Talk:Post-it note/Archives/2023

Geoff Nicholson

The name of Geoff Nicholson, a man who's regularly called the "Father of Post-it Notes", is missing in the article, e. g. [1]. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-It Sticky title

The title of the article seems to be a branded title which does not seem to overwhelm the generic term "sticky note" in use, I therefore suggest that the title be changed in favor of the generic term73.243.250.179 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

My identical proposal four years ago failed. So good luck with that. Largoplazo (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Post-it note is used more than sticky note in my experience. What is your evidence to the contrary? ---Khajidha (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sticky Note = The 3M Brand?

'Sticky Note' deserves its own article, instead of an automatic redirection. I have tried, but failed(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sticky_note&action=history). You may read the discussion(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sticky_note). Gillette is the dominating brand of disposable razors, but should the article for 'disposable razor' be an automatic redirection to Gillete's article? That should not be the case even if the producer is a monoploy. Please use logic. I simply want things to make sense logically. Since this is too difficult due to some strange reasons, I must give up.110.174.132.162 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not really relatable, since Gillete is a company, that would make sense if post-it note and sticky note redirected to 3M. But use common sense, post-it note and sticky note mean the same thing, sure, one is a more branded name (and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a move to sticky note), but they are duplicate articles. It would be as if you would create an article at air bubble packaging, which is clearly the same thing as bubble wrap, because other non-trademarked products existed, it's still a duplicate article and relevant information should go in bubble wrap. Dylsss (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Gillette is both a company name and a brand name. You had failed to understand the logic from the beginning. Look at the symbols at the end of the followings and check the respective company websites - 'Gillette®' and 'Post-it®' are on the same level in terms of legal status. The other points that should follow have already been mentioned. There is no need to repeat here. Do not worry, I have read some more talk history. The matter is not particularly with you. Thank you for the guidance. I have learned something. It is possible that the problem is on the term 'common sense'. The 'common sense' of dictionary editors, like those in Cambridge University Press(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/sticky-note)(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/post-it-note?q=post-it), is different from that of the editors of this English version of Wikipedia. The voters who opposed to establishing a de-branded article five years ago gave the reason that they seldom heard of the other names, despite the statistical data the proposer quoted, showing that it was just them, but not users of the English language in general. That is understandable. However, the tendency to disallow a few lines of 'duplication' to exist is pretty strange. Perhaps there are millions of 'duplicated' disambiguation pages to delete. It could be about ethnocentricity, brilliant marketing strategies or something worse. Anyway, I shall not try to dig into this. It must be terribly deep. By the way, you should try to merge the articles 'Bubble Wrap' and 'Bubble Wrap (brand)', or delete either, according to your reasoning about duplication.110.174.132.162 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)