The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to
Chicago or the
Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
removing POV tag with no active discussion per
Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at
Template:POV:
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! --
Khazar2 (
talk)
00:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Why is there no history section
Hi Wikipedians - I was wondering what people thought of adding a history section here?
Hi Wikipedians - I just split Beanie Babies into it's own subcategory because I was intending to expand upon it over time ... please help as I think Beanie Babies is the cornerstone product for Ty and I think there should be some more information than what is currently presented.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - According to the book written about Ty, they spent a lot of resources citing themselves as Ty, Inc. because that is their legal name and that is how their marks are legally protected. However on Wikipedia, companies like Coca Cola that have pages are not cited as The Coca Cola Company. So I guess changing to "Ty" would make sense, but then I think having TY be a different page than Ty is totally confusing because the Ty mark technically is "Ty".
Ronniebrown2(talk ·contribs)19:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is the actual company wanting to change the heading for Ty from Ty Inc. We do not want to use all capital letters of TY because too many people say the letters T / Y as the company name instead of the real name that the company stands for being Ty. It's a name. If there was Steve Inc, people would not say I work for S T E V E Inc and say each letter individually. The issue purely is that Wikipedia information is what is used to populate search engines and we simply want to show Ty instead of Ty Inc. Just the owners preference. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aceyoutoo (
talk •
contribs)
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.
No Content?
Hi Wikipedians - I understand that removing what appears to be advertising or a product catalog listing makes sense, but now there is not really any relevant content on this page. I am proposing the following sections:
Overview
History
Beanie Babies (not to reinstate the catalog, but rather as it relates to the pop phenomenon of the 90's)
As a marketing gimmick, Ty deliberately creates a shortage in each Beanie Baby by selling it at a very low price and not producing enough copies to clear the market at that price. As a result, a secondary market is created, just like the secondary market in works of art. The secondary market gives widespread publicity to Beanie Babies, and the shortage that creates the secondary market stampedes children into nagging their parents to buy them the latest Beanie Babies, lest they be humiliated by not possessing the Beanie Babies that their peers possess. Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., supra, 132 F.3d at 1171, 1173. The appeal is to the competitive conformity of children — but also to the mentality of collectors.
Ty, Inc. makes Beanie Babies® which have been, to my perception, extraordinarily popular toys both in terms of the sheer number (over a billion) of them which have been distributed and the very number, of years (at least five) that they have been prominent in the marketplace.1
The defendants do not make rival products — plush toys; they make books about Beanie Babies®. Ty has designed and sold over 200 different Beanie Babies®. New ones are issued periodically and older ones are retired; that is to say, Ty stops making additional toys of a model it retires. By making many different styles of Beanie Babies®, Ty creates the possibility that some people will wish to collect them. I have personal knowledge of at least two such persons, both of them in the early stages of the American educational process. One of these collectors displays her gift for cataloguing and her nascent interest in zoology by organizing her collection into Beanie mammals, Beanie aquatic creatures (excluding aquatic mammals), Beanie prehistoric creatures, Beanie flying creatures and Beanie mythical creatures. There may have been, over the years, other organizing principles of the collection, but I was unable to sustain my interest long enough to grasp them fully. The other collector is primarily interested in the projected cash value of the toys, particularly the discontinued models, all to the end of financing a planned period of attendance at medical school in the far-off future.
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: Moved, the majority of editors argue that the company is not necessarily the topic of highest long term significance even though it may have the largest amount of page views in the short run (
non-admin closure) (
t ·
c) buidhe19:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The only thing I get from the graph you linked to is that something major happened around July 25. But what was it? At the same time, we can change to monthly and all time with the same graph
like this, and switch to the logarithmic scale. There we can observe that the July '23 spike also coincided with a spike in hatnote clicks, and we can see an even larger spike of interest for the rapper in April 2020. We can also see a major change in pattern in January 2019, but the same spike is also seen even more pronounced in hatnote clicks, so that's actually another argument against keeping the status quo. --
Joy (
talk)
14:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh, I just saw from the comment below that the July '23 event was likely the release of the movie The Beanie Bubble, so that was probably traffic intended for this topic, and/or Ty Warner. --
Joy (
talk)
14:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Should've mentioned pageviews in my opening comment. Yes, this topic is clearly the most viewed (the bump of late due to
a recent streaming movie). But the primary topic threshold ought to be higher for such a short title, with a credible argument for
long-term significance—substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term—which this company does not appear to have over
Ty (given name), as demonstrated by a Google Books or Scholar search for ty -author:ty (in fairness Google Images does favor the company), suggesting no primary topic.
Hameltion (
talk |
contribs)
02:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Ty indicates the most common outgoing clickstream here is Ty Warner (inherently connected to the topic as they're linked from the lead), and the hatnote is at #5, which isn't conclusive but still a hint that the average English reader might not necessarily associate the term "Ty" so strongly with this single organization. This is another one of these cases where
WP:NAMELIST makes navigation to people named Ty additionally bad, because the list is hidden behind two extra clicks. Because it's such a short combination of letters, I'm inclined to support the idea to give full disambiguation a try. Looking at mass views for all time,
here and
here, we can see a large amount of interest in a number of Ty topics, including Burrell, Dolla Sign, Cobb, Pennington, Simpkins, Murray, Carter, ... In fact if you compare the 226/day average for Ty, the closest is Ty Gibbs at 217/day average, a very young person that the average English reader probably has never heard of. So it looks like the mass of Tys is so large that it doesn't matter that a single company is well known, they're not better known than all others combined. And by long-term significance, it's even harder to fathom such an argument. (Support) --
Joy (
talk)
14:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
No, they're not partial title matches, because people are habitually referred to using their given names, and other parts of human names exist in practice to disambiguate these. Because an average reader recognizes the inherent ambiguity in people's names, it's perfectly logical for them to be able to look up a given name and then navigate a list of people named the same way. For example, a reader may want to look up a great baseball player they remember named Ty something, or an actor from a sitcom named Ty something, and giving them the opportunity to navigate to these people without having to jump through an excessive amount of hoops is useful. Forcing all of these readers to look first at the article of a company that receives the level of interest that is typically orders of magnitude less than the overall interest in the people – is contrary to the logic of
WP:PTOPIC. --
Joy (
talk)
19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
No one searching for
Ty Cobb is going to forget his name or expect his article to be titled
Ty. Sure, occasionally someone might forget a more obscure subject's last name, but that small number would also not expect their subject's article to be titled
Ty. -
Station1 (
talk)
19:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, I think it's a pretty bold assertion that no one ever forgets names :) but the real difference is that few people expect that any single subject should be at "Ty", because it's not a term strongly associated with a single subject by the average reader. --
Joy (
talk)
23:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Then that's where we disagree. We're talking about the average reader wanting to read about "Ty". Some of them want to read about the rapper and a relative handful want to read about something else, but the significant majority of that group do strongly associate "Ty" with the Beanie Baby company, as shown by pageviews and Google searches.
Station1 (
talk)
23:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought we already discussed the issue of looking at the page view statistics as if it was a clear representation of intent, but it's just a representation of what's happening based on how the navigation is set up now. We've seen before in other articles how traffic patterns change when navigation is changed. Indeed in this case we don't even have to go to any other articles to see that - the 2019 change here is the largest change of long-term trend (from ~1k/month to ~10k/month). Within a few months of a Wikipedia title swap, the search engines short-circuit most queries with context accordingly, and in case of disambiguations that's the moment we start seeing the actual statistics of where people who genuinely make an ambiguous query proceed (which is again not necessarily their original intent but it's moderated by us in a less slanted manner). --
Joy (
talk)
09:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Not sure what you're saying about 2019. All we did was switch the title from
Ty Inc. to
Ty. The number of article views before and after the title switch were virtually identical, and well above everything else even back then. There was no spike. See
this graph. (On a side note, if this article were to be moved, it would be back to
Ty Inc. per
WP:Natural.)
Station1 (
talk)
19:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
That was the point when we switched Ty from going to the disambiguation page to going to a description of the company Ty. The lack of change in that context means that essentially whichever of these locations we put it, this contingent of readers have gotten to that article. So the 2019 change was largely inconsequential for them, but for the remaining contingents of readers, we don't really know if their navigation was changed or not. This is the problem with making a change and then not actually measuring the impact. There's reason to believe that if we organize navigation in a way that doesn't hide other Ty meanings, they'd attract much more reader interest, something I've discussed before at
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55#effects of WP:NAMELIST on navigation outcomes for anthroponymy entries. --
Joy (
talk)
08:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Here's a view of
Google Books Ngrams for some of the relevant terms. I'm not sure there's any correlation between the mentions of the company and the term, especially in the last 20 years when the term just takes off.
And here's a view of
Google Search Trends for some of the terms - it doesn't allow me to see more than 5 topics, but does have a specific TY company topic, and there's even less apparent correlation. --
Joy (
talk)
11:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.