Talk:Amazon Prime Video

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 as proposed. There was some opposition, stating that "Prime Video" was the correct name and more concise, but overall there is a rough evidenced consensus amongst those in the discussion that "Amazon Prime Video" is both the common name, and more recognizable, satisfying WP:CRITERIA.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Video → Amazon Prime Video – Even though "Amazon" is not in the official logo for the service, whenever the service is mentioned, people usually just refer to it by saying "Amazon Prime" or simply "Amazon". Obviously neither of those phrases can be the title of this article, but "Amazon Prime Video" encompasses everything needed for the name of the streaming service, especially "Amazon". JE98 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedians' obsession with arbitrary corporate branding of encyclopedia articles. There is no other reason, and there is no problem. As the nominator said, it is already WP:NATURAL and it is in fact already WP:COMMON. The nominator provided no proof at all that there is any problem or even any reason, and "people" most definitely do not use the name of a membership and shipping service to refer to streaming video. This is a wrong solution in search of a problem. — Smuckola(talk) 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Support a move to Amazon Prime, as I think that's the common-name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do you mean Amazon Prime Video? Amazon Prime is already an article on a related but different topic. BilCat (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, right - ignore that then! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as common name. For example, putting "Prime Video" in Google News shows "Amazon Prime Video" far more often than not. It's obvious in the real world that "Prime Video" is simply not recognizable enough per WP:CRITERIA. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It's notable as "Amazon Prime Video" so I largely support this discussion about moving it. Dot (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per Smuckola. For an example of industry usage of "Prime Video", see here. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One single reliable source using the term isn't demonstration of it as a the WP:COMMONNAME, a big sample of reliable sources is necessary to assess which one is the common name. —El Millo (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One is greater than zero. BilCat (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely if you consider the argument in support of the move is poor, you shouldn't just put forth an argument almost equally poor in opposition to it. —El Millo (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't. I merely gave an example. BilCat (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This example is unhelpful. The headline starts with Amazon, and the article starts with Amazon. Of course it's dropped in this case. Variety writes "Amazon Prime Video" here and here and here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I've seen on The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline articles as well. They use "Amazon Prime Video" as some sort of full name, then simply call it "Prime Video" for short. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amazon Prime Video" isnt a full name or any sort of name; Prime Video is the only name (WP:NATURAL), and "Amazon" on the front is simply the brand like a redundant adjective. It's not even an Amazon variety of Prime Video, like a granny smith apple, as there is no variety or ambiguity. It's just compulsory branding which is journalistic but unencyclopedic. They are simply giving a basic language modifier, not actually magically renaming it, and there couldn’t be a reason to do so. I know you already know that as per your original comment; I’m just clarifying your verbiage for the group because almost everybody here impulsively misunderstands that in addition to total failure to prove the proposal in the first place, including Erik misunderstanding your example. Your example, the only example, also demonstrates WP:COMMON and common sense. — Smuckola(talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for agreeing with us about WP:NATURAL, which says, "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." You are saying that "Amazon Prime Video" is being used in reliable sources frequently, and we concur with that. And guess what! Android users see Amazon Prime Video, and Apple users see Amazon Prime Video. It's almost as if journalists and companies agree that just "Prime Video" isn't clear enough text to be recognizable. Will you be digging in further? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • With this bad faith twisted mind game, and theatrically willful misunderstanding and projecting of the words of other people, you forfeit the discussion. — Smuckola(talk) 21:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]