Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Punctuation

Concerns over "proper nouns": changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS

Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

Noetica^Tea? 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter"

Is this rule necessary? Why explicitly forbid it? After all such usage is increasingly reflected in formal usage. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What examples can you give us to consider? Dicklyon (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook v. facebook. Some guy is citing this rule as an argument against listing the lowercase spelling as an alternate spelling (in lede only, not in text). It seems silly. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When the owner prefers all-lowercase formatting, we can mention this in the lead. See Reddit for an example.

If Facebook actually did this, it would be appropriate to include "(stylized as facebook)". But it doesn't; only the website's logo is all-lowercase. Textual mentions are written as "Facebook".

You noted in your edit summaries that "people often spell it lowercase", but that doesn't make something correct or encyclopedic. —David Levy 09:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this lowercase use is referenced. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your reference is a Dictionary.com entry that you've misinterpreted. If you read the actual definitions, you'll see that the all-lowercase "facebook" is used in a generic sense, not in reference to the Facebook website. —David Levy 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What? It is an alternate appellation. facebook is not merely a website -- it's a network. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point (and don't see the relevance of Facebook's business model).

Within Dictionary.com's definitions, the all-lowercase "facebook" is used generically (as a synonym for "yearbook" or verb meaning "post on Facebook").

Are you referring to the usage note about the mark owner's preference? Its purpose is to convey that this typically is not carried over to formal writing. (It also happens to be erroneous, as the service refers to itself as "Facebook". As mentioned above, if it actually referred to itself as "facebook", it would be appropriate to note this.)

Dictonary.com (and the sources on which it's based) aren't stating that "facebook" is a correct, general-use alternative styling of the proper noun "Facebook". —David Levy 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as obvious as the sun that something like "(stylized in its logo as facebook)" has to be in the lead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't regard this information as sufficiently noteworthy for the lead. Many logos (such as that of the ABC television network in the U.S.) contain elements along the same lines, but these are purely stylistic and have no bearing on the subjects' identities.

To me, this seems comparable to including "(stylized with an arrow in its logo)" in the FedEx article's lead. It's true, and it can be mentioned in the article, but such prominence isn't warranted. —David Levy 09:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what's even better than stating how the logo stylizes the name? Showing it. And lo and behold, the logo is prominently displayed at the top of the infobox. It's completely unnecessary to also state in text in the lead that its logo is lower case. postdlf (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

trademarks of individuals

Ryulong reverted my addition of "and individuals" that made the lead read:

Trademarks include words and short phrases used by organizations and individuals to identify themselves and their products and services.
[I have underlined Dicklyon's addition for clarity.–Noetica^Tea? 02:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)]

Obviously, not only organizations use trademarks to identify themselves and their products and services. Any opinions about this or a better fix? Of course, Ryulong is mostly objecting because he doesn't want the names of individuals (e.g. k.d. lang, DJ OZMA) to be subject to these provisions, and he knows that I do. Nevertheless, this change makes sense independent of that question, does it not? Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no discussion on this subject. The only discussion is currently ongoing at WP:AT.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, you are perhaps within your rights to revert because the edit was not discussed; but it would be absurd to think that the change is non-consensual. It is a matter of uncontested fact: not all trademarks are used by organizations. It is common for individuals to use (and register) trademarks. Nothing is gained by leaving this fact out, and some accuracy is plainly lost. The shorter version could be unfairly distorted, to show that this page does not apply to uses by individuals.

One of the issue exercising editors recently is whether a trademark that is a styled form of the user's own name falls under the provisions of this page. But that is independent of getting the facts straight in the lead.

I support the addition, and I think it should be restored without delay.

Noetica^Tea? 02:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious change to make. The issue regarding stylization of individuals' stage names is completely unrelated to what entities can own and use trademarks. postdlf (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It just seems that because Dicklyon is heavily involved in the stage name discussions, he should not have added this item which appears to be worded to prefer his part.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably shoudn't have been me; and it's OK that you reverted. But it seemed like a glaring error needing to be fixed; I'll let others decide. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In light of Ryulong's clarification and other comments here, I have thought it acceptable to restore the factual addition. I have done so, as one not involved in the deliberations on the more controversial issue, except by my comment in the RM at Talk:k.d. lang showing that WP:MOSTM needs clarifying on that issue. I trust that is acceptable. Noetica^Tea? 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that case is clear; the lowercase styling "k.d. lang" is a U.S. registered trademark (service mark category) with an individual as registered owner: "Lang, K. D. INDIVIDUAL CANADA C/O MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP 11355 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90064". Also Se7en is a trademark for "CDs and DVDs featuring the performances of an individual", but not owned by the singer, but rather by the corporation that he sings for. And WILL.I.AM is a trademark for "LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES BY A MALE ARTIST; AND FASHION DESIGNER" owned by ADAMS, WILLIAM INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 450 N. Roxbury Drive, 8th Floor c/o Hertz & Lichtenstein, LLP Beverly Hills CALIFORNIA 90210; the lowercasing to will.i.am is not specifically covered; the registration notes that "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies a living individual whose consent(s) to register is of record" which is a requirement for such trademarks. That's not on the k.d. lang mark; don't know why. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[note: the search results apparently expire so you can't click on the USPTO search links provided above by Dicklyon; you need to do the search again to see the results]

Legal trademark protection isn't going to answer the question because the mark is protected independent of casing. The registration files have what looks like a scan of how the registrant displays its mark, but the registration file itself just states it in all caps (see that it's stated as "K.D. LANG" in the "Word Mark" field). Otherwise you or I could sell software as "miCroSoFt" or open a mcdonALDS fast food chain. postdlf (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a good point raised on the k.d. lang move request when it comes to people's stage names. The stage name is not really a trademark as much as it is an artistic choice, and that artistic license should probably come into consideration when choosing a page name. But this page isn't a naming convention. It's a manual of style.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Their artistic choice is used as their trademark; we have style guidelines for how to handle that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Actually some word marks include an image scan, like the scan of "k.d. lang" with lowercase and that spacing (but in a fixed-pitch font); see if this image link works. Many do not and therefore have nothing to say about case. Too bad those search links don't work. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The trademark registration in question includes this refinement: "Mark Drawing Code: (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM", and a scan is shown with lower-case letters throughout: see Dicklyon's link to the scanned image. A default trademark would not show that, but rather a standard capitalised version matching the bare "word mark" (text at the entry in question: "Word Mark K.D. LANG"). The whole point of this specialised, scanned and styled mark is that the style is registered and protected. (Neither Dick nor I have succeeded in linking the record itself here.)

Now, I agree with Dick's reading on ownership: the intent is clearly that the owner is an individual ("Lang, K. D. INDIVIDUAL CANADA"). The fact that her address is given as "C/O" ("care of") some agent does not detract from status as owner of the trademark.

As for the point made by Ryulong ("The stage name is not really a trademark as much as it is an artistic choice, [...]), there is no doubt that it is a trade mark. This does not preclude its being something else also. This is the gist of my extended comment at the RM discussion. In at least one other recent case (Bollinger Bands) the recently acquired trademark for the phrase was used to invoke WP:MOSTM for the capitalisation ("Bands") despite the fact that the article referred to generic, scientific, non-commercial use of the phrase in the public domain, supported by published literature.

I have no preference yet in the case of k.d. lang; I only say that this question of the applicability of WP:MOSTM needs to be addressed. Might as well start now, so I'll now raise the question and call for comments, in a separate section below.

Noetica^Tea? 06:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:MOSTM apply to ALL phrases that happen to be trademarks, in ALL uses?

This question has been touched on obliquely at the present talkpage (see sections above), more directly at a current RM discussion (see Talk:K.d. lang), in a recent completed RM action (closed without moving; see Talk:Bollinger Bands), and in current discussion at WT:TITLE (see this section). But it belongs here – though WT:MOSCAPS would have application by default if the present MOS page were found not to apply.

A tale of two RMs

Bollinger Bands are a tool used in the analysis of stock charts. An RM was proposed, for a move to Bollinger bands in accord with WP:MOSCAPS (see there: WP's global preference to avoid unnecessary capitalisation; accord with a well-established guideline concerning scientific laws, principles, theories, etc.), and supported by published literature. Bollinger himself, for whom the tool was named, argued at the RM discussion that he had trademarked the tool. On that ground, it appears, WP:MOSTM was invoked to support a capitalisation ("Bands"). I argued in the discussion that the applicability of MOSTM was unresolved: the bands were treated as scientific constructs, and no mention was made of their commercial use or of their trademark status.
Singer k. d. lang has registered, in her own name, a US trademark that protects a phrase identical to her name, styled with lower-case letters. I have taken no side in the current RM discussion, where a move to K. D. Lang is requested. But I argued there that the applicability of WP:MOSTM needs to be settled so that there are adequate, consistent, principled guidelines to assist in deciding such cases. If the article is kept at k. d. lang, then the provisions on this page requiring standard English-language styling (as "K. D. Lang", in this case) have been deemed not to apply. That would be inconsistent with case 1, above.

We lack such a clear guideline now, so let me put this forward clearly:

The questions confronting us

Do the provisions of WP:MOSCAPS apply to all phrases that happen to be trademarked, in whatever context of use? If not, under what circumstances do they apply, and under what circumstances do they not apply?

Just to have an unambiguous proposal (without endorsing it myself, at this stage) if people would like to give a "support" or an "oppose":

Proposal: The provisions of WP:MOSCAPS apply to all phrases that happen to be trademarked, no matter what the context of use might be (including phrases that are also personal names, or that are typically used generically and non-commercially, etc.)

Comments? Votes? (Keep it focused, orderly, relevant, and civil, please.)

Noetica^Tea? 06:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Bollinger Bands/bands, it's important to recognize the concept of a genericized trademark. If "Bollinger bands" is widely used and accepted as a generic term, this overrides whatever trademark status it has/had (in this context, at least). Here's a list of familiar examples.

Regarding k. d. lang/K. D. Lang, MOS:TM enters the equation only if the argument in favor of "k. d. lang" rests on the fact that she's registered such a trademark, in which case we should override her preference with normal English conventions.

I personally regard this as a red herring, as it makes far more sense to argue for the title "k. d. lang" on the basis that it reflects common usage, in which case its trademark status is immaterial. (MOS:TM certainly doesn't apply to styling used for reasons unrelated to trademarks, even if relevant trademarks also exist.)

So I would strongly oppose the hypothetical proposal. —David Levy 07:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it—we don't need to capitalize ugg just because someone tried to trademark it, of course. And I agree that whether Lang has registered the trademark or not is not relevant to how it should be written here. I think we need to decide in each case if the term is known more in RS as a brand or generic term. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But MOS:TM and MOS:MUSIC#Capitalization don't depend at all on whether the trademark is registered or not. I just looked Lang up to prove to Ryulong that stage names of individuals are indeed trademarks, as evidenced by some being registered as such. According to our style guide, we should override the preference of these stage-named individuals if there are more normal English-like versions in use than the versions that they prefer. At least that's how I read it, if you ignore the funny exception for people who don't want their names to be capitalized; I'd favor getting rid of that. In any case, DJ OZMA shouldn't stay all caps. Dicklyon (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears that part of MOS:MUSIC was written long before the k.d. lang consensus came about, anyway. I still believe that when it comes to real people (not just limiting this to living persons) we should use the subject's known preference as to how to write their own name.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And are corporations people, too? In any case, that's a huge can of worms; I don't think we want to invite such jerking around. Dicklyon (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

By that standard, had Wikipedia existed in 1993, the article Prince (musician) would have been titled this.

The subject's preference is a valid consideration, but it isn't the only relevant factor. —David Levy 08:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The key is common usage. If reliable sources usually style the performer's name "DJ Ozma", we should override his preference in its favor. (I've never heard of this individual and possess no knowledge of the prevailing convention.) —David Levy 08:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Japanese recording market, it is not uncommon for individuals to have names written in all capital letters of the English alphabet. There are also individuals who write their names in all lower case letters, and sometimes standard English capitalization. DJ OZMA is one of the first cases.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Noetica's lame strawman. Of course we don't capitalize every trademarked phrase in every context. Look at trademark law, and trademark registrations. Many trademarks are just generic terms, used in trade for a particular type of product. We capitalize them when they refer to the entity, product, or service that they are marks of. In the case of Bollinger Bands, and some other things, it can be complicated. Bollinger would argue, I'm sure, that Bollinger Bands was his trademark long before he recently registered it (2011 filing, after an abandoned 2008 filing); some evidence in sources certainly contradicts that. His mark is registered for "Financial analysis and research services." That doesn't seem to apply to the bands themselves, so I'd still argue that it's generic. Let's Band Together and fix this (see how I capitalized the trademark Band Together?). Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! Someone had to put something principled and general forward, rather than restrict the discussion to particular cases or particular features like just lower-casing throughout (against MOSTM, the Lang situation), or just an owner's preference for caps (invoking MOSTM, the Bollinger situation). It can only be a straw man if it covertly substitutes for the terms of some more authentic debate; but no one has started such a debate. The general debate is initiated here, by me. If you think the conversation to have is something different, then start that new conversation – once this one is worked through. Note anyway that the proposal is only a point of focus; I ask questions before that, and they are quite flexible.

The proposal, and the questions behind it, are not about capitalisation, or particular cases; they are about the reach and applicability of an existing set of guidelines. When we have something like consensus on that, we can adjust the page accordingly – with wording that will make things clear. I look forward to seeing people's proposed wording, in fact. That would be useful.

Noetica^Tea? 08:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have to be in favor of always using plain, normal English when this is reasonable. Reasonable to me means sentences can be capitalized properly, and the name doesn't use any characters that do not appear in the English alphabet (but diacritics are allowed). An argument can be made that rare exceptions are permissible when it comes to lower case. I'd say maybe iPod qualifies, because no one calls them "Ipods". I note that "e.e. cummings" is actually at E. E. Cummings. I think only Lang fans care/respect that her preference is for "k. d. lang" (I knew it once, but had completely forgotten), like only fans of Client (band) are on board with the idea that the band's name "really" is CLIEИT. I actually am a fan, but I object because it's got a non-English character, and we don't obey the SHOUTING UPPER-CASE PREFERENCES OF TRADEMARK HOLDERS. So the DJ article needs to move. So does Lang. If it doesn't, then as with iPod, people are either going to have to work hard not to begin sentences with the name, or ignore the trademark when they do, using "IPod" and "K. d. lang" when necessary. We don't do Macy^★s for Macy's, either, yet we do Mötley Crüe. I don't know if this really answers the question. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What if it was a combination of the subject's personal preference and the appearance in reliable sources? It can be proven that "Ke$ha" is the more common form for the stage name of Kesha Rose Sebert, as evident from a google search (I included this data on Talk:Kesha#Requested move). And E. E. Cummings is not really a good example; he never wrote his own name as "e.e. cummings" despite popular belief.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd still put the singer at Kesha, per the rule that we don't use non-letters as substitutes for letters. I think this is closely related to the above thread about the WP-irrelevant distinction between trade names and trademarks. We don't care whether "Ke$ha" or "k. d. lang" are trademarks or not, nor whether they are favored by the subjects. I'm not even sure we care if they're more common that the normal-English-orthography versions. We simply prefer normal-English-orthography versions, with the sole exceptions of diacritics and (in a case I'm not sure I agree with) xXxx-format names, like eBay and iPod. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But the rule that you cite is this guideline. And based on consensus on other manuals of style, we do care that "k.d. lang" is preferred by the subject. I still do not see how this same tennet should not be applied to "Ke$ha", other than the fact that several MOS warriors vehemently oppose any deviation from the norm that this guideline suggests, rather than flat out demands.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Further comment: I think I like the idea of the proposed wording, but the exact text is problematic. "Do the provisions WP:MOSCAPS apply to all phrases that happen to be trademarked, in whatever context of use? If not, under what circumstances do they apply, and under what circumstances do they not apply?" It's not the phrase that's an issue, it's the name. I.e., I could trademark "xiphobion" as a company name, all lower-case. MOS:TM would demand this be rendered "Xiphobion". But (assuming that actually meant something in Greek and/or Latin fragments), some species of water-borne bacterium could be coincidentally named M. xiphobion a year later. The proposed wording would seem to force this to M. Xiphobion in defiance of scientific naming rules, because MOS:TM and by reference MOS:CAPS would be taken to apply to this "phrase that happen[s] to be trademarked, in [a different] context of use". The wording, in other words, appears to net homographs unintentionally. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But SMcC, the distinction between phrase and name is crucial. Whatever else "k. d. lang" is, it is first of all a phrase. That phrase might appear as a personal name (it does), as a trademark (it does), as the name of an album (it apparently does not), as the name of a poem (it probably does, somewhere), and more.

A problem with the earlier discussions of this case, and related cases like Bollinger Bands, is that they do not rise to the most relevant level of abstraction. (Your point about homographs is noted, and an interesting consideration. That might have to be considered in determining all of this. But it is not central. "Bollinger bands" used as a trademark for commercial reasons is no mere homograph of "Bollinger bands" used in textbook discussions of stocks, for example. These distinctions are subtle, and are a concern in philosophy of language.) Earlier discussions muddle around in the details, without ever discerning principles. That is why I have put the "jurisdictional" question like this: about the phrase, not about about the phrase qua trademark, qua personal name, or whatever. The issue is exactly this: What nuanced relevance, if any, does WP:MOSTM have for phrases (in general) that happen to be trademarks when they are arguably not in use as trademarks? But first, does it have any applicability at all in such situations? For WP style guidelines, this has to be settled in practical terms, whatever the underlying theoretical issues might be. That's hard!

Noetica^Tea? 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Bollinger Bands" are not Bollinger bands but "k. d. lang" is K. D. Lang. I don't knwo what an ipod is but I rather think its any MP3 player, Ebay is probably eBay (their logo says "ebay" all lowercase) (UK companies seem to have no way of expressing casing on the Companies House website). Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Alternative proposal

Alt to the one I called a "strawman"; no slight intended:

Proposal 2: The provisions of WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSTM apply to phrases used to refer to goods or services or entities that are identified by that phrase, whether the phrase is registered as a trademark or not (including names of companies or performers, to the extent that goods or services are associated with that name).

I believe this is a fair representation of my understanding of current practice, with a few exceptions. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, maybe I'm wrong. This doesn't really distinguish generic references from trademark references very well, does it? I guess it still needs work. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It could certainly be extended to trade names (which I think is well defined) and marketing names (which probably isn't). I see no need to exclude names of companies or performers. I also see no need to follow any self-imposed non-othographic naming convention unless it is in almost universal use. Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC).