Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks
Misc.
FINALLY! (fitting first word, eh? ^_-)
A place to discuss product names in Wikipedia.
Since it's currently discussed, I will start with DOOM³. That's the way it is printed on the game's box.
Now I won't object for lower letters, even though I would like to use the correct spelling, but "³" just has a different meaning. Even more so for Heavy Metal: F.A.K.K.² which is the "official" spelling when written, according to a Raven employee who I asked.
Everyone writes Heavy Metal FAKK2 (notice the missing space between K and 2) "for the sake of our sanity" but shouldn't an Encyclopedia use the game "how it's meant to be played"? SCNR
This is just my 2(euro)¢ and I would be happy to have any decision made, so we can just move on, without having to rename more and more articles every day.
Should "to the power of" and abbreviation dots in product names be used or not? -- Lightkey 18:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind that I know very little about these games, I would probably write them as "Doom3" and "Heavy Metal Fakk2". If I knew more, the answer might be different. Maurreen 19:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And also while I'm at it, can anyone give me a hint where discussion of those three questions about titles in lists could be?
Thanks. -- Lightkey 18:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand the question. Maurreen 19:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Woooo, thanks for the prompt answer.. well, which question do you not understand? I'm looking for a talk page like this for the questions that I've written in that link. -- Lightkey 19:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't get the "three questions". I don't play computer games. But maybe have you tried a page for Linux games? Maurreen 19:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Errr.. that is a page for Linux games. ;) I have tried to get the questions more clear with examples, maybe it's understandable now? -- Lightkey 19:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Recent edits by User:Anthony DiPierro
Why were these sections deleted? They are both relevant and important. — flamuraiº 12:19, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Maurreen 14:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, let's get a consensus. So far, there are two people who defend them. I don't know where you stand on this issue. — 15:28, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not one of those people who removes guidelines I agree with just because there was no vote on them. I think "Telecom*USA" is perfectly appropriate in an article, and I think a blanket restriction of TM and ® is not appropriate.
Please give your logic behind this. First, the reason to have those rules is so text does not become cluttered with symbols that make it harder to read. Regarding the first deletion: The point of punctuation is to give the reader clues as to the structure of the language. It should not be used in an encyclopedia just to add style, as it is in Telecom*USA or Guess?. Regarding the second: Those symbols are used for legal purposes to declare ownership over a name or symbol. Encylopedias, newspapers, etc. are not required to use those symbols. They just serve to clutter prose. Second, the style guide in and of itself is not a blanket proclamation. If there is a place where the ® or TM provides information important to the context, it would be acceptable to include the symbol. However, in most cases, all these symbols do is break up the flow of the text and make it less readable. — flamuraiº 16:23, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- First, the reason to have those rules is so text does not become cluttered with symbols that make it harder to read. I don't see anything difficult to read in a "*", "?", or "!". The point of punctuation is to give the reader clues as to the structure of the language. That's not the only point. Sometimes we do it just to be accurate. For instance, Yahoo!. Regarding the second: Those symbols are used for legal purposes to declare ownership over a name or symbol. Encylopedias, newspapers, etc. are not required to use those symbols. I never said we were required to use them. I just think in some circumstances we should. Second, the style guide in and of itself is not a blanket proclamation. "Do not use special symbols TM and ®." is a blanket statement. If you'd like to simply point out that we are not legally required to use those symbols, then fine. If there is a place where the ® or TM provides information important to the context, it would be acceptable to include the symbol. Fine, then we should say "Do not use special symbols TM and ® when they are not important to the context." That's acceptable to me. Is it OK with you? anthony 警告 16:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That compromise is acceptable, however, it should be worded stronger. I think "... unless they are important to the context" is better.
- Regarding the other point, I think it is acceptable to use the corporate form on the article about the subject, but within prose where context hasn't yet been established, it's superfluous and confusing. In an article about Yahoo, we know the exclamation point is purely a decorative part of the Yahoo name, but in an isolated instance, the exclamation mark raises a false alarm that it is the end of a sentence. I suggest you read this article, particularly point 6, Punctuation is not decoration.
- Anthony, how do you figure that there was no consensus? Maurreen 18:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "unless they are important to the context" is fine with me (in fact I consider it equivalent). I'm not sure an exclamation point makes you think it is part of a sentence if it is part of a web link or part of an italicised word, but I suppose this might be true in some contexts. But the example given wasn't even an exclamation point, it was an asterisk. I don't see the harm in using an asterisk to be more accurate, despite what Bill Walsh says. I wonder how far this is meant to be taken? Can we call the language C++? Is CVS/pharmacy acceptable? Just what characters are in and which are out? anthony 警告 18:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It depends on the use. If a punctuation mark is purely for decoration, it's out. If it's semantically necessary, it's in. The "++" in "C++" is necessary to distinguish it from C. The "*" in "Telecom*USA", the "?" in "Guess?", and the "!" in "Yahoo!" are purely decorative; they do not change the meaning of the word. "Yahoo" (capital Y) and "Yahoo!" are obviously the same entity, as are "Telecom*USA" and "Telecom USA". — flamuraiº 19:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I guess that's reasonable. In this case I suppose CVS/pharmacy would be borderline but in. My only issue now is that this isn't a guideline which we're following. Let's fix Yahoo! first, then add the guideline if no one complains. anthony 警告 19:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Okay. Someone else complained about TIME (that it should be moved to Time magazine or something of the sort), so that might be another good testing ground. — flamuraiº 19:54, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I edited Yahoo! and TIME. — flamuraiº 18:59, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- I've added these guidelines back, but I marked the first as "proposed" which can be removed if no one objects to the Yahoo! change. Either way, you've convinced me, so I've removed my objection. anthony 警告 22:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further refinement suggestion:
- Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration. In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, the standard English alternative should be used.
— [[User:Flamurai|flamuraiTM]] 01:29, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, I edited in the phrasing, changed a bit to flow better into the example. How long should we wait to drop the "proposed" tag? Also, are there any other articles that need addressing under this guideline? (CVS/pharmacy only uses the slash the first time the name is mentioned.) — [[User:Flamurai|flamuraiTM]] 06:35, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
So, what do we need to do to promote the style back from "proposed" status? Maurreen 06:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the idea is to wait and see if anyone has a problem with it, using the Yahoo! article as a test case. I'm not sure what would be a prudent amount of time to wait, though. — [[User:Flamurai|flamuraiTM]] 07:37, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Propose modifying capitalization guideline
I would like to remove the capitalization part of the following section of the guideline:
- Follow our usual text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
- avoid: REALTOR®
- instead, use: Realtor
in favor of a guideline that encourages common usage. The problem as I see it is that the current guideline encourages people to lowercase things like SAT, AARP and USAA which are all trademarked strings of inherently meaningless uppercase letters. I say inherently meaningless because even though each of these started out as an acronym, none of them still assign any expanded meaning to their name. In the case of the USAA, it has been decades since they were United Services Automobile Association. When a name is perenially written and recognized in uppercase letters, it ought to stay that way. Dragons flight 23:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with your solution. I don't have a good suggestion at the moment, but "SAT" is not in the same class as "REALTOR" or "GlaxoSmithKline", etc. Maurreen 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, under the current CamelCase rules, GlaxoSmithKline would seem to be editor's choice. I'm not in the business of worrying about real estate, but I would think that in common usage they are called Realtors nor REALTORs and so the former would still apply. I'm not actually sure what you are objecting to? Dragons flight 03:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I realize now that was a bad example. And I think maybe we're miscommunicating somehow. You said you want to remove the part about capitalization from the guideline. So, then it would follow to remove the "REALTORS" example, and it would follow that people might be more likely to write it in all caps, for example. Maurreen 04:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- As I mention above I would prefer that a guideline with respect to capitalization be stated in terms of trying to follow common usage. I haven't yet tried to state a precise guideline for this or offer examples. However, I find the current guideline, which basically says never write trademarks in capital letters, to be overly broad since in English there are a variety of trademarks that do consistently appear in all caps. Dragons flight 04:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
How about we just change "Follow our usual ..." to "Follow standard English ..." Perhaps it could be improved, but I think it gets at your point, that "SAT" is standard English. Maurreen 04:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'd be happy with that. Perhaps there is a way to include "but leave SAT in caps"? Dragons flight 04:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- How about this?
- Follow our standard Engish rules for formatting and capitalization, even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. For example:
- Avoid REALTOR®. Instead, use Realtor.
- But indicate the SAT examination with all capitals. Maurreen 14:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I already tried putting in a bit yesterday, but I am just as happy to go with the version you have here. Dragons flight 14:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I just tweaked your change to make it more clear. Maurreen 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Looks good. Dragons flight 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Realtors, etc.
In my opinion, the capitalization section needs a new example, because I have yet to see anyone write realtor as "REALTOR®." How about Sirius Satellite Radio vs. SIRIUS Satellite Radio? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I also don't see why there has to be a discussion over SHOUTcast being moved to Shoutcast, since the manual of style has rules on wonky capitalization in names. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 20:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Maurreen 07:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- If you want a new example, see the GLOCK article and GLOCK 17 and a zillion other articles in Category:GLOCK pistols. This isn't an acronym. Gene Nygaard 03:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Bold and italics in name
I was wondering what the policy is on bold and italics in trademarks. For example, the Oneworld (airlines) article has the "one" in bold text and the "world" in regular, like this: oneworld. It is written like that throughout the article. Is this appropriate? Should it be used the first time and then not at all? I could not find any website other than oneworld's that followed this convention. Kjkolb 19:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- It should be written as "Oneworld", in regular type. WP style is to follow standard English, regardless of preference of the trademark holder. The possible exception would be in reference to the trademark itself. For instance, "The airline writes its name in the form ...Maurreen 19:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Dollar signs used as S's
Does this section cover a dollar sign used instead of an S? It covers punctuation marks used instead of other punctuation marks (such as an equal sign used instead of a hyphen or an asterisk used instead of an apostrophe), but what about a currency mark used instead of a letter? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 03:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
TIME magazine
Please see my suggestion at Talk:Time (magazine). An edit war is going on on Time (magazine) and I believe the issue should be resolved here. (An anonymous user is criticizing User:Mb1000 for not obeying the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) guidelines, when he himself is not obeying the three-revert policy. Anyway, I believe that this policy should be revised to allow trademarked-based capitalization to be used (in titles and/or article text) when the alternative is incorrect. This would include TIME magazine but not REALTOR (since TIME != Time but REALTOR = Realtor). Anyway, thanks in advance for your thoughts. --Renesis13 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is a similar debate going on about MGM MIRAGE. The trademark for this corporation is the all capitals version. The guidlines cause the trademark to be diluted as "MGM Mirage". There once was a corporation named MGM Mirage, Inc. that was absorbed into the current corporation MGM MIRAGE. Why are we against following the trademarks? -- Jagged 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- "MGM Mirage" and "MGM MIRAGE" are, linguistically, the same thing, just with different capitalization. The fact that there were two different entities that had the same name but were distinguished only by capitalization does not change the fact that the names were the same. There are many cases of two things having the same name, and the key is to disambiguate using a semantically salient element, such as the date of formation, or who owned it, rather than something completely non-salient like capitalization. Nohat 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- My original point was that TIME and Time are NOT the same thing linguistically. This trademark guideline causes such sentences as "Time says...", when "TIME says..." would be much clearer. Not to mention that Time (magazine) is not a disambiguation of "time" but rather it's very own word - as in TIME magazine. -- Renesis13 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- But they are the same thing. Capitalization does not change the linguistic identity of a name. Your example is a red herring, because the correct handling would be "Time says", which is not ambiguous, but in general it's better to attribute statements to people rather than organizations. Nohat 19:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether my example was grammatically correct or not, I said "such as"— there are many other examples where this is a problem. My point is that considering the frequency with which people refer to the magazine as just "Time" instead of "Time magazine", it would help to have the capitalization to distinguish it. -- Renesis13 19:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- But there are plenty of magazines with titles that are ordinary words, such as Fortune, Money, Gourmet, People, Details, Playboy, etc., and we get along just fine without placing their titles in all caps. I don't see that there is any special need for Time to be capitalized differently. Nohat 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Trademarks that don't begin with a capital letter
I added the following to the guidelines
- The rule that capitalizes the first word of sentences applies to trademarks, even if the trademark is not normally capitalized. This is no consensus as to whether the first letter needs to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, as in eBay and iPod. It is best to avoid using trademarks like that at the beginning of a sentence.
I think the advice is sound, and is just a reiteration of what mainstream style manuals say. If you don't think this should go in, feel free to revert me, but please provide what you think the MoS should say on this topic.Nohat 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion is that those trademarks shouldn't be capitalized at the beginning of sentences. For example, ITunes isn't a trademark (while iTunes is) and it looks ugly. Please provide a reference to a "mainstream style manual". Mushroom (Talk) 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think that if a trademark like iTunes is never capitalized by the owner and by everyone else, then there is no valid reason to capitalize it on Wikipedia. When I say that it looks ugly, I mean that it looks strange, uncommon, non-standard. There are some exception to the capitalization rule, and this should be one. Mushroom (Talk) 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- In The Elephants of Style, by Bill Walsh (ISBN 0071422684), on page 26 it says:
- But, for the love of Strunk, don't interpret this to mean that a sentence can ever, ever begin with a lowercase letter. The sentences-begin-with-capitals rule trumps all: IMacs are for sale on eBay.
- Nohat 01:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- In The Elephants of Style, by Bill Walsh (ISBN 0071422684), on page 26 it says:
- The author of that book now says:
- I've even softened to the point where iMac, and eThis and eThat, don't bother me. At least there's a capital letter near the place where there should be one, and I can't very well object to van Gogh and the like.
- Mushroom (Talk) 01:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't really a softening. The sentence that precedes the one I quoted says "In what I call the de Gaulle exception, you might want to let slide proper nouns that don't begin with capitals but introduce them within a letter or two: eBay, iMac. But, for the love ...". And the page you cite very clearly says "Even if you disagree with me on this point, by the way, please, please don't go the extra step toward lunacy and insist on lowercasing the T in "Thirtysomething" or the K in "K.D. Lang" or the A in "Adidas" in a case where you'd uppercase "dog" or "tree" or "muffin." I've seen the lowercased "thirtysomething" at the beginning of a sentence and the lowercased "washingtonpost.com" in an up-style headline (every other word was capped!), and I hope I never see such things again." I don't see that Mr. Walsh has in any way backed down from insisting that sentences begin with capital letters, nor should he, because the rules of English punctuation are not subject to alteration by marketing whimsy. Nohat 02:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The author of that book now says:
- Ok, maybe Bill Walsh thinks that they should be capitalized. But I would like to:
- see what the AP Stylebook says.
- see what The Chicago Manual of Style says.
- see how the Encyclopædia Britannica handles this.
- make a straw poll: who says that Wikipedia can't have its own rules?
- Of course Wikipedia can have its own rules, but the MoS says that in the absence of specific advice, one should look to what reputabable style guides say. Walsh is "perhaps the United States' best known newspaper copy editor", and is so far the only case where a style guide has ruled on this specific issue. Other style guides which do not rule on this specific issue invariably say that trademarks should be capitalized, so one cannot take their silence on the issue as supporting using lowercase letters at the beginning of sentences. Nohat 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, thirtysomething, k.d. Lang and adidas are all lowercase on Wikipedia. You may want to change them :) Mushroom (Talk) 03:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe Bill Walsh thinks that they should be capitalized. But I would like to:
- The AP Stylebook does not weigh in on this particular issue, although it does say that trademarks should be capitalized. There are many articles in Category:Articles whose titles are initialed a lowercase letter which have been miscapitalized. You can rest assured I am working through them. Nohat 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The BBC doesn't capitalize iTunes, but it capitalizes Adidas. Interesting. Mushroom (Talk) 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to copy from Talk:IPod, but just to move the discussion here... In this case, historically correct English usage should come second. I don't imagine any style authority has been encountered that would permit capital letters in the middle of words, either, but it would be equally farcical to change every instance of iPod in the article to ipod. This spelling would also, I imagine, flout pronuncation rules. The difference with de Gaulle is that "de" is a word in its own right, like "of", and with iPod we do use a lower case i, wherever it appears in a sentence. See also the BBC, a pillar of wisdom as regards correctness of language, where iPod is used, as opposed to IPod, in articles where the title begins with the word "iPod". Willkm 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- To add to that, the Walsh example makes it clear that a "reputable style guide", someone hardened in the ways of past grammatical correctness, can soften towards new usage. Wikipedia should do the same. Language evolves. Willkm 04:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you. Mushroom (Talk) 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- To add to that, the Walsh example makes it clear that a "reputable style guide", someone hardened in the ways of past grammatical correctness, can soften towards new usage. Wikipedia should do the same. Language evolves. Willkm 04:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to copy from Talk:IPod, but just to move the discussion here... In this case, historically correct English usage should come second. I don't imagine any style authority has been encountered that would permit capital letters in the middle of words, either, but it would be equally farcical to change every instance of iPod in the article to ipod. This spelling would also, I imagine, flout pronuncation rules. The difference with de Gaulle is that "de" is a word in its own right, like "of", and with iPod we do use a lower case i, wherever it appears in a sentence. See also the BBC, a pillar of wisdom as regards correctness of language, where iPod is used, as opposed to IPod, in articles where the title begins with the word "iPod". Willkm 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The BBC doesn't capitalize iTunes, but it capitalizes Adidas. Interesting. Mushroom (Talk) 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But sentences beginning with lowercase letters are distracting and wrong-looking and cry insistently to be corrected. Language evolves, truly, but as yet I have yet to see a reputable style guide that actually does sanction this usage. Wikipedia should reflect the commonly accepted standards, not setting off on adopting vogue new ones. I would suggest that until style guides approve otherwise, we should continue to follow the rule that sentences should begin with capital letters. As an additional point of evidence, the Chicago Manual of Style folks have a FAQ which has an entry that says "Nonetheless, we at Chicago prefer capitalizing the first word in a sentence; “de Gaulle” becomes “De Gaulle” in that position... EBay is a slick company... We side with the capital E."Nohat 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- You mention "commonly accepted standards" - does that mean the standards that the majority of people would use, or the standards that (not necessarily recently updated) style guides condone? Willkm 04:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Surely that is a personal opinion, that they are "distracting", "wrong-looking and cry insistently to be corrected"... I, and I suspect most others (other than those adhering to, in my opinion, out-of-date style guides), would say that words such as iPod and iTunes are "distracting", etc. when writting with a capitalised "i". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willkm (talk • contribs)
- My point exactly—personal opinion about what is right should not be how we decide this issue, and so far, the only arguments in favor of not capitalizing these trademarks at the beginning of a sentence is the decidedly personal insistence that we not do so. The decision should be made by deferring to and citing the experts, all of whom so far have come down in favor of maintaining the rule of capitalizing the first word of a sentence. In other words, agreeing with me. Nohat 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The online version of the AP Stylebook says:
- Generally, follow the spelling and capitalization preferred by the company: iMac, eBay. But capitalize the first letter if it begins a sentence.
The Chicago Manual of Style says:
- When the first word of a sentence is a proper name that begins with a lowercase letter (eBay, iMac), revise the sentence or uppercase the first letter (EBay is ...)
Three style guides are against me... but if the BBC can do it, why should we wait for the style guides? Mushroom (Talk) 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please be sure you understand that I'm not advocating that trademarks should always be capitalized—I'm perfectly willing to accept "iPod" or even (somewhat more begrudgingly) "craigslist" mid-sentence—but simply that a trademark that is not capitalized should be treated like any other word that is not ordinarily capitalized—when it is the first word of a sentence, it should be capitalized. It's not clear at all to me why the don't-capitalize-trademarks-that-are-not-capitalized rule, which I think everyone will admit is a new and vogueish "rule" of written English, should trump the capitalize-the-first-word-of-a-sentence rule, which is a rule that is as old and well-established as lowercase letters. It seems there should be a pretty strong and compelling reason for discarding such an hard-fastened rule other than a misplaced desire to respect the whimsy of corporate marketing.
By way of a compromise, may I offer that I could be willing to accept that a trademark like 'iPod' or 'eBay' could be considered "capitalized", since the second letter is a capital. However, if a trademark is all lowercase, like "thirtysomething" or "craiglist", then it should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. We should also recommend that such sentence be recast to avoid having the trademark at the head of the sentence, avoiding this problem altogether. Nohat 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable to me and I would accept it. I have no problem at all with "Craigslist" or "Adidas" being capitalized, but I don't like "ITunes" or "IPod" because they have two capital letters and this seems strange. I also agree that it would be better to recast when possible: I have checked Britannica right now and they always avoid the problem. Mushroom (Talk) 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- And I should add to this: you were right about the style guides. Sorry :( Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed on all points, a very reasonable compromise (though your vote contradicts you). Ironic given that I’m often a pedant, but ITunes at the start of a sentence seems more wrong than starting with a lowercase letter—I guess because when I scan the paragraph the second capital letter takes the place of the first. And yes, blame it on the marketing bods for making up their own rules ;-) Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- My problem is that I've seen many many legal documents involving eBay, and "eBay" is used almost almost universally; when "EBay" shows up, it always looks like a mistake. This is clearly a place where the rules have been changing over the last few years; my thought is that the proper name is a thing unto itself. On the other hand, this is not a new problem; names such as "apRoberts" and "van Gogh" generally are capitalized at the beginning of sentences. No particular reason Wikipedia can't be a stylistic leader than a follower in the minor regard. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting a straw poll to gauge what a larger number of Wikipedians think about this issue. It shouldn't be decided by just a few people.
The problem is everyone, is saying that it should still have a capital in the second letter. In fact this should not be. Ipod or Ebay should be the correct spelling. Wikipedia is not here to follow niches that are used by companies. iPod or eBay is more of a logo prefernce, then correct spelling. i say that iPod should be changed to ipo/Ipod when bieng used in the article, following the laws of grammar rather than a companies choice should be default option.
- I couldn't agree more. In fact, we should not just ignore how the company presents their own products, trademarks and trade wrappings, we should in fact come up with our own names that we like better. It's not "iMac", from now on it's "SuperMac". I mean, clearly, if the company isn't going to read some crappy style guide on "laws of grammar", we certainly can't trust them with their own products!
- Really, the arrogance of this position is astounding. Maury 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals, like iPod, eBay
Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals should always be capitalized.
- I bought my IPod on EBay
- Disagree. Nohat 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Ned Scott 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Willkm 11:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Markyour words 11:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. David Kernow 11:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. KarlBunker 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. --Kiand 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. It's harder to decide between the two, but this is out.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. JGorton 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree Although the trademark is uncapitalised, the name is not. I bought my Ipod on "eBay". Rich Farmbrough 13:31 19 March 2006 (UTC).
- Disagree. Gwernol 19:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. - Elonka 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. - Maury 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. jamiemcc 11:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. - --Thepreacher 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals should be capitalized only when they begin a sentence.
- EBay is where I bought my iPod.
- Agree. Nohat 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Ned Scott 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Willkm 11:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Markyour words 11:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Trademarks should be exempt from the capitalize-the-first-word rule, just as they're exempt from the don't-capitalize-a-letter-inside-a-word rule. KarlBunker 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. --Kiand 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree Yanksox 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. - Maury 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. jamiemcc 11:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. - Thepreacher 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals need never be capitalized.
- eBay is where I bought my iPod.
- Disagree. Nohat 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree if the second letter is a capital. Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree if the second letter is a capital, and recast when possible. Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Ned Scott 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. I'm a former book editor, and my brother was the co-inventor of the iPod. — Walloon 08:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Willkm 11:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Markyour words 11:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree. David Kernow 11:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)- Agree. KarlBunker 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. --Kiand 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. --HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Huangcjz 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Maurreen 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. No one 18:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Gwernol 19:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. - Maury 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. jamiemcc 11:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. - Thepreacher 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Rephrase to avoid beginning sentences with trademarks whose first letter is lowercase.
- I bought my iPod on eBay.
- Agree. David Kernow 11:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- slightly disagree. it only works in some cases, and in others just causes the sentence to sound all out of whack. kind of like Engrish --Ned Scott 11:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I probably won't go to the trouble of doing this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak agree. — I think this should be attempted whenever possible, but not at the expense of smooth prose or proper grammar. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. --Elonka 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, where possible without resorting to mangled grammar. jamiemcc 11:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. - (Very good compromise. Jamiemcc has a good point but this should be easy to avoid --Thepreacher 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals, like thirtysomething, adidas, craigslist
Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized.
- Thirtysomething is a television show that may have been sponsored by Adidas, but not by Craigslist, because it was over before Craigslist existed.
- Agree. Nohat 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, even the BBC capitalizes them. Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree if there’s nothing else to distinguish it (italics, bold, quotes, etc.) Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Ned Scott 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Maurreen 04:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Dbinder 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with as much as I agree with the next item. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. In reference to eBay, the Chicago Manual of Style FAQs website states that it is a proper noun, therefore it is capitalized, and the capitalization falls on the B. [1]. Proper nouns need at least one capital letter. -- Renesis13 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree Although the trademark is uncapitalised, the name is not. Rich Farmbrough 13:31 19 March 2006 (UTC).
- Weak disagree. — I think always is a bit too strong a word for this case. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. --Elonka 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should be capitalized only when they begin a sentence.
- Thirtysomething is a television show that may have been sponsored by adidas, but not by craigslist, because it was over before craigslist existed.
- Agree, but prefer previous. Nohat 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, but prefer previous. Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Mildly disagree. Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Prefer previous --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, but prefer previous. Ned Scott 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree Dbinder 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak disagree. — As per Barefootguru's comments above, I think some type of distinction is essential. I would prefer capitalization in most cases; these are proper nouns after all. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Prefer previous. --Elonka 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals need never be capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence.
- thirtysomething is a television show that may have been sponsored by adidas, but not by craigslist, because it was over before craigslist existed.
- Disagree. Nohat 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Mushroom (Talk) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Barefootguru 05:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Sentences begin with capital letters. If you can't bear to capitalize the word with the aberrant orthography, recast the sentence. This is the only means by which agreement will be achieved, so it's the only alternative. - Nunh-huh 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Recast the damn things. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree Ned Scott 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree Dbinder 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. We should always use trademarks as used by company. Everywhere on adidas site you will find adidas. No one 18:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. — Parlance or not, commercialism should not dictate our grammar. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. The goal of Wikipedia is to present information about people and things and ideas, not to promote artificial attention-grabbing spelling, which distracts from the content of the writing. It is enough to list the lowercase spelling as an "also known as", not to force the issue and thereby result in a distracting writing style throughout an entire article. --Elonka 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposed new style guideline for unusually-capitalized trademarks
A consensus seems to be emerging here. I therefore propose we add the following guidelines to this MoS:
- Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized:
- Thirtysomething is a television show that may have been sponsored by Adidas, but not by Craigslist, because it was over before Craigslist existed.
- Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized:
- eBay is where I bought my iPod.
- But, if possible, rephrase to avoid beginning sentences with such trademarks:
- I bought my iPod on eBay.
I think we should keep the straw poll open in case opinions change, but this seems to be the consensus so far. Does this seem reasonable? Nohat 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since no one commented in 2 days, I have implemented these new guidelines. Cheers to everyone for registering their opinion. Nohat 08:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is everyone, is saying that it should still have a capital in the second letter. In fact this should not be. Ipod or Ebay should be the correct spelling. Wikipedia is not here to follow niches that are used by companies. iPod or eBay is more of a logo prefernce, then correct spelling. i say that iPod should be changed to ipo/Ipod when bieng used in the article, following the laws of grammar rather than a companies choice should be default option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.97.7 (talk • contribs)
- Shouldn't this have been discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)? What happens if this creates two different standards for company names? The logical position that this does not apply to company names. Vegaswikian 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- These guidelines are more wide-reaching than Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). More than just company names are trademarks, and this guideline affects not just article titles but the texts of articles as well. At the moment, the company naming conventions do not address any of the issues addressed here, so they don't conflict. Nohat 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Use of decorative analphabetic characters in article titles, text
Symbols that are not in the alphabet, but in the Unicode character set, are intended for decoration. These should not be used in article text. Articles like I ♥ NY and I ♥ Huckabees should be moved to I Love New York and I Heart Huckabees. I don't understand why people don't see the difference between a logo and a name. A name is something that can be written using standard language. A logo is a stylized representation of the name. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be what amounts to inlining logos. Everything in the text should follow standard language rules. In fact I helped with guidelines on this a while back at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), and it seems people are ignoring them or not applying them to this situation. Perhaps a new guideline reading, "do not use analphabetic characters in an attempt to recreate logos," would be appropriate. (See also: Talk:I ♥ NY) – flamurai (t) 18:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is my proposed addition (after the Dell line):
- Likewise, don't use decorative characters in an attempt to recreate logos when there is a recognized text-only name.
- avoid: I ♥ NY
- instead, use: I Love New York
– flamurai (t) 18:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) (amended 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC))
Why is the trademark policy being used to capture this idea—is it only for items that are trademarks (which is true for I ♥ NY and I ♥ Huckabees)? There are other cases, for example f Sharp a Sharp ∞, where the name is not a trademark, but is rather a proper name for a creative work. Would this rule not apply to those cases? If it should, then the rule should go elsewhere, not here. What about C++, or JPMorgan Chase & Co.? In cases where there is no other name for something than one using non-alphabetic characters, proscribing them would require Wikipedia to invent a neologism, or to use a phonetic spelling. I'm not saying this applies to your ♥ cases, just pointing out that the guidance proposed has what may be undesirable ramifications. --TreyHarris 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it could be written to avoid that. But ++ and & are punctuation characters. I guess I chose the wrong word with "analphabetic". I'm talking about things like happy faces and card suits that are in the unicode character sets. However at this point I would rather hear opinions on the core of the guideline, rather than fringe cases that can be solved by rewording.
- Regarding trademarks vs. titles, it's not something I have thought out yet. This, however, is a different situation because "sharp" and "infinity" are closer to text characters. A heart is not. I am talking here about clearcut cases where someone is obviously trying to replicate the style of the logo when there is a clear, preferred text-only name for the item. – flamurai (t) 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is a clear, preferred name for I ♥ Huckabees? When the movie came out, I saw an interview on some program where the director and one of the leads were arguing with each other over whether it should be pronounced I Heart Huckabees or I Love Huckabees—if the principals can't even agree on the name, how are we supposed to? --TreyHarris 21:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Easy, you go to the official website. – flamurai (t) 22:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agree this is about where we draw the line - your example of "Prince" , and Toys R us are two where we should go with your suggestion. The Zang Tum Tum would be harder. C++ and c# would clearly be article names. However there's no reason not to have redirects from the decorative version, or to the rebus-like version, so it's not a big deal. In terms of usability and accesibility, I would suggest, we should stick to stuff that can be entered simply from a keyboard, and read by text readers - wherever possible. Rich Farmbrough 13:17 19 March 2006 (UTC).
- I completely forgot to mention the text reader issue. That's probably the most compelling reason for the change. Does anyone have any objections to this? I would like to put it into the article. If anyone knows any other places it may be relevant (e.g. the naming conventions articles), please let me know. The MOS system is getting so broad I don't know where to look. – flamurai (t) 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
SPAM?
The article Spam (food) was moved to SPAM by EdwinHJ (talk · contribs) with the edit summary, "prefered style of Hormel and avoids parenthetical name". The article text was changed from Spam to SPAM™ to match. I asked on its talk page as to why this move was made and whether it violated this MoS, but got no response. Thoughts? I don't see an exception that applies here; if there is one, it should be added to the MoS text. I will contact EdwinHJ and let him know about this discussion. --TreyHarris 01:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
use of registered symbol
I've copied this text from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (where not much discussion occurred!).
- There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:MMR vaccine about whether some of the MMR vaccine products such as Mumpsvax, etc. should have the ® symbol associated with it or not. I argue that they should not, primarily for stylistic and aesthetic rasons. For example, the pages for Coca-Cola and Pepsi or Tylenol do not include registered trademarks for these products. Furthermore, when these drugs are referenced in the academic literature, these registered trademark symbols do not appear. I was wondering if other editors had a feeling about this.
Thoughts? Andrew73 17:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- The ® mark is traditionally reserved only for commercial uses. For example, in advertisements by the trademark owner or by a competitor. Non-commercial uses, such as in journalism or in an encyclopedia, capitalize the trademark but do not use the ® mark. — Walloon 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unless there are objections, I will incorporate this in the main article space. Andrew73 00:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)