs the use of drop shippers or meta sellers. These are members or entities that advertise goods on Amazon who order these goods direct from other competing websites but usually from other Amazon members. These meta sellers may have millions of products listed, have large transaction numbers and are grouped alongside other less prolific members giving them credibility as just someone who has been in business for a long time. Markup is anywhere from 50% to 100% and sometimes more, these sellers maintain that items are in stock when the opposite is true. As Amazon increases their dominance in the marketplace these drop shippers have become more and more commonplace in recent years. The resulting damage to a supply and demand marketplace remains to be seen but advertising contracts with large search engines eliminating smaller websites from overall exposure these practices should have a negative effect on the industry on the whole.

Request for Canadian section
the call for "Amazon.ca" redirects to "Amazon.com" but this article has no content on the legal differences. Does the cmapny only exist n the USA and merely ship to Canada? Or does it also have a physical legal presence in Canada? 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.30.122.246 (talk)

smile.amazon.com
There is no mention of "Amazon Smile" in the article, smile.amazon.com, where part of the purchase goes to the charity of your choice. I think that should be in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest move
closed I would suggest moving the article to Amazon (online retailer) to represent a worldwide view on the topic. Also I have noticed that Amazon have dropped the .com suffix in their logo on their American website and refer to themselves as Amazon on information pages e.g. Amazon and Our Planet. Within the English Speaking World Amazon also trades in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. On those websites Amazon uses the local web suffix in the logos. I do not know what Canadians or Australians call it but in the UK most people just call it Amazon. I remember Americans calling it Amazon.com but in a video about the Kindle a US commentator said he was asked if it was that Amazon thing. That might suggest that at least some Americans moved on but I cannot be absolutely sure. Tk420 (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Current front page still uses Amazon.com at least six times, including twice in the footer, once as a graphic logo and once again as text. And their Investor Relations section of their site repeatedly refers to the company as Amazon.com. Did you actually bother to look around their Web site before you posted that suggestion? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a similar move request only six months or so ago, and the clear consensus appears to have been against any such move. Did you check the archives on this talk page before initiating this discussion? Consensus can change over time, but usually we try to give it a bit more breathing room than this. Usually it's better not to have the same discussion again in such a short time, forcing everyone to repeat their earlier input, unless you believe that there were significant issues missed in the earlier discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No response from the nominator for three weeks, so I think we can safely say that this proposal has been abandoned, without prejudice to anyone else who wants to raise the issue in the future. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Prime-exclusive Blu-Rays
A couple of IPs have posted content sourced to a message board. Are there any reliable sources covering the incident? If there are, then the content could probably be included if there is a good reason to do so. However, without actual reliable sources, this content should not be included. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 19:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. If a suitable RS can be found, then fine, but NOT in the lede as originally posted! FF-UK (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert on Amazon Prime Air
I updated and removed outdated, albeit cited, content on this topic this AM, after adding a more complete update on the Amazon Prime Air page. It was reverted here. I don't edit war, but I think my revisions are a substantial improvement. Feedback encouraged! Lfstevens (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Corporate headquarters accurate?
Amazon Headquarters 410 Terry Ave. N Seattle, WA 98109,... tel :1 (206) 266-1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.175.124 (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that Amazon in Seattle was now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com in Luxembourg. Can this be confirmed or denied? Obviously the Location field in the main page still says it is headquartered in Seattle.70.90.204.42 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You thought incorrectly. Amazon.com is still headquartered in Seattle and Luxembourg, the headquarters of Amazon.de that is a subsidiary. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

AWS in Herndon, VA
There's an Amazon Web Services facility in Herndon, VA for which the company has committed to "hiring 380 new full-time employees for the Herndon office at an average salary of $114,000". Shouldn't this location also be included with the other under Software development centers? -- 104.129.196.114 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now added. The site is also listed here: http://aws.amazon.com/careers/sde/ 104.129.196.80 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Amazon.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mercent.com/NewsArticles/2004-09-20%20-%20eCommerceIQ%20-%20Champions%20of%20e-Commerce.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131026054346/http://www.variety.com:80/article/VR1117997423.html?categoryid=18&cs=1 to http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117997423.html?categoryid=18&cs=1
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.amazon.jobs/team-category/subsidiaries
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141021201910/http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/04/1652278/amazoncom-to-open-sumner-warehouse.html to http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/04/1652278/amazoncom-to-open-sumner-warehouse.html#storylink=omni_popular
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101205021945/http://www.seattlepi.com/venture/layoff.asp?id=101 to http://www.seattlepi.com/venture/layoff.asp?id=101
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080524024937/http://www.informationweek.com:80/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205602334&subSection=All+Stories to http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205602334&subSection=All+Stories
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730022710/http://affiliate-program.amazon.co.uk:80/gp/associates/join to http://affiliate-program.amazon.co.uk/gp/associates/join

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Website address
Is it really necessary to list "z.cn" under china? I don't really see the point considering we don't list "amazone.com" under France or "amzon.com" under USA. Lol lee lol (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, z.cn should not be there. I removed it. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015
Please edit the Amazon Local section to include the following: Amazon local will stop selling deals on December 18, 2015. This information can be found at https://local.amazon.com/merchants. Thank you, and have a great day.

Areys1 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done --Frmorrison (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What IS Amazon?
The introduction of the article presents many terms (even linking to bookstore!) but not a simple explanation of what Amazon actually does/is. It is clear they provide a retail service (a service to members of the public, a final service for VAT purposes) but I image they provide services for others too. The question surely is whether or not the public is the primary customer and profit centre for Amazon? Comparing Amazon with a bookstore:- does Amazon keep repositories of inventory in expectation of a demand i.e does Amazon take the risk of creating and storing inventory? Or is Amazon an intermediary or broker, providing an order fulfilment service (like that I imagine it's founder provided or was vary familiar with from his previous life)? Buying books through Amazon for instance, the postage costs are dictated by Amazon not by the "real retailers" i.e the people who send the invoice, pack the product, etc. The delivery aspect of Amazon's business may well be the most profitable part of it not the actual retailing of the product. Using the term retailer or online retailer for Amazon seems to extend the definitions to the point of meaninglessness and this is the reason the introduction ends up being so anaemic. It contains no more than a superficial description of what is evident from a single glance at Amazon's home page. It seems to me that Amazon is actually a logistics company providing a seamless producer-customer service/channel. It takes orders for their retailer clients directly from customers and I imagine their profit comes not from the sale of the goods themselves (if they did then all orders would be fulfilled with invoices from Amazon) but from transaction fees of various sorts charged at different points in the order-life of the goods they transport. LookingGlass (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s could not a summary of the information given under the Multi-level sales strategy be put in the introduction and the more banal listings data follow? LookingGlass (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

image removal?
i see two pictures which don't strike me as useful - one of a building that was formerly amazon's HQ, and one of a closed warehouse in the UK. Ed WoodWiki (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the former HQ image can be replaced with one of its current and/or future headquarters in Seattle (the SLU campus and Denny Triangle skyscrapers, respectively). A warehouse picture is necessary, but I would prefer an operational one myself.  Sounder Bruce  21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016
Hello,

Net income is currently listed as "US$ 241 million (2014)" with a red arrow signifying a decrease from the prior period. If you follow the citation (number 7 on the page), Amazon actually had a net loss of US$ 241 for the year. This is a decrease from the past year (net income of 274 in 2013), so the red arrow is still appropriate. The line should be updated to "US$ -241 million (2014)", which follows other examples of listing a net loss with a negative sign. Thank you 216.165.95.5 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the reference says Amazon lost 241 million last year, so I will fix it. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the citations of the fact "In 1994, Bezos left his employment as vice-president of D. E. Shaw & Co., a Wall Street firm, and moved to Seattle. He began to work on a business plan for what would eventually become Amazon.com." There is no citation for this information and I would like to know where it originated from.Doengesm (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Annapurnalabs an Amazon Company
I suspect the statement of : "Amazon released branded semiconductors to home equipment designers who are working on Internet-of-Things devices, WiFi routers and other smart home appliances. The chips come from Annapurna Labs, which Amazon purchased in 2015 for a rumored $350 million. On January 7, 2016, the company announced that its Alpine chipset was available for a wide range of applications.[272]" is based on speculative text from http://www.geekwire.com/2016/amazon-semiconductor/ but it contradicts a more detailed from The Linley Group • Microprocessor Report: "AMAZON EXPOSES ANNAPURNA CHIPS " by Jag Bolaria (February 8, 2016) Gilshinoa (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilshinoa (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazonians? Amazonites?
There's an entry in Amazonian dab page saying it's a term for an employee of Amazon.com, but it only crops up once on the page, where someone is described as "an early Amazonian". added the " non essential but fun fact from amazon.com subculture" (their edit summary) that Amazonite is an alternative such term (as well as being a rather handsome mineral). If there are any Reliable Sources for either term, then please add them to the article, to justify the existing dab page entry and to justify adding a new hatnote to the mineral about this second usage of the word "Amazonite". Thanks. Pam D  18:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have heard of Amazonian referring to its employees but I never heard of the the second term. I will add the source to the main article. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Subsidiaries sections organization and redundancy
The Problem: There is a main Subsidiaries section and a subsection of Aquisitions with some overlapping and disjoint information. It seems the subsection lists 2004 and 2007 acquisitions that have been maintained as subsidiaries and mentions the existence of over 40 others naming some most of which are listed by year above Acquisitions. Suggestion: It seems like it would make more sense to include these in the appropriate year and note (for them and those already listed by year) somehow that they remain operated as subsidiaries based on the current organization of that whole section. Further problem: The lower down main section named Subsidiaries then relists a handful of these same sites with blurbs, all but one of those listed in addition to being listed above, have their own main article. It seems like it is redundant if links to the appropriate company pages are included for subsidiaries notable enough to have one in the A&I section, particularly if they can be clearly distinguished from other acquisitions as subsidiaries. Suggestion: This suggestion is definitely more significant and therefore probably requires more consensus, maybe it should be removed as redundant after sufficient improvements are made to the Aquisitions section?

Thoughts, opinions anyone? Having raised these thoughts and being unsure of the best way to proceed I'll leave it to others to make the changes if they see the best way to proceed. I will only make changes myself if there seems to be some consensus on one portion or all suggestions. Phil (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Guns
Dose's Amazon carry Gun's? What is the Capital of USA? 1951 who was president? What time is it in London? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.53.48.152 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Split
 Support splits - Article is well over 100 kB, and parts of it should be split into new articles entitled List of Amazon.com products and services, List of Amazon.com locations and List of Amazon.com subsidiaries. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

request edit
Hello,

I am an employee of Brilliance Publishing, attempting to start a social media initiative with our company. We are trying to beef up our online presence and insure that the information on our page is up-to-date (some of the info about Brilliance Publishing is incorrect).

We understand it is a conflict of interest to attempt to update our own information, but we would like to see Brilliance Publishing have its own page as a subsidiary of Amazon (Tantor Media is a subsidiary of Recorded Books, for example, and Tantor has their own page). Is it possible to get a Brilliance Publishing page created?

What can we do to get you the information you need to update this page? We know that that our source has to be reliable and that it can't be a company-based source. Do newspaper articles, public awards, and other websites count as reliable sources?


 * Some newspapers and websites count as reliable sources, it's best to read the policy though to fully understand what is reliable and what is not reliable. You can start a draft of an article and get help by using the articles for creation process. -- Dane 2007  talk  19:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NOTADVERTISING. You can request an article be created here Requested articles.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WP:OWN.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Amazon.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724192202/ http://askville.amazon.com/ to http://askville.amazon.com
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amazon.jobs/team-category/subsidiaries
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://affiliate-program.amazon.co.uk:80/gp/associates/join
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221205130/http://www.toyworldmag.co.uk/news/2013/07/ebay-asks-retailers-to-back-choice-in-ecommerce-campaign to http://www.toyworldmag.co.uk/news/2013/07/ebay-asks-retailers-to-back-choice-in-ecommerce-campaign

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2016

 * 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: Not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

– The website is often referred to as simply "Amazon" per WP:COMMONNAME, and is the primary topic. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 05:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com → Amazon
 * Amazon → Amazon (disambiguation)


 * Oppose – No proof that Amazon.com is the primary topic. Ever heard of the Amazon? — JFG talk 07:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The name of the company is Amazon.com Inc, no move unless there is a formal change of name of the company! FF-UK (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the nom can't see the wood for the rainforest.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The film Amazons should actually be the primary per its movie poster, which should be given free to every Amazon.com customer. Randy Kryn 14:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – While Amazon.com is notable, there are quite a few other things such as the Amazon River that can be considered just as notable. Therefore the current Amazon page needs to stay the same. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Significant though it is, I can't see that the retailer is more likely to be sought than all other Amazon topics combined, particularly given that one of them is the planet's biggest river.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per other topics -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above. Considering the company to be more worthy of the primary topic slot, ahead of the rainforest or the river, is against WP:NPOV and an encouragement to corporate propaganda. EP111 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2016 (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.

breakdown of employee numbers
Any thoughts on adding a breakdown of employee numbers?

Think it might be useful to gather up whatever sources we can to include a breakdown of the employee type - developers vs fulfillment center worker etc. Sa rigsby (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

More info on Amazon recommendation algorithms
Hello folks.

I am an Amazon employee, and I worked on several of its recommender systems.

Amazon recently decided to publish some of these algorithms. I happen to be author on two of these papers.

The article mentions "The company also records data on customer buyer behavior which enables them to offer or recommend to an individual specific item, or bundles of items based upon preferences demonstrated through purchases or items visited", and cites a webpage that speculates on how amazon recommendation works.

I think there is value in additionally citing proper scientific papers, released by amazon itself, about how their algorithms work.

The two publications are: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2960000/2959171/p35-teo.pdf?ip=96.85.210.97&id=2959171&acc=OA&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E0F9763540ED3E87F&CFID=705436961&CFTOKEN=62503839&__acm__=1481996176_d503beed7a722940d6f735fec08923de

and https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a919/0f5219581875676cbbff11babe56862e9717.pdf?_ga=1.267822094.102829753.1481234512

I can not add these links myself due to conflict of interest.

what do you guys think? Hous21 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial books sold on Amazon
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB08:830D:BD00:D089:F3E7:6861:FCA7 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/holocaust-denial-books-sold-on-amazon-s5lrk9v5v
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-and-holocaust-denial-part-of-the-iceberg_us_58c0fe8fe4b0c3276fb78186
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/holocaust-denial-anti-semitism-amazon-books-sold-far-right-nazi-hitler-a7575841.html

Mechanical turk
Could someone add Amazon Mechanical Turk under list of products on the box on the right at the top of the page please? I am not an autoconfirmed user so I can't do it. thanks AmazonianWYSIWYG (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mturk is an Amazon service, however it is a minor one so should not be in the box at the top of the page. It is part of AWS so Mturk is mentioned within the AWS section at Amazon services.

Full Copy-Edit
I've been working on the Facebook and Google articles earlier this week, sorry for not pinging here first. Overall, this one is in better shape, but I still stand behind my deletions. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Amazon.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61828252-ac1d-11e0-b85c-00144feabdc0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126161130/https://www.createspace.com/ to https://www.createspace.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amazon.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529153720/http://www.trustedshops.co.uk/news/online-retailers-prepare-to-fight-the-sales-ban/ to http://www.trustedshops.co.uk/news/online-retailers-prepare-to-fight-the-sales-ban/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazon in Ireland
Currently the Wikipedia page says "Amazon has separate retail websites for the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland, France, [and so on]". I think the "United Kingdom and Ireland" part is misleading. This is because Amazon's UK site (Amazon.co.uk) isn't linked to Ireland. This means if you live in Ireland (like me), buying things from Amazon.co.uk can be a real pain. Sometimes sellers on Amazon.co.uk won't ship certain items to Ireland (see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056774377 for example). When this happens, we have to use a third-party service like Parcelmotel or Addresspal to bring items over here. Even when sellers do ship items to Ireland, the postage is usually more expensive than delivery to the UK. Furthermore, a UK Amazon Prime account doesn't cover free postage to Ireland. So essentially, Amazon.co.uk is not linked to Ireland in any special way. So I think we should remove Ireland from the sentence altogether. The sentence should just say, "Amazon has separate retail websites for the United States, the United Kingdom, France, [and so on]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul P (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It would seem obvious that Amazon UK serves Ireland, this page confirms free delivery applies in Ireland: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201910160 FF-UK (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amazon.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704192411/http://news.taume.com/World-Business/Business-Finance/Amazon_com-Acquires-Brilliance-Audio-1358 to http://news.taume.com/World-Business/Business-Finance/Amazon_com-Acquires-Brilliance-Audio-1358

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2017

 * 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.The arguments from both the sides balance out.A new RM may be launched with a proposal to set Amazon (company) as the destined move-target. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazon.com → Amazon (online retailer) – At this point, it's not just referred to as "Amazon.com" anymore. Today, Amazon encompasses a variety of products made by Amazon themselves, putting them on par with companies like Apple and Google and becoming more than just that online retailer we all knew in the 1990s and 2000s. I realize I put "online retailer" in parentheses, but I cannot think of a better description to put in there; please comment if you think something else should be in the parentheses. But the bottom line is: ".com" has to go. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment on move rationale

 * The above claim is untrue and without merit! See examples from Amazon's latest financial results:
 * Amazon results 1.jpg
 * Amazon results 2.jpg
 * Amazon results 3.jpg


 * FF-UK (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose The company is still known as "Amazon.com, Inc." officially. And "online retailer" is even more inaccurate. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since Amazon is unavailable, Amazon.com is the next best thing per WP:AT as being recognizable, natural, concise, and still widely used, including all over the company's website. Station1 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the company's American website. I am not really sure what I think of this proposal (if Amazon.com is the company name, it may be the most suitable title after all), but over here in Europe we definitely don't call it "Amazon.com", nor do, , , , and refer to it as such "all over" them. I just don't like country-centrism. LjL (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any argument about the fact that plain Amazon would be a better title if it were available. But since it's not available, there is a choice between the actual name of the company or an artificial parenthetical qualifier that we make up. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but many people prefer natural disambiguation when available, per WP:NCDAB. In addition, four of the websites cited are in foreign languages, which we normally don't consider on English WP. And technically speaking, the UK web site is of an affiliate; it states "The Amazon.co.uk website ... is part of the Amazon group and is ultimately owned by Amazon.com, Inc., ... The Amazon.co.uk website is operated by Amazon EU Sarl, a Luxembourg-based entity". The actual name of the parent company is the same wherever you live in the world, even though wherever you live in the world, you probably call it just plain Amazon. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LjL "country-centrism" has nothing to do with it! A) because Amazon.com is the name of the company which is the subject of the article. B) because ".com" has NO country connotations, it is open to all, eg: britishairways.com and rolls-royce.com and bp.com and rbs.com.  (.us is the American TLD, not .com!)  As for what non-US Amazon websites call it, check the bottom line of any Amazon website, you will see Amazon.com there.  Please stick to the facts, the most important of which is that the company name is Amazon.com FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. What a subject is officially named is less important that was it's commonly called — and I must agree with the nominator that the company is indeed much more commonly known simply as Amazon (e.g.). Our disambiguation guidelines allow for either natural disambiguation using a less common form or parenthetical disambiguation, and in this case I favor the parenthetical form for its clarity and better reflection of common usage.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for Amazon (company) Investor relations are a bad example because of their intentionally formal writing style. Amazon commonly refers to themselves as just Amazon instead of Amazon.com. Here are some examples:
 * All of their "About Amazon" pages
 * Their Careers website.
 * The logo of Amazon.com
 * In product names, like "Amazon Prime", "Amazon Music", "Amazon Web Services", rather than "Amazon.com Prime".
 * Furthermore, like Huw said, it's perfectly acceptable to use the common name rather than the company's official name, and people undoubtedly call it Amazon more often than Amazon.com. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 21:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Mild Oppose (switched to Support, see below) – From a "gut feeling" standpoint, I would say that the WP:COMMONNAME is just "Amazon". However, when checking diverse sources, "Amazon.com" is still in wide use. Besides, we need a disambiguator to distinguish from the Amazon river, and "Amazon.com" is as good as "Apple Inc." – we don't have "Apple (electronics manufacturer)". However, if the move is approved, I would suggest "Amazon (retailer)" rather than "Amazon (online retailer)". — JFG talk 04:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also be OK using just "retailer". ╠╣uw [ talk ]  18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I dislike "Amazon.com" because it's out of step with common usage, and (in part because of that) could confusingly suggest the article is simply about only the domain or website-based portions of the company's diverse operations. I like "Amazon (online retailer)" because it correctly conveys that the company is simply called "Amazon" — which per an enormous abundance of reliable sources, it is. The clarifier also makes it clear that the article is about the larger organization, not just a website. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURAL. Steel1943  (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NATURAL. And readers are a lot more likely to type in Amazon.com in the search box, rather than "Amazon (online retailer)". No problem with that being a redirect, of course.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is widely know as Amazon.com. I created Amazon (online retailer) as a redirect to this page in case anyone else thinks of that name. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a single credible reason has been put forward to justify this suggestion. Amazon alone is clearly not appropriate, as there are too many meanings of the word.  Using a descriptive name which is NOT in common use is clearly not valid, so lets just stick to the real name!  FF-UK (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Common use is a credible reason, as already noted. Just scan the headlines at the Associated Press, the BBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or practically any other major source: they principally refer to the company simply as Amazon.  However, since that term by itself is ambiguous, we have to choose between natural or parenthetical disambiguation.  I see the reasons for wanting to go with the existing Amazon.com, but I also see why it's not ideal.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  13:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try to be logical! If you enter Amazon by itself you will reach the appropriate disambiguation page, so there is not a problem. This silly request comes up regularly (here, here, here and here) and it is always rejected. Why are we wasting our time? FF-UK (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not illogical to note that Amazon.com isn't a great title for this article, given that it's demonstrably not how sources refer to the company. Since disambiguation of some kind is required in this case, the question is simply one of natural versus parenthetical.


 * Support. Nobody I know here in Britain calls it Amazon.com. For a start, its URL is Amazon.co.uk here, not Amazon.com. Universally it's just known as Amazon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp This is a completely invalid argument, this is NOT about URLs, it is about the name of the company, and that is Amazon.com FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, WP:COMMONNAME is now an invalid argument?! Okaaayyy... -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp Please respect the truth and do not distort the comments of others! It is your reference to URLs that is invalid, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.  There is absolutely nothing in WP:COMMONNAME that suggests that there is a problem with the current name of the article.  If you cannot be honest, be silent.  FF-UK (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please drop the arrogant, insulting manner. And please don't accuse an experienced editor of dishonesty again. If you don't think that COMMONNAME means we should use the common name (i.e. Amazon) then I wonder what you think it does say? My mention of URLs was merely pointing out that it isn't commonly known as Amazon.com, since in countries outside the US it doesn't even use that URL, let alone that name (which it doesn't even commonly use in the US). Obvious, I should have thought.-- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly pointed out, "Amazon" is not a valid name for this article because it has many other meanings, and most of those existed long before Amazon.com came into existence in 1994. Therefore the article must be called something else - that is not debateable.  It ought to be obvious that the sensible name is the actual name of the company, which is what the article is titled at present.  I have yet to see a single argument that Amazon.com is in any way inconsistent with WP policy, all I see is a lot of nonsense from people who cannot get past the fact that the actual name of the company includes ".com". FF-UK (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FF-UK: The argument from Wikipedia policy (once again) is that COMMONNAME doesn't support Amazon.com since that's not how it's commonly known, as evidence from reliable sources shows. The infrequently-used official name is not our only title alternative; we can adopt a parenthetical form like "Amazon (company)" which both reflects common usage (people call it Amazon) and indicates which meaning of the ambiguous term "Amazon" the article is about (the company). ╠╣uw [ talk ] 10:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ╠╣uw [ talk ] That is a remarkably narrow and highly selective reading of COMMONNAME which shows the same lack of honesty as is being demonstrated by so many other proponents of this ridiculous suggestion!  Let me take you through what COMMONNAME actually says:
 * "A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:"
 * "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." "Amazon.com" clearly fits that description perfectly.
 * "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." There is no dispute that "Amazon" is a natural title, but as it is unavailable, then that is a moot point!  What matters is that there is nothing "unnatural" about the actual name of the company.
 * "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." "Amazon.com" meets that criterion exactly. "Amazon (company)" does not. (There are many Amazon companies, quite a few of which have articles about them on WP.)
 * "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." There have been NO suggestions of titles which are shorter than "Amazon.com".
 * "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." "Amazon.com" is fully consistent with other titles of articles which are about campanies with ".com" as part of their name, a few examples: Ancestry.com, JD.com, ASOS.com, salesforce.com, lastminute.com, Booking.com, Hotels.com, Priceline.com
 * "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice." That "simple and obvious title" is the one already in use.  FF-UK (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FF-UK: I understand you feel strongly on this matter, but others are not being "dishonest" or "ridiculous" to propose and fairly consider alternatives to your preferred title. Please assume good faith and be polite to your fellow editors.
 * As to COMMONNAME, nearly all its listed goals support a parenthetical title like "Amazon (company)" as well or better than "Amazon.com":
 * Recognizable — Yes, arguably more so than Amazon.com, based on usage in reliable sources.
 * Natural — Yes, again more so than Amazon.com per reliable sources.
 * Precise — Yes: the title makes it clear that the article encompasses the whole company; the current URL-based name might inappropriately suggest it's about only the website or operations related to it.
 * Concise — Yes. Whether we add ".com" or "company", both titles are quite brief. Remember too that conciseness isn't simply about being as short as possible; "Amazon (company)" is both short and clear.
 * I'm not saying that Amazon.com is wrong or unacceptable, just that (as shown before) it's out of step with common usage, and that a parenthetical is as good or better in most respects. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  07:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ╠╣uw [ talk ]  Why should I assume "good faith" when "good faith" is notably absent from both the reason given for the suggested change, and many of the false arguments put forward in support of a change? This has nothing to do with any preference I may have, but everything to do with the anonymous IP editor who has put forward a move request which is not based on fact. The reason given is: "At this point, it's not just referred to as "Amazon.com" anymore.", this is patently untrue!  It is an obvious falsehood as is clearly demonstrated by the following recent references from reliable sources: Amazon.com announced Thursday that it is seeking a second North American headquarters, Better Buy: Amazon.com, Inc. vs Google,  With Amazon.com looking for giant new HQ, Bay Area raises hand,  Former Amazon.com analyst pleads guilty to insider trading, Forbes The World's Most Innovative Companies #3 Amazon.com, Amazon.com @amazon Official Twitter of Amazon.com, Amazon.com delivers price cut promise as it completes Whole Foods takeover, FTC clears Amazon.com purchase of Whole Foods.
 * Your comment "the current URL-based name might inappropriately suggest it's about only the website" is a very obvious distortion, the current title of the article is the actual name of the company, suggesting that it just refers to the URL is deliberately misleading on your part!
 * I suggest that you actually read WP:CRITERIA again, it very clearly states that "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", that means exactly "being as short as possible" despite your false claim. Honesty IS important, and claims to the contrary are completely against the ethos of WP. FF-UK (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FF-UK: I don't think anyone's literally suggesting that the company's never referred to as Amazon.com. The point is simply that it's referred to far more frequently simply as Amazon, as we can see from a survey of all the relevant articles at a host of major reliable sources.
 * As for the conciseness criterion, yes: it says that it shouldn't be longer than necessary to identify the article's subject, but that identification must at the same time be clear. Given that the subject is all of Amazon, the title "Amazon.com" has at the potential to be problematic — particularly since (as others have noted) people in the UK and elsewhere don't even know the website as amazon.com (but rather as amazon.co.uk). ╠╣uw [ talk ]  10:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ╠╣uw [ talk ] You just keep repeating the same disinformation!  I have never disputed that "Amazon" is a common name for the company, but it is not available, so no point in going on about it!  Likewise, referring to the website URL is also just disinformation, the article is not named for the US website.  It is named after the subject of the article, a  company called "Amazon.com" (that is the WHOLE company, not just some part of it).  As a UK citizen, I have no difficulty at all recognizing that simple fact, and the WP article title cannot be expected to cater for the ignorance of a few folk who are unaware that there is more to Amazon than a shopping website in their own home country.  The article actually does a pretty good job of explaining what Amazon.com consists of, that is its job, it is not enough to just read a title and expect to understand the entire subject! What is clear, beyond dispute, is that WP:NCDAB states "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". FF-UK (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Per the reasons stated above, and I would point out that with time the name will likely move farther away from being called Amazon.com as it opens brick-and-mortar stores and enters other industries. If it wasn't competing with the river, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pyrrho the Skeptic This is a completely invalid argument relying on baseless speculation! The name of the company is still Amazon.com FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move to Amazon (retailer) (switched from Mild Oppose; see above) – I digged a little deeper in searches, removing false positives on the online stores themselves and sticking to news for a clearer picture of current usage. Compare a search on "amazon.com" (1.2 million hits) with a search on "amazon" and "retail" (1.9 million hits). Notice how almost all titles of press articles only say "Amazon" or one of their services ("Amazon Prime", "Amazon Hub", etc.), not "Amazon.com". This fact swings the pendulum towards the WP:COMMONNAME being just "Amazon". As mentioned earlier, the disambiguator "(retailer)" is sufficient, especially given Amazon's recent expansion into physical stores. — JFG talk 14:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I too would be fine with just Amazon (retailer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Invalid argument, Amazon.com is far MORE than a retailer! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You do like claiming people you don't agree with have invalid arguments! It is, but it's still primarily known as a retailer. Amazon (company) would also be fine. Or are you now going to claim it isn't a company either? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Most people (in the United States) refer to the company as Amazon, so Amazon (retailer) would be a better name. Andrewwiki (talk) 9:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com is far MORE than a retailer! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Most preferable to typing the whole proposed title with wordy disambiguating phrase or "(retailer)". Also, what about 1000+ users (go to Gadgets tab of user preferences for stats) who disable the dropdown list of search suggestions? Multiple news articles may use "Amazon", but others also use "Amazon.com". Also, books use "Amazon.com", like one about big data and others about Amazon.com. Scholarly articles also use Amazon.com. Rather than rely on what just numbers say, we must dig deep into different types of media, like news articles, books, and scholarly articles. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, the simple target here would actually be Amazon (company) (currently also redirects to our article), since Amazon is unavailable but "online retailer" appears to be too inaccurate for our purpose (they are much more than that), and company would generalize that. However, how would we benefit from this move? The .com already serves as a natural disamibguator (like in Apple Inc. or Valve Corporation), a depictive disambiguator would have the same effect. Furthermore, as was correctly stated by vaarious others, Amazon.com, Inc. is still the company's legal name, and amazon.com their web address. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong support Nobody knows Amazon as Amazon.com even if that is the official name. Amazon also refers to themselves as Amazon without the .com . Common usage should have preference over official company name that noone knows about, those can be in the article. I think (retailer) is best than (online retailer) because amazon owns brick stores now like that one supermarket without cashiers. -Talianos「talk」 08:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * >Talianos Please do not make completely false statements when voting! It is clearly ridiculous to claim that "Nobody knows Amazon as Amazon.com". FF-UK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * >FF-UK Please do not take every single word that people say literally. Nobody doesnt mean 100%, but almost nobody. It is a figure of speech. -Talianos「talk」 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose a move to Amazon (online retailer) or Amazon (retailer); those descriptors are incomplete and/or overly precise. Support a move to Amazon (company) if others feel a move is needed; User:Lordtobi has a good point above.  —  AjaxSmack  22:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Support for Amazon (company) Amazon is much much bigger than "online retailer" or "retailer" (Video/movies production,Advertising network,IMDb, Whole Foods acquisition,collection points, AWS etc.). I agree with nominator that Amazon.com is outdated and we should change, but I think we should go for Amazon (company).Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Jone Rohne Nester As long as the name of the company which this article describes is Amazon.com, then it is plainly ridiculous to suggest that "Amazon.com" is an outdated name for the article, it IS what the article is about! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FF-UK Amazon.com refers to a WEBSITE, however this article is not about the website, but about Amazon company. It's a big difference, so you are absolutely wrong saying that this article is about Amazon.com; it's not - it's about the company, not the website. Outlook.com - is a good example, article is about the WEBSITE and is named accordingly,- with gTLD .comJone Rohne Nester (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Amazon (company) is simply much more recognizable. The company is simply not referred to as Amazon.com anymore.Aditshah00 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Aditshah00 That is absolutely untrue, the name of the company remains Amazon.com. FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, name used in media mentions and common usage is now far more often simply Amazon, sans the .com. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Shivertimbers433 That is a completely irrelevant comment as "simply Amazon, sans the .com" is NOT an available name. FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose with Amazon (online retailer). Amazon is not only in the retail business and this name is quite inaccurate (consider AWS for example).  Neutral for now with the rest of suggestions. Taha (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support '(update)' creation of parent and subsidiary style similar to that of Alphabet Inc. and Google where 'Amazon.com, Inc.' would refer to the parent company and 'Amazon (online retailer)' would refer to the specific online retail part of the company. This would merely mean separating online retail from the 'Amazon.com' page into its own article, this would then fit in with the 'Amazon.com' template: Template:Amazon and align with how Google/Alphabet and Apple have been presented on Wikipedia. TGB13 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TGB13 That is irrelevant as that is not the subject of the requested move. FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * FF-UK On the contrary sir, please see this quote from the original request: 'please comment if you think something else should be in the parentheses. But the bottom line is: ".com" has to go'. I have commented something else I think should be in the parenthesis, it also fits the 'bottom line' of the request of ".com" having to go. Now, do you have an opinion on my proposal? As far as I'm aware it makes sense as it is already in use in other contexts. TGB13 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as 'online retailer' is not an accurate description of the company. Amazon (company) or similar accurate description, I would be ok with. Though I think it's fine now. Isenta (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Support per COMMONNAME. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, though I believe it really should be Amazon (company), as Amazon (online retailer) is just bizarre. The main company's legal name may well be Amazon.com, Inc., and that should be indicated inside the article, but that is definitely not the most common name anywhere, and particularly not in Europe, where Amazon is accessed through TLDs that have nothing to do with ".com", and those sites rarely mention "Amazon.com". The fact that "Amazon (company)" or "Amazon (online retailer)" are also not the common names is mostly irrelevant, because parenthetical titles are used in Wikipedia for disambiguation and the parts in parentheses are never really intended as part of the common name. "Amazon.com" could be a suitable natural disambiguation in the United States, perhaps, where "Amazon.com", while not common as "Amazon", may plausibly not be uncommon, but the fact that it's unheard of in Europe just rules it out as a good worldwide candidate. LjL (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LjL Please stick to the facts! "Amazon.com" is the name of the company, this discussion is NOT about URLs or TLDs, but what the company is actually called.  "Amazon.com" is absolutely NOT "unheard of in Europe" and is the name which ALWAYS appears at the bottom of EVERY Amazon website, no matter what URL is used, because "Amazon.com" is THE NAME OF THE COMPANY! FF-UK (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have provided a number of "facts", largely involving Wikipedia guidelines on names and how they apply to Amazon. What you seem to be doing above is basically shouting at me, so maybe, don't. To reiterate: the legal name of the company almost approaches irrelevance if it's not the WP:COMMONNAME for most people, and one seriously really tiny mention that the page is "© 2010-2017, Amazon.com, Inc." at the very bottom of EU pages definitely doesn't change that fact int the least. LjL (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
The same goes for "Amazon (online retailer)": it correctly conveys that the subject is commonly known as Amazon, and that among our many Amazon articles it's the one about the online retailer. Like the nominator, I'm fine considering better alternatives if anyone has any they prefer. Perhaps just "retailer" would suffice, given that they now operate a handful of brick-and-mortar locations... ╠╣uw [ talk ] 18:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion in response to Support. Nobody I know here in Britain calls it Amazon.com. For a start, its URL is Amazon.co.uk here, not Amazon.com. Universally it's just known as Amazon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As you say, Amazon.co.uk is a URL, it is not the name of a company! All orders placed with Amazon by UK customers are handled by a European subsidiary called "Amazon EU Sarl".  There is a UK subsidiary, it is called "AMAZON UK SERVICES LTD.", but so what? FF-UK (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because nobody calls it Amazon.com, that's what! Why would they? They call it Amazon. I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it Amazon.com. People say "I bought it on Amazon", not "I bought it on Amazon.com". Ergo WP:COMMONNAME applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BUT, nobody calls it "Amazon (online retailer)" do they? So how could that possibly be better than the actual name of the company "Amazon.com"? (And, your limited experience of what people call it is clearly unrepresentative, as there is so much evidence that people DO call it "Amazon.com" including Amazon.com themselves!) In any case, the article is about ALL of the activities of Amazon.com, not just online retailing! FF-UK (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think possibly you're missing the point that we use common names in article titles and if common names are ambiguous then we use parenthetical disambiguation. Maybe you don't agree with this, but it's been Wikipedia practice for many years. No reason to make an exception here. The fact the company uses it is irrelevant. See WP:OFFICIAL. It's what people commonly call it that's relevant. And, given it's a global business, that's people all over the world, not just in America. And take a look at the British website. Where does it say Amazon.com? Everywhere it just calls itself Amazon. Oh look, that's the same on the American website. Amazon, not Amazon.com (the latter only in the URL). So how on earth can anyone claim that its common name is Amazon.com? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it is you who is missing the point and suggest that you check the facts! A google search for the SPECIFIC term "amazon.com" returns over 530 million results, a google search for pages on which both "amazon" and "retail" appear returns only 64 million.  "amazon.com" seems like quite a common name to me! FF-UK (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FF-UK: When there's a parenthetical addition to one of our titles, that doesn't mean that people in common usage refer to the subject that way. It's Wikipedia's clarifier, used to distinguish between otherwise identically-named subjects.  For example, our article on English poet John Smith is sensibly titled "John Smith (English poet)", a title that makes it clear that the man was known as John Smith, and that he was the John Smith who was an English poet.
 * User:Huwmanbeing|╠╣uw - That does not alter the fact that 530 million page references on google provides more than ample evidence that "amazon.com" is very very common! What I have not seen here is any valid reason why any alternative to "amazon.com" would be advantageous. FF-UK (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But how many of those pages simply include links to the website at "amazon.com"? We can't assume that every appearance of the URL counts as the company being referred to primarily as "Amazon.com".  (For instance:,, etc.)  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the motivation behind this ridiculous attempt to change the name of the article when the present name is the actual name of the corporation described in the article? The only alternatives suggested refer only to parts of the business, not the whole. FF-UK (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that the online retailing business is the main or best-known business of the company? Or that it (and the rest of the business) is commonly known simply as Amazon? Or that WP:COMMONNAME, a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, should apply in this instance? Really? That's what I find ridiculous, frankly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I think that WP:COMMONNAME should apply, but that does not alter the fact that, as there are many valid uses of the name "Amazon", and the subject of this article is most certainly NOT the primary use, then "Amazon" is not an available title for this article. Therefore we need disambiguation. Natural disambiguation WP:NATURALDIS is the appropriate method, and the policy requires "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title."  The formal name "Amazon.com" is not only fully explicit, as it contains the simple term "Amazon", but is also in common use, and thus complies fully with the policy.  FF-UK (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a lot of emphasis on retail in this discussion, but I urge editors to note that cloud computing is an increasing part of Amazon.com's total business, representing 10% of Amazon.com sales in the first half of the current year, but 110% of the operating profit in the same period! In other words, Amazon.com would have been a lossmaking corporation were it not for cloud computing. (Also consider the B2B and hardware manufacturing businesses which do not count as retail.) Take note of this CNBC article: "Soon people won't even think of Amazon as a retail company, says analyst"! FF-UK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. We could probably go for "Amazon (company)" instead, but that should be raised in a separate move request. We must first decide whether to move away from "Amazon.com" to a parenthetical disambiguator. — JFG talk 09:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See my point above. "(online retailer)" is just not the proper disamibugation, and "(company)" would be far more preferable, however, it comes that ".com" is a far more handy natural disasmbiguator, which is far superior to a standard disambiguator (see my examples above). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I continue to be amazed by the number of editors who are stating an opinion, but seem unaware that the actual name of the company we are discussing is NOT "Amazon", it is in fact "Amazon.com"! Changing away from that is not going to make it any easier for WP users to find the article, if they type Amazon they will still reach the disambiguation page.  As things stand, if anyone searches WP for Amazon (company)  or Amazon (retailer) or Amazon.co.uk they will still be taken directly to the Amazon.com page.  I have yet to see a logical argument which would support the idea that one of these parenthetical disambiguator names, none of which represent what people actually call the company, is better than the real name.  FF-UK (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah so you refer to the company as 'Amazon.com' when discussing it in conversation with peers? I, and most others it seems, refer to it as Amazon and all seem to understand perfectly well what we're talking about without using its domain name. The use of parenthesis in the article title clearly isn't what people use when referring to the company, hence why it is in parenthesis. The company is referred to as Amazon, and therefore I feel that's how it should be referred to on Wikipedia, with suitable parenthesis for disambiguation as is used on many articles. I don't think anyone here is disputing the actual company name, it is obviously Amazon.com, I think the dispute lies in how it is and should be referred, an important difference. TGB13 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the point is that, either way we put it, the Wikipedia article title will not exactly line up with common name, as the common name page Amazon is taken. I sure think you wouldn't go up to your friend and say "Hey, what do you think about the Amazon (company) Echo"? Yes, "Amazon.com Echo" is just as incorrect, but the point FF-UK is trying to deliver is that the .com appendix far simplifies the disambiguation process, as it is part of "Amazon.com, Inc." company name. I have given enough reason and examples above with moving this page from one (natural) disambiguator to another (parenthetical) is useless, and actually a bad decision. Think this way: Everyone wanting to find out about the company will either type in "Amazon", "Amazon.com" or "Amazon.[their respective TLD]", all the ones that get the first result will find the river, go for disambiguation, and then land here, while all others will be redirected here. Moving the page would merged option two with option three, as such cause more server traffic (minor, but still), and not help anybody. No one would type out "Amazon (company)" when looking for the article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is doubting the ability to navigate to the page, if they are I feel they are missing the point. For me it is a matter of the company being more than Amazon.com, it is Amazon.co.uk etc., its cloud services, Prime, music, film, tv. You are correct, no one refers to it as 'Amazon (company)', but that isn't how parenthesis is used, it is there if it is needed. If someone spoke about 'amazon' you would say 'Which amazon? The river or the company?', this will be what the parenthesis is used for. The common name for the company is most definitely 'Amazon' and not 'Amazon.com', that needs to be reflected on the article in my opinion. The debate isn't about how people are going to find the page, that's been made very simple with lots of redirecting, it's more the fact that some people feel the article title should reflect it's common name, and the parenthesis is there if required. Parenthesis are there as and when required, that's all it would be used for here. The same as the Amazon river article could easily be titled 'Amazon (river)'. TGB13 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Surely the company is rich enough by now that they can pay to have the river renamed? Edwardx (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Will editors please concentrate on FACTS rather than misinformed opinions!
 * There is a page titled Amazon, it is a disambiguation page which lists no fewer than 67 pages dealing with subjects related to the word "Amazon". Amazon is NOT available as the title of a particular article, and is NOT in use for the article on the river as some people seem to believe, that article is Amazon River.


 * The page Amazon.com starts with the words: "Amazon.com, Inc., also known as simply Amazon. There can be no possible confusion as to what the page is about, therefore there is NO logical reason to change it.


 * It is completely normal for the WP articles about major corporations to have the company's formal name as the article title, sometimes followed by a "commonly known as" comment in the first part of the lede. Some examples:
 * Volkswagen Group - but we refer to them simply as VW.
 * Royal Dutch Shell "commonly known as Shell".
 * Apple Inc. - but we refer to them simply as Apple.
 * CVS Health - but we refer to them simply as CVS.
 * General Motors "commonly known as GM".
 * Ford Motor Company "commonly referred to simply as Ford".
 * General Electric - but we refer to them simply as GE.


 * TGB13 writes: "For me it is a matter of the company being more than Amazon.com", but that is absolute nonsense. Amazon.com Inc. IS the name of the public corporation, all other businesses and companies in the Amazon group are subsidiary to Amazon.com. Clearly an article titled Amazon (online retailer) would exclude many parts of Amazon.com, as would Amazon (retailer).  An article entitled Amazon (company) would not indicate WHICH of the many Amazon companies it was about!  (Bear in mind that there are already many other articles which deal with specific parts of the Amazon empire).  Those that prefer the "company" disambiguator should bear in mind that it would only be a reasonable and accurate title if it were Amazon.com (company), but that would also be an entirely pointless exercise.  Please do not keep making facile attempts to fix something which is not broken! FF-UK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no point in continuing this discussion when valid points are ignored and instead certain points are cherry picked to be pulled apart. No one is 'confused', we all know what the article starts with, we all know the actual name of the company, we all know we can just type in near enough anything into the search page and we will be redirected to the page. But again these points continue to be used and valid points are ignored. It is merely a case of using the company's common name rather than official name, which in fact, is preferred by Wikipedia: Article titles. Which also gives many examples of articles named after their common names rather than their official names, to balance your examples of formal names over common names. Nevertheless, the point about the differences between Amazon as a company and its various subsidiaries is probably the most important here, and that's where I feel my opinion has changed, so I present the following compromise: would it make sense to follow the system used for Google and Alphabet Inc. on Wikipedia? So 'Amazon.com, Inc.' would be the equivalent of 'Alphabet' and therefore describing the parent company, then create a page to describe the online retail subsidiary in the same way other subsidiaries have their own pages such as Amazon Echo etc. It does feel strange that Amazon Echo has its own page, yet Amazon online retail doesn't and is instead combined in the parent company page. That system has worked successfully for Google's evolution, I feel it would work well for Amazon's too. TGB13 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Bottomline
Since this discussion is getting out of hand, I would like to summarize the following key points which sould be regarded for this discussion:
 * This discussion focuses on the proposed move to "Amazon (online retailer)", not "Amazon (company)" or anything similar. From my comments above, you should know that Amazon has more business than just online retail (such as operating AWS, developing and producing Echo/Alexa, providing music and video streaming services, printing books and serving as book publishing service, digital games market, etc., etc.), wherefore company would be a better parenthetical disambiguator, if one had to be chosen. However, if you prefer the "not 'online retailer'" option, you should keep in mind that this discussion focuses on 'online retailer' and as such you should oppose this proposal and wait for a discussion on "Amazon (company)" that will likely follow up once this discussion is closed.
 * Fact is: the company's legal name is Amazon.com, Inc., however fact is also that the common name for the company is simply Amazon, this pointed out in the lead and should, from my knowledge, be common consensus, regardless of region and respective top-level domain. I doubt that anyone, neither British, nor American, nor German, usually refers to the company by "Amazon.com" or its full, legal name. It appears that the legal name is your primary argument, and I agree that it plays a role, but it should not go against WP:COMMONNAME in te way you put it.
 * The problem: The page Amazon is already occupied (I would have said by the river, but I were corrected and have cecked since that it is actually a disambiguation page). This means that we have to decide between a natural disambiguator and a parenthetical disambiguator. Both actually have about the same effect, the only difference is that a forced piped link could be avoided with a natural disambiguator: See that, from every page where you wish to link this page, you could either simply say [[Amazon.com ]] or have to pipe out  [[Amazon (company)|Amazon ]] (if you prefer only Amazon to be displayed,  [[Amazon.com|Amazon ]] can still be used can still be used, even if this page retains its natural disambiguator. There is nothing wrong with either solution, but obviously I prefer the prior case, as it is cleaner in code and it is not wrong (some say that Amazon.com is wrong, but it is not, trust me), but obviously consensus will decide on which to use.
 * Bottomline of my bottomline: Please discuss wether to use a legitimate natural disambiguator (.com) or an unfavored parenthetical disambiguator (online retailer)! If this discussion fails you can still discuss if you wish to a legit parenthetical disambiguator (company) later on. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out above, the existing name is entirely consistent with WP:CRITERIA. As stated in WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation".  WP:COMMONNAME also tells us that "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used", so please consider that Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia.com and Oxford Reference all use "Amazon.com" as the title of their respective entries.  It is also worth remembering that the company has been called "Amazon.com" since it first went online in 1995, and the title of this article has always been "Amazon.com" since the article was created in September 2002, 15 years ago this month.  FF-UK (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See that I don't actually disagree with you; yes, Amazon.com is correct and well enough to use naturally disambiguated, but keep in mind that other encyclopedias are just "among the sources that may be helpful" (as you quoted from COMMONNAME), not the defining opinions (they are also usually edited by professionals who don't usually go by popular opinion, unlike Wikipedia). You and I cannot deny that "Amazon" is more frequent than "Amazon.com" in reliable sources and among the masses (the company's own pages and logo also just use "Amazon", except for the copyright claim, which incorporates the legal name), and as such would apply to COMMONNAME. But since COMMONNAME would lead to a parenthetical disambiguator, NCDAB gives use the choice between a natural and a parenthetical disambiguator, although the prior is preferred by NCDAB, it forces neither. Yes, Amazon.com is the nicer way to go, but in the end, the consensus (which should be reached with this discussion) will decide. The back-and-forth, what is correct and what is not, is nonsensial, as both versions are correct, one is preferred but not enforced by Wikipedia, but consensus should always have the last word. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:14, 7 September 2017 (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.