Talk:Cummins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 16 December 2021[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Undiscussed move reverted as proposed. There is a clear consensus that the initial move should be reverted, and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moved article is the primary topic of the term. A proper move request can be filed for this subject, with evidence from page views and sources, at a later date. BD2412 T 23:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cummins (corporation) → Cummins – Revert undiscussed move. The user who moved this article said "I've never heard of this before." Honestly, I haven't either, but this is a 100+ year old company with a revenue of $20b in 2020, so this at least deserves a discussion before being moved out of the PT.

I originally wanted to move the dab page Cummins (disambiguation) over the title Cummins as a malplaced dab page, but I've thought better of it. Natg 19 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: (user who moved the page) Natg 19 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: who contested the dab page move. Natg 19 (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this was an undiscussed move, and the article is a justified primary topic per pageviews [1]. 162 etc. (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as WP:ITSOLD does not make something a primary topic. "Cummins" could also refer to Pat Cummins (i.e. what I was searching for, due to this; who gets far more views on average than this page, even when he's not actually playing in a game [and when he is, then you get the recent spikes]...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reversion of this very recent undiscussed move. Should have been reverted as a technical request. Pageviews show the very well-known corporation is the overwhelming primary topic. When views spike for Pat Cummins, they do not similarly spike for Cummins, which shows virtually no one is searching for Pat expecting to find him under solely his surname. Station1 (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Controversial bold moves like this should simply be reverted. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting a bold move without giving a reason why seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. As for the pageviews argument, it seems like absolute cherrypicking to me. This shows that long-term, Pat Cummins gets more views than this, and even if he didn't, there's no reason to WP:BIAS a primary topic (an American multinational) when there simply isn't one. Outside of Wikipedia, googling "cummins" will show that there is far more coverage of the cricketer than of some random unremarkable American company (the only thing about said company that appears in the first page of results there is, surprise, an unremarkable press release...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That link goes to a Google News search. Pat seems to be in the news a lot lately. A generic search shows different results. Station1 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A company flooding the search results with dozens of social media pages and the like is not relevant. Primary topics are not based on what is on the first page of results but on coverage in reliable sources. The news search clearly shows that "Cummins" is far more likely to, in such coverage, refer to Pat Cummins and not to some random American corporation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Pat Cummins gets a lot more page views than this company, that does not disprove that the company is the PT. "Pat Cummins" is a partial match for Cummins, so the more important question is whether any of the other articles on the dab page are more likely to be a PT. Natg 19 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it entirely does matter. If people look for "Cummins" and expect that they'll fall on the cricketer, and they end up on an unrelated page, that does not mean that the page they end up on is a primary topic for "Cummins" even if it is the only page whose title is solely "Cummins". This would be like someone looking for "micron": the term has a clear primary usage, even though, yes, there is a company named like it which happens to flood the first few pages of results. To take a similar example, look at Bush (which is a disambig page): Bush (plant) is obviously what most people mean when they say "bush" in the middle of a sentence, but it would be silly and unhelpful to the reader to not have it as a disambig page which also lists the US presidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As explained above, stats show virtually no one is searching for "Cummins" expecting they'll fall on the cricketer. Station1 (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And as also explained above, searching outside of Wikipedia (i.e. what Wikipedia is supposed to do: follow external usage, not set its own, as explicitly stated in WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.) shows that "Cummins" actually does have a fair (if not far greater) chance to actually refer to the cricketer. Since the argument that the company is the primary topic does not seem to match with this external coverage, then it is simply yet another case where the usage on Wikipedia is incorrect, and needs to be changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get why you are citing WP:COMMONNAME. Cummins is the name for this company, and whether this article is the primary topic or stays at Cummins (corporation) does relate to common name. The common name guideline is for articles like Gandhi, polio, or Bono (as stated on that page). Natg 19 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The principles of COMMONNAME are the same as those used to determine whether something is a primary topic. That is, not usage on Wikipedia but usage in external sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that is actually true: see WP:DPT. Pageview data, which many users here are citing is one of the criterion. Also consider the "Not "what first comes to (your) mind" section. Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page view data is not a sina que non (and given that both pages get a similar amount of page views, if not the cricketer gets a bit more, they're not really evidence that "the American company is a clear primary topic"), and you also adroitly avoid the very next point, which is "Usage in English reliable sources"... as demonstrated above... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm not convinced there's a primary topic. But Support moving DAB to base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Cummins is a large company and likely the primary topic. If Cummins is not the correct title, then "Cummins Incorporated" should be the new title. In any event, we have got to have a hat note. BTW, does anyone know when the move review for "Waukesha parade attack" might be closed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wouldn't be opposed to moving this to another title if the one I picked is not the best one. However, there's no good reason why Cummins shouldn't be a disambiguation page: being a "large" company does not make something "likely the primary topic" (the obvious counter-example being Apple Inc.). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Controversial bold moves like this should indeed simply be reverted: WP:BRD. No doubt we will see Root moved as well, followed by Boycott. (Pat Cummins is not Pele or Neymar.) Oculi (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-policy based !vote which is essentially circular reasoning ("this should be reverted [i.e. Support], because it should simply be reverted"). Cummins might not be Pele or Neymar, but he doesn't need to: Cummins (the company) is not Apple or Google either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. But move to Cummins (company) per usual disambiguator. And move Cummins (disambiguation) to Cummins. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As others have noted this obviously potentially controversial move should not have been executed without an RM, and the revert should have been a technical request. Once it’s moved back, if someone wants to make a formal argument to disambiguate, it can be considered then. —-В²C ☎ 09:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's obviously a bogus rationale and should be discounted. "Revert because its controversial" does not help reach a new consensus. Having a separate discussion to disambiguate would be an obvious waste of time per WP:NOTBURO. Since the RM is already happening here, it is definitively best to have the discussion about the obvious need for disambiguation right here right now. If you can't address any of the arguments why the company is not an unambiguous primary topic, then the move should stand, because it was correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale is far from bogus. As things stand, a no-consensus close will lead to 'keep' at the present title, thus handing the advantage to the unscrupulous mover (whose initial rationale was 'never heard of it' - diff) whereas the article should be reverted to its 'status quo ante' and those who wish to move it should present their case (with a coherent rationale). Oculi (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 December 2021[edit]

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: not moved. Consensus is against a move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


– Per the above, where most of the objections have strictly nothing to do with the substance of the argument: there is no primary topic here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, mass views shows fairly strong evidence that the company is primary topic. Even among the partial title match surnames there are few that are even close. older ≠ wiser 16:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NB Pat Cummins was not listed on the surname page when I first ran the mass views. I've added him to the surname page and at present his is the only PTM surname-holder with comparable page views. There are occasional large spikes that place Pat over the company in total views, although the company has very consistent higher line over time. older ≠ wiser 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As already explained above, page views are not a sina que non, and in this case they do not match with usage in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, so clearly, the page views of this is just an artifact of "Cummins" being the current title, not of it being a primary topic. If anything, the page views for Cummins (surname) show that there is a substantial amount of people going by the name "Cummins", in addition to the well known cricketer who actually has more pageviews than this [2]. All arguments which show that this American company being a primary topic is more fiction than fact. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe that Pat Cummins is the primary topic for Cummins and that Cummins should be a primary redirect? If I recall, the original reason for your page move was looking for Pat Cummins and finding this page. Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the move request and then figure out where your sentence makes no sense. There is no primary topic; hence why the disambig should be at the base name. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views for the surname page and disambiguation page combined are a tiny fraction of those for the company. And not one of the partial title match persons with the surname are remotely close to that for the company. older ≠ wiser
    As already explained above, those pageviews are not as one-sided as you make them out to be; and Pat Cummins actually gets more page views than this, in addition to way more coverage in reliable sources as well. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY also clearly tells that there are plenty of reasons why page views are not "determinative" and in this case its obvious that with Pat Cummins getting more page views ([3]), plenty of other topics getting significant views, and the obvious issue of WP:BIAS, as well as off-wiki coverage, that on-wiki pageviews are not conclusive indicators of a primary topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider looking at a broader time frame for comparison (and suggest using logarithmic scale). And consider that Pat Cummins is a partial title match. So, color me unconcinvced. older ≠ wiser 20:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Cummins meets both criteria of a primary topic (pageviews and long-term notability.) OP's argument seems to revolve around potential confusion with Pat Cummins, which is a WP:PTM. 162 etc. (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, clear primary topic. Why are you wasting so much time on this? —Xezbeth (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite unsupported assertions, there is no clear primary topic, and only looking at Wikipedia page views without looking at external sources is misleading. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian:, I am baffled by your position. In a move proposal the burden falls on the nom and those supporting to show the move is warranted. Simply asserting there is no primary topic does not come close to accomplishing that, yet that’s all you’ve done, and you have the audacity to fault those opposing for “unsupported assertions”. Scratching my head in bewilderment… —В²C ☎ 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2cycle And I am baffled that you keep asserting that there is a primary topic, despite, as shown above, even page views (much less external sites other than Wikipedia, which is what should be followed...) not strongly supporting this simplistic reduction. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly leaning support. Irrespective of the comparison to Pat Cummins, the primacy of the title has to be evaluated against all possible uses, collectively. One thing that immediately strikes me is that "Cummins" is a rather obvious clipping of "Cummings*", so I would give some weight to the possibility that editors looking up the title intended the nearby name. BD2412 T 19:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - clear primary topic, amongst everything listed in Cummins (disambiguation) or Cummings (disambiguation). Anyone looking for a person can look in Cummins (surname) or add the Christian name. Oculi (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Oculi. Not to mention there is no pro-move argument presented here. Certainly not from the nom, who has simply asserted there is no PT, without providing any basis for that claim. At least BD2412 made an effort for “mildly leaning support”, but had to stretch to including uses of Cummings to show lack of PT. I think the g or it’s absence is too prominent in the spelling and pronunciation of each for the two to be conflated significantly often; certainly not enough to throw all those uses of Cummings into the pool for PT determination. —В²C ☎ 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views and search results (which both show that Pat Cummins has a good claim to being a topic overall as likely to be searched by readers) are certainly a good basis. It being a partial title match does not make it less likely that readers will search for it, hence I find you argument entirely unconvincing and indeed "baffling", if not borderline rules-lawyering. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But being a partial title match does make it much, much, much less likely that readers will search for him under Cummins, much less expect to find him under that title. As explained above, when pageviews spike for Pat because he's in the news, they don't spike for "Cummins" because no one is confused. In fact, some days when searches go way up for Pat, they decrease for Cummins. See here, here, or here for examples. Station1 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, RandomCanadian, after I posted I saw that you had your argument, finally, buried in a comment thread above. But it’s not in the nom where it belongs, and is refuted by Bkonrad and Station1. Anyway, I trust the opinion of Google’s AI about what people are most likely searching for with a given term, and when I ask it to search for “Cummins” limited to the English Wikipedia, it comes up with this page, then the dab page, and then the Cummins B Series engine. Cummins is very obviously the primary topic for “Cummins”. —В²C ☎ 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pretty much the exact opposite of how you should be using Google search results. Should we also redirect micron to "Micron Technology" (here)? Whether something comes up first on Google search results is not particularly convincing, especially when, if you look for actual coverage in reliable sources (the reliable sources which, in normal time, it is every editor's duty to follow and not undermine), you end up with the opposite conclusion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Trucks has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Buses has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is handily the primary topic among the articles listed on the disambiguation page. I don't believe it is reasonable that the average reader would search for "Cummins" expecting to be directed to a list of people with Cummins as their last name - typical practice on Wikipedia is to have such information at "<name> (surname)" as is the case in this instance. Someone looking for a person with the surname Cummins whose first name they didn't know would be looking for that page, not this one. --Sable232 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I haven't watched cricket since Tendulkar retired, but I don't think one cricketer with the last name of Cummins is enough to displace this as primary topic, and don't see any strong argument that some other topic needs to be considered. I will note that the Cummins Allison company (which manufactures money-counting machines) exists; it's certainly not the primary topic but if there is a consensus there is no primary topic it would have to be considered when choosing a disambiguation term. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, clear primary topic. Ryftracet (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No primary topic here. Maybe in America, but certainly not in the rest of the world where (multinational or not) most of us have never heard of this company. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first thing you see on their website right now is a large photo of Prince Charles. Station1 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And? A company's website is not an indication of anything useful (least of all because it is not an independent source...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that now we know there's one person in Britain who's never heard of Cummins, and one person who has ... so a wash?? Station1 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all-time pageviews, wikilinks (401 for company vs. 252 for cricketer in namespace) and reliable sources which firmly establish that the company is very clearly the primary per the long-term significance criteria. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:46, 31 December 2021 (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.

12v Cummins[edit]

The 12v is the best truck motor for its time and In my opinion it still is because at the time it was pushing 20 psi while ford and Chevy only had five and still went just as far as the 7.3 and more Mechanicalmafia466 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onan Corp[edit]

Does anyone here plan to add the Onan Corporation of Minneapolis to the history section? For example, David Onan invented his wrist meter in 1918. I think this must be an oversight. President Biden didn't make this mistake when he visited Cummins in Fridley. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

any content for the former Onan Corporation would be welcome in the section as long as it were well-cited. Group29 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cummins&oldid=1206843147"