Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Trademarks as titles?

Is there any guidance for using trademarks as article titles? Specifically, I'm concerned about using "Fresh Mex" or List of Fresh Mex restaurants as the title of an article describing several restaurant chains, since it appears to be some sort of trademark of Chevys Fresh Mex. I say "some sort" because, although I can run a search at the USPTO and find results such as reg. #1750598, it's not entirely straightforward to interpret the results. Given the extensive copyright policy on Wikipedia, it would be surprising if there's no guideline for usage of trademarks (beyond text formatting). --Amble (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I don't see any issue with such article titles. We have an article on Google despite the fact that their name is trademarked. Croctotheface (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, but in this case the article uses the term in a generic way, to describe several restaurant chains (not just the trademark owners). There's some support for this in that the term is sometimes used about and by other restaurants. But there's no guidance on how to evaluate this. The article Google is about the company Google, which holds the trademark; it isn't a list of search engine companies. On the other hand, the article Aspirin is about the drug in general, because although it was once a trademark, it became generic. --Amble (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Aspirin may be a generic word in the USA, but it is still a registered trademark of Bayer in several countries including Canada.[1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It says "Fresh Mex restaurants," right? That isn't generic; we specify that we're talking about restaurants, and the trademark is used as an adjective describing them. Croctotheface (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, I see what you're saying. It would depend on how much the term has become generic. If there's a more generic term we could use instead, we should. We certainly should not capitalize "fresh mex" if it's used this way. Croctotheface (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If "Fresh Mex" is used at all, it should be capitalized since it's a trademark. If it is not used in the sense of the Chevys trademark, then it should not be used at all since it is meaningless b.s.; there is no such thing as "mex" to begin with. This is not a trademark genericization issue; according to Chevys materials at any rate, "Fresh Mex" is a registered trademark, and absent any caselaw saying it has been diluted, there is no evidence that it has been. I'm taking this article to AfD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that some editors here may be interested in as a WP:TRADEMARK case, List of Fresh Mex restaurants, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fresh Mex restaurants. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Borderline case? M•A•C

Okay, so in general we do not bow to the wishes to trademark logo designers, and thus do not do things like macy^{^★}s, but what about Make-up Art Cosmetics (the real name of the company)? They are known pretty much universally as MAC (to render it in plain English). However, their logo reads M•A•C, more or less (there are several bullet characters in Unicode, and I'm not certain that is actually the best one to approximate their logo)? My interpretation of this guideline is that MAC should be used when abbreviating, and that at best M•A•C should be mentioned once in the article's lead. Right now, the article uses both indiscriminately, and various links to the article from other articles (see live example toward the bottom of Shirley Manson in the charity section) do likewise (the Manson article uses M•A•C). PS: I'm not even going to get into the fact that M•A•C looks completely awful in many fonts due to kerning issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There would actually be an argument for using "Mac" if it shows up in reliable sources. A quick search didn't turn up anything but "MAC," though, so that's probably the way to go. Any stylized rendering with special decorative characters should be, as you suggest, used at most once, definitely not throughout the article. Croctotheface (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would it ever be "Mac", though, given that it is an acronym? The issue I'm bringing here is the separator bullets. Still, yes, I am looking for confirmation that links in other articles should not read "M•A•C". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The acronym issue really hasn't been resolved. If we had sources that used "Mac," there would at least be an argument that it would be standard English to write it that way even though it's an acronym. Considering that basically no sources use "Mac," though, I don't think there's much of an argument that it's standard in this case. Get rid of those decorative bullets, though; they are plainly not standard. Croctotheface (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Company names which are also trademarks

Because the Talk:ABN AMRO polling led that that company's article kept as ABN AMRO instead of being changed to "ABN Amro" should cause a re-evaluation of trademarks which happen to also be legal names or corporations. I think the guidelines should reflect the following:

Company names which are uniformly spelled out the same as the trademark name uniformly should be respected such as ABN AMRO and Yahoo!.

If the company name and the trademark name are not spelled out uniformly and if the word itself reflects meaning, then the prevailing name should be used in upper and lower case as in "Fox." An example is Fox News Channel which identifies itself as "FOX News" while other News Corporation Fox subsidiaries identify their name either as "Fox" or "FOX" and Fox stands for the original founder of the company, William Fox (producer).

If the trademark name and the company name varies, such as "TIME" for Time (magazine) which is owned by Time Inc., then the company name should also be used for the name of the magazine.

Others are encouraged to add additional guidelines. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because a consensus doesn't decide to honor a guideline in all cases, doesn't imply that the guideline necessarily needs to change. We don't want to open the door to over the top silliness (e.g. "¡! SuPeR HaPPy PLayTHiNGS !¡") just because some company consistently uses that silliness and happens to register under it. I don't really see any need to change here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Because "Super Happy Playthings" certainly expresses meaning and the above example spelling would look silly in an encyclopedic article, then "Super Happy Playthings" should stand. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we should not rewrite the guideline because of one "no consensus to move" result. The cases listed above come out every which way, with a whole slew of different rationales. It doesn't provide much guidance, and it would require, essentially, asking Steelbeard whether it's an "original founder" case or a "always the same" case or merits a "this would look silly" exception. It's just not coherent. The guideline we have, "when multiple styles exist, use standard English, regardless of what the TM owner wants," covers every case. It may be appropriate to consider an exception for acronyms, to move them into the "judgment call" category and leave that up to the editors of the article about which style is standard. That's one thing I do get from this debate, since it did seem that "AMRO" versus "Amro" turned, for a lot of people on the fact that the word is an acronym. Also, community consensus is always a check on the reach of a guideline. It seems that there is not presently consensus to overturn this guideline, but if it's not clear to editors that a given style is nonstandard (like Yahoo!), they can reach the consensus that it's appropriate to use. Croctotheface (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk:Yahoo! page, there was an attempt to rename the article "Yahoo", but, like the second vote in Talk:ABN AMRO, there was no consensus so the article name remains Yahoo! Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I just said that...or, at least, that's what I was getting at. I think Yahoo is better style, but clearly that's not supported by the consensus of the talk page discussions. I'm saying that results like that are a check on the guideline. If we rewrite this guideline, it'll just give free reign to all those styles that you agree that we shouldn't use because they make us look silly. Croctotheface (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The word yahoo, as used by Yahoo!, is an interjection. Interjections such as "oh!" and "wow!" express emotion. The interjection yahoo! is used in an obvious emotion to express joy. I'm sure Yahoo! did not want its name to be linked with a brute, a crude person, often lacking in intelligence, and uninterested in culture, a yokel, or a hillbilly which is the way yahoo is used as a noun. That's why the exclamation point is used to link the word with the interjection meaning. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be turned around: Who are these brand managers to dictate to us how we render their names in our encyclopaedia? 217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the brand managers. The MOS warriors have to battle with users, customers and clients of the product or service in which the brand is also the legal name of the company and if they are also Wikipedia editors, the MOS warriors would certainly lose the battle. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is something of a red herring - you haven't answered the question. What entitles the branding and PR people to dictate to us at the exclusion of all other opinions how to write our encyclopaedia? That would amount to a breach of WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable-overrides-all-other-policies policy (see WP:5P). 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about real world issues here. Brand managers do not have the power to influence over what content is on Wikipedia. If it is determined than an edit came from the computer of a company which the article is about, then the IP addresses associated with that company are blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(long-overdue edit) You are suggesting that we use the company's preferred form at the exclusion of any other consideration, without providing any good reason for doing so beyond "that's how they do it". So, I ask that once and for all you answer the following question or withdraw: What entitles those people at a company to dictate to us how we render their name in our encyclopaedia? Don't dismiss this question, since your proposal explicitly involves deferring to the owner of a name, and anyone whose contribution to a move discussion is "this is how the company does it" is directly advocating we defer to the owner. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're still not answering his question, or mine for that matter. As far as what I'm saying, your proposal seems to hinge on a series of subjective determinations. I just don't see how we craft a workable guideline out of that. It matters to you if a company "always uses" a given style. If Yahoo occasionally dropped the exclamation point, would you say that we should use Yahoo? Does that become an "inconsistent use" case or does it remain an "interjection" case? You consider the "name of the founder" or whether a given brand name is not styled the same way as the company name. I'm not sure why we need this complex web of different considerations: they make cases that are basically the same--rendering regular English words in ALL CAPS--into a mess of different ones, really for no good reason. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're willing to say that what the company wants should always prevail if they use a style that is not accepted by secondary sources, but only if they manage to always remember to use their nonstandard style. I don't see why you default to standard English if they occasionally use a style that's more standard. Why is what the company does so important? And why do we want to lend so much support to a company's marketing decisions ONLY if it never slips up in remembering to use their nonstandard style? You even allow an exception for styles that would "look silly" in the encyclopedia, but that's just a form of "I don't like it," as "silly" to one person (I think "ARCO" and "PEPCO" and "AMRO" are all pretty silly myself) is not necessarily silly to someone else. You also seem to be abandoning your "legal name" argument, which seems like it should apply to every case where a trademark is registered (that is, registered with legal authorities) in a given style. Croctotheface (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia be a place users of the internet come for correct information? Why insist on rendering a corporation's name wrong, just because of an arbitrary rule Wikipedia has made up regarding capitalization? I, as a user of the internet, would come here and see, for example, TIME Magazine written with the wrong caps. I might then go and write some article or paper and consistently write it as Time Magazine, with the wrong caps. I would then be criticized by my peers, and look stupid for writing it incorrectly. "But Wikipedia says it should be written that way!", I would exclaim. "Wikipedia", my peers would say, "you can't trust that as a source, it's user submitted and they have it wrong". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.2 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bunch of moot noise to begin with. "TIME" is not the name of the company, which is "Time Warner Inc." (formerly AOL Time Warner Inc., formerly Time Inc., etc.). Note "Time", not "TIME". When cited by other publications the magazine is "Time", not "TIME". "TIME" is simply a typographic display style they happen to like, just like "macy^{^★}s", and "Google". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What about trademarks that are not the company name? What if Time the company registered their magazine's trademark as TIME? Does that not make s fairly convincing argument that according to the owners, the "legal" or "official" name of the magazine is "TIME"? I don't see a good reason to defer to the whims of the company owner in one of these cases but not the other; they strike me as nearly identical. If we want to make it our practice to do what the company likes, then we should be consistent about it. Croctotheface (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Common courtesy, common sense, not common style

What is your name? How do you spell it? How do you capitalize it?

Consider Hawaiian words and names. There is a character in the Hawaiian alphabet represented by the single quote mark ' which causes all sorts of talk (just like this talk article) when it's left out or put in because of someone following a "guideline" instead of accepting the primary source. There are also issues about splitting up long words or names into more than one word, which also can lead to misunderstandings. It makes a difference because the meaning changes, it doesn't represent the source.

I believe it basically comes down to getting it from the source. Nicknames are given to people in school and are not their real names, and if someone denies a nickname or variation of their name refers to them (perhaps because it's derogatory or even if it isn't), then you really have no choice. It's their name, it's their say. Isn't it?

It's not a matter of marketing and whether the company has the right to capitalize or abbreviate their name in a manner somebody else (such as us) doesn't agree with. It also doesn't matter if they are trying to draw attention to themselves, and yet it is about recognition. What are people going to recognize: what they see in the real world or what you make up here? Think about it. Changing names makes Wikipedia less reliable, less informing, less factual.

Some parents name their kids for the purpose of standing out, either in the family tree or amongst society, does that mean we should change their names? Just because a bunch of secondary sources say you are purple with yellow polka dots, does that mean you (as the primary source) should be ignored when you reveal that you aren't and never have been purple with yellow polka dots? That is essentially what some of you are saying: it doesn't matter what the company says is their name, we're going to name them however other people refer to them, or however we wish to refer to them. That doesn't sound like Wikipedia at all, that's ignoring the most important source, the source.

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not meant to be absolute. To follow guidelines absolutely regardless to circumstance is to act mindlessly and robotically. Seriously. Isn't this essentially about reporting the facts? How can there be any justification for changing the facts?

Then again, history isn't recorded accurately, so why should Wikipedia be any different than the norm? Maybe it just doesn't matter...

Thomqi (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I really think the notion that saying the style that the trademark owner prefers is "accurate" begs the question. In my view, this guideline is not at all about telling people not to use an accurate style; it's about helping them decide which style is more accurate in light of standard English, common usage, and so forth. This guideline does not apply to cases where a single style, however nonstandard, is used across all sources. However, if multiple styles exist in our sources, we need to decide which to use. You can refer to older discussions for the sundry reasons it would be unwise to adopt a guideline that says "do whatever the trademark owner wants." For instance, in many case a nonstandard style such as "TIME Magazine" is used only rarely by sources independent of the subject. I would be hard pressed to find such an uncommon style "correct," even setting aside all the other considerations, if it did not reflect common usage. Incidentally, I'm not sure if some specific case spurred this comment, but if it did, I'd be interested in discussing it in particular. Croctotheface (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Acronyms

What about acronyms that can be spoken as words, for example WALL-E and IKEA? According to my professor it generally should be written as Wall-E and Ikea respectively. --MrStalker ^(talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's an acronym or not - it's whether it is capitalised by a majority of sources. Hence DARPA, but radar. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not about a "majority," since there's really no way to figure that out short of compiling EVERY reliable source and then tallying what style they each use. If one style or another is clearly prevalent in sources, we use that one. If we can't figure out which style is clearly prevalent, we choose the one that most closely resembles standard English. There are plenty of places where this guideline is not applied because many articles are edited primarily by fans, who would bristle at the notion that we should use a standard English style (such as "Wall-E") when the poster on their wall has a logo with "WALL-E" in all caps. It's unlikely that there will ever be any kind of mass movement to go around and identify and attempt to change all such articles, since even editors like myself who believe in the guideline strongly seem to think that that kind of undertaking would use up a lot of energy and time for marginal benefit. That said, if someone were to begin a discussion of this kind, about "Wall-E," for instance, I'd certainly like to know about it so I could supply my opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to move WALL-E to Wall-E and change WALL-E to Wall-E in the article, which is standard English and in compliance with this guideline, but it got reverted referencing unspecified consensus. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because, as Croctotheface indicated, "if one style or another is clearly prevalent in sources, we use that one". Most sources use full uppercase for the title, so we should too. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what I indicated at all. Again, it's not about "most," which is considerably less than "clearly prevalent." A nonstandard source has to be SO common that we would be the most prominent source using it. I'd argue that that "Wall-E" is prevalent enough that we should use it, as it's more standard. However, Stalker, when there is a potentially controversial move such as this one, you'd be well served to go through the process described at WP:RM. If there is such a move discussion, I'd appreciate if you let me know so that I could put my opinion in. Croctotheface (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

polywell

I am having a friendly fight with JulesVerne over at Talk:Polywell#Capitalization of "polywell". FYI:

The polywell is a plasma confinement concept that combines elements of inertial electrostatic confinement and magnetic confinement fusion, intended ultimately to produce fusion power. The name polywell is a portmanteau of "polyhedron" and "potential well."

We started out disagreeing on whether polywell is a proper name or not, but then decided it might be better covered under the trademark rules anyway. "Polywell" was registered as a trademark, but was abandoned in 1992. It is not clear (at least to me) whether Wikipedia policy requires a trademark (also, e.g., Riggatron) to be capitalized (even if the trademark is not currently active). Does policy require all non-trademarks to be written in lower case, even if there is some tradition for writing them upper case (e.g. Migma)? I'd like to find a consistent rule that can be applied to all fusion concepts, including these:

Thanks for any help. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixed and non-capitalization in personal names

A request for comment has been opened at the talk page of WP:MOSCL, on how the Manual of Style should handle mixed and non-capitalization in personal names. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AHD pronunciations

I'm asking for advice on an issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation) and Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation (AHD).

Wiktionary uses the AHD transcription under the name "English Phonetic Representation" (EnPR), and that was imported to Wikipedia. One editor (EncycloPetey) insists that the AHD and EnPR transcriptions are not the same, but refuses to say what the difference is. The only diff I can see is that Wiktionary has minor differences in the marks for stress, but the EnPR system as imported here has stress marks identical to the AHD. (There are differences of comparable degree between the online and print variants of the AHD, so such a minor variant would clearly be a copyright violation, if it were possible to copyright a writing system, which it is not.) In addition, the version of EnPR imported here added a symbol, a-dot, from Webster's, but it wasn't used anywhere, and I deleted it from the key.

The question is, if we use the AHD transcription, is it proper to call it the AHD transcription? Some editors are worried about trademark violation, that calling it "AHD" (say by renaming the template from {{EnPR}} to {{AHD}}, and using "ahd:" rather than "enpr:" to identify the transcription) would suggest endorsement by the AHD. However, giving it another name like EnPR strikes me as plagiarism, even if we give credit to AHD in the text.

In addition, EncycloPetey does not want to give the AHD full credit, but insists that EnPR is a compromise of the AHD, MW, and Random House, which is patently false. Several attempts by me to give the AHD proper credit at Wiktionary have been reverted. Part of my reason for renaming the transcription key from EnPR to AHD was to stop this nonsense that it is only "based" on the AHD.

I don't think the abbreviation "AHD" is trademarked in any case, but which name should we use? kwami (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the move. It's only a couple dozen transclusions. kwami (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with partial abbreviations

The video game series "Wild ARMs" is exactly titled with that casing based on official literature and third-party sources. The "ARM" section is an abbreviation but never spelled out in official titles. There is a debate whether the pages for this game series should be "Wild ARMs" or "Wild Arms". Between this and the abbreviation guideline, I read this to be taken as "Wild Arms" as the full title isn't an acronym, just that section, compared to something like NASA or WALL-E. Any suggestions here? --MASEM 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Wild ARMs 5 site did give the overall meaning of the abbreviation, but the site is currently down. The producers of most of the games, XSEED, confirmed the title is "Wild ARMs", with "ARM" being an acronym. They also explained that "Wild Arms" was only used in legal lines for the sake of simplicity. "Wild Arms" doesn't actually make sense, all of the games feature "Wild ARMs" within them-in the plot,-and the abbreviation of "ARMs" is explained within each game, not to mention it is always extremely important to the story, thus the title is equally important. Think of it like that new Kingdom Hearts game, 358/2 Days. At first glance, it is just a title, but the player will understand the special meaning behind it once they've beaten the game. The same is true here. The capitalization of the title is significant to the game itself. It's also Wiki policy, right? Akari Kanzaki (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a pretty strong argument that all caps is not standard for at least some acronyms like "Wall-E"/"WALL-E" that are pronounced as words, not letter by letter. "Wild ARMs" looks pretty nonstandard to me, so if "Wild Arms" is in sources (and I assume it must be if there's a discussion about it), I'd go with that style. Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that both are used, not just one, and neither one noticeably more than the other.じんない 20:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes a difference whether the entire title is a single acronym as opposed to just a portion of the title. See: The Secret of NIMH where only the letters NIMH form an acronym. SharkD (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wild Arms" is incorrect though, and it's only used in legal lines to make things more simple. There's also no sources supporting "Wild Arms". My post above explains why the title should be corrected. As is, it changes the entire meaning of the title. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But both aren't supposed to be used. Again, "Wild Arms" when it appears is generally just in legal lines or do to error. The proper title is "Wild ARMs". My post above still explains it best. I vote that we fix the title, before the incorrect one can spread any more. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it appears that this is just a rehash of a conversation that's already taking place elsewhere. There's no reason to have it in two places, especially since this isn't really the place to discuss anything but WP:MOSTM and perhaps how to apply it. Just to clear up any misconceptions as far as what this guideline says, "official name" or "legal name" arguments are nonstarters as far as it is concerned. The guideline only asks, "Do multiple styles exist in reliable sources?" And, if yes, "Which one most closely resembles standard English." My position that I articulated above is that "Wild Arms" is standard English, while "ARMs" is not, so we should use "Wild Arms." Croctotheface (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It feels like you're not listening to what I'm saying at all. People keep using "Wild Arms" by mistake, and there are no valid sources that use that outside of legal lines. This was posted here in hopes to get an official statement on the issue, but it seems that won't happen. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First, please indent your posts with colons (:) to preserve the thread. Second, it appears that "Wild Arms" is indeed out there in source, as this Google News search indicates. Third, there really is no such thing as an "official word" on Wikipedia, since we go by consensus rather than top-down rules, but the consensus that formed this guideline says use standard English when there are multiple sources out there, and I definitely think that "Wild Arms" is more standard. Croctotheface (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Those sources aren't very impressive. I said it already-they are errors. Because "Wild Arms" is used in legal lines, it's often mistaken for the title. The logo being in all-caps doesn't help either. Most people writing articles like those are just announcing something and have never actually played the game, so they do not understand their error. "ARMs" is a must. It's not just an acronym, but it also refers to something in the game, making the title make sense. Take the game "NiGHTS into Dreams". It's in many ways similiar. "NiGHTS" refers to the unique name of the main character, thus giving the title a certain meaning. As "Nights into Dreams", that meaning is lost, and the title no longer makes sense. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

First, please indent your posts with colons (:) to preserve the thread. You seem determined to repeat your arguments regardless of what I say in response. If you're not open to changing your mind, and we're the only ones talking about it, it's probably just as well to let it go. On the merits, do you have any evidence that, as you assert, all of the myriad sources that use "Arms" (and use it correctly, in my view) are only doing so because they are "mistaken" or "errors"? The notion that strange styles such as "NiGHTS" are somehow SO essential that they MUST be used EVERY time strikes me as rather odd: there's certainly nothing wrong with referencing the nonstandard typography once in the article lead, but throughout the article, it's jarring and makes the article worse. There's a reason that nearly all other publications standardize at least some nonstandard trademarks; readers are not served well when they are forced to deal with weird styles. Look at this Google News search, wherein basically all of the publications that use "NiGHTS" are not mainstream news sources, and basically all mainstream news sources standardize, as we should. Croctotheface (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because "Wild Arms" is used in legal lines, it's often mistaken for the title.

It's not just used in the legal lines, and you know it. Only XSEED Games have used the capitalization "ARMs", and they're just one English-language publisher of these games out of several. The others all use "Wild Arms".

This has already been discussed to death and beyond on the article talk page... Are you really that eager to see your latest account get blocked? Erigu (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're trolling is unwelcome here. "ARMs" is the correct capitalization. Until you can discuss that without insulting and attacking people, do not come back here. Also, stop posting flames on my talk page. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"ARMs" is the correct capitalization.

That's a great argument.

Also, I don't remember "flaming" you on your talk page... Erigu (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)