Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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)
If no one defends these changes, I think the page should be reverted. — flamuraiº 05:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
There is no consensus for these statements, so I removed them. anthony 警告 13:17, 14 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.
— flamuraiº 17:48, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Anthony, how do you figure that there was no consensus? Maurreen 18:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page was edited by exactly one person before I looked at it, saw the problems, and corrected them. Furthermore, it suggested that we do something which is blatantly ignored on a large number of pages. anthony 警告 18:24, 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)
Actually, TIME is wrong based on another point in this section. — flamuraiº 20:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how well this applies to article title anyway. In the case of Yahoo!, we're probably best off leaving the title as is, for disambiguation purposes, since we already have an article at Yahoo. anthony 警告 23:59, 14 Dec 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)
Okay. I made a minor alteration to the symbols sentence for the sake of including other symbols such as SM under that guideline. It's not technically a trademark, but it's best to be inclusive by adding the words "such as", I think. &mdash flamuraiº 23:43, Dec 16, 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)

I actually like that better, just couldn't come up with the phrasing. anthony 警告 02:57, 17 Dec 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:
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)

CAPITALIZATION OF SPORTS

The current rules are flawed.

Why are the names of different sports NOT capitalized? If one were to look at the RULES of PROPER NOUNS, one could see that a noun is capitalized when it cannot be broken down into further sub-genres.

e.g. person—>male—>adult—>Frank

or liquid—>soft drink—> Coke (where this can be broken down further IF you add “Diet etc.”)

SO… let’s take a look at sports…

games—>sports—>basketball (cannot be broken down anymore unless you add “Street or European or World or American”)

Why can’t it be “Basketball”?? After all, "Basketball" IS the NAME of a sport. WHY is it considered a COMMON NOUN? I understand why “basketball” (in reference to the actual ball used to play the game of “Basketball” is considered a common noun but the sport SHOULD be capitalized.

“I play Baseball.” “Do you have a baseball?”

I state this because languages are ALWAYS capitalized. English, Korean, Spanish etc.

They shouldn't because thats now how regular English works, as of this point. If you want to change it, become a grammarian and lead a revolution. Whats on wikipedia shouldn't differ from the real world.70.187.205.60 02:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The style you're suggesting, as far as I know, is not used in any publication whatsoever. And things can always be "broken down" into component parts. "Frank" in your example probably has two eyes, arms, and so forth, and his eyes have components as well. Proper nouns are reserved for unique individual entities. Sports are not individual entities. Croctotheface 03:14, 30 November 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)
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)
Ok, maybe Bill Walsh thinks that they should be capitalized. But I would like to:
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)
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)

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)
Oh, for pete's sake, no one is suggesting we can give new arbitrary names. What some of us think is that we shouldn't be beholden to a corporation's arbitrary cap preferences. I think it's arrogant of companies to think their desire to make names appear like their logos trumps the normal rules of grammar. I mean, why should I have to write NVIDIA when it's not an acronym just so the company gets their wish to have the word stand out more on the page? Or how about Microsoft and .NET, even though the logo on the box is clearly .net? They can't make up their minds, and yet I'm supposed to check with them when I write it? What if Apple decided next week they wanted it to be I-----TUNES, would we edit all out our pages to comply their request? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.242.210.10 (talk • contribs) .
Because it's more recognizable for our readers, that is all. We only do this to avoid confusion and for better identification, not to aid companies. Our traditional image of Santa Clause was mostly pushed by Coca Cola, which is kind of sad, but hey it's what happened, and most people recognize a fat man in a red suit now. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In baseball, there is a well-known rule that states, "The tie goes to the runner." In my publishing experience, this has been modified to "The tie goes to the reader." In my opinion, proper names like eBay and iPod should be spelled that way whether they fall at the beginning of a sentence or somewhere in the middle, because it is the least disruptive for most readers. In some cases, changing the mixed captialization of words like this could affect the pronunciation. iUniverse is clear to all readers, while "IUniverse" or "Iuniverse" can create confusion. Situations like this are further complicated by the fact that a capital i looks like a lowercase L in many fonts. BJ Nemeth 09:54, 28 October 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

Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals should be capitalized only when they begin a sentence.

EBay is where I bought my iPod.

Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals need never be capitalized.

eBay is where I bought my iPod.

Rephrase to avoid beginning sentences with trademarks whose first letter is lowercase.

I bought my iPod on eBay.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)
what about stuff like *NSYNC (or *N Sync).. IMO if its written that way on a CD cover (and officially everywhere else thb), atleast the article title should be that?, even if any further referances omit the *. currently it sits at 'N Sync, which i feel is a poor compromise, as it servse no purpose as an appostrophe (arguable, in sync?.. citation?) , and is less correct, just a subsitute to eliminate the * ? ommiting it entirely would be my personal 2nd choice.~Bungalowbill

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)

Yes, I think changing it to SPAM does act against the MoS. Hormel prefers it in all caps because Hormel wants to draw attention to its product. I'm sure Hormel would love it if we also wrote it in a bigger font, or even substituted the blue-and-yellow logo throughout the copy. Too bad. Wikipedia isn't a press release or an advertising medium. If we wrote all trademarks exactly as the owners registered them, we'd have Burger King articles about WHOPPER and TENDERCRISP. No, thanks.
Furthermore, it's my impression that Wikipedia has no obligation to honor the trademark guidelines of anyone. Hormel has a responsiblity to protect its trademarks for them to continue to be valid, but that's Hormel's job, not Wikipedia's. Wikipedia is not using the trademark to push a competing product (or any product at all), and it is still honoring the fact that Spam refers to a specific brand of luncheon meat and is not a generic term. I'd love to see a trademark-lawyer's opinion.
Moving the article to avoid the parenthetical name is also a weak reason; is anyone honestly expected to type the address of the article in all caps, or even to search for it like that? Any search will probably in all lowercase, and after performing a search for spam, would a user be more likely to pick the desired article out of the list if it's named SPAM, or Spam (food)? If I saw the latter, I would feel more confident that the link would take me to the page I wanted. --Rob Kennedy 03:23, 6 July 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)

I don't have any strong objections to the above, but still, it bothers me that we can have an entire article about something, and never mention that its name has been trademarked. IOW, sure, we don't want to clutter up an article about soft drinks by including the symbol every time we mention the name of one, but in the article about the product itself, the trademark status ought to be mentioned. I'm thinking of something very short and simple, such as "Tylenol® is a trademarked name." After all, isn't this an important enough fact to be included in an encyclopedia? --Keeves 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Walloon as far as the rules for use of the ® symbol goes. If you feel the trademark status should be mentioned, then it should be mentioned like this: "Tylenol is a trademarked name." but not this: "Tylenol® is a trademarked name." Actual use of the the ® symbol is much different from mentioning the trademark. Not only that, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and specific trademarks like that would apply only in US law. -- Renesis13 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now MoS is self-conflicting, as there was a sentence in the "lowercase" section, now moved up to the general section, that ® can be used to distinguish brand and generic names, for instance of drugs. A large number, possibly majority, of pharmacology articles seem to use this: the drug is called by its generic name generally, but at one point the brand names are specified, with the ® symbol to indicate the distinction. The fact that these are specific to the laws of one country does not matter, as we need to make the distinction between brand and generic names in any case. The brand names should be mentioned once, so people looking for the brand name know which generic drug it equates to. One can say "Paracetamol (brand name Tylenol)", but "Paracetamol (Tylenol®)" is more concise. Note also that generally, when people revert the ® symbol, they do not replace it with "brand name", leaving confusion as to what the generic vs brand name is. Terrace4 12:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, in academic literature and in the lay press, the registered symbol is not used (have you ever seen in it in the body of a New England Journal or New York Times article?). It's really only seen in product advertisements and commercial material. Furthermore, the Chicago Manual of Style does not recommend its use; see [2]. Given these factors, I favor leaving them out of Wikipedia. Andrew73 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The NEJM and other academic press does not generally use brand names (when they do, they make it clear it's a brand name), and the Chicago MOS says you don't need to use ®, not that you should not use it. For Wikipedia and in the case of drugs with an alternative generic name, my point is that the ® symbol helps concisely clarify what is the brand name vs the generic name. I'm not strong-minded about leaving out ® as policy, but in each case it is removed an alternative method should be used to denote which is the brand name.
Also, of course, generic names should be used whenever possible. Terrace4 09:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I prefer using the phrasing "brand name OxyContin" rather than the ® symbol. This symbol makes the article look more like a press release from a drug company rather than a neutral article. Andrew73 10:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I added ® trailing the bold lead word for articles: Battery (drink), Levi's, and Coca-Cola. After reading the help page and this discussion I will undo the ® from Coca-Cola, but it still feels right for the other two. At least in the lead, to establish their non-generic identity. I do agree with leaving the ® out of the article title. --Charles Gaudette 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But the leads of those articles already establish their non-generic status explicitly, without resorting to unsightly symbols:
  • “Battery energy drink is a registered trademark…”
  • “Levi's is a brand of riveted denim jeans…”
And now that I’ve noticed it, the Battery lead should change anyway because the article is about the beverage, not the trademark used to market it. --Rob Kennedy 05:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting rules

How does the rule about trademarks that begin with a capital letter fit with the rule that says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment"? Why do we allow "DBASE" but not "LEGO"? Evil saltine 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Colours in names

For example, Higurashi no Naku Koro ni. Is this page's consistent use of a bright red "Na" in the work's title acceptable, or should the title use plain text in accordance with standard practice?

My reading of this guideline suggests that the colour issue should be mentioned once and then ignored (if nothing else, all the bright red is pretty hard on the eyes), but I'd rather not make a controversial edit like that without first checking that I'm not misreading the MoS.  :) — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Use generic term

I have a problem with this bit:

"Do not use trademarks where a generic term is more appropriate:"

The example given is to use oxycodone instead of OxyContin regarding Rush Limbaugh. What my problem with this comes to is the word "appropriate". If Limbaugh had, in fact, been using OxyContin (as opposed to percocet, percodan, etc.) then it should say OxyContin. I like specifics and I see this as a rewriting of history if what is actually happened is genericized to something less accurate. Why should we say Limbaugh abused oxycodone when it fact the pills he swallowed said OxyContin. If he managed to home brew oxycodone for himself and abused that then, absolutely, say oxycodone.

If the exact pill he took is unknown but we know it was "some form of oxycodone" then say just that. As a WP editor, it would not be appropriate to arbitrarily choose OxyContin in this case.

So: my proposal for "appropriate" is to use the generic or the trademark depending on what is verifiable. If Limbaugh admits that he took OxyContin they say he took OxyContin. If Limbaugh admits he took oxycodone then say he took oxycodone. If Limbaugh admits he took oxycodone but OxyContin was found on a search warrant then say "Limbaugh says oxycodone" and "the police say they found OxyContin."

In short: use what is verifiable. Period. And remove reference to "appropriate". (And to avoid digression, argue my points about appropriateness and not the assertions or facts about Limbaugh. Consider everything I said about Limbaugh and drugs as purely hypothetical to demonstrate my point.) Cburnett 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In turn with my previous post I think the whole bit should be removed. I guess I realized it was rather pointless to say "use what's verifiable" when that's already spelled out in WP:V and trademarks aren't special enough to warrant being repetitive. Cburnett 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbols as words

I would like to clarify "Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced and are included purely for decoration". Some people are claiming that special symbols, e.g. ♥, ☆, should be included if they have a traditional spoken representation and hence are "pronounced". For example, arguing for I ♥ NY, in place of I Love New York. I don't think allowing such substitutions is the intention of the guideline, but would appreciate other comments. My proposal would be to substitute "Likewise, avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for "love")." Dragons flight 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just because a character exists, and the marketing department happened to choose it for the logo treatment, doesn’t mean we need to reproduce that logo in our text. The Toys "R" Us article gets it right; it redirects Toys "Я" Us to the version with the normal R. The company doesn’t have any Cyrillic characters in its name. The I Heart Huckabees article gets it wrong. The I Love New York article gets the article title right (for now, at least[3]), but gets the body copy even worse by rendering the heart in red.
Using special decorative characters introduces problems of consistency:
  1. Fonts don’t all provide the necessary characters, so some readers will be presented with less-than-readable articles.
  2. Some titles will get better treatment than others. The heart character happens to be available, but not all logo symbols are in fonts. This leads to the rather awkward “I {have never been to} [in the shape of a heart] New York” description and the inability to represent the heartagram logo of the band HIM in text.
  3. If the textual portion of the article is going to re-create a logo, it should go all the way. The “I Love New York” sign uses a typewriter font; should the article use that in addition to the read heart? Will any typewriter font do, or should it use the very same one used on the bumber stickers? What if a logo is hand-drawn?
  4. The symbols draw undue attention to themselves. The heart character is big and dark compared to surrounding text, and the points of the star nearly fade to invisibility on my screen.
I say stick with normal text exclusively. Trying to reproduce logos in body text causes more problems than it solves, and it isn’t worth the effort. --Rob Kennedy 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not necessary. Firstly the current guideline is quite similar to WP:SIG. Allow me to reiterate some of the more important points there.
  1. They are potentially distracting from the actual article itself
  2. They are an unnecessary drain on server resources, and could cause server slowdown.
  3. The inclusion of these symbols will create future problems on consistency and the inclusion of more complex symbols on Wikipedia.

I personally feel that by sticking to the normal text exclusively, there would be greater consistency and prevent future fierce arguments on talk pages. For example, how large the symbol should be on the article namespace and the respective talkpages. This would indeed create unnecessary debates over these issues. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the specific examples presented here are correct - gratuitous use of symbols, especially in a manner which is not strictly correct, is to be avoided. On the other hand, sometimes correctly used symbols which are rendered correctly by the majority of browsers are valuable in explaining technical material. Also, this is the wrong place for this - the trademarks guideline has more to do with the realization that we have no legal obligation to include trademark symbols and less to do with the use of symbols cluttering up the article. Deco 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It came up here because some company names (e.g. Toys "Я" Us) and slogans (e.g. I ♥ NY) are trademarks stylized with funny symbols. The trademarks guideline has everything to do with how we write such things, and no impact on the use of symbols in technical writing. There have been formatting rules on this page for as long as I can remember. Dragons flight 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Style guides thrive on realistic, useful examples to make their points. Can you provide some? (I’m not challenging you; I just want you to elaborate.)
And I think this is a good place to discuss the issue. Whether something is considered clutter is a matter of style. This is the portion of the style guide dedicated to trademarks, which is where funny symbols are most likely to occur. Either here or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) would be appropriate. --Rob Kennedy 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've voiced my opinion on this for a while. I just want to add that just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. One argument is that "we can do it on the Internet". Well, this was possible in print since, well, the beginning of print! Does Britannica use half-assed renderings of logos? Does Webster's? – flamurai (t) 03:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, if the symbol is not easily available on a keyboard, then it shouldn't be included in the article name, as I have no clue how to type that heart character. James Duggan 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Those funny symbols are just a way to try to draw attention. Essentially, they're a logo, not the actual brand name. If they want hearts and reverse R's, they can buy an ad in the local newspaper. You can also check with the trademark office; I'm pretty sure they didn't register themselves as "I ♥ NY" and "Toys Я Us". Also, you shouldn't have to use all kind of strange non-alphabetical symbols to write about something. Does anyone actually say "Я"? Anyway, we romanise other non-alphabetic content too, so why wouldn't we "romanise" these? Shinobu 18:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All capitalized trademarks

There's a discussion over at Talk:WWE Raw that this comment is mostly about. Now, WWE's trademark for its Monday show is actually RAW, all capitalized, kinda like TIME and FOX. Now, I can see why the article name was changed from WWE RAW to WWE Raw, but what's wrong with using the actual trademark of RAW within the article when refering to the show? I believe newspapers and other media use the proper trademark, why can't we? --James Duggan 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the article itself should be at WWE RAW. I think the guidelines should be changed to allow exceptions for TV shows/movies/video games, etc (the fact that articles like I ♥ Huckabees and We ♥ Katamari exist support this). TJ Spyke 03:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You guys are members of this ridiculous edit war, as I am. I think it's best to leave the discussion of the policy to disinterested parties rather than raise barns. That said, I couldn't disagree more with the change you're proposing. Croctotheface 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in the WWE or the contents of that article. But when it comes to cases like this, I have always followed a fairly straightforward rule. If a proper noun (trademark or otherwise) is an acronym, and pronouned letter by letter (like FBI, CIA, AT&T, or WWE), then it should be written in all caps to reflect this. However, if it is pronounced as a word, and presented in all caps as a logo or marketing decision (such as WWE "RAW"), then it should just receive an initial cap. Proper capitalization would look like this: Spam, WWE Raw, Time magazine, MCI, AT&T, and the Fox network. Speaking of AT&T, I would allow ampersands in trademarks, but I would not allow non-standard symbols like hearts (as in "I ♥ Huckabees" or I ♥ NY). In cases like that, the non-standard symbol should be replaced by the proper (or most commonly used) spoken equivalent, such as "I Heart Huckabees" or "I Love New York." BJ Nemeth 05:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur with BJ Nemeth. Well said. —ptk✰fgs 05:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with BJ. Dragons flight 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that all acronyms should be all caps, whether they are pronounced letter for letter or not. After all, they are acronyms and the very nature of acronyms are each letter in caps. And no, RAW is not an acronym. However, my original question, which was different than the direction this thread has taken, is why can't we use the proper trademark throughout the article? James Duggan 06:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
For all the reasons BJ described. Croctotheface 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but at the same time Wikipedia strives to be accurate, and how can we be completely accurate without using the trademarked spelling/style? James Duggan 06:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If we use the styles dictated by trademark holders, we're going to end up with a bunch of unreadable crap like "SPAM® Luncheon Meat" instead of just "Spam", "LEGO® Bricks and Toys" instead of "Lego", "Macy*s®" instead of "Macy's", and so forth. Trademarks are often designed to be as loud and obnoxious as possible. When you're trying to brand a product, I suppose stabbing the reader in the retina with your trademark over and over is a good thing. Here, it's not. —ptk✰fgs 07:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses standard English spelling and formatting. When the special treatment preferred by the trademark owner is significant, it can be described and exemplified as necessary. For example, "The Macy's trademark is usually presented by the company with star in place of an apostrophe." "The Lego company requests that the Lego trademark be written in all capital letters." "In promotional materials I Heart Huckabees, the word Heart is replaced with a heart symbol, in the style of a rebus". Nohat 08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, concur with BJ. I am firmly against corporate hijacking of the English® brand language. – flamurai (t) 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
One reason not to duplicate fancy characters such as the heart symbol is that not all computers support it. I'm using Mac OS 10.4.7 today, and the hearts don't appear in the article body text. I just see a thick vertical bar. In the status bar for the links, I see a wide horizonal blank space. (The hearts do appear in the edit window, though.) I have no control over what fonts get installed here; it's not my computer.
Why make a special exception for TV shows, movies, and video games? What makes them differem from other products, such as Spam, or company names like Adidas and Fox? I covered these issues in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page as well, but I'll repeat them here. Bill Walsh, a respected copy editor and author, wrote about reproducing trademarks in print. If you browse around the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web site, you'll notice that nearly all trademarks are written in all capitals. In other words, the USPTO is not case-sensitive. A company trademarks a word, not a particular capitalization of the word. (If the company wants to trademark a specific capitalization, then it trademarks an image, not a word. Wikipedia doesn't use images in body text just to make a trademark "look right.") In the real world, we capitalize trademarks. First letter capital, the rest lowercase. Exceptions are made for mid-word capitals, like in CompuServe or GlaxoSmithKline, where it's more as though the spaces have been removed than that arbitrary letters have been capitalized.
You wrote that you think newspapers write the word in all caps. I cited three pro-wrestling-related publications that don't: Pro Wrestling Insider, Impact Wrestling News, and Pro Wrestling Torch. If the industry itself doesn't use silly capitalization, why should we? You compared the issue to TIME and FOX. But we write those as Time and Fox, so your argument actually works against you in that case. --Rob Kennedy 18:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
James Duggan responded to my earlier comment above with "I think that all acronyms should be all caps, whether they are pronounced letter for letter or not." This needs some clarification. Terms such as a radar, laser, and scuba are all technically acronyms, but I would not type them in all caps. It might also open the door for people to claim backronyms for their names to get the all-cap treatment. In Duggan's defense, my earlier comment implies that terms like AIDS, TIFF, and NASA should be written as Aids, Tiff, and Nasa (clearly wrong) because they are pronounced as words. So a compromise is needed between my rule and Duggan's rule. There is a statement in the second paragraph of the radar article that reads, "The term has since entered the English language as a standard word, radar, losing the capitalization in the process." I think that is an excellent (if weakly defined) compromise, clarifying what I wrote earlier. It preserves the all-cap status of AIDS and NASA, but allows laser and scuba to be written as standard lower-case words. BJ Nemeth 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think the important thing here is that the compromise is not allowed the other way (I.E. Raw to RAW). Those who might argue that the acronym rule supports writing "AIDS" as "Aids" would only be trying to defeat it by creating a Straw man argument in order to support capitalization of words like "RAW". -- Renesis (talk) 22:08, October 30, 2006 (UTC)
And there is also a major difference between RAW and AIDS, as AIDS is an acronym, RAW is not. James Duggan 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what CMOS says on the subject:

Parts of names given in full capitals on the letterhead or in the promotional materials of particular organizations may be given in upper- and lowercase when referred to in other contexts (e.g., “the Rand Corporation” rather than “the RAND Corporation”).

– flamurai (t) 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What about NVIDIA? NVIDIA is not a word, nor is it a abbreviation. It's trademarked as NVIDIA and NVIDIA Corp. wants it to be written NVIDIA. What are your views on this? rohith 07:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I always preferred Nvidia since it's more like a word (though missing a vowel), and is definitely not pronounced letter-for-letter. As is the case with many of these style situations we're addressing, a Google News search shows it split about half and half. – flamurai (t) 07:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, just on the first page of Google News there, the only "NVIDIA"s were from press releases. Every news source I saw there uses "Nvidia". The article should probably be moved. Croctotheface 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. The article should definitely be moved. -- Renesis (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My choice would be based on how it’s pronounced. If it’s “en-vidia,” sort of like ’N Sync, then I’d spell it NVidia, with a capital V. On the other hand, if it’s “nuh-vidia,” as though it’s simply missing a vowel, then I’d use a lowercase V. But I don’t know how it’s pronounced. --Rob Kennedy 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The pronunciation of a missing vowel or not doesn't bother me. Xbox has the same issue, and nobody pronounces it as if it's missing a vowel (it's pronounced "X-Box"). For the same reason, I'm comfortable with "Nvidia," which is pronounced "N-vidia" in my experience. In this case, however, I wouldn't object too strongly to "NVidia," but I would object strongly to "NVIDIA." BJ Nemeth 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I understand the argument for "NVidia", I would actually object more strongly to it than "NVIDIA", as I don't think "NVidia" is ever used. We would essentially be inventing "NVidia". All that said, "Nvidia" is clearly the way to go. Croctotheface 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point, Croc. I hereby drop my weak support for "NVidia." (I was temporarily looking at the issue in a vacuum.) I'm now 100% behind "Nvidia," and 100% against "NVIDIA" and "NVidia." BJ Nemeth 22:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
CNN used "NVidia" in 2001 [4], but changed it to "Nvidia" [5] by 2002. (I couldn't find anything more current at CNN.) FoxNews.com currently uses "Nvidia" [6]. Just providing a few sources to back up my position. BJ Nemeth 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I was treating the issue similar to how BJ was — in a vaccuum. That is, lacking any references, if someone came up to me and asked me how to spell that company name, my answer would have depended on the pronunciation. I don’t really have any problem with Nvidia, though. (It looks a little weird to me, but then, it’s a weird word no matter how it’s capitalized!)
The bottom line from all this seems to be that there is virtually no support for writing trademarks in all capitals just because they’re trademarks, even when dealing with names of TV shows. So, ultimately no change from what the policy already is. --Rob Kennedy 05:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if it's an acronym we can keep the caps (BBC, ZDF, ARD, NDR, CNN, IBM), otherwise we drop them (Microsoft, Apple, Indiana Jones, Doom). We already have a style guide on all caps, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All_caps. It redirects here for trademark issues, but if we want to, we can just remove that point and redirect from here to that guideline instead. In most cases nothing will change, and we would have a nice, simple and consistent guide. Shinobu 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Trademarks with Question Marks (?) and Exclamation Points (!)

In the discussion above about all-capped trademarks, Rob Kennedy linked to an article about reproducing trademarks in print by Bill Walsh. Walsh raises an interesting point that I haven't seen discussed here, relating to the trademarked names of Yahoo and Guess. Both companies want their names to include unusual punctuation, and as I write this, the Wikipedia articles about Yahoo! and Guess? do just that. However, in Walsh's article, he calls their punctuation "distracting" and he refuses to use them. I agree -- the punctuation is not only unnecessary, but disruptive to the reader. (One of my prime directives in copyediting is "The tie goes to the reader.") I haven't fully researched this yet, but an online search of news organizations shows a split between the two styles (with or without punctuation). The Associated Press appears to write Yahoo without the exclamation mark, which is what I propose for the Wikipedia style: No question marks or exclamation points in trademarked names. BJ Nemeth 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No decorative punctuation. Croctotheface 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. I'll buy that there are exceptions to this, such as !!!, but we certainly don't need to add the superfluous punctuation to Yahoo and Guess. —ptk✰fgs 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I started a move request for Yahoo. Guess? is somewhat harder since a "guess" is of course distinct from "Guess?" the clothing manufacturer so a choice would have to be made about what to do with the conflict. Dragons flight 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ambitious. Does the WP:MOS-TM "official text" sufficiently support this? It seems that we've gathered a good consensus on the talk page, but I'm not sure the MOS text is strong enough to hold up against what is sure to be strong opposition from a few users with an affinity for corporations' pet spellings. -- Renesis (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I also expect opposition. In the case of Yahoo, though, I think there is even more of an advantage to removing the exclamation point because it can be confusing to see an end punctuation mark in the middle of a sentence. I agree that Guess(?) is more ambiguous, but I think that Yahoo and similar cases really call for change. Croctotheface 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I expect arguments for reproducing trademarks and other typographic oddities to be based on some misguided idea that we have a legal obligation to do so. I’m not a lawyer, of course, but I see no reason to type out trademarks the way the marketing departments do. Their job is to draw attention to their companies and products; our job is to write intelligently and neutrally about those companies and products. We’re not diluting the trademarks by applying them to things they don’t apply to, and we’re not using the trademarks to market competing products or services. (And even if we were diluting a trademark, that’s not really our problem. It’s the owner’s job to protect the trademarks, not ours.) --Rob Kennedy 00:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if we are guilty of dilution, then the owner would sue us to protect it, but I don't think there's any such issue. So far, the argument (on Talk:Yahoo!, for instance) is that omitting the punctuation is "less accurate" and that Wikipedia has some sort of duty to use "official names". Croctotheface 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the similarities between the word "guess" and the trademark "Guess." Context and capitalization usually does the trick, and seems to work for all the other trademarks that are also common words (such as Apple, Fox, and Time). Interestingly, on Guess's official website, they do not use the question mark except as part of the graphic logo [7]. This decision will affect a handful of other articles (Sorry!, Jeopardy!, etc.), and the list of similarly punctuated names will likely grow over time. I think it's best to draw the line now, with very, very few exceptions. The only general exception I would recommend would be in the titles of artistic works, such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Who Censored Roger Rabbit?. Other than artistic works, if the punctuation isn't pronounced, it shouldn't be considered standard use. That would allow an exception for !!!, because the exclamation points are pronounced (sort of). BJ Nemeth 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Croc, I was writing under the impression that trademark dilution isn’t actually against the law — or at least not so much that any mere mortal had to worry about it — but was instead something that a trademark owner had to protect against through active use of the trademark and discouragement of generic use. Apparently, dilution is against the law,[8] so the Wikipedia organization as a whole might be subject to litigation. Anyway, that still wouldn’t mean we need to write trademarks in all caps or other similar treatment. Simple capitalization (to distinguish it from a generic word), and careful use so as to be clear about just what we’re associating with a given mark, should be sufficient. --Rob Kennedy 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, trademark dilution mostly deals with using a trademark vicariously, such that it loses its potency. For instance, although Wikipedia and Disneyland are not competitors, if Wikipedia started calling itself "the happiest place on Earth", that would constitute a dilution of the mark. It's not my understanding that publications are diluting marks by not following the trademark owner's style, spelling, or punctuation. Croctotheface 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To refute the supposed "legal problems" with the company's own preferred usage, let me just point out that many major news organizations refer to Yahoo without the exclamation point. It's apparently legal (and preferred) for USA Today [9], Reuters [10], Business Week [11], CNET [12], the Washington Post [13], Information Week [14], the Los Angeles Times [15], and even Scientific American [16]. Yes, some other reputable news outlets use "Yahoo!" (No need to link to them here; I believe you.) We could go back and forth with other sources that use one form or the other, and it would get us nowhere. My point is this -- dropping the exclamation point is clearly legal and acceptable in the mainstream press. So we are free to weigh other factors in developing the Wikipedia house style in cases like this.
As far as trademark dilution is concerned, Rob Kennedy's link [17] specifically states that "fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use (such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act." Wikipedia is in no legal danger from dropping the exclamation mark from "Yahoo!" BJ Nemeth 03:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Companies use funny punctuation for the same reason they use funny symbols. It's a way to logoify the normal spelling of their brand name. In effect, they're hoping to achieve a free advertising effect. The same as with the funny symbols applies. There's nothing that forces us to keep them. Shinobu 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Capping uncapped company names

There is a debate raging over at the article on id Software. In short, some users prefer to refer to the company as they refer to themselves, as id Software (the "id" in lowercase). Another user changed all instances to "Id software", complying with this standard, but defying the company's own use of their name. The former editor thinks that this company name is a suitable exception to ignore the standard, citing the statement that guidelines are not set in stone, but are to be aherred to with some common sense. I personally feel using "Id" instead of "id" makes the article confusing and less clear, especially since the article never talks about any other type of "id". But we wanted to bring it up here to get other's input. Currently, the article uses the (incorrect) uppercase version of the name. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes Id Software any different from other company that doesn't capitalize its name, such as Craigslist, Adidas, etc.? It's a proper name, so it gets capitalized. The article most certainly discuss another kind of id ("The current official pronunciation is Id as in "did" or "kid", which refers to the id as a psychological concept developed by Sigmund Freud."), so saying it doesn't is either misinformed or disingenuous. The point of capitalizing proper names is to make it clear that it's a proper name. We use English here, not marketingese. Nohat 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so hasty in labeling that version "incorrect." This issue was discussed earlier on this very page, and went to a vote [18]. The consensus was that lowercased trademarks (such as "adidas," "craigslist," or, in this case, "id Software") should always receive an initial capital letter to distinguish them as proper nouns. Within Wikipedia, they should be written as "Adidas," "Craigslist," and "Id Software." BJ Nemeth 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it absolutely should be spelled "Id". It's a proper noun, and proper nouns are capitalized in English. Id can do whatever they want on their own web site and marketing materials, but that doesn't affect us. —ptk✰fgs 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you've gotten at the core of the question as to why id deserves an exception to the guideline: the fact is that it's not just a question of what they do "on their own web site and marketing materials"; "id Software" (lower case) is common usage. You can see that through a quick glance through the secondary sources sited in the article. A review of news coverage shows that a large number (maybe a plurality; it's hard to sort wire articles from original news) of "professionally edited" print and web sources already make exceptions to their own stylesheets[2] for id: CNN, Reuters/WP. Further to that, though, a vast majority of general internet traffic (community sites, blogs, etc.) do, and always have.
And that's just not the case for the counter-examples being brought up here, such as Adidas. A review of those same "professionally edited" sources (and general traffic) will show the lower case usage is never/rarely adopted. I don't think why this is the case is that important to the question at hand[1], but my strong opinion is that wikipedia should not willfully depart from common usage (and honestly, it seems arrogant to so). The id article has been broadly edited by the community, and those editors—familiar with the company and gaming in general—clearly believe that it's appropriately un-capitalized (I'll grant that some certainly have no opinion either way).[2]
[1] Why is "id" common usage but "adidas" is not? I'd say the only relevant explanation here is that id is an actual word, and that it's easy to confuse "id" with "ID", both of which can become "Id" when over-zealously edited. There's also that "id" is not a heavily market/marketer-driven company; I think people in general are sensitive to being marketed at, and they can tell when the motives behind something like Realtor(R) are lessd than genuine.
[2] And let me state for the record that I don't think it's a good idea for exceptions should be handled on the general trademarks talk page, although I guess that's your business. The closer to the topic the consensus can be formed, the more appropriate it will be, and the easier to manage. That's a sideline I don't have time to get into though (and it may very well already have been covered). Sighrik 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This should be "Id", no question about it. Croctotheface 09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a proper noun, so it should get a capital. How come people find such a simple rule so difficult? Shinobu 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of fuss about caps over nothing

It seems like this Wikipedia policy is unnecessarily fussy, and used by users who aren't knowledgeable or actually interested in the individual articles to do a batch renaming process across several articles. For example, a strict rule that suggests:

Should all be batch renamed to:

...might be easy on the bot programmers, but lacks style and breaks usage consensuses on individual trademarks and titles of works. What I think this policy should prioritize more is real world usage. If there is clear consensus in real world usage to refer to something in a certain spelling, why not go by that? Oh, eBay and iPod actually would be exempt because there is a specific exception about trademarks with only the second letter capitalized. I think that's lazy policy amending that works around the fact that the core of the policy on caps is flawed and unnecessarily fussy. Usage that is acceptable to the majority being acceptable by policy as well doesn't sound like such a bad idea. At least it avoids annoying vast batch renaming. —Tokek 14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. I think this particular issue should be decided on a per-article basis, with this MoS section providing suggestions at most. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T13:41Z
I don't think it should be decided on a per-article basis, because as in the current straw poll to move Clamp (manga artists) back to the correct and longstanding CLAMP, those opposed are simply responding based on "WP:MOS-TM says so." The guideline needs to be changed. —pfahlstrom 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You could interpret the reason “The Manual of Style says so” as shorthand for “The issue has already been discussed, and the reasons behind the Manual of Style’s guidelines apply here, too.” That’s what stylebooks are for.
Here are reasons not to write names (whether trademarks or not) in all capitals, even if the folks who chose those names write them in all capitals.
  1. Reading an article with many all-capital words can be distracting. Capital letters draw readers’ attention to the important parts of a sentence. Just one at the start of the word is sufficient. No need to write the entire word in capitals; that draws undue attention to the word.
    I think whether or not attention is "Undue" is, as a concept, a violation of NPOV. —pfahlstrom 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. What an organization calls itself isn’t always an accurate depiction of its name. The magazine Time refers to itself as TIME. Other publications refer to themselves in all capitals like that, too. It’s called vanity capitalization. They don’t write other publications’ names in all capitals.
    Have you heard the term "vanity capitalization" before? It has a grand total of 3 google hits. Perhaps there is some other established term for this phenomenon? Anyway, I say, if TIME wants to call themselves TIME, and they do it consistently in non-logo locations, with an established non-capricious usage history, then I have no problem with calling them TIME. —pfahlstrom 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Words in all capitals are read as acronyms. I assume each letter to stand for another word, and each letter may or may not be pronounced separately.
    There are tons of exceptions. CINCLANT for example. —pfahlstrom 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sometimes, the all-capital rendering is just a style. My local newspaper writes its name in all capitals on its banner, but uses title case in body copy. The Nike show company writes its logo (when it’s not just the swoosh) in all capitals. Adidas tends to do the opposite, writing its name in all lowercase. Both are just styles.
    adidas has been lowercasing itself for 57 years; it seems obvious to me they have some reason for doing so, and it's not going to hurt anyone to respect that. But if a company/person writes their name one way in one place and another way in another place, that indicates the orthography is not very important to them and we should pick what's most appropriate. If they're consistent, though, I think that indicates deliberate choice, as deliberate as distinctive spelling. —pfahlstrom 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, after looking at a handful of Web sites in Japanese, it’s my conclusion that when an English word appears within otherwise Japanese text, as often as not the word is written in all capitals. It has nothing to do with what the word is. In a language that doesn’t seem to have a distinction between uppercase and lowercase letters or characters, I can see why they would be ignored when adopting foreign symbols. But this branch of Wikipedia is in English, so let’s use the English capitalization rules, not the Japanese. --Rob Kennedy 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the usage most likely flows from the lack of native capitalization. In fact, I believe that lowercase and uppercase letters are seen as almost like the hiragana/katakana distinction. If they choose an uppercase name because they like the look better than a mixed name, or if they purposely mix cases up as in RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE presumably because of aesthetic reasons, I have no problem with it. Japanese has adopted the Roman alphabet and used it in ways not common in English. What other language on the planet that uses the Roman alphabet has not adapted it to suit their own needs? Many languages add diacritics, for example, and these are often used in names in English-language Wikipedia articles—though admittedly not without some controversy. I suggest that the specific choice of capital and lowercase letters in names by Japanese speakers parallels the use of diacritics in many other languages, and thus should be treated similarly in the English-language Wikipedia.
But whether they originate from Japan or domestically, I think applying rules of English usage to names which are deliberately chosen to break those rules is a rejection of the sentiment behind the choice and thus a violation of NPOV. Wikipedia should describe things how they are, not how they are supposed to be. —pfahlstrom 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. These are already covered by the "do not invent new formats" clause in the rule. Regardless of third party websites opinion, CLAMP is not Clamp in legal usage nor in common usage. Third party mistakes, such as the imdb entry or the Library of Congress entry, should not bear weight on this discussion, the group's name is never printed on its works as Clamp and what appears on their published works should be the deciding factor, unless the author says otherwise in a way that meets WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 12:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
So basically, everyone else - The New York Times, one of the web's largest retailers, the Library of Congress - just got it wrong, right? No offense, but if the concept of a Manual of Style, which does not emulate stylized typography in favor of its readers is so fundamentally alien to you, why do you even bother to join this discussion? That's like joining a committee formed to discuss the proceedings of a Valentine's Day parade while being irrevocably opposed to celebrating the day at all. - Cyrus XIII 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The New York Times got it wrong. Amazon is user created. I've been in contact with the LoC and, apparently, they're referring back to Wikipedia (heaven help us). Meanwhile, I have requested the publisher of CLAMPs works contact the LoC, I've been fixing Amazon's webpages and the NYT... is nearly unique. Like MCI, CLAMP is nearly exclusively referred to as CLAMP. I've joined the discussion in an effort to affect consensus. Why are you here? /snarkiness Kyaa the Catlord 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
MCI is an acronym for Microwave Communications, Inc. - Cyrus XIII 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Why yes it is.... Your point is? Like MCI, we should not be inventing new formats and we should definately not be reinforcing innaccuracies. Kyaa the Catlord 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that acronyms are always capitalized. Therefore MCI is unquestionably compliant with MOSTM and a poor example for Clamp. PubliusFL 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Then its a poor example for the MOSTM. We should remove it and replace it with CLAMP which is nearly never spelled Clamp without inventing a new format. Kyaa the Catlord 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point. MCI is a good example for MOSTM because it is standard English usage, and it's being used as an example of when standard English usage permits all-caps. "CLAMP" is not standard English usage (unless you have some evidence that it's an acronym, which I haven't seen any indication of so far), it's obviously idiosyncratic, so it would not make a good example of all-caps in standard English usage. PubliusFL 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
CLAMP, the manga group, is standard usage for their name. It is nearly iconic when someone gets it wrong and spells it Clamp, if you have doubts it is easy to verify this by going to any Borders and checking it against the shelves of books printed in the preferred way. Pressing for it to be spelled incorrectly based on unreliable sources that do not meet POLICY (cf WP:RS and WP:V ) could be taken as POV pushing. Kyaa the Catlord 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Of course if you look at their books you will see it printed in the way they prefer. And if you look at anything produced by the National Association of Realtors, you will see REALTOR, because that's what they prefer. But MOSTM explicitly says that the preference of the trademark holder does not matter. I'm not relying on any outside sources (which would have to comply with WP:ATT - the successor to WP:V and WP:RS), I'm relying purely on this guideline. The guideline doesn't say you have to find a reliable source to support ordinary English usage, it says to just follow ordinary English usage. PubliusFL 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It also states "do not invent new formats" and makes an example where the ordinary rules of English are essentially never used. CLAMP, as the manga group, is nearly NEVER written as Clamp. Ordinary English usage for the manga group CLAMP is CLAMP as is shown by the rules of WP:ATT or does a style guideline now trump one of the pillars of Wikipedia? Kyaa the Catlord 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at the example. When it says do not invent a new format, "Mci" is a new format because in English you capitalize all of an acronym and not just the first letter. In contrast, ordinary English usage for proper names that are not acronyms is to capitalize the first letter and leave the rest lowercase. Therefore, "Clamp" follows ordinary English usage for proper names that are not acronyms, and does not require inventing a new format. "CLAMP" requires inventing a new format, otherwise unknown to ordinary English usage, of capitalizing all letters of a non-acronym proper name. PubliusFL 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Clamp requires a new format, one which is unsupported by reliable, verifiable primary sources. The name of this group is not Clamp, it is CLAMP. This is not an article about a device for closing off a tube, it is about a group of people who have a verifiably distinct name. Continuing to mispell a person or group's name in blind adherence to this guideline is bordering on vandalism in an effort to make a WP:POINT. Kyaa the Catlord 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
MOS and NC appear to recognize a difference between the name of an entity and the particular way a name is capitalized or displayed. "macy*s" and "Macy's" are the same name, the difference is formatting. "REALTOR and "Realtor" are the same name, "CLAMP" and "Clamp" are the same name, and MOS tells us how to style these names. PubliusFL 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I refer you back to common names. The most common spelling of this group is CLAMP. This is a pseudonym, MOS-JP states to use the pseudonym. BLP states get it right, it must be verifiable, it must be sourced. Spelling CLAMP as Clamp is like spelling Ann Coulter as Ass Coulter. "Get it right." Kyaa the Catlord 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Update The LoC has seen their error and changed their listing to reflect it. Kyaa the Catlord 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the pillows

A while back I moved the pillows to The Pillows but was reverted. Since the article's talk page is rather slow moving, I'd like for some people here to back me up on the move so that I'll have something to fall back on if it gets complained about again.--SeizureDog 11:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure what more you need to fall back on. You already have this entire style manual. The opening sentence of the article in question even says that the lowercase is a style. But it’s not Wikipedia’s style. --Rob Kennedy 19:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I know I have the style manual, but I'm still getting people saying "but the offical title is..." and wanting to keep it lowercased. Being able to point and say "look, other people agree it needs to be moved" works a lot better than being the one person trying to conform to policy while a bunch of fans object. As it is, it just looks like i'm trying to piss people off.--SeizureDog 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This one is absolutely clear-cut. It's "The Pillows". —ptk✰fgs 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think the logic behind this particular style guideline is braindead, regardless of how clear-cut it is to you. I won't make trouble any more if most people are in agreement here. However, this doesn't seem to really be the case; just by scrolling up I see plenty of instances of disagreement with this guideline for (what I perceive to be) valid reasons. I'm not sure that this is one that we should be attempting to mandate on a universal basis. Perhaps you can understand my frustration at being dutifully told that my opinion is overridden by a "policy" that isn't really a policy at all, but rather a somewhat controversial guideline. I think if you went to just a handful of the articles mentioned in the section above this one and changed them to conform to the current guideline, you'd see a lot more people here expressing their discontent. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T01:17Z
Yes, there might be quite a lot of noise if we tried to apply rational style guidelines to every article on Wikipedia. The fact is that there's a cancer on this site, one of deference to pop culture before dedication to our responsibilities in producing a quality encyclopedia. Perhaps there is no solution, and the mob with their trademark symbols and internal caps can simply run us off. That doesn't mean we should simply open the door and encourage them to pile on more cruft. —ptk✰fgs 21:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit of a straw man. I'm totally for applying style guidelines, and ardently defend several of them. I merely disagree with this particular one and question that there is significant support for it. From what I've seen, the earlier poll that was used to decide the current guideline phrasing didn't indicate a strong consensus. Contrast this with a guideline I support very heavily in WP:MOSNUM, that pertaining to IEC binary prefixes. It has been challenged several times and still receives overwhelming support from many editors. This particular capitalization policy doesn't, in my view, represent a very strong consensus, thus I challenge enforcing its application. There's no need to spin my arguments as being "style guideline anarchist". I think there are valid points both ways, and you definitely have to draw the line somewhere to prevent the HoRRiBlE capITALIZATION used by some trademark stylizations. I believe that this particular issue is better decided on a per-article basis, though. -- mattb @ 2007-01-31T17:35Z

I agree with SeizureDog and Ptkfgs, a lot of editing on music-related articles is done with a certain ... well, let's call it potentially fandom-inspired purism. Maybe the guideline needs to be more explicit. If it would somewhere state, that band names and individual stage names constitute trademarks as well, quite a few redundant discussions could be avoided. For example, KISS (band) has recently been moved to Kiss (band), with this page of the Manual of Style in mind. It was probably a good thing to go through with that all the way - a move request, a discussion, establishing consensus and so forth - in order to have a valid precedent for a fairly notable band. But what sense is there in repeating this entire procedure for the dozens of other bands and artists who print their names with typographic gimmicks as well? - Cyrus XIII 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks/Archive_1&oldid=1114562361"