Talk:Ronco

One of the first to trademark the phrase?
Unless the company has gone out of business, nobody else could trademark their phrase. So they would be not only the first company to trademark it, but the only one. Verification is needed as to whether it is actually registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
 * Fixed the phrasing, can't help you on the verification. Lawikitejana 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick search of the USPTO shows a number of holders to different forms of the phrase, some greatly predating Ronco. 70.171.13.219 10:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ron Popeil paid a license fee for the phrase.

Potential for merger into Popeil article?
In my experience, the Ronco/Ron Popeil distinction is a pretty thin line for most people. I think a merger is worth consideration, with a redirect from 'Ronco' to 'Ron Popeil,' unless the article is/can be expanded. The Free Enterprise reference, for example, refers as much to Popeil as to the company, and if it's not in the Popeil article, I'm going to add it in a moment. Lawikitejana 07:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: While there's potential for a merger, there may be other approaches. The decision should take into account the fact that in 2005, Popeil sold the company, so while he continues to be the face of Ronco, the company is now more distinct from him than it was before. Lawikitejana 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Right of first look (refusal)
Why not call it the right of first refusal? That is what the topic is called and that it is what it would be commonly called here in the UK. I can't comment on the US-- I have lived there but would not know which way to fall, as US language is more disparate than many imagine.

SimonTrew 2009-jan-xiv 18:00 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.74.10 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reads like an AD
the second part of history also is actually more of it's current status — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.88.48 (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 6 september 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

– Ronco was an American company, not so important as I can read, there are a lot of places called Ronco, not olny Ronco, Pennsylvania in Ronco (disambiguation) and probably some other meanings Special:WhatLinksHere/Ronco MrKeefeJohn (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ronco → Ronco (brand)
 * Ronco (disambiguation) → Ronco
 * Oppose. Pageviews |Ronco_sopra_Ascona|Ronco_di_Maglio|Ronco_Biellese|Ronco,_Pennsylvania|French_brig_Ronco_(1808) show Ronco is the primary topic. The brand pioneered infomercials (see LA Times) and thus has a long-term notability.  A good number of the articles linked at the dabpage are PTMs and perhaps shouldn't be there.  162 etc. (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Expanding the time period of the pageviews to the "all time" earliest date of 1-July-2015:|Ronco_sopra_Ascona|Ronco_di_Maglio|Ronco_Biellese|Ronco,_Pennsylvania|French_brig_Ronco_(1808) Ronco seemed to always get periodic traffic spikes. And them scroll down to the stats table, where it shows that Ronco had a daily average of 129 views, Ronco sopra Ascona only had 15, and Ronco, Pennsylvania and few others tied with only 1 daily average view each. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment til |6th september 2021 in Ronco was missing the disambiguation note to Ronco (disambiguation): I think this fact influences the number of visits to this voice. Anyway for me the number of visit is not the only factor to decide about the title of a voice. For example |Dick_(slang) and |Ronaldo MrKeefeJohn (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The hatnote was removed on May 30, 2020; it was present before that. Pageviews before and after this date seem to follow the same trend. 162 etc. (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for your explanation, anyway my opinion doesn't change much ;-) Visit's trend it an important factor, but not the only one. --MrKeefeJohn (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.