Talk:Atomic coffee machine

The original language in this article made a number of direct claims that were not supported by reliable references. I've edited those, and removed a number of external links to an online store site, which are clear violations of Spam. The remaining references generally fail WP:RS. A quick Google search has turned up no mentions of the Atomic coffee machine in reliable sources, though it is referenced in a number of commercial sites. Still, its design and history would seem to imply notability. Help in sourcing would be appreciated.Writeswift (talk 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Use ctrl+F and search for atomic where it's not immediately obvious on these links: blog but possibly instructive,, , , , , (advertisement), search inside the book on the sidebar for atomic, and certainly someone who really wants to source this should pick up a copy of this book.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Contributor 118.210.115.248 = The genericist = Jack Grieve who wrote the article, is using the already protected trademark "Atomic" (Trademark holder: Irene Notaras http://trade.mar.cx/AU791650) in Australia for his coffee machines made in Taiwan. His application was refused: http://www.ipmonitor.com.au/trademarks/case/1222669. This page is used as a matter of promotion and false claims as to the legal case and doesn't reflect the history of this coffee machine. The subject of the article seems to be wether or not one is allowed to manufacture these coffee machines nowadays and under which name they should be marketed.

Page "Atomic_Coffee_Machine" also witnesses poor ratings.

Edit warring over "This" versus "The"
The article is about the Atomic coffee maker. The first model, patented in 1946 had a distinctive design. Other designs followed. Rather than substitute every occurrence of "The" with "This" it would be much more constructive to provide reliable sources (not blogs) to show the other designs. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfect Biker Biker... but how about demonstrating that the US patent or the italian patent for that purpose is linked to the word "atomic"? You probably see something which i don't. One can patent a shape, a function... or trademark a name. None of the patents quote the name Atomic (or anything suggesting a particle, a cloud or an explosion). That's because 'Patent' and 'Trademark' are 2 different things. Many coffee machines, stove-top or electrical, of many sizes and shape (some patented which have nothing to do with Mr. Robbiatis first model) wore the label "Atomic". Calling the machine pictured in this article "The" atomic coffee machine is simply ignoring the history of both Brevetti Robbiati and Stella businesses. As long as you know what you are talking about, i am fine with it. The article improved much in the last few days. Thanks for your constructive remarks. Nitzkovic (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biker Biker... I have found different pictures for you of other Atomic coffee machines. These coffee machines were marketed by the Brevetti Robbiati or by STEMAC (Mr. Robbiati's son)... I am looking forward to you explaining how the Atomic shape applies here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stellabanana/6343281715/in/photostream or here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stellabanana/6343281283/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/stellabanana/6343281189/in/photostream/ or even better here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stellabanana/6344029662/in/photostream/ Nitzkovic (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Page fully protected
For one week, if the warring picks up again, it'll be protected longer. Thank you. Alexandria  (talk)  20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good move, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested this to stop the IP account - not sure if it'll block Nitzkovic, tho. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok! 2 things i would like to get an explanation for: First, Why is the picture still there although the source and author clearly states a commercial website who was involved in a legal procedure over the name Atomic for these coffee machines ? It clearly goes against the Soapbox policy of Wikipedia. By the way, i proposed another picture as a constructive alternative. Second, The phrase "The Robbiati design and patent registrations cover the Atomic shape" doesn't make sense at all. a) How can someone cover an atomic shape (atomic mushroom??? or a nucleus???)? b) The coffee machine doesn't look like a mushroom or an atom, does it?. Mr. Robbiati covered his improvements (patent). The rest is a trademark problematic (atomic name). If someone can explain how someone can cover an atomic shape in a patent, i would be very thankful. I am glad now we can discuss about it without having to delete each others contributions. I can't wait for your answers. Nitzkovic (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So... it has been a week now. Where are the answers? "Atomic shape" was at the center of a Trademark battle in Australia. The sad thing beeing: There is no "Atomic shape". You need to differenciate what is a patent to what is a trademark. So easy and yet... Nitzkovic (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Images
Articles should be illustrated with a variety of images. In the case of the design such as the Atomic coffee maker, which has evolved over the years, it is appropriate to show multiple designs. I fail to see how an image, properly licensed, can be dismissed as promotional. Please explain but don't get into another petty edit war. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

?? How an image can be promotional... mmmh let's see... maybe because it has the website address of a australian business who lets these machine be manufactured in Taiwan? Well.. Unless you consider that a business homepage has got its place on Wikipedia... in this case, you will have to explain what the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for means of promotion" policy is all about. Another company as well markets this machine, there is no reason why just this business should have his link on the picture. I proposed a neutral picture. If you make yourself the advocate to the "La sorrentina" company... i don't understand Wikipedia anymore. Nitzkovic (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Like you say, you really don't understand Wikipedia. Give that some thought and consider what exactly you are doing on Wikipedia. You are using it for soapboxing and making some quite disruptive edits that have been reverted by myself and others. Anyway, back to the picture - an image from any source released under a compatible licence can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and can be used on Wikipedia. Again I can't see what your objection is to a clear image - especially one without logos which would be the most common argument against an image being promotional. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right Biker Biker. I better leave this page to your expertive and the one of your colleagues. I probably misunderstood Wikipedia at some point. I beg your pardon. Nitzkovic (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Atomic coffee machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/domestic_appliances/1997-899.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

works for the webarchive of original urlAkhooha (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)