Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

New rule: Use variety product names as spelled

This debate was re-awakened due to logical inconsistencies in the Wikipedia handling of trademark names, such as exceptions for "iPod" or eBay, where "standard English" would use "Ipod" or "Ebay" and it could be proven how most people use downcased spelling "ipod". A logical rule is to:

Use lower-case letters only when the term becomes popularized as such, but leave capital letters in variety (or spin-off) product names, such as "IBM PC" (never "Ibm Pc") or "iPhone 4".

The focus is to modify WP:MOSTM to be consistent and logical, rather than have exceptions for "lower-case first letter" or people who can't pronounce a term. So, that leads to "SPAM Garlic" as a variety product name, rather than generalized "Spam" food. Also, note how the computer firm "IBM" has been, for decades, also pronounced as "Ibb-um" and claiming "unpronouncable" is a bias; there is also the itsy bitsy machine company (named after the popular term for "IBM"), as lower-case "ibm". I think the Monty Python-based musical, with title "Spamalot" is their own spelling, whereas the all-caps spelling "SPAMALOT" is mainly on the ad posters. However, any other name using specific capitalization, such as "SPAMslam Breakfast" or "iPod eGad" should be kept, simply, using their product name as spelled. As the WP:MOSTM, already states, no need to invent names (WP:NOR). So, the museum is "SPAM Museum" as a museum name, not a food. The difference is absolutely trivial: for a generalized product, use the popular spelling, for a specific variety (of spin-off), then use the exact spelling rather than risk WP:OR original research to claim a lower-case name is "widely used" in English or any other POV slant. -Wikid77 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, this isn't going to be an easy one. I understand the encyclopedic urge to trammel down fancy ad names (the Yellow Tail and Seven examples are persuasive). And I suppose it extends logically to the Time and Realtor examples (and thus to "Spam"). After all, who knows whether it's really spelled Spam but the manufacturer just writes it in all caps on the can...? But then we get to IBM! Why is that different? It's an acronym, I suppose. But "Shoulder Pork And haM" is an acronym... kind of... the boundary ends up probing the manufacturer's history and psychology. Wnt (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said, this general issue has previously been debated at length (see, for instance Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)/Archive 7#NeXT and NeXTSTEP) but doesn't seem to have been resolved one way or another, so more discussion is needed, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Rationale to remove rule renaming for common English usage: Unless backed by consensus, a rule should be removed. In the absense of a new consensus, then the prior rule should be removed because there would be no consensus to keep an arbitrary rule, as violating the spirit of "WP:Ignore All Rules". A person could no longer cite WP:MOSTM as an excuse to force their personal preference for lower-case renaming of terms or product names. -Wikid77 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Rationale to avoid altered names: With the growing ability for multi-word searches (as from Yahoo! Search and now wiki-searches), exact names can be found by word hunts, such as for "iPhone 5". That style of searching needs to be simplified by avoiding altered spellings, especially for new users of the English language or enwiki, as users who might be unfamiliar with English idioms or common slang. The idea is to avoid unintentional disguise of names, just as avoiding common nicknames for "Robert" would discourage renaming as "Bobby Oppenheimer" for physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. In avoiding original research (WP:NOR), it is difficult to find sources which claim each altered name would be easier to find, such as proving "Iphone Four" would be more common than simply the exact technical name "iPhone 4". A basic goal is also simplicity of verifying the technical terms or product names, by exact match to most WP:RS sources, rather than risk re-spelling as misspelling. For those reasons, a product name, such as hypothetical "FUN Coms IFONne" as FUN Communications IFON "new edition" ("ne"), should not become "Fun Coms Ifone" or "..Iphone" or similar. The term "IFONne" has a double en "Nn" and would not match searches for respelled "Ifone". An article could mention "IFON" is similar to words "ifone" or "iphone" to enable related-word searches, but there is too much WP:OR analysis required to prove renaming as "Ifone" would be better than original product name "IFONne". A company might have an email product to auto-sort email, to list messages from friends first, as product name "VEIL Systems eMAIL unVEIL" but there is no need to alter as "Email Unveil". Similarly, text could footnote the term "NeXT" as related to "next generation", but just use the exact spelling as easier to coordinate with the world at large. In general, do not reshuffle the mix of upper-case or lower-case letters in product names, unless there is a source with evidence for widespread use of altered spellings, not just a typo or capitalization style used in one source document. Avoid original research of names. Are there any other rename issues to address? -Wikid77 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

iPad?

eBay but not DearS?

I am confused. First of all, why does the rule allow for iPod or eBay? The "Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter" section suggests that it they should be written with the capital letter in between, but this seems to contradict the "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting official" rule. If it doesn't, this should be clarified. I came to this page to check rules on how to write DearS, an anime, that has went to two RMs from Dears to DearS, both failed with this very rule cited as the reason to use the incorrect name. However, if we can have iPod and eBay, what's wrong with DearS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm. If nobody is watching this page... this is a bit of a problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I find the wording as currently found in the guideline, "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable", quite reasonable. Doesn't that cover your case? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
FPS, If you agree with me that "if DearS is the official and widespread name, unlike Dears, this policy supports the move of the article to DearS", then I think we are fine; I'll clarify the policy (if needed, I'll have to reread it again), and I'll start another move at Talk:DearS, noting that people who previously objected citing this policy where in fact confused as the policy supports, not prevents, such as move. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to add to what I said, I am assuming the "DearS" spelling is meant to indicate it's pronounced in two syllables ("Dear-es"), in which case it would be quite a good example of "makes it more readable", wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That's how I'd pronounce it, but then, asking a Pole to guess how a romaji Japanese word should be pronouced in English raises certain problems :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, DearS is fine. I think the spirit behind the guideline is don't use non-traditional capitalization if it looks too jarring and out of place in an encyclopedia (e.g., all or almost all caps, all lowercase, etc.). Hence why iPod and eBay are acceptable. Remember the MoS is just guidelines which can be broken with good reason, and I think you have one here—Dears looks bizarre. It might also be worth changing the MoS to reflect my sentiment above if people agree. –CWenger (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
How would you suggest MoS is changed, exactly? I have to say in the past I wasn't that involved with MoS, I just stumpled upon this issue almost accidentally. I agree with your sentiments above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I was suggesting that the guideline be made more lenient to say non-traditional capitalization is fine as long as it does not look too jarring (editor's discretion), but as a look closer I think Fut.Perf. is right—this is already covered by the CamelCase note. –CWenger (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We could change this MOS page to something like CamelCase should be used when it reflects general usage in independent reliable English sources, unless there is consensus not to do so (for example, if it makes the article less readable). If what we say has been misunderstood, there's a case for change. I can't think offhand of an instance where the exception applies, but I'm sure there is one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If you propose the move again, you should be able to make a more convincing case now and I think you will have some supporters here. –CWenger (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
In light of the consensus here, I will start a RM there in a second :) You are all welcome to express your opinions at Talk:Dears. I would however like to add DearS to the examples on that page, since this at this point we do not have any trademark in which the last leter is capitalized. I find it a bit confusing that CamelCase and OxyContin are discussed in general rules, and then we have a subsection for "Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter". This layout can use some improvement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see the distinction between CamelCase, iPod/eBay etc. and any other idiosyncratic use of upper and lowercase. I'm in favour of generalizing the CamelCase should be used when it reflects general usage in independent reliable English sources... guideline to cover all unconventional usage of upper/lower case in titles and trademarks etc. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC).
Agreed. If something is almost always known by non-traditional typography, we should also know it like that and stop being prissy. Fences&Windows 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Infringment

Is any usage on English Wikipedia of trademarks at risk of being against trademark law? Anyone know enough about this to make a judgement? i kan reed (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is someone trying to sell something here that would be confused with a trademarked product? Seems unlikely, but then I can't give legal advice. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I do recall something about the Encyclopedia Briannica 11th edition, which is the public domain, but the trademark is still in force, so while you can reproduce the content, you can't call it the Encyclopedia Britannica (or so they argue). Is that the kind of thing you mean? Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This gets asked every now and then, and the basic answer is no, we do not need to worry about trademarks because we're not selling anything. Trademarks have much more limited protection than copyrights, so you can't infringe a trademark just by copying it. I could flood this whole page with "Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft" and it wouldn't matter. You'd need to post an advertisement for a product using someone else's trademark in that same or similar industry or post a false statement of endorsement, which is simply outside the scope of anything permitted here.

Re: Dicklyon's comment, under U.S. trademark law you can call a reprint of Encyclopedia Britannica by that name. You couldn't change it in such a way that it differs enough from the original and yet present it under that name, or make your own encyclopedia and call it "Encyclopedia Britannica." But whether you are a reseller or a reprinter, you absolutely have a right to call a product by what it is and where it came from, including where you are reprinting a public domain work and you want to identify the title of its original author/producer (provided you don't mislead as to the manufacturer of your physical reprinted product). postdlf (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization in lists

So I've been working on Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Apparently, at some point in the past, somebody mentioned that KISS should be listed as "Kiss". I know that this is one of the examples listed in this guideline.

However, the list is meant to show the names as they are listed in the game. Surely, using KISS and WAR and the like, rather than Kiss and War, would make more sense because it more accurately represents the game's portrayal of the bands. Is this a place where ignoring the guideline is reasonable? I feel like using "Kiss" is misleading and not inline with the game which the list is meant to represent.

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be added that we have these named alongside names of bands that are abbreviations (like HIM, KMFDM, etc.), and thus when you have a name that is more common outside of WP to be all caps as standard capitilization alongside allcap band names, it does look a little funny. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear about "general usage"

Just came back to this page today, and I saw a few mentions of how some weird style or another is "generally used" outside of WP. I think that the editors who are saying that might be surprised to find that third party sources standardize weird styles much more often than we do here. A reasonable guideline if you have a question about how prevalent a given formatting is would be to pick some well-respected general knowledge newspapers and check how they format the style. You'll see "eBay" but not "TIME magazine" and so forth. If a style such as eBay, which might at first glance appear nonstandard, is very widely used in these major general knowledge publications, then it's kind of hard to say that it's outside the bounds of standard English.

It's also worth pointing out that this is the page for discussing improvements to the guideline, not the WP:Helpdesk, so editors shouldn't really be surprised if nobody responds to their question about how to interpret the guideline because this isn't really the place for it. The core of the guideline is supported by a longstanding consensus, so if this page isn't very active, that's the likely cause. Croctotheface (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Song titles

Not sure if this is the right page to discuss this, but I'm wondering if the article title for the songs "Sk8er Boi" and "U + Ur Hand" should be changed to simply "Skater Boy" and "You and Your Hand", respectively. Any thoughts? –CWenger (^ • @) 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)

Following these guidelines for an example, use Lego Bricks instead of LEGO Bricks? Roblox instead of ROBLOX? LittleBigPlanet instead of Littlebigplanet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleoTager (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As the box on the "edit" page says, this is a page to discuss improvements to the guideline page itself, not so much to discuss interpretations of the guideline. That sort of thing might belong at the WP:Helpdesk. That said, the first two appear to fit into the "all caps for no reason" style that we generally recommend standardizing. Littlebigplanet vs. some other style seems more like a judgment call to me. It might make sense to check what major publications do. Croctotheface (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Clif Bars

"The prime minister indicated that the Clif Bars were delicious. (This is allowed because the product name includes the product type)". This is a bad example because unless one know what it is one can not tell what it is. It could be chocolate bar or an energy bar or goodness know what, because it is not a universal brand. I am going to replace it with Cadbury Creme Egg as creme eggs are sold under different brand names in (just about?) every English speaking country. -- PBS (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Expired trademarks

Do we capitalize expired trademarks? The particular case in Teletype Corporation's printing terminal, commonly know as a teletype. (See ASR-33 Teletype.) The trademark was granted in 1925 and renewed several times, the last being in 1979. Teletype is no longer in business and the trademark office canceled the trademark in 2000. Many books and magazines refer to that type of terminal as a teletype. (As a generic term.) -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What matters is whether it has become acceptable to use the term in a generic way, not that the trademark is expired. In most cases, an expired trademark would still need to be written in title case. If it has become acceptable to use it as a generic term (writing "a teletype" instead of "a Teletype machine"), then it would be acceptable to use it that way on Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

The language in this MOS refers only to sentences. There should be clarification provided for use of trademarks in article titles, lead paragraphs, and infoboxes. I'm pretty sure this guidance was once provided here. Also, this guideline should state unequivocally who controls the capitalization: the owner's trademark application? The owner's use on their website? Or how other sources use it?

In my opinion, the trademark owner's use should always govern article title and infobox use. I further feel the owner's use should govern the first use in article lead paragraphs, though the use everywhere else should be "follow English capitalization."

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. This guideline does apply to article titles and infoboxes. These should (generally) be capitalized like English proper nouns, rather than using the trademark owner's preferred capitalization. The answer to your question "who controls the capitalization" is: We do.--Srleffler (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ZEMAX

I renamed the page devoted to the optical-design software Zemax to ZEMAX, in accordance with the company's capitalization. It was reverted in accordance with this page. Can we clarify how brands like this should be capitalized. Unlike TIME/Time, "zemax" isn't a word outside of the brand, which in my mind puts it in a class with iPhone. There are many similarly capitalized software packages from the '80s and before, including MATLAB, which is a blend of MATrix LABoratory. Another non-blend, non-acronym all-caps software I found is SPARK (programming language); should that be changed to "Spark"? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I noted at Talk:Zemax, MATLAB might be considered an acronym rather than some other type of blend, and acronyms are commonly written in all-caps in English. SPARK and other 80's programming languages and software packages are often not trademarks, so they may not be covered by this guideline. It might be appropriate to convert these to title case anyway, for consistency.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I keep harping on this primarily because I sometimes come to Wikipedia to find the "correct" way to typeset something. I understand the desire to not let trademarks jump off the page, but I don't like the inconsistency of "trademarking something suddenly makes it go to initial caps from all caps". This seems to imply that if ZEMAX came up with a backronym, we would suddenly have to make it all caps. Again, Srleffler, I agree with you that this MoS page says you are right, so I'm not disagreeing with you in that sense, I just want to get some discussion about the appropriateness of this rule in the context of all-caps invented words that happen to be invented. I would feel better about this rule if it encouraged a parenthetical in the introduction such as "Macy's, (stylized Macy*s) ...". I also still don't see the difference between ZEMAX and iPod in that the "official" second character of "iPod" is a capital "P" and the "official" second character of "ZEMAX" is a capital E. Maybe I'm off base, but I feel like these are different than the official second letter of Time being a capital "I"; I see that as a magazine about our time that the publisher likes to styalize in all caps. (FWIW, as a software engineer who came of age in the '90s and '00s, I always found the all-caps software to look horribly dated :-) .) Anyone else have thoughts on this? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a mistake to "count letters" and try to make that the controlling principle here. The lower case i- and e- prefixes are a separate category from all caps or title case. They're pronounced differently, and major publications universally use them; to my knowledge, none change "iPad" to "IPAD" or "Ipad" or anything else. Copy editors have referred to this style as shifting the capital over by one letter. You can disagree with some or all of these, but they paint a pretty clear picture that "iPad" is standard English these days. Ignoring all these arguments and instead reducing the question to to "is the second letter capitalized in the 'official' style?" strikes me as the wrong approach.
Also, I'm not sure that the issue has to do with "trademarking something" so much as that "trademarks" was chosen as the title for this guideline because it gets at the ideas that we're talking about. In non-trademark, non-commercial settings, these issues with weird styles come up less often. Croctotheface (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this guideline as it applies to company names

There is a discussion at Talk:The LEGO Group#Requested move in which an editor has raised the question of whether this guideline applies to company names as it does to trademarks. Your comments there are welcome! Powers T 19:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But let's discuss it here, of course. The matter is general, and goes far beyond any single RM. NoeticaTea? 00:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to fork an in-progress discussion. The above pointer ensures users viewing this page are able to find it. —David Levy 01:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion is not to fork the discussion, but to transfer it to this page. The important question is not the fate of the article The LEGO Group; it is the scope this MOS page. NoeticaTea? 02:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of the two issues' relative importance, but I don't know how to go about transferring the thread without disrupting the active move discussion. —David Levy 02:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have posted answers for you, but I will not continue this general discussion there. I suggest we simply abandon it there and start a fresh and uncluttered discussion here. Link this discussion prominently in the RM, since it is relevant to its determination. These are genuine issues that need regimented treatment. Perhaps all parties are now clearer about identifying the crux, and about how to express themselves on it. I know I am! NoeticaTea? 03:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is all over, so for the record here, does anyone think that for company names (which are typically used as trademarks), we shouldn't follow the advise to "choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner"? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I don't understand. The scope of this MOS is unclear, and needs to be be resolved. The LEGO RM could be settled without appeal to this page. We need know for future RMs whether this is right or not. Meanwhile, editors are still coming in at the present RM, invoking this page. NoeticaTea? 03:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems to me that most users either are not going to recognize the subtle difference between the two situations or will recognize it but not split hairs about it. The current discussion is evidence of that. In both cases, they are going to tend to treat the naming of both types of articles the same. So I think the MOS should just be clarified to say that the same principles can apply in both types of situations. This should apply to all articles that include a trademarked name as part of a larger name, not just in company names or other proper names that include a trademarked name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
In the end:
  1. we are all dead;
  2. MOS will be misunderstood in ways no single editor can predict; and
  3. something can be done to mitigate 2, but not 1.
I have no problem with clarifying the MOS page so that everyone is clear about its scope, and I have no problem with which way it goes. Just let it be done with precision and awareness of the terminology used "out there".
NoeticaTea? 04:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • But before we go about clarifying, I'd like to know who understands it differently. Noetica, do you not agree that TM applies to company names? Or you'll agree if we so state explicitly? Or can you tell us who doesn't agree, so we can ask them why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not all company names ("trade names") are trademarks, as this comprehensive source makes clear:

A trade name differs from a trademark or service mark. A trade name is a company name or a corporate name used to identify and distinguish a business organization from other companies. This distinction is important ...

Search that book for "trade name" for more detail. The issue at the RM for The LEGO Group was all mixed up. Yes, of course that phrase is a company name – a trade name. Is it also a trademark? I don't know, yet. And no one has shown evidence to decide that. Somehow it seemed to be relevant that "LEGO" (which all agree is a trademark) was a part of the company name. But why? No one answered that.
This MOS page mentions company names:

Distinguish clearly between the trademark and the company name when, as with Dell, it is customary to do so. Company names should normally be given in the most common form in English; only specify International Business Machines Corporation to state that that is the legal name, otherwise call it IBM, as our sources do.

But it does not use the apt legal term "trade name"; and what I quote here settles nothing about the scope of the page as applying generally, and by default, also to trade names that are not also trademarks. That's what we need to sort out. I don't care which way it goes, so long as we all know the proper terms and make MOS accurate and interpretable.
NoeticaTea? 04:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The book's text goes on to state that the distinction is important "...because federal registration is valuable for trademarks and service marks but not for trade names." The issue before us, I suppose, is whether this is relevant to the style used by an encyclopedia. I don't see how it is (and to my knowledge, we've never recognized it as such in the past). It's a legal distinction, not a linguistic one.
You've quoted the section titled "Use of graphic logos," the subject to which the text in question appears to apply. (In any case, its meaning should be clarified.) —David Levy 05:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That's right: it goes on to say that. And I have invited you to look at the other mentions in that book, of which there are many. Clearly there is a distinction made between "trademark" and "trade name" in US legal usage; no one has shown that non-legal usage is at all clear or well-regimented. As an owner of trademarks in Australia, I have direct experience of a similar distinction here; and I am sure it is pretty well ubiquitous. See also this from a major US law firm (my underlining):

Trade name
Also known as an assumed name or corporate name, it is the name under which a company conducts its business. Whereas a trade name identifies the business itself, trademarks identify goods or services. A trade name can also serve as a trademark if it meets the requirements of a trademark. If so, the trade name also merits protection under state and federal trademark and dilution laws. However, a trade name has no exclusive trademark rights unless it is used as a trademark. This is so, even if the name is registered with the appropriate state body regulating business names, usually the Secretary of State.

You say, David: "It's a legal distinction, not a linguistic one." How to make sense of that? In careful use (apt for manuals of style, surely), the two terms have different meanings. How is there no "linguistic distinction" here?
I'm glad you agree, at the end, that something needs clarifying.
NoeticaTea? 06:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear.
I meant that when it comes to deciding what style conventions to apply, the legal distinction is immaterial; from a linguistic standpoint, there's no reason for us to treat trademarks and trade names differently in this context. In other words, the logic by which we modify "ALL-UPPERCASE TRADEMARK" applies equally to "ALL-UPPERCASE TRADE NAME". —David Levy 07:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I think what User:Dicklyon is getting at (and correct me if I'm wrong) is: is this an issue worth explicitly dealing with to anyone other than User:Noetica? It almost seems like an solution searching for a problem—the distinction hasn't seemed to trouble anyone else here or in the discussion itself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Why would you reject the testimony of an editor who is so obviously committed to accuracy and clarity in the whole Manual of Style? If I find the guidelines here vague, and others have not understood distinctions that I have taken the trouble to understand (and to explain here, so that people are now better informed), how can you lightly dismiss my concern?
Of course there is a problem; and I have demonstrated it. Nothing in this MOS page indicates how company names that are not also trademarks are to be treated. The onus is not on me to show that this is a problem, if people have not seem that – or have patently conflated the distinct notions of "trademark" and "trade name" (roughly the same as "company name").
I repeat yet again: I don't care how it goes! Just let it be clear and consensual. Let no one pretend that they understood these issues before they came up. The best policy is to admit when we learn something new. I certainly have, in researching this.
NoeticaTea? 06:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's rejecting anything. We're just trying to find out if anyone else cares about this one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
What's being said, I think, is that we've never taken into account (or pondered a need to take into account) the distinction between a trademark and a trade name. We've simply applied the guideline indiscriminately.
So the sensible course of action, I believe, is to reword the guideline to explicitly acknowledge that it applies to trade names (and we might as well mention service marks as well). Does that seem acceptable? —David Levy 07:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy. Just amend it to explicitly broaden it. That's all that needs to be done and no one seems concerned to have it otherwise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I always figured that the term "trademarks" was chosen back when this guideline was formed because it captured the ideas that the guideline was trying to address--nonstandard styles used in commercial branding. The same would apply to a name used in a commercial context even if that name were not trademarked for some reason. Croctotheface (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that, too. I do care how it goes, and if extra clarity is useful, let's go ahead and say "trademarks and trade-names (including company names)" or something like that once near the start. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, inviting comments here.
—Wavelength (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This might be of passing interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This might be of passing interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This might be of passing interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
See OnlineStylebooks.com, for guidelines, by various online style books, about trademarks.
——Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
We might consider using the forms WIKIPEDIA and ∩∩cDonald’s, but probably we will not use them.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
See ‘X’ Marks the BlackBerry Trademark Lawsuit.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I also do not have a preference either way. As the editor most interested in the issue and most informed about it, Noetica is probably in the best position to propose what the guideline should say. Then other editors can express their views about the proposal. (According to my recollection of past proposals, there might be a more serious participation by editors, after a specific proposal has been posted. Such is human nature, sometimes.) If anyone objects to Noetica being both the initiator of this discussion and the principal proponent of the new guideline, then I might be willing to propose what the guideline should say, although at this moment I have not decided either way.
It might be worth keeping in mind that there could be legal aspects requiring a future revision of the new guideline. In any case, I anticipate a large number of page moves (page renamings) and consequently a large number of updates to internal links. I do not wish to make those moves or those updates.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't need a "new guideline." We merely need to tweak the existing guideline to reflect its intended meaning (which how it's been interpreted and applied all along, so I don't anticipate many page moves). —David Levy 20:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Noetica doesn't sound like he wants to be a proponent one way or the other, so I took the liberty of proposing a small change, which I've just made in the lead. If anyone sees a better way, or objects to this approach, this should be the time for them to speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As discussed above, I support this sensible and simple clarification. I've tweaked the wording and added links to Service mark and Trade name. (Trademark already was linked.) —David Levy 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted two edits that introduced a change prematurely. The effect of the edits was not clear enough. Was the intention to have all of the provisions on the page applicable to service names and trade names as well as trademarks? That was not achieved.
The case for service marks is incidental, and easy to fix. There is a mere technical distinction from trademarks, with no consequences for the page. But trade names need further thought. I don't care how this goes exactly – as I have said twice earlier – so long as we all know the proper terms and make MOS accurate and interpretable.
If all of the provisions on the page are to apply by default to trade names (even the many that are not also trademarks) wherever this is possible, that needs to be stated in the lead or made general and visible in some other way. Otherwise the scope is still unclear. Note the "if". This still needs to be thought through, given that no one here shows any evidence of understanding the distinction between "trade name" and "trademark" before yesterday.
I propose to wait for some input from an expert in corporate law or international intellectual property law before making any suggestion of my own – which I would do on this talkpage. The page is a part of the Manual of Style for the Project, not a sandbox.
NoeticaTea? 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
See Category:Wikipedian intellectual property lawyers.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As you point out, we've never recognized the distinction before. The guideline always was intended to cover trademarks, service marks and trade names, which we treated as one and the same and referred to as "trademarks" (technically inaccurate usage that we now seek to correct, thereby bringing the wording in line with actual practice).
Do you have in mind a particular reason why we should handle trade names differently in this context? I'm unclear on how legal issues enter the equation.
I'd also appreciate your input on how the reverted edits failed to clarify the scope and how to go about rectifying the matter. —David Levy 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
See Intellectual property rights questions? Ask a lawyer ASAP.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The apparent existence of a legal concern perplexes me. As discussed above, trade names carry significantly less intellectual property protection than trademarks do. Why would we need to be more careful about how we treat them? —David Levy 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing to slow down, David. We're getting there! I think we have to be a little cautious generally when technical issues of law are concerned, so I proposed slowing down. Wavelength has made valuable suggestions; I have approached two of the specialist intellectual property lawyers to come here and take a look. And I have put a notice at WT:TITLE, and one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law‎.
My non-expert concern is that we might cover too much with a blanket inclusion of trade names. There may be unforeseen consequences. All sorts of entities may happen to be identified by trade names, and the provisions for those names may be dealt with better under other existing guidelines. Some churches or other religious organisations? Government instrumentalities? Sporting clubs that happen to trade as well? We don't know.
(It turns out, by the way, that "The LEGO Group" is not a trademark – at least as far as I can see from a TESS search here. And the trademark "LEGO" was held by a company presumably within LEGO Group in Denmark, but is technically associated also with a company in Switzerland. So in fact, the many votes at the RM for The LEGO Group that appeal without elaboration to this MOS page as it stands are just ill-founded, for what that is worth.)
NoeticaTea? 22:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's the thing, though. We don't seek to "extend" the guideline's scope. We merely seek to use more accurate wording, thereby clarifying what it's always meant (and how it's always been treated). Our actual practices wouldn't change. (We already apply these principles to trade names, despite the fact that we've heretofore neglected to explicitly indicate this.)
Please keep in mind that our guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They simply explain our consensus practices. If a guideline's wording doesn't jibe with how we actually do things, we modify the former, not the latter.
The respondents at Talk:The LEGO Group are correctly pointing to a guideline intended to cover (and routinely applied to) such situations, irrespective of the technical inaccuracy that you've brought to light. —David Levy 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "We don't seek to 'extend' the guideline's scope." That depends on what your reading of it was. Those who never knew the difference took it as spoken from a burning bush that "The LEGO Group" falls within the scope of this page. Those who knew more did not make the same assumption. For them, the page needs extension if "The LEGO Group" is to be covered. You do not show evidence to the contrary.
  • "Please keep in mind that our guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive." Who says? Why? Where is that written? It's simplistic anyway. Every manual of style, used among consenting adults, is necessarily descriptive and prescriptive. Don't confuse "prescription" and "policy". Both policy and guidelines are equally to be labelled prescriptive – just unequal in weight and precedence. (But again David, that's all another topic, for another time and place.)
  • "The respondents at Talk:The LEGO Group are correctly pointing to a guideline intended to cover (and routinely applied to) such situations, irrespective of the technical inaccuracy that you've brought to light." Another assertion that lacks rigorous demonstration. Experience with RMs at Mexican–American War, and the loooong sequel, shows that such uncertain certainties can lead to months of tribulation, and many full-time weeks of editors' time to set things right.
NoeticaTea? 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As you've correctly stated, we never recognized the distinction in the past. Given that fact, how could we possibly have intended to exclude cases that we didn't even realize fell outside a literal interpretation of the guideline's text?
    It's been noted at Talk:The LEGO Group that irrespective of what's written, we've never drawn such a distinction in practice.
    We seek to modify the wording to clarify its intended meaning, not to alter it.
  • It's written here. That our guidelines are "descriptive, not prescriptive" means that we don't do something because a guideline says so; a guideline says so because that's how we do things.
  • I don't understand your point. Certainly, disagreements arise. But I've never before seen anyone argue that this guideline was inapplicable to trade names or attempt to title an article accordingly. —David Levy 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your examples, suppose that we're writing articles about "SPRUCE STREET CHURCH," "SPRINGFIELD FIRE COMPANY" and "EAST SIDE FOOTBALL CLUB." Why would we want to retain this unconventional formatting?
I noticed that you wrote "sporting clubs that happen to trade as well." This appears to reflect a belief that we rely on the letter of a guideline to determine when and when not to apply it. That isn't so. We abide by the spirit.
Our guidelines are intended to provide a working understanding of how we operate, not to serve as statutes to which we must strictly adhere. Realistically, we can't explicitly mention every possible scenario without rendering the pages too long to read, so we try to cover most cases and leave the rest to common sense. If a situation differs only in an immaterial fashion, we apply the basic principles obviously intended to cover it (even if it technically doesn't fall under what's written). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
So we wouldn't look at the aforementioned "EAST SIDE FOOTBALL CLUB" and say "Well, they aren't engaged in trade, so we'll have to use the all-uppercase style." We would recognize that the same basic English principles apply and title the article accordingly. —David Levy 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
In the Cricut™ Style Guide at http://www.cricut.com/res/cricut-style-guide.pdf, I found the following information.
  • (under "Definitions")
  • Trademark: Any word, phrase, symbol, logo or other device (or any combination thereof) used by Cricut™ to identify and distinguish Cricut™ products (e.g., Cricut™).
  • (under "Proper Use of Cricut™ Marks")
  • Use marks as adjectives, followed immediately by an appropriate noun.
  • Do not use marks as nouns.
  • Do not use marks as verbs.
  • Do not use marks in the possessive or plural form.
Apparently, trademarks used as nouns or verbs can become genericized trademarks.
—Wavelength (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most egregious examples of pointless wikilawyering I have ever seen. We have a guideline that everyone - except Noetica - agrees has always applied to company names, that everyone - except Noetica - wants to apply to company names, and a simple solution for making sure that the guideline is clear that it does apply to company names. What in the Sam Hill is the holdup? Powers T 13:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid opinion, Powers. Please now withdraw the following lie:
  • that I do not want this guideline to apply to company names,
and the following unhelpful and unfounded assumption:
  • that everyone except me agrees has always applied to company names.
Please also reconsider this, in the light of your newly revealed ignorance of intellectual property law:
  • a simple solution for making sure that the guideline is clear that it does apply to company names.
It might have been simple, but it might not. We can have a better sense of things now that expert advice has been given, below. As for "pointless wikilawyering", do not confuse that and a concern for clarity and accuracy. See my record for WP:MOS, and see the last talkpage section that I started, as an example of a civil dialogue to resolve an issue of concern to those familiar with a fine point of usage, even if others were not. Note especially how I for my part responded productively to new information. You never know: you might learn something.
NoeticaTea? 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my frustration at this interminable and wholly avoidable discussion has shown through. My basic point remains, however, that there's only one person who has caused the rest of us to expend hours discussing a relatively minor issue that, to this point, was both unchallenged and uncontroversial. I'm sure you've been most helpful in creating some of the reams of MOS verbiage currently in our guidelines, but I'm afraid I'm not going to be persuaded that your contribution in this particular instance has helped improve the encyclopedia. We'll end up making the exact same naming decisions as we did before, except that now Noetica will agree with them because we made a minor change to a single document in the Wikipedia namespace. It's a complete waste of time. Powers T 04:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you are locked into thinking that way, Powers. While you divert us into insults that waste the precious time you are so concerned about, and go on about the whole thing being "interminable", others are doing something toward a conclusion. We are nearly there. If you are not a specialist in the precision and diligence that the drafting of MOS guidelines demands, stay out of the kitchen. I too have little time, and don't want to waste it on irrelevancies.
NoeticaTea? 05:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Greetings! I was invited to drop into this discussion and opine based on my years of experience as a trademark attorney. I can see no reason whatsoever that trade names should be treated any differently from trade marks, service marks, or certification marks. They have no legal distinction in the USPTO, although an inconsistent handful of state permit or require business owners to place DBA's and other corporate names on a state register. If anything, we should be even less concerned with adhering to the style adopted by the owner of a trade name, because to the extent that they differ from the marks used for the products and services sold, they tend to be used less prominently than those marks. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your specialist opinion, BD2412. It is very helpful. Interesting that you consider it possibly less important to have concerns about the form of trade names. We should consider, I suppose, whether this affects any new wording here. In the specific case of "The LEGO Group", we can be confident that it is not a trademark. Is it a trade name? If it is, then perhaps it still may not be a pressing matter to lower-case that "LEGO" as an element of the name. "RAND" has several entries as a trademark, which a TESS search shows as registered by The RAND Corporation ("Rand" in just one instance). Our article has the title "RAND Corporation", which is also not a trademark but presumably a trade name. The cases are closely parallel, then. Both "RAND" and "LEGO" are formed as acronyms. I don't care what happens to either of those titles; I only care that the guidelines are clear and accurate, and that we are consistent unless there is a reason not to be.
NoeticaTea? 22:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
If LEGO is the acronym people say it is, why don't we make it LeGo? And why isn't RAND rendered as RAnD? Because nobody does that. So the acronym excuse is specious, I think; the only thing relevant is that they style themselves and LEGO and RAND, and we style them as Lego and Rand because MOS:TM says so (once we clarify it). Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Because acronyms are not expected always to work that way. It is extremely common to capitalise all letters in an acronym, even if they are not all initial letters. Consider ngrams for the very common statistical term ANOVA,Anova,anova,AnOVa,AnoVa. It is an acronym for analysis of variance; and if our article used the acronym for its title, it would surely be ANOVA (currently a redirect). Of course this is not iron-clad, and usage differs (compare "MOS" and "MoS", locally). But why ignore the ngram evidence for LEGO Group,Lego Group,LeGo Group, with common usage favouring "LEGO Group"? WP:MOSCAPS calls for acronyms not to be interfered with: "Do write in all capitals for acronyms and initialisms, unless the acronym gains common usage as an ordinary, lowercase word (such as scuba and laser, but not NATO)." The common usage as shown by ngrams for the corporation in question is "LEGO Group". I don't care, as I say! But let's not pretend this is all just obvious. Beware the "just obvious". k. d. lang is that singer's registered trademark; should we therefore, in strict accordance with WP:MOSTM, move her article to K. D. Lang (a current redirect)? O, and beware of "common sense", everyone. Others firmly believe that God is on their side too.
NoeticaTea? 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that you consider it possibly less important to have concerns about the form of trade names.
BD2412 stated that "if anything, we should be even less concerned with adhering to the style adopted by the owner of a trade name."
This doesn't mean that we should care less about what style is used at Wikipedia. It means that applying normal English conventions instead of an owner's preferred treatment is even less likely to be problematic with trade names than it is with trademarks.
BD2412 "can see no reason whatsoever that trade names should be treated any differently from trade marks, service marks, or certification marks." That's rather unambiguous. —David Levy 00:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
O, the broader point was always taken. But this is not unambiguous: "if anything, we should be even less concerned with adhering to the style adopted by the owner of a trade name." We have fewer reservations about adhering to it, or about overriding it, or about it as an issue for this page at all?
NoeticaTea? 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No such ambiguity exists. BD2412 clearly stated that trademarks and trade names should receive the same treatment, noting that if anything, it's safer for us to override trade name owners' preferences. —David Levy 00:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You read it one way, without seeing other possible readings. On that basis you claim that it was unambiguous. Whatever BD2412 will say, his statement was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Those who issue utterances may be the authorities on what they meant to say, but not on what messages may actually be received. (That's one reason to have editors!) It would be good to assume not only good faith, but also competence in reading English. I do not think I lack either; and I trust BD2412 will in good faith clarify what was actually intended.
If BD2412 does come back here, I will hope for an opinion on the cases "RAND Corporation" and "LEGO Group". For these company names I find no distinction in applicability of Wikipedia guidelines. Do you? WP:MOSCAPS would want both the full-capped words kept full-capped. Should anything in the present MOS page be taken to override this? The answer is not obvious, despite the strength of anyone's preconceived opinions on the matter.
NoeticaTea? 01:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, the referenced articles should be at Rand Corporation and Lego Group; the policy on this page should apply to trade names just as it does to trademarks, and we should be even less concerned with reflecting company preferences for how their company name is capitalized than we might be with reflecting company preferences for how their trademarks are capitalized. bd2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks once again.
If there are no competing expert opinions, I think it is reasonable to include all company names, all trade names, and of course all service names fully within the scope of all provisions on this MOS page. I propose that this new paragraph be added to the lead:

On this page the term "trademark" includes in its scope all trademarks, all trade names, and all names used in corporate branding.

How's that? Service namesmarks need no separate mention, since the term is far from universal and certainly covered under "all names used in corporate branding".
NoeticaTea? 02:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Our Corporate branding article indicates that "corporate branding is the practice of using a company's name as a product brand name," so it isn't clear that this encompasses service marks (but it does appear to be covered by "trade name" and "trademark"). I propose:

This page's scope includes all trademarks, service marks and business names.

—David Levy 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't questioning your reading skills (just as I assume you weren't questioning mine). Each of us merely opined that the other was mistaken regarding the existence of ambiguity. —David Levy 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(I have fixed a slip in what I wrote above: name > mark.) Your point about reading ability is weak, as I could show in argument. But leave it, yes? I'm happy with some aspects of your alternative wording, David. Some concerns, however:

Is the coverage sufficient? There is a question about names used in business that are not also trade names. See this text from West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

Trade names are used by profit and non-profit entities, political and religious organizations, industry and agriculture, manufacturers and producers, wholesalers and retailers, sole proprietorships and joint ventures, partnerships and corporations, and a host of other business associations. A trade name may be the actual name of a given business or an assumed name under which a business operates and holds itself out to the public.

And from Trade name on WP:

A trade name, also known as a trading name or a business name, is the name which a business trades under for commercial purposes, although its registered, legal name, used for contracts and other formal situations, may be another.

If the intention is to cover all names with legal status in business, then we should say so. Is that the intention?

I can't see any reason for your use of business name, which redirects to trade name and would most likely be read as excluding other names used in business, almost as much as my formulation did.

I disagree with omitting "all", and associated specifics of your wording. You would leave it unclear which provisions might apply beyond trademarks, and which might not. In my formulation, that is not a problem. That is why I chose to use "scope" exactly as I did.

I don't know about the objection to use of "corporate branding"; but it is not essential, and can be dispensed with if we disagree.

My revised proposal:

On this page the term "trademark" includes in its scope all trademarks, all service marks, all trade names, and all other names of business entities.

"All" is important.

NoeticaTea? 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point about reading ability is weak, as I could show in argument.
My "point" was that I didn't intend to insult you (and trust that you intended no offense either).
But leave it, yes?
Yes, please.
If the intention is to cover all names with legal status in business, then we should say so.
Your solution (the addition of "all other names of business entities") works for me.
I can't see any reason for your use of business name, which redirects to trade name and would most likely be read as excluding other names used in business, almost as much as my formulation did.
My rationale is that most users would find "business name" (a synonymous term) more familiar/understandable. I don't know what distinction in probable readings you're drawing, but it seems that your addition of "all other names of business entities" would render this moot, yes?
I disagree with omitting "all", and associated specifics of your wording. You would leave it unclear which provisions might apply beyond trademarks, and which might not.
I regard such an interpretation as unlikely, but I can live with the additional instances of "all" if you disagree.
That is why I chose to use "scope" exactly as I did.
I prefer to cite the guideline's scope, given the fact that it's inaccurate to label some of the other concepts "trademark" (hence this discussion).
I don't know about the objection to use of "corporate branding"; but it is not essential, and can be dispensed with if we disagree.
Indeed, I simply regard it as inessential (because it pertains to a concept fully covered by other terms).
Proposed compromise:

This guideline (in its entirety) applies to all trademarks, all service marks, all business names, and all other names of business entities.

—David Levy 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
David, hardly anything calls for comment in what you write. I accept the compromise, and since it is you and I who are making the running, it will be reasonable if I now add what you have proposed. I'll do that after posting this comment.
Just something on this: "I prefer to cite the guideline's scope, given the fact that it's inaccurate to label some of the other concepts 'trademark' (hence this discussion)." I appreciate your acknowledgement that there was a genuine issue to resolve, and the way we are both now cautious to use terms informatively and accurately.
No harm can come of the addition; it makes a better MOS page, and saves it from the sort of disrepute that WP:MOS fell into before it was refined. More improvements need to be made there, here, in every MOS page, and in pages like WP:TITLE. They serve the needs of the Project's 6,906,704 articles, and make Wikipedia a better resource for the serious purposes that it is increasingly put to. Some will disagree, and some will be impatient. They call it as they see it; so do I. That's Wikipedia. I am pleased to have collaborated with you here, and I hope we can do that again.
NoeticaTea? 11:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_9&oldid=1089920477"