Talk:Plexiglass

Trademark/Copyright Violation

By linking "plexiglass" to acrylic glass wikipedia is contributing to the "genericizing" of the trademark "Plexiglas®".Tstrobaugh 16:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people reverting without stating their reasoning? Please see:[1]. I it agreed that "Plexiglas®" is a trademark? Is it agreed that "plexiglass" is a misuse of that trademark? I don't understand what the problem is here, it seems very clear cut to me.Tstrobaugh 20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect page to help people find a page about something they're looking for. Plexiglas redirects to the same target article. Plexiglass is a common spelling of the same thing. What else is there to discuss? - Bobet 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trademark is already genericizes, see also List of generic and genericized trademarks. Deleting this redirect would take away valuable information from our readers. The redirect target mentions that plexiglas is a trademark. Note that these are reasons to keep the redirect should it be nominated at WP:RFD. As it is completely obvious that the page does not meet any WP:CSD, it was not necessary to provide a lengthy rationale for removing your speedy suggestion. Kusma (討論) 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plexiglas is not yet generic. See [2] and [3]. Plexiglass is not a common spelling but a common misspelling of Plexiglas acrylic sheet by the ignorant. If I spell your name wrong it is not a proper use of your name. Secondly, to become genericized a court must rule that you have lost your trademark, this has not happened yet with Plexiglas. So I will be editing List of generic and genericized trademarks to reflect the difference between "lost" trademarks and those in danger of becoming genericized. So you are both wrong. It is a copyright violation, you have provided no proof that it is not and I have provided proof that it is. Please state your "completely obvious" reasons.Tstrobaugh 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an article on Plexiglas, then Plexiglass would redirect to that, since it's a very common misspelling (over 2 million hits on google). Since Plexiglas itself is a redirect page to Acrylic glass, there's no reason not to have a redirect from this title, since it would stand to reason many people would type it in the search box. Wikipedia's job isn't to punish people who don't know how to spell something, it's to educate, and having this redirect to a page that contains the correct spelling, will teach people how to spell it. If Microsoft was a redirect to computer software, and Microssoft was a redirect to the same place, it would be the same issue. There's nothing about a redirect that can violate a copyright in any way: it's just a navigational aid. - Bobet 16:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bobet for stating what you think the problem is. Now we have something to work on. Number one, it doesn't matter what wikepedia's job is, it matters what the law is, and the law is clear on what a copyright violation is. First, there is no word "plexiglass" it doesn't mean anything, it's a misspelling. If you are asserting that "plexiglass" and "acrylic sheet" are the same then that is what the violation is. You are misusing the trademark "Plexiglas" acrylic sheet to mean the same thing as "plexiglass" acrylic sheet, that is a misuse of a trademark. I'm glad you recognize that "plexiglass" could also be a simple typo on the part of an educated person, do you see the difference? I said earlier that I would be willing to keep the redirect to acrylic glass if a note was included about what wikipedia's intentions were, that is, not to genericize "Plexiglas" by to simple redirect a misspelled legitimate trademark. So I think we can agree that in an effort to educate people, wikipedia will put such a note on the redirect. thank you.Tstrobaugh 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already categorized the redirect as a misspelling. Kusma (討論) 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Tstrobaugh 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a look at this, after I removed the {{R from misspelling}}, per wikt:plexiglass.

The Google ngram is interesting. Use of the generic term peaked in the early 1980s, and has trailed off since, while the Brand has remained steady or increased a bit. There are sources using the generic term, such as The Architect's Newspaper. Are we doing "original research" when we change plexiglass in a reliable source to Plexiglas? Are we helping to promote a brand name when we do that? I'll survey some other dictionaries. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best solution is to change "plexiglass" to "acrylic" rather than "Plexiglas", when used in a general sense. This ngram shows that acrylic is the far more common term. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But acrylic needs disambiguation to acrylic glass, a far less common term. Such a conundrum (a logical postulation that evades resolution, an intricate and difficult problem).

I suppose [[acrylic glass|acrylic]] (acrylic) might do. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plexiglass vs. Plexiglas®: Acrylic Sheeting Facts – there's a company endorsing the generic term "plexiglass". – wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster
Collins – wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]