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. WP:SNOW close. There is clear consensus that the fruit should remain the primary topic, but that a hatnote to Apple Inc. should be created on Apple. (non-admin closure) Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Apple → Apple (fruit)Apple (fruit)
• Apple (disambiguation) → Apple

– All-time page views show that Apple Inc. receives on average 3.6 times as many views as Apple, suggesting that is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by WP:PT1. On the other hand, the fruit has far greater long-term significance than the company. When a term has differing primary topics by pageviews and long-term significance, the consensus is usually that the term has no primary topic. In the past, this move request was opposed because the hatnote on Apple linked directly to Apple Inc., meaning that readers looking for the company from Apple would still only have to click once, while readers looking for the fruit would need an extra click. However, since the hatnote no longer directly links to the company, this move would save readers looking for the company one click, even if readers looking for the fruit would still need an extra click. Since the company receives more pageviews than the fruit, I think this is a good compromise. Greedycell (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. We have it right at the moment, and four (!) previous move attempts have all failed, as (fortunately) many editors possess common sense. Apple Inc. already appears second in the search drop-down list, which seems exactly as it should be. Let's leave this alone please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Consensus can change. Greedycell (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Weak support no clear primary topic so disambiguation is probably best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. Unless there's been some massive change to the long-term historical importance of Apple Inc. since April of 2024 that I must have missed in the news, this has been pointlessly litigated (both 'formally' as move requests, and as inferior attempts at changing the status quo) endlessly. Honestly, if the extraordinary effort of one extra click of a mouse button is that onerous, a hue and cry would have risen up from the masses at this horrific first-world problem, and the offices of Wikimedia would be overrun by protesters. There's more important things in the world than the latest release of the iPhone 357 Pro, now with smell-a-vision. Just no. Thank you for reading this far in an 'oppose' that nowhere directly addresses policy, because the policy arguments have been fully satisfied time and time again, so there is nothing new under the sun to share. And to head off any claims of incivility, I hold no ill-will on the matter. I would ask though whether Greedycell (talk · contribs) has read the archives. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, I have read the archives, and I think that the removal of the link to Apple Inc. from the hatnote, requiring readers on Apple an extra click to reach the article on the company, is a significant enough change to warrant a new move request. Greedycell (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I'm ambivalent on the hatnote, not having any strong objections, but, that's not what's being requested or discussed. I think opening a new discussion on the hatnote - perhaps as an RfC in order to bring more eyes to the matter - might be a better direction. A 'move's likelihood of success is vanishingly small. A hatnote - perhaps better odds. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Strong oppose On long-term significance grounds. The company has tremendously less long-term significance than the fruit (which has massive societal, mythological/religious and health significance) and always will, regardless of how big it gets. I don't think the comparative pageviews of the company are enough to justify there being no primary topic, as the fruit also gets plenty of views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per Anastrophe. Srnec (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose, but with a qualifier, why not the first redirect to Apple, Inc.? – a simple addition to ease a moment for the global Apple multitude. Zefr (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose per long-term significance, but the company should be in the hatnote. Jessintime (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. The same move was proposed in 2024 and unanimously opposed at that time; nothing has changed since. 162 etc. (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  The link to Apple Inc. was removed from the hatnote on the top of Apple, so something has changed. Greedycell (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I've restored the old hatnote that included the direct link to Apple Inc. That should never have been changed. Station1 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I do note that per a November 2025 discussion above, User:Chiswick Chap argued strongly in favour of removing the direct link.

  I personally believe that Apple Inc. should be directly linked from the hatnote; it is a very popular article, and it is not at all unlikely that somebody typing "Apple" would be seeking it.

  My objection to the proposed move remains. 162 etc. (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I also think it's quite reasonable to link the company directly from the hatnote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose per long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply