Talk:Enormous Omelet Sandwich

Merge
Let's be honest there is no reason to have two seperate articles on essentially the same thing.. EnsRedShirt 11:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, but the Meat'normous should go into the Enormous article as a variant not the other way around. That is how BK treats the Meat'Normous. Jerem43 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed changed the Merge headers as such. EnsRedShirt 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep two separate articles as they are two separate sandwiches. --Mrath 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming and trademarks
"Burger [King] currently does not have any trademarks on the name Enormous Omelet Sandwich or its variants in the US and Canada" - I might be missing some context here, but why is this important? If there aren't any secondary sources remarking on it, that suggests it's not worth documenting. (Using trademark office search results seems like we're interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source beyond what "any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge" would be able to discern.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Trademarks are an intrinsic part of any product, they are legal components that help position a product. Violations can force the company to remove the product from the market. This has happened twice in the past few years to Burger King products, the "Hamlette" sandwich and their version of the snack wrap - both of which forced them to withdraw advertising and rebrand the products, which cost them a good deal of money.


 * Trademark issues have also historically prevented them from doing business in Mattoon, Illinois and parts of Texas. See the Lanham Act, Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois) and Burger King legal issues. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So have any secondary sources reported on anything like this happening with the Omelet Sandwich, or speculated that it might? --McGeddon (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - although you are rightly avoiding giving any context to the reader about how this may lead to trademark issues and violations, in the absence of secondary sources, we should not present this fact as being significant (or even true) on the sole grounds that you personally believe that these two searches definitely prove an absence of trademarks, and that this is significant to an encyclopedic understanding of the product. --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)