Idealist343 (talk | contribs) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
::::::Result: the company fails ptopic by every measure tested. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 06:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
::::::Result: the company fails ptopic by every measure tested. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 06:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Retain''' for reasons stated above. [[User:Idealist343|Idealist343]] ([[User talk:Idealist343|talk]]) 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Retain''' for reasons stated above. [[User:Idealist343|Idealist343]] ([[User talk:Idealist343|talk]]) 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Move to "Rare Ltd."''' for the overwhelming reasons stated above, and also for others. A quick Google search should be enough to indicate why the current title is a bad one. Removing cases where the term "rare" refers to scarcity, the top 10 google targets are 1) An American charity organisation; 2) an American conservative newsfeed; 3) an Australian advertising agency; 4) the games company. What's more, I had to remove the scarcity meaning because that was the overwhelming meaning of the word "rare" when googled. As it is in daily life. In fact, when I tried to search just removing the words rarity and scarcity, 9 of the top 10 ghits were still for uses where the word referred to rarity (mostly rare disease information - and you can add a 90-day page search of over 18000 for "Rare disease", too). Rare primarily means scarcity, and in those cases where it doesn't it still doesn't primarily relate to a game company. It's also definitely worth noting that - despite not being wikilawyers - the company itself is called "Rare Ltd." at the top of its own website, as well as on its Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube feeds, and on its FaceBook page. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. '' [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 11:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:42, 1 February 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 555 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Requested move 12 May 2015
- 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: (1) Rare Ltd. → Rare, and (2) Rare → Rare (disambiguation) – czar 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Rare Ltd. → Rare Ltd – I hope nobody jumps down my throat, but I've discovered that in BrEng the full stop is omitted from abbreviations that consists of the first and last letters of a word. Not just that, but Rare's official pages also excludes the full stop from "Ltd". It makes sense to be faithful to not only the language but how Rare portrays their name. I hope nobody finds this irritating and please bear in mind that I hate WP:ENGVAR and am neutral on this matter - I just thought it should be done. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC) JAGUAR 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support per nom; seems like that's how they do it Red Slash 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I couldn't find any usage of Ltd (with or without the period) on the company's website. Also, the company has been a fully owned subsidiary of an American company (Microsoft) since 2002, so I'm not sure ENGVAR would apply. Calidum T|C 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't Rare (company) be best per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)? It's better known as Rare by itself than with the Ltd with or without the period. (Also I'm with Calidum on the whole association of Rare with a specific variation of English.) – czar 19:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I like the sound of Rare (company), but they are a Limited company and it's the law to adknowledge it, but disregarding that they use the 'Ltd.' in all official pages. JAGUAR 11:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Its name on Wikipedia has nothing to do with law. It's known as "Rare" and not "Rare Ltd" in our reliable sources so its common name is "Rare". Since that name is obviously taken (disambiguated with other Rares, though one might be able to argue that it's the best known of all the Rares...), the company needs a disambiguator. "Rare Ltd" would be a fine disambiguation if the company was actually called that even occasionally in the sources, but it isn't, so "Rare (company)" would be best. It's also what the company naming conventions recommends as the default. – czar 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting the law was related to Wikipedia but most of Rare's official pages allocate it as "Rare Ltd", but there is a large amount of ambiguity whether or not its official name is Rare or Rare Ltd? We could even be brave enough to rename this to just 'Rare'! A brief look at Rare suggests that the company is by far the most notable and the most covered out of any of the other mentions on the disambiguation page. But if not that, then Rare (company) would suffice. I'm on the fence on renaming it altogether, as there is nothing technically wrong with Rare Ltd either. JAGUAR 16:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Its name on Wikipedia has nothing to do with law. It's known as "Rare" and not "Rare Ltd" in our reliable sources so its common name is "Rare". Since that name is obviously taken (disambiguated with other Rares, though one might be able to argue that it's the best known of all the Rares...), the company needs a disambiguator. "Rare Ltd" would be a fine disambiguation if the company was actually called that even occasionally in the sources, but it isn't, so "Rare (company)" would be best. It's also what the company naming conventions recommends as the default. – czar 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Traffic in the last 90 days:
- Rare Ltd.: 68.5k
- Rare (band): 0.5k
- Rare (Serbian band): 0.5k
- Rare (Asia album): 2.5k
- Rare (David Bowie album): 2.1k
- Rare, Vol. 1: 1.8k
- Rare, Vol. 2 0.7k
- The company is far and away the most trafficked article of those disambiguated at "Rare", and consistently (with no major spikes). I think there is a case for moving the company to remove the disambiguator. If not, then I think the "(company)" parenthetical disambiguation is the most appropriate since Rare rarely (ho ho ho) uses the "Ltd" in what I see online right now. – czar 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- LMAO. Can't believe I actually suggested something that has a chance of being the right decision! Who here would be in favour of renaming this article to just 'Rare'? The information you gathered suggests that this article is by far the most popular and if not, the most notable, which would constitute it being renamed and its disambiguation page being renamed to Rare (disambiguation) as appropiate. Given this new information I'm not sure if we should open a new move request or gather more opinions on this. JAGUAR 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I already left a notice on the disambig's talk page so let's leave this open, see if it can't get a few more bites. If there is no reply after another week, we can just close this and try a bold move (since this is considered advanced notice). If there's an issue after that it can go to RM, etc. – czar 17:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Czar: it's been a week and nobody has objected nor is it likely that this will come to any other attention, so should we continue with the move? JAGUAR 13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- ✓ done – czar 13:43, 24 May 2015 (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.
Machinima documentary
@Czar: Can this documentary be used in the article? It is not on the list of reliable sources but it has a lot of valuable information. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- @AdrianGamer, it could be okay (I think Machinima's reliability will vary between the type of program) but even still we're best with text sources, which are easier to back up and reference. If these videos were to go down—like with GameTrailers—we'd have a whole lot of unreferenced link rot on our hands. The documentary series would be good as {{external media}}, though czar 08:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Rare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I am the oracle of Rare. It seems appropriate that I should take this one on, seeing as it's one of the only subjects on Wikipedia in which I have genuine professional knowledge about. To make this even more special, this is my 400th GA review! I'll make this one as detailed as can be. JAGUAR 15:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Initial comments
Lead
- Remove either 'England' or 'United Kingdom' from the infobox, seems a bit cluttered as it is
- "During its early years, Rare kept an air of secrecy" - this sounds slightly informal. Furthermore, I don't think they were secretive only in their early years, they will still by far a seclusive company even after Microsoft's 2002 buyout. This could be reworded slightly
- "the company's focus shifted to Xbox Live Avatar and Kinect" - the Xbox Live Avatar
- "In 2015, Rare released Rare Replay to celebrate their 30th anniversary" - a bit more should be added about Rare Replay. Like In 2015, Rare released Rare Replay, a compliation of 30 games produced by the company to celebrate their 30th anniversary or something similar
- "Rare was widely recognized" - recognised
Founding
- "and founded in Ashby-de-la-Zouch by former arcade game" - I know I added this part, but I would write out the full location and founded in Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire, by former arcade game
- "Rare also developed Battletoads, a beat'em up inspired by the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise," - full stop instead of comma
- "The game became known for its extreme difficulty, and seeing success, publisher Tradewest published multiple ports for the game" - and upon seeing success
- "Tradewest also gave their own home Double Dragon license to Rare" - home licence? How about own licence? And also, 'licence' is British spelling
- "and Snake Rattle 'n' Roll, an action platform game with Tim Stampers" - Stampers? Stamper. This problem is also in the quote box ("Tim Stampers, founder of Rare")
- "Several Battletoads games were also ported to Sega Genesis" - Mega Drive. Please, I beg you!
- "and the third instalment of the Jetpac series, Solar Jetman: Hunt for the Golden Warship. [10]Rare" - spacing is wrong here
- "When the Super Nintendo Entertainment System was conceived" - abbreviate this to (SNES) after the full name, as done with the NES before
- "However, despite the huge catalogue of games" - 'huge' is a tad informal, try large instead
Partnership with Nintendo
- "Rare, using the SGI systems, created a boxing game game demo " - repetition
- "making Rare a Nintendo second-party developer" - might sound better as making Rare a second-party developer for Nintnedo (minor)
- "The Stampers asked for Donkey Kong" - this link would be more appropriate as Donkey Kong (character)
- "The resulting game was Donkey Kong Country which was developed" - comma needed in between 'Country' and 'which'
- "and Rare moved out from their headquarter at the Manor Farmhouse" - headquarters
- "A large-scaled platformer was set to be released afterwards but was delayed" - wait, what's this about? Even I don't know what this is referring to. It can't be Project Dream because that's mentioned later in the section?
- "New elements, such as stealth, headshot mechanic" - headshot mechanics or a headshot mechanic
- "GoldenEye 007 was the first console first-person shooter" - this means the first console first-person shooter released by Rare?
- "Banjo-Kazooie was released in June 1998 to critical acclaim. A sequel, Banjo Tooie, was released several years later" - no, it was released in 2000. Two years later (to critical acclaim as well, it might be worth mentioning that it also sold more than Banjo-Kazooie)
Microsoft era
- "Game-development costs gradually increased" - no need for the hyphen
- "and Nintendo did not provide Rare with more capital or purchase the company's remaining stake" - may sound better as and Nintendo did not provide Rare with more capital nor did they purchase the company's remaining stake
- "According to Rare founders, they were surprised" - elaborate this to According to Rare founders Tim and Chris Stamper, they were surprised
- "but the deal collapsed and on 24 September 2002 Microsoft paid $375 million for the company" - this can be ignored, but I think the original figure was in pounds. I don't know how to work out the 2002 exchange rate, so maybe it's better off being ignored for now
- "Character trademarks from games developed by Rare for Nintendo consoles" - unlink 'Character'
- "a humorous action adventure game set in a haunted house full of crazed creatures" - a humorous action-adventure game set in a haunted mansion full of supernatural creatures
- "Originally intended as a free-roaming game, it was significantly streamlined in design and concept" - I would add that the reason why it was streamlined; it was simplified in order to attract a larger, more casual audience (evidence is in the article itself)
- "a prequel to the first Perfect Dark, was originally intended for Nintendo GameCube before its redesign as an Xbox 360 game. Rare removed several features to meet the game's release deadline.[44] Kameo: Elements of Power was also intended for the Nintendo GameCube" - remove 'Nintendo', no need for it here
- "Nuts & Bolts received significant criticism from player due to its focus on" - players
- "Despite good reviews, the company's Microsoft titles sold poorly" - Despite generally positive reviews, the company's titles for Microsoft sold poorly
- "Originally titled Sports Star, a more-complex sports sim" - simulation?
- "A new game, Sea of Thieves, which was marketed as "The Best Game That Rare Has Ever Made"" - this doesn't mention that it's a multiplayer game (like the lead does)
Culture
- "The film, to celebrate Rare's 25th anniversary, would have been distributed on the Internet" - de-capitalise internet
- "This sparked controversy about Rare's current direction with Microsoft and shut down MundoRare" - this sounds like Microsoft shut them down, when they shut themselves down
- "Rare's secrecy was criticized by Hardcore Gamer's Alex Carlson" - criticised
Related companies
- I would recommend splitting this into two paragraphs
- "Former Free Radical and Rare staff also formed Crash Labs, a studio specialized in developing iOS games" - specialising in
- "Chris Seavor, director of Bad Fur Day" - full name needed; Conker's Bad Fur Day
- "Chris and Tim Stampes joined FortuneFish" - Stamper
- "a mobile game company founded by Tim Stampers' son, Joe Stampers" - Stamper's, Stamper
Awards
- "Rare was awarded the B.A.F.T.A." - just BAFTA
On hold
Well done with all the work and effort put into this article. Regarding the references, I could find no dead links and no issues with them. The review is quite long, but I wanted to ensure that something like this gets the best treatment. I was always thinking about bringing this up to GA but I never got around to it, due to lack of motivation. Still, I think this is a fitting 400th review. JAGUAR 20:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Thank you very much for the review, and congratulations for achieving a new milestone! I've addressed the issues you raised above, besides the part about $375 million, which I think is important to mention (especially when it comes to the later part, talking about how Rare products failed to become profitable). Thank you once again! AdrianGamer (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 22 January 2016
Rare → ? – After this article's move to its present title, a few editors have expressed concerns at different venues on Wikipedia over the low participation of the RM, and whether this article is actually the primary topic for "Rare". I am therefore starting another RM discussion to determine consensus from wider discussion. If you do not think that this article is the primary topic for "Rare", please suggest a new title for this article, and specify which page should be moved to Rare in place of the current article. If this discussion results in no consensus to move this article, it should stay at its present name. sst✈ 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Rare (company) or any other. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Retain current title. The company is far and away the primary topic for those looking for "Rare". (See pull-out box in previous discussion.) Any other interest in "Rare" (e.g., Rare meat) is accompanied by a signifier (e.g. "meat"), but "Rare" itself (and in the ways that it's linked) refers to the company. czar 19:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Retain- Landing here is appropriate to me. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Retain Rare is by far and wide the most searched for name of its kind. No need to disambiguate. JAGUAR 23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep status quo. The pageview statistics from above are compelling evidence that this is the primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Rare (company) since this is an adjective for rarity also covered somewhat at scarcity. Special:prefixindex/rare a set index can be built -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Retain as per arguments already stated. Seems to fulfil primary topic criteria. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC- Keep as "Rare" and include disambig link to a disambig page - WP:COMMONNAME, since no-one but a corporate lawyer/WikiLawyer would say Rare Ltd. and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since the several other "Rare ***" titles are significantly less in traffic and would be better suited to a disambig page, i.e. keep the current set-up. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- See comment below for more recent details of argument including alternative support for "Rare → Rare (company)" + "Rare (disambig) → Rare". Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Move to Rare (company) or Rare Ltd or any other uniquely-disambiguated title, and move Rare (disambiguation) to Rare. The word "rare" is a common English-language adjective, and no evidence other than self-reference to wikipiedia searches has been offered that this company is the primary use of the term. A search for the word "rare" is much more likely to be for generic uses of that adjective, by a reader looking for articles on rare items (the concept of "rarity"), than for this 30-year-old company.
- The support for the current title reflects the WP:RECENTIST WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of Wikipedia's very unbalanced demography of editors. That demography is massively skewed towards young male editors, a demographic for whom video games is far more important than the much more diverse demographic of en.wp's global readership.
- That recentism takes no account of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's other test: that of long-term significance. The company's lack of long-term significance is easily demonstrable by the test set out at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: analysis of reliable sources. For example, try a GoogleBooks.uk search for "rare". (Note I used UK, since Rare Ltd is UK-based, so this test is most likely to favour the company). The first 40 hits include 8 mentions of "rare earth", a few less of "rare books", one or two for rare meat, and none for the video games company. I stopped counting and continued scanning on to page 10, for a total of 100 hits: plenty more mentions of "rare earth", and still zero for the video game. Zilch, nil, nada, nowt, nothing.
- The issues here might be different if the word's other meanings were a proper name. But the company's demonstrable lack of long-term significance is compounded by its use of a common adjective as its title. It is perverse to the point of folly to try to hijack the primary usage of a plain English adjective, and attach it to a company which has existed for only one generation.
- What next? If companies start calling themselves "Big", Small", Hot", "Cold", "Young", "Old", "Heavy", "Light", "Smelly", "Sweet", "Shitty", "Nice", "Tasty" and so on, do we start assigning those companies primary topic status for the whole of the English language? That privatisation of language is a marketer's delight, but a usability nightmare.
- The folly of this approach is unintentionally illustrated above by User:Drcrazy102, who writes
no-one but a corporate lawyer/WikiLawyer would say Rare Ltd
. Actually, a few seconds checking would have shown Drcrazy102 that the company's own Twitter handle is @RareLtd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)- Sorry BHG, I don't tend to search on social media for a company or info pertaining to a company when doing Wiki-editing since any idiot can post on such social foras, but fair enough then. However, would you say in casual conversation to a friend/parent/etc. "Oh yeah, have a look at Rare Ltd.'s info on Wiki. It's got some good info on the company." I highly doubt you (or many editors) would, because using "Ltd.", "Pty.", "Co.", etc. isn't something the average person does, it's something typically reserved for corporate and Wiki lawyers.
FWIW, I don't think there is anything wrong with going Rare (company) and I would support that - with the current page name being used as a disambig - as a suitable alternative. I'll also admit that one of the flaws in the statistical count used in my argument above is that it would include anyone searching for titles under "Rare ***" as well as those searching for Rare, the company, potentially making the stat count much higher than it would be for people searching for Rare, the company - per the note you just left. At any rate, hopefully this gets cleared up cordially. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)do we start assigning those companies primary topic status for the whole of the English language?
When it's the primary topic, yes.try a GoogleBooks.uk search for "rare"
: which is why we don't use a single measure, like ghits, for this. (Google delivers results based on information is has collected about you.) On another note, there's nothing wrong with using a company suffix (e.g., Apple Inc.) as natural disambiguation if appropriate, but we're discussing the primary topic. Unless you're prepared to argue that "rare earth" or a generic concept of "rare" is a more prominent usage than the company, recentism is a red herring, as we've already shown how the company is itself best associated with that term by an order of magnitude. czar 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)- @Drcrazy102:, I didn't search on social media either. I just looked on the company's own website for how it describes itself. Your assertions about "the average person" are no more than a reflection of your own views; but the company's twitter handle is evidence of how the company presents itself to those average people. However, I'm glad that you would support Rare (company). I am not too concerned about which disambig is used, so long as there is a disambig.
- @Czar: your reasoning seems to be that it's the primary topic because its the primary topic, a circular logic with no evidence offered other than Wikipedia viewing stats. That's all pointlessly self-referential.
- You ignore several crucial points:
- Assigning away the ordinary common adjectives of the English language to companies which achieve prominence is a very different matter to choosing between proper nouns. The ordinary use of the word "rare" is as an adjective, but you appear to be trying to compare the company's only usage with other instances of its use as a noun.
- The second pillar of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is long-term significance. You offer no evidence of the long-term significance on the company, nor even any inductive reasoning on how something which has existed for only 30 years can have greater significance than an adjective widely-used for hundreds of years
- Ignoring the long-term significance is pure recentism. It's not a red herring; a hardcore recentist approach is the only basis on which a company only 30 years old stands any chance of being regarded as the primary topic.
- Primary topic status is not based on your false test of any other usage being more prominent. It is based one usage being more prominent than all other usages combined.
- One of the crucial tests set by en.wp policy is usage in reliable sources. The company's name simply doesn't register on any broad search of reliable sources. I showed a Google Books search, but the same results are demonstrable by searching academic journals (e.g. through Google Scholar), or news sources (whether through Google News or any other major broad news source, such as newspaper archives). It's not even an also-ran -- it is barely-detectable.
- There are perfectly simple alternatives to this hijack, such as Rare Ltd (per Apple Inc., and following the company's own usage to its 90,000 followers on Twitter). If the natural dab of "Inc" works for one the world's most prominent companies, there's no reason why that approach can't work for a much smaller business.
- I am not aware of a previous situation where editors have been so foolish as to try to abuse WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to try to hijack a common adjective for corporate purposes. I doubt that anyone has previously considered the need to spell out such folly, but given the persistence of some gaming fans here, I think that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be amended to specifically exclude this sort of word-grab.
- Those promoting this language-hijack are showing scant regard to how language works, and no concern for the linguistic consequences of wikilayering their way to deprive ordinary words of their ordinary, everyday meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl:, normally I have high regard for your posts, but you do seem to be showing a tiny lack of good faith by accusing editors of abusing policies, the assumption that all here are "gaming fans" - and feeling the need to link WP:PRIMARYTOPIC no less than five times, which seems just a little excessive.
- To call it a "language-hijack" is certainly your entitled opinion, but that's all it is, just as your comment that Dr Crazy's "assertions about "the average person" are no more than a reflection of your own views" can also be applied to your own statement of "A search for the word "rare" is much more likely to be for generic uses of that adjective"
- Having said that, I'm now kind of ambivalent about my own cast, and have struck my vote - I possibly agree with your sentiments, but not the way you put them forward. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Chaheel Riens: I am sorry that you feel my post was too assertive.
- However, I think that "language-hijack" is an apt and proportionate term for what is being attempted here. The effect of the current title takes an ordinary adjective, a basic part of the language, and allocates it to a commercial business. And when we do actually have a games fan in this discussion who supports that language-grab being extended to any number of adjectives, then it's time for a wakeup call. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I too have usual high respect for your posts, but I think that utilising stereotypes like "young male editors" and "gaming fans" to make a point here is a bit out of order. The company's Twitter username is irrelevant, they probably added the Limited abbreviation because 'Rare' was already taken, my guess. JAGUAR 20:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jaguar, the predominantly young male demographic of editors is not a "stereotype". It is widely documented through academic research, as is the resulting systemic bias towards topics most favoured by young male editors. Compare the intensive coverage of football and video games with the sparse coverage of topics which don't rate so highly in the interest that demographic: Africa, the history of commerce, or the labour movement.
- In that respect, those editors are doing great work, writing about what they know and what interests them; that's commendable and very welcome. The problem is that I repeatedly observe that a significant proportion of the editors interested in those topics act at RM discussions as if they regarded primary topic status as some sort of badge of honour. I have repeatedly seen they pursue it while ignoring long-term-significance, and I have observed several cases of open hostility to even considering long-term-significance.
- In this case the previous move was closed[1] by Czar, who had not only participated ([2], [3], [4], [5]) in the discussion zie closed, but was actually the person who proposed the title finally adopted. That a WP:INVOLVED editor appears to edit mostly in the field of video games ... and in that previous discussion was supported only by User:Jaguar. The said Jaguar says of this company (Rare Ltd) that
one of the only subjects on Wikipedia in which I have genuine professional knowledge about
[6]. - So there were have it: the current title is indeed the work of two gaming enthusiasts, one of whom flagrantly ignored WP:INVOLVED, and the other of whom hints that they may have WP:COI issues .. and neither of whom even mentioned long-term significance.
- I don't know whether either of those two editors is young and/or male. I assume youthfulness, to give them the benefit of the doubt, because I hope that older editors would act with a little more maturity and more distance from the topic. If that assumption of youthfulness is wrong, then I apologise for that.
- But I make no apology at all for pointing out that whatever the motivating factors, the identifiable gaming fans in these two RM discussions have displayed some very bad behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The above claims are outrageously presumptive, do not assume good faith, and are clearly afoul of our basic civility dos and don'ts. I won't be responding to future pings and I recommend that others do the same. (2) WP:INVOLVED presumes a dispute. The RM discussion was properly advertised and uncontested—it was perfectly reasonable to close it without a third party. To use a turn of phrase more precisely than it was used above, this is textbook wikilawyering. czar 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I know! I don't think I've ever come across anyone more bigoted and ridiculous on wiki before!JAGUAR 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)You know, it's people like you who make me despise this place most of the time. If you want to get some kind of reaction out of me, you're not going to get it.Firstly, you twist my words The said Jaguar says of this company (Rare Ltd) that "the only subjects on Wikipedia in which I have genuine professional knowledge about", when in fact the opening of the review states that Rare is one of the only subjects on Wikipedia which I have intimate knowledge about. You then use this hastily-typed jest of mine to assert a clueless WP:COI accusation on me, saying that me and czar shouldn't be contributing to this discussion because apparently we're not entitled to.You then showcase the most downright absurd bigotry and aggravating bullshit I've ever seen: resulting systemic bias towards topics most favoured by young male editors. You admit that you don't know if we're young males, but then contradict yourself saying that "older editors would act with a little more maturity", which is relevant, how? Just... why? You're taking this little move discussion so seriously that you're not only ignoring WP:AGF, you're throwing these ridiculous accusations at us.Yes, me and czar have contributed a lot to Rare articles, especially at WP:RARE. Does that not give us an entitlement to voice our opinions here? Just because I like a topic doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion. I just can't believe this.I'm in the middle of being so pissed off but I find it humorous because I've never heard so much crap in one paragraph, by a seemingly 'experienced' admin.JAGUAR 01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)- @Jaguar: I apologise for inadvertently omitting the the first two words of that quote, I have amended it in the same edit as this comment. That was an error, and the meaning you inferred from it was not what I intended to convey. For the record, I do not claim that you don't know about anything else.
- However, the point I did intend (and made explicitly) still stands: you claim
genuine professional knowledge
of this topic, which clearly implies a WP:COI in conducting the GA review. Please explain why thatgenuine professional knowledge
of the subject of this article does not constitute a COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)- Comment - Two things BHG; first, a
genuine proffesional knowledge
of the topic may simply involve working in the gaming industry ... which has nothing to do with COI - leading to the second point I wish to make. BHG, you are assuming bad faith as well as making this discussion far too aggressive with your language choices and responses. When you state "yeah, but that's just your opinion"despite my use of "some", "typically reserved for", and other probability language, you make an editor annoyed at you. When you allege that a Wiki-editor has a COI, you make an angry enemy. You seriously need to consider backing off for a day or two, toning down your language and responses and consider being a lot more civil in your responses - in both the real-world meaning and the spirit of the Wiki policy - before you start trying to "resolve" this move discussion. I have seen some of your other work at ANI and I don't think that this discussion is an isolated case of you being a tad out of touch with other editors, not even just telling it as it is - this is your behaviour for at least the past few days - so take a chill pill, a couple of days off Wiki and then come back to the discussion with a clear and civil head on your keyboard. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)- @Drcrazy102: it may involve something innocuous, but it raises an obvious concern. That's why I wrote
hints that they may have WP:COI issues
andimplies a WP:COI in conducting the GA review
, and asked Jaguar to clarify. Instead, Jaguar blustered angrily. - Even if Jaguar's involvement is, as you speculate, just "working in the gaming industry", there is a form of COI involved in helping promote to PRIMARYTOPIC or GA a topic related to your area of professional work. Maybe some ppl would feel that COI is too strong a term, but it's not a disinterested position.
- The bottom line here is that regardless of whether there is a COI, two editors closely-vested in the subject at hand (in the sense of it being their favoured topic area) drove through a problematic renaming which one of them closed as a WP:INVOLVED admin contrary to the guidelines, achieving a change which was not hinted at in the initial proposal and which half the participants did not comment on.
- There's a problem here. If I come across as a little short-tempered at the moment, that doesn't alter the facts of what has been happening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Drcrazy102: it may involve something innocuous, but it raises an obvious concern. That's why I wrote
- Comment - Two things BHG; first, a
- (1) The above claims are outrageously presumptive, do not assume good faith, and are clearly afoul of our basic civility dos and don'ts. I won't be responding to future pings and I recommend that others do the same. (2) WP:INVOLVED presumes a dispute. The RM discussion was properly advertised and uncontested—it was perfectly reasonable to close it without a third party. To use a turn of phrase more precisely than it was used above, this is textbook wikilawyering. czar 00:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I too have usual high respect for your posts, but I think that utilising stereotypes like "young male editors" and "gaming fans" to make a point here is a bit out of order. The company's Twitter username is irrelevant, they probably added the Limited abbreviation because 'Rare' was already taken, my guess. JAGUAR 20:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry BHG, I don't tend to search on social media for a company or info pertaining to a company when doing Wiki-editing since any idiot can post on such social foras, but fair enough then. However, would you say in casual conversation to a friend/parent/etc. "Oh yeah, have a look at Rare Ltd.'s info on Wiki. It's got some good info on the company." I highly doubt you (or many editors) would, because using "Ltd.", "Pty.", "Co.", etc. isn't something the average person does, it's something typically reserved for corporate and Wiki lawyers.
- (ec) @Czar:, re-read Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves, and then tell me which bit you think applies. Hint: the result was not unanimous, because only 2 of the editors participating supported the proposal to remove the dismabiguator. One of those two was Czar, who moved[7] the page and closed[8] the discussion less than 3 days after it was relisted[9] by an uninvolved editor. That's straightforward WP:INVOLVED.
- Calling me names won't alter the fact that the WP:INVOLVED problem is real. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I view the previous RM as uncontested/unanimous, but more importantly, I view it in line with the five pillars (after a week of silence—bold, not reckless). But in any event, it's fine to challenge that (civilly...), hence this discussion. Pinging the editors from the previous, invoked RM as a courtesy for their second opinion: @Red Slash and Calidum. Also the COI stuff above is harassment. I have genuine professional knowledge of the history of education and the history of technology—it doesn't constitute a COI. If Jaguar potentially had an undisclosed financial stake or stood for personal gain, there's a fair way to ask that, but suffice it to say that I've already commented on the inappropriate tone issues. czar 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Czar:, re-read Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Who_can_close_requested_moves again. The test is "unanimous", not "uncontested", and only 2 out 4 editors supported -- or even commented on -- your proposal to strip the disambiguator entirely.
- The discussion had been relisted, and the 7 days of that second listing period had not expired.
- Your rush to make an WP:INVOLVED closure contravenes the closing instructions on two points. It is very shoddy conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think your accusations have already been said more succinctly. Another editor will take them up if they are profitable. czar 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Rename to Rare (company) since the previous discussion was bad all the way around and would probably have been reversed had it gone to WP:MR. It was poorly attended because it originally dealt with a period difference. When it was changed in the discussion mid-way through to move the disambiguation page, it should have either ended with a new multi-page requested move started over or listed the Rare to Rare (disambiguation) move to increase participation in the discussion. By not doing this, it turned the discussion into a malformed request that should have been rejected. Only two of the four participants in the previous discussion agreed with the final outcome and it was closed by an involved admin against the closing instructions of requested moves. The previous discussion had no discussion about the company passing the second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the long-term significance. Rare meat (Temperature (meat)), Economic rarity (Scarcity) and Species rarity (Rare species) all have long-term significance over the company and were never discussed in the previous discussion. Since the company fails the second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it should me moved and Rename Rare (disambiguation) to Rare since there is no primary topic that could fulfill both aspects. It would be helpful if this could be added to the request to increase participation. Aspects (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Retain, for reasons stated above. – Rhain ☔ 06:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: - I didn't find your post assertive, more patronising and borderline insulting. And I have to say that you're repeating that behaviour by amongst other things linking to WP:INVOLVED six times in your recent comments. Can I seriously ask if you're doing this on purpose, because the way you're presenting yourself in this thread is way out of kilter to how I've seen you behave in the past. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I know some of the language I wrote last night might have been hasty and I was prepared to apologise for some of my words this morning, but I log on to see that BHG still doesn't get it, and that she's still displaying the same odd behaviour. I have seen her posts occasionally since I was first active in 2010 and I thought she was among the most respected and rational-minded veteran admins on here, but last night has made me lose all of my respect for her. I don't know what's going on, but her behaviour is borderline trolling, saying that I have a conflict of interest because I take an interest in Rare. If I was a shareholder of the company, or if I worked for them (which I don't), then yes, that might constitute a COI. But no, I was a child who woke up every morning to get on my Nintendo 64 and play Goldeneye before school in 2001-2, so my personal interest in the company and the fact that I've helped bring up around 20 or so Rare GAs cannot restrict me from voicing an opinion, like BHG is trying to enforce here. Also using the absurd notion that the dominant "young male editors" in this field aren't able to contribute because "older editors would act with a little more maturity and more distance from the topic". Nobody is questioning anybody's maturity here so I don't know why she brought that up. I don't want to comment here any more but I feel like something has to be done to set things out straight. She's misinterpreting everything and taking it all out of proportion, and I don't know why, quite frankly. I think that Rare should retain its original name because firstly (to state the obvious), they're simply called 'Rare', nothing else. Secondly it's by far and wide the most searched for topic, as evidenced above, so there is no need or reason to disambiguate. Rare is among the most famed and notable video game developers, so nobody is disputing whether or not this should not have a simple title. Or is that a COI, BHG? JAGUAR 14:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jaguar, you reinforce my points, in two ways. 1/ by continuing to ignore the question of long-term significance, which is the other part of primarytopic; 2/ by noting (irrelevantly) that "Rare is among the most famed and notable video game developers" as justification for a "simple title", which supports my point about a tendency amongst some video-game editors to take a game-centric focus in these discussions rather than considering the wider usage of the word. (I assume that your point is true; my concern is the narrow context in which you frame your assessment).
It's a pity too that you are full of criticism for me, but apparently unconcerned that the current title was imposed by an involved admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Jaguar, you reinforce my points, in two ways. 1/ by continuing to ignore the question of long-term significance, which is the other part of primarytopic; 2/ by noting (irrelevantly) that "Rare is among the most famed and notable video game developers" as justification for a "simple title", which supports my point about a tendency amongst some video-game editors to take a game-centric focus in these discussions rather than considering the wider usage of the word. (I assume that your point is true; my concern is the narrow context in which you frame your assessment).
- Move to Rare (company) and Rare (disambiguation) to Rare. When I saw this, I immediately thought of RARE Hospitality International, Inc., formerly independent but acquired by Darden Restaurants in 2007. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Long-term significance is not some set component of determining primary topic. (
There is no single criterion for determining primary topic.
– the guideline) But to address it as a concern of its own accord: this company is the longest enduring item by the name of "rare". Yes, rare meat has more enduring significance in human history than even a major company such as this, but the two are not in competition—those types of "rarity" terms are already disambiguated. The question is whether this "Rare" is what readers would expect to find at this location (no, that doesn't include their local steakhouse), and by the hits metric repeatedly cited above, it is. There isn't a single other disambiguated version of "Rare" that comes close to the amount of source coverage and sustained interest that this topic has received. The company is recognized by every major measure as among the most iconic in its field. And I haven't seen any counter-evidence, such as a Google ngram search or something of the like, arguing that any other single or combined usage of "rare" occurs in greater historical frequency than has been shown to occur for this company. czar 23:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)- Czar, here's is why I got frustrated.
- 1/ Straw man, I'm afraid. My complaint was not that you failed to take long-term significance as the sole criterion; my complaint remains that you excluded it entirely, and offer no justification for doing so. That's why I complain of recentism.
- 2/ There is no policy basis for excluding a topic from consideration for the primary slot because it is already disambiguated. (For an illustration, look at Churchill (disambiguation), and then check out what is the primary topic for Churchill). That disambiguation of "rare meat" is is an artefact of the en.wp titling, not of how the word "rare" is used in the real world (wp could reasonably assign the title "rare" to the meat, if editors chose to do so; might not be the best choice or even a good choice, but it would be reasonable).
- 3/ The question to ask is "what is 'rare' most likely to refer to?" .. which you helpfully answer by pointing to rare meat. Don't forget rare earth metals too, or the generic concept of rarity. You have actually conceded my central point: that the LTS of other meanings eclipses that of the company; but don't appear to see the significance of that.
- 4/ As to evidence, see my first post in this RM discussion (dated 20:50, 28 January 2016), which includes that evidence from a google books search; I could find no mention of the company in the first 100 hits. So it is surprising that you still claim to have seen no such evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- We've already talked through these points above so I have nothing to add besides that books and academic journals have their own implicit biases in the subjects they cover. czar 01:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you haven't responded to most of those.
- And I'm fascinated by your claim that the types of sources noted by en.wp policy as the most reliable are biased -- presumably you mean against video games. Rather than just a vague wave, it would be helpful if you would elaborate on the nature of this massive bias you allege among publishers, and how it is relevant to this discussion.
- You first claimed "no evidence", then when reminded that it had already been posted, you claim that one of the . What with you ignoring LTS, wrongly excluding pre-disambiguated terms, and now excluding the std policy-commended tests of reliable source coverage as sobiased against your favourite topic that even a zero-hit-rate is disregradable... you give a strong appearance of having gutted the primarytopic policy in order to drive through your wp-involved closure taking 2/4 votes as a consensus. Maybe you'd be kind enough to set out which other parts of the relevant policies you feel should be disregarded? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- BHG, I'm done with the condescending hyperbole and I'm wholly uninterested in arguing with you, so this will be my last attempt to satisfy your questions—otherwise, we obviously disagree and are getting nowhere, and these circumstances will only resolve when we (a) don't write reams of text and (b) let others contribute towards consensus. So: Google Books is not complete—it's missing libraries of periodicals and trade publications. I said above that the guideline already notes that ghits is a terrible measure of popularity, worth, etc. It's only good for finding the things that it has indexed. Google Books is going to be naturally predisposed to not indexing video game materials, which are predominantly not in book form. Additionally, video game industry will not be a prominent subject term in an academic journal search because, lo, academic journals do not take up that topic. This is a systemic bias, not one of active choice—of course JSTOR is going to be better for finding academic book reviews than video game industry-related periodicals. It should surprise no one, but we are foolish if we take any single search (or poll or study, for that matter) to be indicative of completeness. Rare, the company, has the foremost prominence because of its presence in the field and the way that it's cited/mentioned—not because Google ranks it above your local steakhouse and any other "Rares" that it finds more important for you. I consider this fundamental search engine knowledge so forgive me for assuming I didn't need to write it out. WP traffic records, on the other hand, show a definitive pattern of general interest in a topic. If Rare had even any remote competition among the other entries known as "Rare", there would be no contest, but it's literally an order of magnitude greater in traffic than its nearest neighbor. The major factor is whether another namesake would conflict as the primary topic, and I don't see one that does. Is it rare meat? Because I don't see how that is confused with "Rare"—it requires the qualifier of meat or economics or species or else it means nothing. Even all of those uses together do not approach the standing of the company. Likewise, a company like Nike or Virgin doesn't have the primary topic only because it has a conflict with very obvious terms (namesakes?) that both occupy the same spelling and have greater long-term significance. Rare has no such competitor because there is no single concept of "Rare" or "Rarity" that is more than a dictionary definition, but the company is widely known as the definitive Rare beyond the confines of the industry. It doesn't mean that will show in your search of choice, though (as relevance ranking works with respect to any common word). This leaves arguments along the lines of not liking it or slippery slopes or the type of invective protested above. I'm done with this line of inquiry. Please do not ping me about this again. czar 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Czar, you are making very heavy work of things which are actually quite simple. For example:
- Your point about personalised search output is a red herring. Try adding
pws=0
to turn it off, and the Gbooks search is https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rare&tbm=bks&pws=0 ... which still gives not a single mention of the games company in the first 100 hits. - Read WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term". The policy gives the example: the article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny".
Throughout this discussion, you have repeatedly misrepresented this part of policy, by pretending that it is the inverse of what it actually says.
The policy is not explicit about ptopic redirects to multiple word targets, but practice is clearly to do it: see fof example the high-profile examples of Churchill, Lenin, Soviet, Eisenhower. - It's entirely true that
Google Books is not complete—it's missing libraries of periodicals and trade publications
. The clue is in the name; it's a collection of books, not periodicals or magazines.
Any generalist collection of reliable sources -- newspapers, books, magazines, whatever -- shows that word "rare" is overwhelmingly used to denote the concept of "rareness", for which the wikipedia article is called scarcity. You have not offered any evidence of any generalist collection of sources which gives difft results.search type mentions of games company
in first 100 hitsGoogle Books 0 Google News 1 Google Scholar 0 JSTOR 0 - Instead you simply exclude all the usage tests which your choice fails: Gbooks, Gnews, JSTOR, Google Scholar.
- So if we want to select a primary topic, that's it: scarcity. Other uses such as rare earth or rare meat are an order of magnitude less prominent, and the video game company is near-invisible in all the checks I have done of generalist collections of reliable sources. I am sure it is there, but too infrequently to show up in small samples.
- Naturally, if an editor is writing an article, they will draw on specialist sources. That's right and proper ... but it's not the way to test for a primary topic. If a topic is covered only in the specialist press, that's a pretty good indication that it is unlikely to be the primary topic -- unless the alternatives are equally obscure. In this case the alternatives are demonstrably not obscure, and don't forget that they too will be covered in their own specialist publication.
article 90-day pageviews Scarcity 23704 Rare Ltd 42376 Rare (David Bowie album) 8038 Temperature (meat) 38896 Rare species 13608 - By your inversion of the policy on primary redirects, you avoided a comparison between the page view stats for the company and its most-viewed alternatives. So I have compiled the 90-day pageview stats for some of the items on the dab page are in the table to the right, giving a total of 126,622 pageviews.
Note that even tho it is occupying the ptopic slot, the company gets less than twice the page views of scarcity, and only ~10% more than for rare meat.
So, contrary to your claim that the company isliterally an order of magnitude greater in traffic than its nearest neighbor
, it's barely ahead of the 2nd item, and only 33% of the hits for a subset of the alternatives.
- Your point about personalised search output is a red herring. Try adding
- Result: the company fails ptopic by every measure tested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Czar, you are making very heavy work of things which are actually quite simple. For example:
- BHG, I'm done with the condescending hyperbole and I'm wholly uninterested in arguing with you, so this will be my last attempt to satisfy your questions—otherwise, we obviously disagree and are getting nowhere, and these circumstances will only resolve when we (a) don't write reams of text and (b) let others contribute towards consensus. So: Google Books is not complete—it's missing libraries of periodicals and trade publications. I said above that the guideline already notes that ghits is a terrible measure of popularity, worth, etc. It's only good for finding the things that it has indexed. Google Books is going to be naturally predisposed to not indexing video game materials, which are predominantly not in book form. Additionally, video game industry will not be a prominent subject term in an academic journal search because, lo, academic journals do not take up that topic. This is a systemic bias, not one of active choice—of course JSTOR is going to be better for finding academic book reviews than video game industry-related periodicals. It should surprise no one, but we are foolish if we take any single search (or poll or study, for that matter) to be indicative of completeness. Rare, the company, has the foremost prominence because of its presence in the field and the way that it's cited/mentioned—not because Google ranks it above your local steakhouse and any other "Rares" that it finds more important for you. I consider this fundamental search engine knowledge so forgive me for assuming I didn't need to write it out. WP traffic records, on the other hand, show a definitive pattern of general interest in a topic. If Rare had even any remote competition among the other entries known as "Rare", there would be no contest, but it's literally an order of magnitude greater in traffic than its nearest neighbor. The major factor is whether another namesake would conflict as the primary topic, and I don't see one that does. Is it rare meat? Because I don't see how that is confused with "Rare"—it requires the qualifier of meat or economics or species or else it means nothing. Even all of those uses together do not approach the standing of the company. Likewise, a company like Nike or Virgin doesn't have the primary topic only because it has a conflict with very obvious terms (namesakes?) that both occupy the same spelling and have greater long-term significance. Rare has no such competitor because there is no single concept of "Rare" or "Rarity" that is more than a dictionary definition, but the company is widely known as the definitive Rare beyond the confines of the industry. It doesn't mean that will show in your search of choice, though (as relevance ranking works with respect to any common word). This leaves arguments along the lines of not liking it or slippery slopes or the type of invective protested above. I'm done with this line of inquiry. Please do not ping me about this again. czar 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- We've already talked through these points above so I have nothing to add besides that books and academic journals have their own implicit biases in the subjects they cover. czar 01:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Retain for reasons stated above. Idealist343 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Move to "Rare Ltd." for the overwhelming reasons stated above, and also for others. A quick Google search should be enough to indicate why the current title is a bad one. Removing cases where the term "rare" refers to scarcity, the top 10 google targets are 1) An American charity organisation; 2) an American conservative newsfeed; 3) an Australian advertising agency; 4) the games company. What's more, I had to remove the scarcity meaning because that was the overwhelming meaning of the word "rare" when googled. As it is in daily life. In fact, when I tried to search just removing the words rarity and scarcity, 9 of the top 10 ghits were still for uses where the word referred to rarity (mostly rare disease information - and you can add a 90-day page search of over 18000 for "Rare disease", too). Rare primarily means scarcity, and in those cases where it doesn't it still doesn't primarily relate to a game company. It's also definitely worth noting that - despite not being wikilawyers - the company itself is called "Rare Ltd." at the top of its own website, as well as on its Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube feeds, and on its FaceBook page. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Grutness...wha? 11:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)