Talk:Cunard Line

Page move
Why has this page been moved without discussion? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Move it back. Even Cunards own web pages are titled Cunard Line and on the about Cunard Line page under our future say "we continue to extend the Cunard Line" Lyndaship (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved it back. CharlieEdited (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2022

 * 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. Consensus against the move. Current title is more recognizable. Evidence provided for WP:COMMONNAME is insufficient due to false positives. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Cunard Line → Cunard – I had moved this as uncontroversial in November, but it has been challenged and moved back per the section above, so now requesting it formally. This seems quite clearcut to me... the WP:COMMONNAME for this cruise liner is simply "Cunard", not "Cunard Line", as evidenced by for example BBC News, The Guardian, CNN, book titles etc. There may be one or two using "Cunard Line", but certainly it looks to me from sources that more use the straightforward single-word title. Further more an ngram shows around a 10× level of occurrence for Cunard vs Cunard Line (more than enough to offset the fact that the former is a match even when the latter is a match), when searching on "Cunard"/"Cunard Line", and also when searching on "Cunard ship"/"Cunard Line ship" (any case). WP:OFFICIALNAME says we should not give extra weight to what the company itself uses, but actually even Cunard themselves generally just call themselves Cunard, e.g. on the front page of their website it doesn't say "Cunard Line" anywhere; it's only when you get most of the way down the "about us" page that the term appears. Finally, the proposed title is also more WP:CONCISE, which is another policy tick. I don't really know why this move was reverted, but certainly it seems policy favours "Cunard". Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 15:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. >>>  Extorc . talk  09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just going through the links in the references on the article, it seems "Cunard Line" is the common name.  The company may be attempting to rebrand itself recently, but I am not sure that's caught on. Walrasiad (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just putting Cunard Line into google produces many hits including from all the organisations claimed to be using just Cunard - the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and book titles together with Cunard themselves with a title of Cunard™ Cruises Official Site - Cunard Line. Lyndaship (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As well as points raised above, the ngram approach is not what it seems as plain "Cunard" will find many things apart from the name of the enterprise, eg people, buildings, some ship names, editorial shortening (headlines, book titles, tabulations, avoidance of phrases like "the cruise line Cunard Line", abbreviation after definition) - as well as two previous names for the company itself. Also when used adjectivally, as in "a Cunard ship", "Line" is often omitted in prose for stylistic reasons - it is similar with "Carnival Cruise ship"/"Carnival Cruise Line ship". Davidships (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Per User talk:Robertsky (permalink), proposer wishes to rebut opposers Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 15:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Per User_talk:Extorc Awaiting more participation. >>> Extorc . talk  09:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support the sound majority of top google hits for 'Cunard' as you used by the BBC, the Guardian and CNN all return the cruise line; even if some return Cunard Yanks, Nancy Cunard or other stuff named Cunard, just 'Cunard' still seems to be used far more often by RS for the cruise line than 'Cunard Line'. And thought the cruise line itself is a primary source, it doesn't mean that it carries no weight whatsoever (merely that secondary RS take precedence). Furthermore, the bulk of non-ancient sources cited by the article itself, also seem to favor just 'Cunard'. Lastly, User:Murgatroyd49 almost warrants a block for their scale of WP:Trolling and sheer disregard for core policies such as WP:Consensus (and WP:NOTVOTE) in the discussion below. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am the one that was asking for consensus so why the personal attack? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Following the initial close, and the earlier close by mentioned above, I promised to come back with some more data points and rebuttals of the arguments presented above in opposition. Here is what I would say:
 * (a) Firstly, 's !vote observes that the BBC, CNN and the Guardian do use Cunard Line on occasion. That's true, but the question here, and which underpins most RMs, is which name is the most common name in use. I've run a simple Google search for pages in those three organisations and found the following:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source !! Hits for "Cunard" without "Cunard Line" !! Hits for "Cunard Line"
 * BBC || 1,280 || 80
 * CNN || 239 || 60
 * Guardian || 1,010 || 114
 * All Google hits || 8,020,000 || 1,610,000
 * }
 * What's clear from this is that all three sources have considerably more pages that say just "Cunard" than say "Cunard Line", anywhere.
 * All Google hits || 8,020,000 || 1,610,000
 * }
 * What's clear from this is that all three sources have considerably more pages that say just "Cunard" than say "Cunard Line", anywhere.
 * What's clear from this is that all three sources have considerably more pages that say just "Cunard" than say "Cunard Line", anywhere.


 * (b) 's oppose says going through the links in the references on the article, it seems "Cunard Line" is the common name... which doesn't seem to be particularly true. Looking at the first few refs in the list:
 * - (1999) - says "Cunard Line", although it's a 1999 article so quite old
 * - (2018) - doesn't say "Cunard Line" anywhere. It does say "Cunard cruise line", but that's a descriptive phrase, not a proper name, and appears just so you know what Cunard is.
 * - (2011); mixed bag. The headline just says "Cunard", although the first line does say Cunard Line"
 * - "Passenger Liners of the Western Ocean" is an offline book source, so I can't really view it, but it's also from 1957, so per WP:NAMECHANGES, it's of much less importance when assessing the present title.
 * - "The Nautical Gazette" - same thing; it's from 1919
 * - "The Only Way To Cross" - also old, it's from 1972
 * - (2021) - says "Cunard" but doesn't say "Cunard Line"
 * - (2017) - says "Cunard" but doesn't say "Cunard Line"
 * - (2022) - says "Cunard" but doesn't say "Cunard Line"
 * - "Parry of the Arctic" - 1963 source
 * So in summary, of the five sources from the 21st century, one says Cunard Line and the other four do not. I haven't looked at the remainder of the sources, but I doubt it's much different, and would like to see evidence if it is.


 * (c) - The company may be attempting to rebrand itself recently, but I am not sure that's caught on - the BBC/CNN/Guardian evidence above would suggest it has caught on.
 * (d) - mentions issues with the ngram and yes, that one is somewhat harder to get a clear answer given the difficulty of constructing a phrase which uniquely refers to this company. So maybe you're right, the ngram doesn't carry so much weight.
 * But anyway, overall, while there is no doubt that *some* sources use "Cunard Line", there is sufficient evidence of a WP:COMMONNAME here to make the move. And there's no doubt that "Cunard" is WP:RECOGNIZEable (more so in fact, because personally as a non-specialist I'd only ever heard of Cunard before, never Cunard Line); and obviously "Cunard" satisfies the WP:CONCISE criterion too. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I picked 5 hits from the google results for Cunard mostly off page 10 as a first check. One did just use Cunard or rather Cunard's which I would hold is a shortened form used by journalists. The others though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4637240.stm uses Cunard Line in the prose, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-56481955 no mention of Cunard at all, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-56263813 again no mention at all and then finally this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8236636.stm In pictures: Bus schools in Delhi slums, no mention. Lyndaship (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether it's a shorthand or not. WP:COMMONNAME simply asks us to reflect what the sources say. Hence, per the examples, it's Polio (not: poliomyelitis), FIFA (not Fédération Internationale de Football Association) etc. Similarly, because the majority of recent sources simply say "Cunard", not "Cunard Line", so should we. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just a repetition of the previous discussion and adds nothing new. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am merely providing more detail as to why the oppose votes above are incorrect. Please provide some actual evidence to rebut the demonstrated evidence that there is a common name here. You didn't even give a rationale for opposing above. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, you are just repeating the same, rejected, arguments. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to provide an explanation as to why my evidence above is incorrect; I am always open to being convinced, but so far it seems crystal clear that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Cunard" not "Cunard Line". If you have some evidence to the contrary, please provide it here, so I can understand why the proposal is being opposed. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * previous contribitors have answered your question already, I don't propose to repeat it just so you can ignore it again. The consensus was that the title shouldn't be changed, please will you accept the will of the majority and stop trying to fight the same arguement all over again. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am literally just trying to find out why this article isn't being moved, and you're refusing to answer. There is no "will of the majority" here per WP:NOTAVOTE, that's not how discussions work. I need you to explain why my evidence is false, then I will drop this matter. Otherwise, if there are no arguments against the evidence, then the closer is liable to disregard the oppose comments. Looking forward to your evidence. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not interested in playing your games, the previous objections still apply. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your evidence is deeply flawed being simply google returns for Cunard versus Cunard Line. I demonstrated above the BBC results were unreliable to support your POV. I've just had a look at the Guardian ones, on the first page 2 of the results relate to the Cunard Yanks and 3 to Nancy Cunard, looking further into the results many relate to Nick Cunard who is a photographer. Furthermore it strikes me that many results are from finding Cunard's (as opposed to just Cunard), maybe it's been used for a shortened form of belonging to Cunard or maybe belonging to Cunard Lines but either way it does not support that the commonname is Cunard. Would finding many instances of Sunak's be evidence the commonname of Rishi Sunak is Sunak? Lyndaship (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru "if there are no arguments against the evidence, then the closer is liable to disregard the oppose comments." Even if the closer was to disregard the oppose votes, you have 0 consensus in your favor. The closers job is to assess consensus in accordance with policy. >>> Extorc . talk  08:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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.
 * Oppose – COMMONNAME is not just saying we need to use the "most common". It says "Use commonly recognizable names" and "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used ... as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above".  These criteria include recognizability and precision, both of which are better served by "Cunard Line", which is certainly commonly used and commonly recognizable. Dicklyon (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well fine I can see this is a lost cause. Incredibly surprised to see you jumping on this crazy bandwagon though, you're usually a defender of the article title policies rather than advocating we ignore them. To be clear, Cunard is much more recognizable than Cunard Line. I'd never heard of Cunard Line when I first came to this article, but obviously I know Cunard because I've heard about them repeatedly throughout my life, described by their common name. What does "Line" even mean in this context anyway? Do you see it as similar to Portsmouth Direct line? But then it would be lowercase "line". I'm just genuinely baffled by why this isn't being moved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)