Talk:Ty (company)

Untitled

does "TY" means "thank you" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.115.173 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Should something about this lawsuit be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.143.185 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. 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)

Why is there no history section

Hi Wikipedians - I was wondering what people thought of adding a history section here?

Ronniebrown2 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Expanding Beanie Babies section

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.

Ronniebrown2 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2019

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus: Ty Inc. → Ty & TY → Ty (disambiguation) (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  09:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Ty Inc. → Ty (company) – The company common name is Ty, not Ty Inc. However, Ty is a disambiguation page, and so we need to disambiguate to Ty (company). To the company spammers who are trying to change it to Ty, this is not going to happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• comment - Ty is actually a redirect, and I think there is a convincing case (both on long-term significance and page views) that the company is the primary topic for that title. Ty Inc. → Ty and TY→Ty (disambiguation) might be the better move. -- Netoholic @ 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Netoholic. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• comment - Netoholic's pageviews are not the whole story. George Ty and Tahitian Language together get more page views than Ty Inc. But the company does probably have longer-term significance than the person or the country code. 94.21.253.25 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither of those articles though are direct competition for the title of Ty. -- Netoholic @ 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• comment - Because 13 of 16 entries at TY are for "Ty" or "ty", not "TY", it might make sense to move TY over Ty (disambiguation) (whence it was moved in 2007) if not to Ty itself. 94.21.253.25 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The first two random articles that I checked from the sources refer to Ty Inc. in the first paragraph (The NYT and KEYT).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Any other ideas?

Ronniebrown2 (talk · contribs) 12:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Marketing

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.

— Judge Posner, in TY, INC., Plaintiff, v. PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., and Penguin Putnam, USA, Defendants 81 F. Supp. 2d 899 No. 99 C 5565 Jan. 24, 2000 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

And even

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.

— ZAGEL, District Judge. In TY, INC., Plaintiff, v. PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., and Penguin Putnam, USA, Defendants 81 F. Supp. 2d 899 No. 99 C 5565 Jan. 24, 2000 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Nemo 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2023

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) buidhe 19:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• Ty → Ty (company)
• Ty (disambiguation) → Ty

– No primary topic for this simple two-letter combination. No evidence this topic has long-term significance for the digram; searches mostly return people with the name Ty. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging active users from last discussion: @Joseph2302, Netoholic, Ronniebrown2, and TonyTheTiger. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pageviews indicate a clear WP:primary topic. Station1 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  What the graph shows is that, even ignoring the spike, Ty is the clear and consistent primary topic this year. The graph from last year might show the same thing more clearly. Station1 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That can only be if you're ignoring most of the items linked from Ty navigation. --Joy (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Every article that is or could reasonably be titled "Ty" is included, to the best of my knowledge. Station1 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  Ah, and the reason for January 2019 is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ty&diff=prev&oldid=880250080 - we caused the change ourselves. And I have to say that #Requested move 18 January 2019 is rather confusing, seemed to be largely based on assertions, and nobody even seemed to entertain the idea of how navigating to people named Ty would work. --Joy (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you Google "ty", you most commonly find toys by Ty, Inc. Plus, the term Ty most commonly refers to the toy company of the same name, and the company is the primary topic per WP:PRITOP. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  People who happen to have the given name Ty are partial title matches. No one would expect any of the listed people's articles to be titled Ty. - Station1 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  When this view is limited to the United States, like this, there's some occasional correlation, but otherwise none? --Joy (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• support per nom—blindlynx 16:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support the company may be primary by usage but probably not by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The Norse god is also pretty significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 5 December 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.