Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Tik Tok → TiK ToK per CamelCase/StudlyCaps and other proposals

It seems these kind of incidents have been brought time and time again, so why not bring it up again? :)

The song Tik Tok official title and trademark is TiK ToK, and apparently consensus was brought up and reached on the talk page to change to the official title. Then a user comes along and changes it back without discussing it citing it violates the MOSTR guideline that reads "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'"

My proposal was farily simple (I thought), even after I had acknowledged that it is just a guideline and not a policy. I proposed: "But if the Time article doesn't use it, then a song probably shouldn't either. However, wouldn't it make (logical and common) sense to include (trademarked as "TiK ToK") and make the redirect point to the article and not the disambiguation page? Also, maybe add this to the top the "Tik Tok" article:

{{redirect|TiK ToK||Tik Tok (disambiguation)}}"

That's not in favor for one person, since apparently I'm some incompetent neophyte and suggested that I bring this up here, since the article's talk page isn't the right place.  ;) What do others think here that should be done, if anything? Thanks. :) —Mike Allen 05:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When did I ever refer to you as incompetent? Please stop trying to make me look like I was engaging in an incivil manner when that was obviously not the case. And no, the Tik Tok (song) talk page wasn't the right place any longer as it was now an issue regarding this MOS guideline that could not be changed by discussion on the other talk page.

I think I've fully explained my reasoning at the talk page in question. There's no need to explain myself as this MOS page clearly states what should be done in cases such as these. Chase wc⁹¹ 06:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chase I just wasn't following the whole "That's not how we do things here" comment. I'll tell you I've been here long enough to know how a consensus works. —Mike Allen 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal view on this is that, "TiK ToK" should be directed to the proper article, "Tik Tok (song)" because if someone types in that specific stylisation, it is obvious what they are looking for, therefore they should be lead there. It is just stupid redirecting it to a disambiguation page.. • вяαdcяochat 14:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. When I saw the title of the song on the Billboard, I thought I would check the appropriate Wikipedia article by typing in the correct title, only to get a unnecessary run-around on a disambiguation page. Totally unnecessary and incongruously stupid. —Mike Allen 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"TiK ToK" should definitely redirect straight to the song's page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

TiK ToK now redirects to Tik Tok (song), with a dablink directing to Tick tock for other uses. But is this discussion not about what to title the article? Chase wc⁹¹ 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as what to title the article, it seems like "Tik Tok" is pretty prevalent in sources [1], and it's a more standard style, so this guideline recommends quite strongly in favor of using it over a nonstandard style. I don't think that invoking the language about camelcase applies here, as camelcase is widely considered part of standard English formatting, while "studlycaps" doesn't have much cachet with copy editors or major publications. It's certainly appropriate to mention the nonstandard formatting early on in the article (as it now does) and to change the redirect as well. Croctotheface (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Croc and thanks for your input. I noticed you wrote this; so I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I wasn't suggesting we flat out break a guideline (over a petty issue at that). I had just wanted to bring up that; a guideline states: "it will have occasional exceptions" and maybe figure out if this particular occurrence had that exception because I'm obviously not qualified to make such a judgment call my self, which is why I brought the discussion up (especially since it had previously been determined to change the title). But, I then recanted that, since the Time article straight-out follows the guideline and it being a major subject. Therefore this song's title could obviously stay the same. Also, judging by the source you've provided—I'm sure WP:COMMONNAME could apply here. Furthermore, I am happy that we reached the verdict to redirect TiK ToK to the correct page. At the end of the day, that was my main concern. I probably should just stick to film articles.... :-) —Mike Allen 05:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-scope?

The rules this page describes don't seem to be limited to trademarks in any way other than the examples provided. It seems to be widely accepted that in general we don't do funny typography, and I've seen actual use of "That doesn't apply, because X isn't a trademark" as a defence of non-standard formatting. The rules in here don't seem to be documented or explained elsewhere, so perhaps the (trademarks) bit of the title should be dropped as historical, and replaced with something like (typography) (I dread to think the move wars we'd have over how to spell "styliszed"), and reword it slightly. This will at least be more useful than having to explain to people "Yes, it's called Manual of Style (trademarks), but mainly for historical reasons". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples?

I'm not sure "Typography" is the best word. That suggests this is about fonts.

Maybe instead, call this page "Trademarks and related"? Maurreen (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Or change it to "Trademarks and logos"? Maurreen (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What other kinds of names, apart from trademarks (in the general sense), are often subject to non-standard typographical presentation? 13:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

Why not other creative casing?

In a nutshell, my answer to Letdorf is that the the "eBay rule" is probably a compromise. Maurreen (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Caps contradiction

Here is a contradiction from the project page:

• Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:
  • avoid: EBay is where he bought his IPod.
  • instead, use: eBay is where he bought his iPod.

Maurreen (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the contradiction?—Iknow23 (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It says. "should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules." A normal capitalization rule is to capitalize the first letter of a sentence. The examples directly break this rule. Maurreen (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I was thinking that maybe you meant that since a section is titled "General rules" that circumstances outside of them should be shown in a section titled "Exceptions".—Iknow23 (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So, should we change the examples to "otherwise follow normal capitalization rules"? Maurreen (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused again.—Iknow23 (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we flip the examples to this:

• Avoid: eBay is where he bought his iPod.
• Instead, use: EBay is where he bought his IPod. Maurreen (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It's trying to say that this is an exception to the "General rules". Perhaps this:

• Sentences starting with trademarks that begin with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. This is an exception to the "General rules".
  • avoid: EBay is where he bought his IPod.
  • instead, use: eBay is where he bought his iPod.
    —Iknow23 (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We disagree. Why don't we wait and see if anyone else weighs in? Maurreen (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure.—Iknow23 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The example should read "EBay is where he bought his iPod" by my reading of the above. By the way, I still don't understand why the guideline allows this exception, but not other "creative" uses of upper and lower case. Letdorf (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

My feeling about this case is that this category (one letter i- or e- prefixes) are so prevalent that they are accepted as part of standard English. As a result, I don't really see them as exceptions to the rule. If we're going to tweak the language in the guideline, I don't think it's wise to make reference to "exceptions." Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that it is an exception (or compromise as said below) made for trademarks and should add a third example to better clarify this, as in:

• however, use: Email is used by millions every day.

Email is NOT shown as 'eMail' because it it NOT a trademark.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this turns on those being trademarks. "Email" is not a proper noun, which strikes me as a more important distinction as well as a reason that we never had to worry about an internal capital there. Also, I think that our style guide is OK with either "email" or "e-mail," so making it seem like we prefer one or another raises some issues. I really don't think anything is very confusing here, and if it is, I don't think that this type of change would help. What might be confusing is why we'd use this when it might appear nonstandard. I'd be OK with answering that question in the text with some reference to sourcing or some reference to "iPod" being standard English, but I think that everything that's been propsed so far raises a new question for each one it hopes to answer. I think the big distinction here is that our sources basically all use "eBay" rather than "E-bay" or "Ebay" or "E-Bay" or whatever else. These same sources that use "eBay" do not use "eMail." So when the sources agree to such a large extent, there's a compelling case that what they do is standard English, so there's no issue with such styles going against the guideline in the first place. Croctotheface (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "e-mail" is not relevant here. (Email is NOT shown as 'eMail' because I it's likely never done that way.)

I think "eBay" and "iPod" are in widespread use within sentences, but often quandaries at the start of a sentences. I expect that few references address these directly.

The only authority I know of on these is Bill Walsh. He is a copy editor at the Washington Post who has written a couple of books on style and also has a blog.

I don't have either book with me. But in this blog post, he says, "Grant eBay (not eBay.com) a one-letter grace period if you like, as long as it's not at the beginning of a sentence." Maurreen (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in names

Following on from the recent move of "Sk8r Boi" to "Skater Boi" it seems that perhaps MOSTM is not as clear as it could be with dealing with numbers in place of letters in titles and names (see discussion here Talk:Skater_Boi#Article_title). I feel that MOSTM needs to be more clear regarding the use of numbers in place of letters in titles etc. This is a wide ranging issue and is also dealt with by WP:COMMONNAME. It is my opinion (and interpretation of the current MOSTM wording) that numbers that are pronounced as letters (see homophone) are allowed, particularly if that style of name is the more widely recognised styling. This would incorporate examples such as Sk8r Boi, 2 Fast 2 Furious, 4ever (album) etc. However, where a letter is used simply to replace a letter that it looks like (for instance a 3 in place of a B (as in 13eaver (album)) or a 5 in place of an S (or even an F as in the case of 5ive (album)), as these are purely decorative and stylistic in nature, MOSTM suggests they should be rendered as letters. So, the question is, should all numbers in titles be replaced with the corresponding word/letter regardless of COMMONNAME, or should there be specific examples of when to replace numbers for letters and when not. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about cases like "Se7en/Seven," and I think the guideline is clear that we should go with "Seven" in a case like that. The other cases are harder. The first thing I usually do with this stuff is check what sources that would generally be considered standard English use. It seems like there's a general preference for "sk8er" there, for instance within the New York Times. I can see the argument that "Sk8er Boi" is sufficiently nonstandard that it should be standardized (and "Skater Boi" does show up in some sources), so I think it boils down to a judgment call as to how to apply the guideline, which should be solved with discussion and consensus. Assuming that "Sk8er" was the style in use for several years, I'd imagine the "default" would be to that style. Croctotheface (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So do you think something to this effect should be added to MOSTM to avoid further confusion? As for Skater Boi, should it be moved back to Sk8er Boi? Nouse4aname (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with either style. As far as amending the guideline, I'm kind of resistant to doing that in this instance. I think that these kinds of cases are best solved by discussion and consensus, and I don't think that the guideline needs to speak to every possibility. Beyond that, I'm not positive that there's a consensus for dealing with this sort of thing. I can give my opinion, but I don't want to portray myself as someone who speaks for all Wikipedians. Croctotheface (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should be counting titles of creative works in most cases to be "trademarks" in the spirit of this guideline. A title is a title, and if Sk8ter Boi's titling was supposed to be a sort of homage to teenage/cellphone/leetspeak language, then so be it. If we can have Thnks fr th Mmrs as a proper title on Wikipedia without it being homophonically converted into "Thanks for the Memories (Fall Out Boy song)", what's wrong with Sk8ter Boi? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaving out letters is different from substituting numbers for letters. But this issue was dealt with a month ago anyway. Maurreen (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If the song or album or whatever has a number in it then surely it should be left alone? You can't really change it just because you don't like it...for example I think Skater Boi should be changed back to Sk8er Boi because thats how it's listed on the Avril Lavigne album. Zylo1994 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation?

Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Concern!

I have a Concern!. My Concern! is that MOS:TM is being eroded by use of exclamation points on the ends of company names. Yahoo! has been allowed, and now that case has been used as precedent for BevMo!, discussion at which also cites the absence of a specific MOS:TM prohibition as tacit support for use of exclamation points. Perhaps there are additional cases, too. Not only is this problematic for punctuation and readability, but it seems a direct contradiction to the MOS:TM principle of avoiding drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others (WP is not a soapbox). Note also that the discussion at Yahoo! references works of art such as Oklahoma! as precedent. I would offer that works of art might be excluded from use of exclamation points as well, but also that mitigating factors there include that titles of works of art usually appear distinguished in text by italics or quotes to the benefit of readability, and also that works of art are categorically different from company names, including the textual tone of contexts in which they appear as well as the public relations resources behind them. ENeville (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Yahoo! is allowed. Should we make that explicit? Maurreen (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the exclamation point in "Yahoo!" is bad style in body text, and I agree that in that this guideline recommends against using it. However, I think that there is an express prohibition within the guideline already ("avoid using special characters that are not pronounced"). I also think that as much as I think it's a silly issue, using "Yahoo" instead of "Yahoo!" won't gain consensus anytime soon. I've participated in more than one discussion on the issue, and there was never enough support to omit the exclamation point. I'm troubled if that decision is regarded as setting "precedent," even though we're not supposed to follow precedent as such on WP, but I don't think that amending the guideline to say the opposite of the consensus at the Yahoo article's talk page would be a wise course of action.

I should also add that I regard exclamation points such as this as worthy of a little more leeway/concentration, since there are cases like Oliver! that use the exclamation point for more the decoration. I kind of see the Yahoo case as one where the consensus view holds a different opinion on where to draw the line, but it's not some sort of fundamental disagreement. Croctotheface (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

General style guidelines

I see removal of Category:General style guidelines was reverted. AFAICT, the category doesn't mean "the most important style guidelines" to anyone, it means "the style guidelines that I generate monthly diffs for at WP:Update". This was one of the style guidelines that gets fewer monthly hits than the ones I'm doing; who would like to do the monthly diffs for this guideline? - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could preserve the meaning of CAT:GEN as "style guidelines that get updated monthly". Any takers for this guideline? - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the category has been proposed for deletion or merging; see Wikipedia_talk:MOS#CFM:_Category:General_style_guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mitsubishi i MiEV vs I MIEV

Most of the commentators at the discussion for the article title prefer i MiEV versus I MIEV or I Miev. We don't see an issue with the mixed case. In general I agree with the guidelines but, does what feel correct count?   Comments or suggestions?   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that "i MiEV" seems acceptable overall.

The guideline does not specifically address such variation. This name style is borderline, but if it is accepted by a consensus of editors, that puts it on the acceptable side of the border, in my view. (My personal view is not in favor of the style, but we can't always get what we want.:))

Using reliable sources might help resolve disagreement. Maurreen (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bullet 6

I think bullet six should be removed; the one that states to Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced. It honestly doesn't make sense why we shouldn't be allowed to use those characteristics. Sure they're unpronounceable, but the readers know that. Also, it makes Wikipedia seem like it isn't presenting the right information.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When to not use trademarks

This guideline should have information, or at least a link to information, about when to not use trademarks. For example, trademarks that do not belong to the Wikimedia Foundation should not be used to refer to material published by the Wikimedia Foundation. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about the kind of case you're talking about. Do you mean that we shouldn't use "Xerox" instead of "photocopy"? Croctotheface (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. If we said "Wikisource is a virtual Xerox of free content", that would be wrong, because Wikisource is provided by Wikimedia Foundation, not Xerox Corporation, and it would be wrong to offer anything to the public with a trademark applied to it if we do not own the rights to the trademark. It would be wrong to rename the Wikipedia Help Desk to Wikipedia Geek Squad, and so on. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that a serious enough problem to have a guideline address it? Croctotheface (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw a barnstar that incorporated a mark reserved to the Red Cross (although it was not actually a trademark). The barnstar started out on Wikipedia but was later copied to commons. I nominated it for deletion and it was eventually deleted. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the process worked fine without a guideline, no? Croctotheface (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if you view the purpose of the guideline as a justification to delete stuff, rather than a means to prevent inappropriate text and images from being placed in Wikipedia in the first place. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this guideline contains anything that's "a justification to delete stuff." This is a style guideline that discusses the best way to format text within our encyclopedia articles. My point is that we don't need guidelines to speak to every possible issue that could arise. You've given one instance where something happened, and it was resolved the way that you had wanted. I don't see why we need a guideline to spell anything out in this case; it appears that our current policies and guidelines address this circumstance well enough. You mention "prevention" in your edit summary, but I seriously doubt that amending this guideline would've prevented anything from happening; I doubt more than 10% of editors here have read this guideline even once. Part of the reason that so few editors are familiar with our guidelines is that there are so many of them, and we shouldn't compound the problem by expanding them to cover minor problems that are being handled correctly as is. Croctotheface (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mid-word punctuation and eXpress

How should I spell RAIL.ONE?

Also, does the "e" in "eXpress" (f.e. in "Korea Train eXpress") fit the "one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter" definition? --Rontombontom (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Important fact

Я is the Cyrillic letter Ya. It cannot be used as a backwards R. Yet, this section of MOS says that it's okay to use Я as a backwards R once if it's in a logo. Why can't we create a png image for a backwards R instead of using Я?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it even possible to put a character image within text, and have it appear the same hight as the text in every browser? 117Avenue (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why this doesn't work if you just upload an image of a backwards R?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the size of text is based on a browse’s settings, while an image may be pixel based. Fo example, the r's in this sentence appea to be the correct size in my browse, but how do they appea in yous? Now change you view settings, does it still look the same? 117Avenue (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They look kind of out-of-line. How should I change my view settings?? I have Google Chrome. Georgia guy (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Using images for textual information is deprecated by MOS:IMAGES for many reasons. I'm not aware of any other Unicode glyphs resembling a mirrored "R", so if you really want to show one, there's not much alternative to the Cyrillic "Ya". Letdorf (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Trademark symbols

A new editor just got slapped down rather impolitely on the Sterno article, by a long-experienced editor who says we NEVER use trademark and registered trademark symbols on WP. That was news to me, I came here to the MoS section to what MoS says about it, and found what it it says, is nonsensical:

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

My comment here is that since generic and brand name drugs have different NAMES (warfarin vs. Coumadin) and one is always capitalized as a proper name and the other is not, it's never unavoidable to use a symbol for context. It's HELPFUL, so long as it's done only once in an article, to show that Hyfrecator® was once a registered trademark, but is no longer one. Or that the capital in a use of the word Coumadin® is not a mistake, and one of the generic class of coumadins is not meant. And there is the whole business with aspirin, which was and is an ongoing legal battle (it's trademarked in some countries but not others). However, use of symbol is never unavoidable. However, that being the case, it brings up the question of what these symbols are doing in our WP symbol list at all, if their use is forever forbidden? I don't think this has been thought out. In summary, the present policy regarding these symboles is incomplete, contradictory, and ill-considered. They should occasionally be used, once per article, to add information (for example, they don't mean the same thing). SBHarris 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the meaning of the MoS quote isn't very clear. Surely, either we use them the way the trademark holder would, or we don't use them at all (apart from when we are discussing the use of the symbols themselves, of course). Letdorf (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

• Yes, I agree. Here, as in other areas of Wikipedia, there is a fundamental rule: "Wikipedia cannot subset reality or oppose the real world". My advice is to beware wiki-spastic rules or concepts not widely endorsed by the world at large. We need to review this policy, as well as others, to get in line with the real world, not be a document which advocates some people's personal, pet styles of capitalization. In 2006/2007, the decades-old food product "SPAM" was downcased to "Spam" as if the all-caps version "SPAM" was banned from the English language. Naturally, we should never, ever, downcase computer firm "IBM" into "Ibm" or the "IBM PC" as "Ibm Pc" or any other, similar wiki-spastic style of twisting mainstream product or company names. If a company has named their product "SPAM" and discourages use of lowercase letters, then that should be heeded. For a trademark, it would be simple to set a footnote which define's a particular trademark's status and form. For a lowercase trademark, such as the TV series "thirtysomething", it is easy to put a name in quotes when the format might be unusual, such as a band whose name is "'M'powr" (with apostrophes). The WP policy should not insist on using "eBay" but forbid use of lowercase "thirtysomething", because such an inconsistency appears to favor recentism and current popularity. I think the next step would be to tag the trademark policy as disputed, after a while, to try to see who favors the unrealistic rules about trademarks. -Wikid77 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually talking about the use of the ™ and ® symbols in WP articles in my last comment, but I agree with your argument (as my previous contributions to the page will show). Regards. Letdorf (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC).