Talk:Amazon

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

When attempting to click on the link to the Wikipedia entry for Amazon.com, I get an error message saying "You are not authorized to view this page." Is this a fault in the software, because the entry ends with ".com" ?

Both Amazon.com and http://www.amazon.com/ work for me. The Anome 17:38 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

I can only say that when I try to click on the Amazon.com entry, I get this: "You are not authorized to view this page - You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied." I am using Internet Explorer 6.0 with java enabled. I can view any other Wikipedia page except that one. Has this happened with any other people here?  

Yes, it seems to have been replaced by a file of some sort. I assume it's a virus. Someone well beyond my ability should look into this.

The edit history to this page is at Amazon (people), to where User:Nareklm inexplicably moved the page. It can't easily be moved back thanks to the version of the disambig page he made here. SnowFire 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon (people) is now a redirect (to Amazons) but the version history is still there. -Yamara ✉ 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and history merged this disambiguation page. Graham87 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Amazon redirect to Amazons rather than here? Surely the world's largest river, the world's largest rainforest and a huge multi national company are all equally as notable as the ancient legendary people? For that matter, why was Amazon moved here at all? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the myth, the river and the company all seem equally notable, surely making Amazon a disambiguation page is self-explanatory. But this has long since been accomplished as I write this.

My overhaul today major uses of "Amazon". The page geography" header for the header for the company. I have clarified these, and kept them near the top, due to the strength of their notability. And I kept them in this order, despite it not being alphabetical by header, because of a clear chronological order of nomenclature: Amazon River was named for the legendary tribe, and Amazon.com was, in turn, named for the River. -Yamara ✉ 04:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate there is a distinct historical progression through the page, there is still a more pressing volume of page hits for Amazon River (345905 times in the last 90 days) than Amazons (138758 times in the last 90 days).

I cannot help but think that the eponyms should be moved to a "people" section, and Amazon river moved higher and more prominently on the page. It is also possible that the search for "Amazon" should be redirected to the river, with a 3:1 viewing rate it would seem more appropriate. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delivery service with insufficient importance for a separate aerticle DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merging an article on a delivery service into this disambiguation page. bd2412 T 17:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found this article with a Google Search and it is exactly what I wanted to know. Please don't merge.
I also agree that it is better kept as a seprate page.

I went ahead and removed the merge tag on Amazon Locker since the article is able to stand on its own and there is not consensus to merge. --WayfaringWanderer (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page really ought to be better organized to group the primary meanings at the top. The odds are really not that good that most people here are looking for the films or fairy chess piece, yet these are placed higher on the page than the river or the warriors, which are far more significant. Readers shouldn't need to scroll to get to these primary meanings. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current order is significantly better than it was in January 2014, but it's still not perfect. I think Amazon.com and Amazon River are the two main topics here; Amazons (from mythology) and Amazon rainforest are somewhat less important but still should be at or towards the top. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving this due to a recent edit by C. A. Russell. The current state of the page has the company, tribe, and river as the top three entries, as it should. Looking at the page view stats, the company gets several times as many views as the other pages. Most likely there are many more users every day who type in "amazon" and expect to be taken straight to the company than for any of the other uses, but consensus has been that it's not quite enough to make it the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (mostly due to the long-term significance of the other meanings, which is appropriate). So yes, it should absolutely receive "top billing". -- Fyrael (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert has the following problems:

• I type in Amazon trying to get to an article about the river or rainforest and land on a disambiguation page where Amazon.com is given top billing over either of these. This is bad.

• I type in Amazon trying to get to the article for the company and land on a disambiguation page where I look for it in the Organizations/Businesses section, but it's not listed. This is bad.

• Your methodology is bad. The article for Amazon.com gets the most pageviews is not the same thing as people who type in "Amazon" are more likely to be looking for the article about Amazon.com. In other words if we have three pages A, Z and a disambiguation page D, drawing inferences about how many expected Z from D vs those who expected A from D cannot reliably be done by comparing the page hits for A and Z. It can only be reliably determined by literally checking who hit D first and then went to A, versus the numbers of those who hit D first and then went to Z, which is information that the tool in your link doesn't (and can't) convey.

To be excruciatingly clear, let's imagine two scenarios. In both scenarios, for A and Z themselves, the former gets 10x fewer hits than the latter. This is a given.

In the first scenario, however, 85% of those hitting D are looking for A, while 15% are looking for Z.

In the second scenario, only 15% of those hitting D are looking for A, while 85% are looking for Z.

If we graphed the hits for A, Z, and D in scenario 1, and we graphed the hits for A, Z, and D in scenario 2, how would they compare? Answer: they'll be exactly the same.

That is to say, if you ran a simulation where either scenario 1 or 2 manifested itself, and then showed me one of these graphs, I would not be able to draw any conclusions about when scenario occurred based on this data, because the data that varies is not captured in the graphs. When I point this out, I don't mean that we can't conclusively prove that either scenario 1 or 2 happened but that it's as if we can still draw reasonable inferences about which of the two happened. We simply cannot draw any inferences *whatsoever*.

And regardless, even if we did have hitcount data showing that more people expected Amazon.com, that wouldn't demonstrate that Amazon.com is a better candidate as a primary topic than the river or the rainforest. Because not only are raw numbers of expected outcome not conclusively proven here, but there's no other argument—convincing or not— to offered to suggest that it should trump the other factors.

I've reverted your revert. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I won't revert your changes again during discussion, it would be nice if you could follow WP:BRD in your future editing. To address your points one at a time:

• This is not bad. When a user is trying to reach a topic that happens to be the second or third most viewed for that term, it's completely reasonable and correct for that term to appear second or third rather than first on the DAB page.
• This is not much of a concern. It would be extremely uncommon for a user to skip the very first two short lines of the page and go straight to TOC navigation, especially with it nestled over on the right side of the page. However, if you're really worried about it then you can choose to duplicate the entry, which I've seen done on a few DAB pages. This concern does not in any way provide an argument for the company not being one of the most common terms though.
• My methodology is correct. Your scenarios are fine, but entirely unnecessary. I did not say and do not think that page views conclusively prove which article users are looking for most often when arriving at the DAB page. However, page views are a factor in every primary topic discussion (which this isn't, btw) I've ever seen and dismissing them entirely is just silly. The page view stats in this case as well as common sense strongly suggest that the company is one of the top if not the top candidate for the term "Amazon". What I've yet to hear from you is any explanation whatsoever for how Amazon (company) is NOT one of the most commonly referred to uses. Do you honestly believe it's not in the top three? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond directly to any further, because it will end up being a huge time sink and for nought, viz how your last message feigns addressing my argument but actually doesn't take into account any of the points that I spent time explaining. Yours is instead a message filled with presuppositions and dismissals. The fact that it starts out with a entreaty to follow a suggested practice that you either didn't understand or choose not to observe caps it off.

My last message took on the order of an hour to compose. This one took about 10 minutes, and that's not going to change in the future. Investing any more effort would be handing you an invitation to continue your Gish gallup. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing you've claimed about my response is true, considering I logically addressed your arguments point by point. Comparing me to a Young Earth Creationist is rather pathetic and childish. It's also concerning that you somehow don't understand that your actions would constitute BRRD instead of WP:BRD. Could you at least do the bare minimum of providing some evidence that the company is not among the few most sought after topics? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a complicated situation where the plural has a Primary topic and the singular doesn't, but I'd say that the river, the tribe and the company should all three appear at the top of the page as the major uses. PamD 06:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly content with either this, or this with the addition of the rainforest as Certes suggests, or the current state where river and rainforest are in the category immediately following common uses. I'm only opposed to versions where the company is not listed as common and or where the tribe is styled as though it's the primary topic. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking purely at pageviews, Amazon (company) has the majority with Amazon River, Amazons and Amazon rainforest neck and neck for second. I would mark down the company here per WP:RECENT, as its fame may fade after years rather than centuries. As stated above, the question is how many of those views come from searches for "Amazon" and how many from a fuller title? "amazon.com" is not the article title, and as a URL it applies only to the U.S. version of the website, so many people do refer to the company simply as "Amazon". Similarly, I rarely hear "Amazon River": it's usually "The Amazon", and readers know better than to search for "The". It seems that the main meanings, worth highlighting in the lead, are the company, the river, the people and perhaps the rainforest. Certes (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't care what anyone considers to be notable or not. Amazon is currently a disambiguation page. Amazons is not the primary topic. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a simple fact by virtue of Amazon being a dab page right now. I will continue to revert any attempt to change this without gaining consensus. Please read MOS:DABPRIMARY. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this page would be structured like Mercury, with the river and rainforest in the top section with the other two. But the current state of the page is still better than pretending an article is the primary topic when it isn't. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a straightforward question for you: If that's your position, why did you roll back to revision 837192407, where Amazons is listed as the primary topic? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm seeing now where at least one part of the confusion here is happening. Primary topic and the common uses list are not the same thing. The revision you've linked specifically changes the Amazons link from primary topic style to the common uses list. See MOS:DABPRIMARY versus MOS:DABCOMMON. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I want to be abundantly clear about Amazons in particular, since as Pam mentioned above it's an unusual situation. The tribe is the primary topic for the exact title Amazons with the 's'. However, it is not currently being treated as the primary topic for 'Amazon' singular. If it were, then Amazon would redirect to Amazons and this DAB page would live at Amazon (disambiguation). -- Fyrael (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone trying to follow along, my last activity was followed by User:Bkonrad editing the article to place Amazon.com (and Amazons) back in the lead. I left the following message on his or her talk page:

Why did you restore a contentious revision to Amazon when there is no consensus about it?

I voluntarily backed out of shaping the disambiguation page to closer match what I'm arguing for. I replaced it with a neutral state that doesn't conform to either side's preferred version but is nonetheless functional and unsurprising by its antiseptic and impartial presentation. You respond by restoring another editor's preferred version despite the fact that (a) the discussion isn't resolved in favor of that version, and (b) you don't even weigh in on the discussion with any argument (just appealing vaguely to "guidelines").

That's more than a little distasteful. Please voluntarily back out these changes to revert to the neutral form.

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amazon.com which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amazon (company) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really individually notable and is more of a part of the bigger Amazon article. could just be a small paragraph instead of this basically permanent stub --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 23:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to propose merging to Amazon (company), right? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea.. blame me not double checking and blame twinkle for not making that mistake obvious. Though ironically, it does have mention of this amazon aswell. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 12:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]