Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 3

Add a small note...
I think on the first bullet point, which says, "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names," a note should be added, indicating something along the lines of:


 * An exception may be made if the company producing the product writes it without a capital letter, when in print. Logos do not count as print, for the purposes of this principle. For example: In the case of "iPod," do not use "Ipod," but instead, "iPod," because the company which produces the iPod writes it with the special capitalization.

I know it needs some wording adjustments before it could be used.

Thoughts? aido2002 talk ˑ userpage 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea - it would help prevent confusion by allowing the article reference to appear as it does in the world, making the reference more useful and easy to spot. We do have disagreement, however, over whether companies should be able to dictate how a trademark is capitalized.  Some believe that only normal English rules should be used, which would prevent anything such as iPod from appearing in text or as an article name.  Others such as myself believe the actually registered trademark should be the controlling factor.  Although it is not apparent with iPod, GETRAG, in the issue above is registered as a trademark in all capitol letters [here].  Apple's application, unfortunately, made no mention to a capitalization scheme. [see here]  I support such a comment as it would avoid future issues and disagreements with trademarks such as iPod. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A big NOOOOO to this idea. The reason we use "iPod" is most certainly NOT that the company prefers it. The whole point of this guideline is to say that when there is a conflict between "what the company wants" and "what most closely resembles standard English", standard English wins. Croctotheface (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose your reasoning, Croctotheface, is sound. The mere fact that a company prefers a particular capitalization should not dictate.
 * Common usage, however, tends to modify "what most closely resembles standard English," as there is no controlled English scheme per se. Unlike French, for example, English is a constantly evolving language with ever changing rules which mimic what is used.  Truly, as "iPod" is the way we write the name of that crazy little audio device manufactured by Apple Computer, "iPod" is the way it ought to be written.
 * There is validity to the argument of listing a trademark as it is trademarked. A trade mark is nothing more than a name which is registered with a trademark office for the purpose of protecting the name of a company, service, or good.  When a trademark is registered in a particular way, that registration serves as a definition of the name of that good, service, or company.  If the name of something is nAME, I don't see why anyone here feels that he or she is entitled to modify the title to anything other than nAME.
 * Furthermore, the only reason to maintain English rules for article test is to promote clarity, standardization, and readability.
 * It is actually less confusing to maintain novel capitalization of commonly used or actual registered trademarks.
 * Any conversion reduces the similarity of information here to information found on real life. I am for reducing this conversion and interpretation.  I am for presenting real world information as it appears in the real world for readers to interpret as they wish from their own point of view. I think that is the only way to keep from filtering information.  Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in the iPod example, we've chosen to go with that formatting because "Ipod" is rarely used, and the second letter capital resembles standard English closely enough that it does not disrupt the prose. For your "commonality" argument, it would depend on HOW common the non-standard usage is and how common a more standard equivalent is.  There is no reason that we should use "REALTOR" just because that's how the trademark is registered.  If we decide that we should, as a matter of policy, respect any and all nonstandard formatting, capitalization, and punctuation, our encyclopedia would read like a press release.  If you want to look to real world cases, I would advocate doing as I described elsewhere on this talk page: look to secondary sources, such as newspapers, that write about the trademark.  If there is a strong "consensus" among reliable sources that the nonstandard style should be used, then we should probably follow that trend rather than buck it.  If there is a critical mass of secondary sources that change the formatting to make it appear more like standard English, then we should, for the sake of readability, as you suggest, go with standard English.
 * You do need to recognize that what you're proposing is, in no uncertain terms, to eliminate this guideline. I submit that the result would not benefit the publication. Croctotheface (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do entirely support a high level of revision to this guideline, in many ways removing what it currently states. I believe taking course in the direction of following what is commonly used would improve Wikipedia as a whole.  I worry that the reason many may disagree with me on this point is because they are not accustomed to such deviations from normality.  Wikipedia as an entity is just that - a deviation from normality which is continuing to gain acceptance as a valid source for reference.  I'm totally up for discussing this and, while I do disagree with you, I don't hold grudges -- How about this -- for now how about something resembling the following, as a compromise between your apparent viewpoint and that of aido2002:


 * "Trademarks not adhering to normal English capitalization rules are acceptable so long as the unique capitalization is the predominant method for portraying the trademark. A company's preference alone is not a controlling authority."


 * For a start it might not be bad - but something on point is needed. The guide only covers situations where trademarks may begin a sentence with a lowercase letter.  There is enough controversy around this subject to address this situation here where we look for guidance.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 07:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My primary issue with what you propose is that I don't know how "predominant" is defined. Does it mean that it's up to your judgment (or mine) about whether one or another style "predominates"?  Do we do some sort of survey or sampling?  If we initially find 500 cases of a nonstandard style and 501 of a standard one, do we accept the standard one, only to switch if the count becomes 502-501 the other way?  Secondly, I think that you would be surprised by how often major publications do what we do in this guideline.  For instance, a search of Google news for "Yahoo" reveals that the exclamation point is very rarely used, despite the fact that "Yahoo!" is how the trademark is registered.  (I suspect, incidentally, that the "Yahoo!"s mostly come from press releases.) I do not believe that the guideline, as it stands, needs any revision or should be revised.  I do think that exceptions can be made, but they should be rare and only for cases where the nonstandard style is overwhelming.  I would define "overwhelming" as used something close to all the time by reliable secondary sources.  If there exist more than one or two reliable publications who standardize the nonstandard style, we should follow the guideline as it stands and do the same.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Predominant, overwhelming, majority, -- These are all subjective standards. I suppose getting away from subjectivity is impossible; but, I believe at least a mention of how to handle this is needed.  Talk page after talk page of issues have arisen because nothing speaks to this issue.  Clarification, if only minor, can only help.  If you notice, in the line I suggested above, definitive speech was avoided.  "acceptable" and "predominant" were used.  This falls in line with the article's existing use of words such as "avoid," "should," or "general usage."  It isn't easy to revise such as well written guideline, but ignoring an obvious gap in the guide it will only exacerbate the problem.  How about an allusion to the use of a survey, or "talk page agreed upon" capitalization?   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think "avoid" or "should" are at all ambiguous--they're clearly prescriptive. I take "avoid X" in this guideline to mean "do not use X", and I really don't see another way of interpreting it.  I'm not entirely sure, at this point, what you want from the guideline.  Do you want to replace it with something that takes the opposite meaning?  That's the impression I had before.  If you do not want that, then what?  What do you want the guideline to address that it does not currently?   Regarding the "talk page specific" approach, that would defeat the purpose of having a manual of style.  The MoS exists so that similar cases are treated similarly across the encyclopedia.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And it brings up whether SPAM™ the meat product should be all caps, differentiating it from email spam. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already a difference between "Spam" (capitalized) and "spam". Croctotheface (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect - no, there isn't. Currently, the DAB page lists SPAM (the corporate acronym) as 'Spam'. Apart fromt he initial listing in the article as 'SPAM', it is thereafter referred to as 'Spam'. My concern is this, do we respect trademarked names, or don't we? This cannot be a subjective matter, as we tread litigious waters by seeming to give preference of one corporate-created identity over another. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you raised a disambiguation issue. It seemed that you suggested that email spam, which is not a proper noun, could not be adequately disambiguated if we used "Spam" for the meat product, but that we had to use "SPAM".   I replied that because Spam and spam are distinct, there was no disambiguation issue.  To your second question, no, we don't "respect" corporate trademarks.  That is the point of this guideline--that a trademark is "officially" rendered a certain way is not a relevant principle for our style guide.  There may be other reasons to use a style that is also official (for instance, if the "official" formatting were "Spam", there would be no reason to change it), but the fact that it is preferred by the trademark owner carries no weight.  I don't see any legal issues whatsoever.  There exists no law that says that corporate marketing must be replicated by independent entities.  There is no law against giving "preference" to one corporation over another, even.  If WP decided to enter an endorsement deal with a rival of Spam's and actively promote that rival at the expense of Spam, there would be no legal issue with that, and that is a much stronger stand than the one you are ascribing to us as it is. Croctotheface (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "iPod" is not standard English (especially at the start of a sentence), anymore than using any other trademark that starts with a lower case, and/or has upper case characters after the first character. If the difference is based on "what most people use", then the article should reflect that. Mdwh (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That last statement is clearly not founded in statute or in any American case law (which is pertinent for Wikipedia). There are many many legal issues with such an action - I hope Wikipedia never goes there.

I'm afraid Arcayne does have a point. If we look to incorporates news media to decide how to capitalize a trademark, we are looking to one, or a set of private organization to determine how to portray another private organization. If any confusion stems from this, an actionable claim exists against any entity promulgating such confusion (that is, assuming Wikipedia servers are physically located in the US, which I believe they are). I never meant to bing up that argument, it is in fact a valid argument under trademark law.

On another note, and what I meant to do initially by taking part in this talk page, I can not emphasize enough that some clarification is needed on this manual with respect to when to use novel capitalization in trademarks. The only steadfast rule existing now is that we are to portray acronym trademarks in all capitol letters (see Manual of Style (capital letters)). There is a world of confusion and of disagreement among reasonable editors on this issue. A consensus must be reached and we must augment this manual with the agreed upon rule. We'll have arguments about this topic ad infinitum unless something is done.

Croctotheface, I have noticed that you have a problem with non-adherence with classic English "rules." Why do you have a problem with non-"standard" capitalization schemes? Let us get to the reasoning behind these decisions to determine which route will be best. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the "iPod" page being called "IPod". -Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm neither here nor there, IPod is also a non-standard capitalization - what needs to be developed is a guideline for when to do what with capitalization in trademarks. This guide is a still vague on a few points.  Do you have a reason for being all for "IPod" which can help us?  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 03:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember from my schoolings that both the first letter of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns are to be capitalized. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure I recall that as well. This leans the way of a hard line rule for English standard capitalization.  I am not against this per se as it is at least a move toward more guidance which I think is neeses. - I personally support less strict route and allow more freedom, allowing us to write as we see writing in everyday life, off line and online.  This isn't up to me, however, it is up to the reaching of a consensus. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 07:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things: first, there is nothing in any statute that says a private entity such as Wikipedia can't endorse or support one company over another. I have no idea why you would think it would be prohibited from doing this. If WP wanted to, instead of being an encyclopedia, be a one-sided information source designed to support company X over company Y, there is nothing at all to prevent them from doing that. Of course, it could not say anything libelous, but using "Spam" instead of "SPAM-brand luncheon meat" is certainly not libelous. Second, Nicholas, you have not articulated any actual criticism of this guideline, aside from an implication that it is vague. I really have no idea what you actually want it to say, and it would go a long way if you spelled this out. My position is, basically, that the current guideline is sufficient to resolve disputes. It tells us that, when dealing with trademarks, we go with formatting that most closely resembles standard English unless it constitutes "inventing" a format. It then gets more specific with a series of examples. I don't see how that is unclear in theory or practice, and what cases the current guideline does not get at that you want it do, and what you want it to say about them. In other words, I don't really know what it is that we're talking about. What do you want the guideline to say? Croctotheface (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is totally allowed to do what it wants, but it is subject to injunction or damages if it were to do precisely what you mentioned; were it to affiliate with and promote product X from company X while portraying company or product Y as product y or why, Wikipedia would be open to litigation for confusing the public about the trademark of company Y. Furthermore, any use of Wikipedia to gain business for X through its maintenance of company Y information would open Wikipedia to limitation and damages.  I don't have time, nor would it be appropriate to discuss the action ability of such actions under NAD, NARC, the Lanham Act, etc.,(the UK, Germany, and other EU affiliated countries are often more strict on these issues) but rest assured that the actions you have mentioned are and have been litigated in the United States. (this was not my point though, this conversation almost wondered to Keven Bacon).


 * My point, my goal was to show that this guideline is vague in how to handle "initialisms", acronyms, and the incomplete acronym trademarks. After initially posting, however, I found Manual of Style (capital letters), which required the capitalization of acronyms even if they are not complete or strict acronyms.  The reason this was an issue was because editors are attempting to sort this out through polls on individual talk pages, when it would be much better to have a guideline which addresses this so we all don't spend our time discussion how to capitalize GETRAG, Saab, and so on as listed above.  A link to Manual of Style (capital letters) may be helpful, as the two issues are closely related.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time seeing the use of "Spam" over "SPAM" as trademark dilution. Even if it were considered dilution, if the changing of its name were done for the purpose of criticism, I could see a free speech defense.  Besides, if you're correct, then Yahoo has grounds for dozens if not hundreds of lawsuits against news outlets, such as CNN and the New York Times, both of which omit the exclamation point, which is part of Yahoo's registered company name, let alone their trademark.  The "see also" section of this guideline already links to the all caps guideline, and has for some time now.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless - actions not litigated are not free from the threat of litigation - in law it is incorrect to say that something is "legal" or "okay" because someone else does it. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, if this belongs anywhere, it belongs on one of our talk pages, but I'll make one more reply here. My argument is not that because Yahoo has not sued to protect their trademark, it becomes legal to dilute it.  My argument is more that because there are countless examples of publications doing what we do with trademarks, and yet there do not exist (to my knowledge, at least) any successful lawsuits against media companies for trademark dilution because of it, I have to expect that they don't exist because it's not actually trademark dilution.  I could be wrong, but I don't think so.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to refresh this discussion, which came up on Talk:deviantART earlier today. I do not believe this guideline as it stands completely fits either what is commonly done on Wikipedia, or what those involved with the articles under discussion think should be done. This is causing quite a few conflicts between those trying to enforce the style guide vs. those actively editing the articles concerned. Is there any objection to modifying the current guideline to recognize that, in general, if an officially-endorsed capitalization is also in wide use by those outside the organization promoting it, then we should use it too, per WP:COMMONNAME? I appreciate that this does not cover those situations in which there is no such endorsed capitalization, but it is a start. GreenReaper (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I would not find that to be a positive change at all. First, the notion that there is a dichotomy between the best practice (exemplified by the guideline) and reality does not mean that we should scrap the guideline.  Second, it is important that matters like these are not just left up to the editors who frequent the articles in question.  In general, I've found that editors tend to be, for lack of a better term, fans of the subjects of articles they edit.  In my experience, "fan" editors tend to believe that the subject of their fandom should be able to do whatever they please with the English language.
 * As far as devising a standard, I think my comments are pretty clear about what I advocate here. I think that a "wide use" test would have the effect of ending this guideline.   I suspect that, for just about every trademark that is formatted in some weird, someone could make a claim of "wide use"; especially for trademarks that are used so often that hundreds or thousands of secondary sources write about them, there will almost definitely be some number that replicate the nonstandard formatting.  Basically, this guideline exists to say that we do not desire to make exceptions to standard English just because a trademark owner wants to do something weird with capitalization or punctuation.  The "wide use" standard would reverse this--it would say that we only standardize weird formatting if basically everyone else standardizes.  I prefer a standard that goes the opposite way: we should only not standardize if basically nobody else does.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But I don't see the current guideline as best practice - I disagree with it. For example, TIME magazine should be under TIME magazine - or just TIME - unless the majority of people in the world do not use that wording to refer to it. This should be shown before a change in the page title is made. I don't see any other justification for a change from the official phrasing. GreenReaper (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you propose finding out what formatting "the majority of the people in the world" use? I don't think that such a test is workable at all.  Even if we could somehow determine what style each person used and tally the votes, would we need to change styles if we found that it went from 51%/49% one way to 51/49 the other way?   As to the "officialness" argument, there are a number of replies, which have been recounted in more detail further back in this page's history.  First, there's the slippery slope: if we accept irregular capitalization on the grounds that we should simply recount trademarks the way the TM owner wants, we would then need to use the TM symbol if the owner uses it each time, too.  If the only way to standardize names if by showing that the "majority of the people in the world" use it, then we would never be able to standardize anything because we would never be able to determine that half plus one of the world's population uses the standard style.  Secondly, the reader is not served by nonstandard styles.  "PGA TOUR" has no more communicative power than "PGA Tour"; it's only rendered in all caps because it makes it stand out in paragraphs.  That's great for branding and marketing, but our goal is not to support either of those thigns, it's to inform our readers.  Trademarks don't deserve special treatment compared to other proper nouns just because the trademark owner wants to grant it to them.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep implying that my argument is based on owners' rights. Please don't do that. It is based on what is most used. That is why I said "unless the majority of people". Use of the trademark is a default, that keeps us safe from using an minority name unless it has clear, verifiable support. And there are plenty of ways to gauge support, the simplest being to count unique sources. In many cases, such as iPod (and quite possibly TIME) then it would be clear from the preponderance of sources. If it is not clear, then we should use the trademark as a default, because at least then we can point to something and say "this is our justification for using this name - the responsible organization uses it, and we know of none that is proven to be more common". We might have to switch once or twice while it settled down, but we move pages around at the drop of a hat already. Just because it is hard to make the right decision does not mean we should not do it. And it does not even have to be very hard - how many do you know that have more than a handful of unique sources and would be in doubt over their naming? deviantART has about ten to twenty, tops, if we added all the ones that aren't there which could be found in a quick search. Then we would have a verifiable name based on our sources, rather than the opinion of Wikipedia editors. GreenReaper (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

.NET Framework
NET doesn't stand for anything, shouldn't it be .Net or Dot Net? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion here: Talk:.NET Framework. - Onmyounomichi (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

.hack//Sign
Also, I think the formatting here may also need a change. ".hack//SIGN" is the name of an anime series. The "." is pronounced "dot", which is spelled out inside of it in the logo, and the // isn't pronouced at all. Move to Dot Hack Sign? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have said there's a ongoing discussion about this on the article's talk page.Kazu-kun (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FOX vs. Fox
There are inconsistencies on how to type it out. I think it should be listed as FOX, since that is how the station lists it  C t j f 8 3  talk 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be "Fox". It's not acronym.  If this manual of style means anything, then this is a clear cut case where the editorial convention on Wikipedia is to remove superfluous capitalization.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * why wouldn't we follow what the station uses, that makes sense to follow them  C t j f 8 3  talk 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia, like many publishers (e.g. the NYTimes), has an internal style guidelines for consistency and does not simply reproduce the style that any organization chooses to use. For example, REALTOR&reg; is the official style propogated by the National Association of Realtors, who hold a trademark on that word, but saying "REALTOR&reg;" all the time instead of "Realtor" is silly.  In the same way, the Wikipedia community decided not to use all caps except for things that are actually acronyms (or psuedo-acronyms like MCI, which is read M-C-I, even though the letter don't stand for anything).  Fox, being derived from the publisher's name, is clearly a word and not an acronym and as such our convention is to treat it in Title Case rather than ALL CAPS.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK  C t j f 8 3  talk 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I heavily disagree with this point. The all-caps or the all-lower case of a specific brand or name is its most common distinguisher from the commonplace word, hence the reason many companies do it. i.e., the video game "GUN" is spelled that way by Neversoft; allowing that spelling on Wikipedia distinguishes the game from the firearm.  In answering the Wiki question: "Ask yourself what most people would enter when looking for this item?" I feel that those who are looking for the game "GUN" would type "GUN", rather than "Gun".  But even if they didn't, that's what redirects are for. Gun (video game) is the current redirect page whenever one enters "GUN" in the search field. So my question is: if the actual spelling by the CREATOR of the product is "GUN", then why would Wikipedia insist on misspelling it?  If my parents decided to name me "BOB SMITH" in all capital letters, my name WOULD be "BOB SMITH", not "Bob Smith", and if I had a page on Wikipedia that read "Bob Smith", it would be WRONG.  Just like, if Wikipedia called the article "Deviantart", it would not be correct, as the site is called "deviantART", and is listed as such.  iPod is not listed as "Ipod". Why is it that only CamelCase names get their true names listed, but names spelled in all-caps and all-lower get the shaft?  If this is to be a true encyclopedia (of which the point is to EDUCATE the public) then we are doing the public a disservice by giving them misinformation. The movie TRON is spelled in all-caps on EVERY professional web site I've visited, yet Wikipedia insists on spelling it "Tron"-- which is actually the spelling of the character, "Tron", so now more confusion is added to the mix. In many cases the capitalization of a word ITSELF is a major disambiguator, and Wikipedia's policy of consistently ignoring brand disambiguators for titles is foolish, irresponsible and incorrect. The company IS "FOX", so if I'm reading an article on "FOX", why then would I want to believe it shares the exact same capitalization of a small, furry woodland creature? If someone writes the name of the video game "GUN" as "Gun" because of the Wikipedia page, and the reader then corrects them by saying the proper spelling is "GUN" and provides the game box as reference, who then is correct: the one with the Wikipedia page, or the one with the actual game box?  That version IS "GUN". Activision even spells it as such in their press releases. Any other spelling WOULD be incorrect, and I heartily believe this stupid rule of disallowing item-specific captialization, except for instances of CamelCase, should be dissolved.  --Schmendrick (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gun", as a proper noun, does not present a disambiguation issue when compared to "gun", which is not a proper noun. Otherwise, you can research past discussions of this nature as far as people who assert that "official" names should be formatted exactly as the trademark owner formats them if you want replies to the arguments you have made here about "correctness".  Croctotheface (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If then answer to Schmendrick's question is so hard to explain or complex that we ask that he research it on his own - perhaps the rule is doing more harm than it is worth. We need a simple to follow rule with a simple rationale.  The current atmosphere surrounding this topic is turbulent -- to take enormous liberty with capitalization   is against the spirit of this medium.  I think these guidelines need revision. When a company actually coins a word or name, that company's usage is correct because it coined it.  When another entity such as Wikipedia comes along and decides that it should be another way - it does a dis-service to the research community.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. The intent of the guideline is to say that if multiple formats exist in common usage then you should choose the one in Title Case without obnoxious punctuation.  For example Time rather than TIME, Fox rather than FOX, Macy's rather than Macy*s, etc.  We aren't inventing any formats, simply choosing among the existing ones in a way that provides a consistent presentation without annoying gimmicks.  In many cases, this means ignoring the trademark holders preferences, but that is because the trademark holder is often trying to load their mark with obnoxious gimmicks that we don't want.  Personally I see FOX as simply an example of that.  Obviously Fox is named for the surname of the founder William Fox, and capitalizing it is simply a branding exercise to draw extra attention to the name.  We don't have to participate in that, and allowing trademark holders to control the textual presentation of their mark could very quickly lead to non-neutral looking copy that emphasized some companies over others.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this discussion (along with several others, i.e. the one currently in going on at Talk:DeviantArt) is an indicator, that this guideline needs an introductory text, in which things like the concern about undesirable brand management go. A "this page in a nutshell" box, containing the "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even..." line, also couldn't hurt. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be very helpful. Croctotheface (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I wrote one. Improve as necessary.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's pretty good. I agree with it as well, however, I think it is important to be careful not to give the impression that we are to ignore the presentation or common usage of a trademark (otherwise, Ipod would be used instead of iPod) -- I modified it to indicate common usage - I'll edit it a bit more to convey the idea that a company's presentation is not an authority (but it may be given consideration).  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) NPOV requires that we not give significant preference to the styling of some trademarks over other, hence the intent of this guideline IS that we should largely ignore company preferences when there is a commonly used and less ostentatious format. iPod is an exception that comes from the usage rule, because Ipod (or IPod) are very uncommon and hence not reasonable choices, even though Ipod would ordinarily be preferable (more like standard English) if it were a common usage. Dragons flight (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction/rationale
Since earlier attempts at an introductory text to the guideline differed on a few issues, this might need a bit more discussion, in order to ensure guideline stability. I have reverted the guideline to its introduction-less form for now, below are the previous drafts. It's a bit late for me, so I'll throw in my own 2 cents later on. Feel free to format the drafts to point out differences. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Most recent revision by Croctotheface
 * Trademarks are to words and short phrases used to by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services. Often, these names are written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation. When choosing how to format a trademark, Wikipedia editors should choose among styles already in use, not invent new ones.  In general, editors should choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.  The remainder of the guideline offers some more specific recommendations for frequently occurring nonstandard formats.


 * Most recent revision by Nicholas SL Smith
 * Trademarks are words and short phrases used to by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services. Often, these names can be written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation.  When choosing how to format a trademark, Wikipedia editors should choose among styles already in mainstream or common use, not invent new ones.  The remainder of the guideline offers some more specific recommendations for choosing amongst commonly occurring variations.


 * Most recent revision by Dragons flight
 * Trademarks are words and short phrases used to by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services. Often, these names can be written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation.  When choosing how to format a trademark, Wikipedia editors should choose among styles already in use mainstream or common use, not invent new ones.  In order to avoid giving greater apparent attention to some trademarks rather than others, editors should usually choose a style that closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preferences of the trademark owner.  The remainder of the guideline offers some more specific recommendations for choosing amongst commonly occurring variations.

I like my version the best. ;) But seriously: I don't like Nicholas's version because it basically rewrites the guideline.  The whole purpose of this intro was to state clearly that we standardize formatting.  If we're not going to assert that, then what's the point?  I don't mind Dragons's version, but I don't know that the reasoning is to avoid giving preference to nonstandard marks (though that is certainly a danger of replicating wacky style); I had thought that the point was more that standard English was its own rationale.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, that Nicholas's draft deviates too much from the existing guideline's spirit. My own attempt below is based on yours, with a rationale at the end that echoes the consistency bit from the WP:MOS main page, followed by Dragon's NPOV passage.Standard English is certainly a great rationale on its own, due to such standards forming the basic tools for communicating information. But neutrality concerns keep coming up when those wacky styles are being discussed and I have seen a lot of comments made during move request proceedings that went along the lines of "We don't do brand management - period." - Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Introduction
 * Trademarks are words and short phrases used by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services. Often, these names are written in several different ways with variations in capitalization, punctuation, and presentation. When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. This provides articles with more consistency and avoids giving greater attention to some trademarks rather than others (see Neutral point of view). Listed below are more specific recommendations for frequently occurring nonstandard formats.


 * template
 * Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.


 * I like the nutshell template, and I think we should go ahead and add that forthwith. I still don't love the reference to NPOV, since I don't really think that's a big part of the reasoning here, but I'm not going to quibble about it to the point that it delays adopting this change.  I'd prefer to rewrite that line as something like, "This practice helps ensure consistent language and avoids giving more attention to trademarks with nonstandard styles than to marks that follow standard English conventions."  If we want to reference NPOV, I'd prefer a clause outside parentheses.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The nutshell template goes up then. As for the NPOV bit, I'd still consider it useful to preempt the repetition of related arguments in said move discussions, but likewise, I don't have that strong of an opinion on the issue either. Hence I've asked GTBacchus, who has probably a lot more move request-related experience than most editors/admins (at least more than me), to provide another 2 cents. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that I can agree, then, just because there's no place else to even raise the NPOV concern if not there. My issue is not that I think the concept is invalid, it's that the way it's presented here, it appears to be the main rationale behind the guideline.  I think the main rationale is more that trademarks are just words and should not get special treatment.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've read the discussion, looked through the guideline's history, and browsed through some related project pages. I found WP:MOSPN (proper nouns), which I hadn't seen before, but seems clearly relevant. From what I've seen, Wikipedians tend to oppose non-standard formatting for a couple of reasons. Readability is one reason: there is an expectation in standard English that proper nouns will be capitalized, titles of works will be rendered in title case, etc. Violations of this expectation are jarring, especially to readers unfamiliar with the topic. Another argument, linked to NPOV, is that we don't assist trademark holders in establishing brand distinction through use of FlAsHy! formatting. It might be more directly linked to WP:NOT a soapbox, nor a promotional tool, than it is to NPOV. The distinction is between describing something and promoting it. All told, I like Cyrus' suggested nutshell with something like Croctotheface's suggested edit. We wish to insure readability, and we wish to avoid making some proper nouns seem more special than others. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) How about this one then: "This practice helps ensure consistency in language and avoids drawing greater attention to some subjects than to others." The words "subjects" encompasses trademarks, as well as any other entity a trademark may gain an edge over (in terms of reader attention), by employing flashy formatting. And the soapbox part of WP:NOT indeed applies more directly in the context of trademarks (and it links to WP:NPOV itself anyway), hence the link under the relevant passage of the sentence. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with that; really I'm OK with most of the versions here. I think I'd prefer to use "undue attention" or some similar construction, since it's not by definition bad, wrong, or non-neutral to draw greater attention to some things than others.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I'm feeling lucky, so I just put up the resulting introduction. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what is the ultimate consensus? I've tried to follow along, but we're darting back and forth so much, can someone please clarify what's ultimately been decided? --Schmendrick (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Schmendrich, I don't think there really is a consensus, but it looks like we're getting close to a workable guideline. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the nutshell addition but it must be amended to include the fact that common usage dictates how a trademark is listed, not only standard formatting. This is how we do it all over Wikipedia - take iPod for example.  I'll make an attempt to change it, although it may double the length of the nutshell --  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the principle with iPod is not common usage, but rather that "iPod" is more standard than some other variation. It could be more standard because of common usage, but if a certain style were common usage and not standard, we would choose a standard style rather than a common one.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us look at why is iPod more "standard." First off, iPod is not in any way standard English usage.  iPod is common usage, and because it is so commonly referred to as iPod, it has become the correct way to portray the word (through common usage), although it goes against standard English usage.  Therefore, the common usage test is correct.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 19:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said in my previous post, it could be that a style that might otherwise be nonstandard BECOMES standard because of common usage. If that happens, as it has with i- and e- prefixes such as in iPod, then so be it.  It does not somehow mandate the rule you suggest.  It also does not follow that because nonstandard usage has become standard through common use in a certain case, it must be that common usage is always standard. Croctotheface (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BRD section break
Per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle I've restored User:Croctotheface's version for now. It has the approval of User:GTBacchus and User:Cyrus XIII, while User:Nslsmith's suggestions were disputed. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have a semantic miscommunication. Standard English dictates that there will never be a lower case letter in front of a proper noun.  This convention was not modified by Apples marketing team.  The -i prefix is not a prefix at all, but a beginning letter which looks cool when in lower case.  This violates all English rules.  The only reason it is being listed as iPod is because it is written most commonly as iPod.  Simply because it most commonly written this way does not make it standard English (I think this is the misunderstanding).  Any English book will direct the reader to write iPod as Ipod; this is standard English, English has not been modified.
 * Common usage dictates iPod. You are completely wrong in you assertion that because it is common it is standard.  Standard English implies consistent rules which encompass the usage for a language.  We are talking about common usage here - and this needs to be included in the introduction and nutshell, or this guide has been negatively affected and is wrong.  If you assertion is correct - common usage must still be included in the introduction or nut shell because if, as you assert, because something is common it is then standard, common usage should be first considered (as the edit you reverted stated).  Either way - the nutshell as it is now is incomplete and wrong.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 22:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Words with the i- and e- prefixes (and they are prefixes) represent a new category that came into usage in recent years.  Standard English usage for these words is to render them as we do here: iPod, eBay, and so forth.  If you find "English books" that instruct writers to use Ipod and Ebay, then by all means bring them to our attention, and perhaps the consensus will change.  You are completely wrong that I said common implies standard, and I in fact said the opposite.  There are lots and lots of cases where this guideline recommends a usage that is arguably less common because it is standard.  Nobody but you thinks that this guideline exists to recommend common usage.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I detect a combative tone in your comment; take a moment to consider this: What source do you have for stating that i- or e- are prefixes?  What are you implying that they mean, and what is your source?  iPod and eBay are not standard English (English condoned by style guides).  They simply are not, regardless of agreement or disagreement.  All English books state that popper nouns in English are to be capitalized (the first letter).  The Chicago Manual of Style, The Guardian Manual of Style, the Blue Book [(Rule 2)], simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, and the MLA style Guide all state that proper nouns are to be capitalized.  These are very well accepted authorities on English usage, used by the authors of text books, editors of anything from newspapers to novels, and technical writers alike.  The Wikipedia article on Capitalization makes note of the trend of modern companies to deviate from the "rule:"
 * ''Most brand names and trademarks are capitalized (e.g., Coca-Cola, Pepsi) although some have chosen to deviate from standard rules (e.g., easyJet, id Software, eBay, iPod) to be distinctive.

''
 * So, it was both the intent of the trademark holder to change the style of capitalization (something we deny should be even considered, but obviously it is if is becomes common), and that it is an exception to the rule (meaning standard English). What source are you using which states that standard English (or any English rule) allows these exceptions to the rule?  There is no legitimate source I've seen which defines any e- or i- as a legitimate prefix for anything (such as un- ex- or in- are in fact legitimate Latin prefixes which change the meaning of words in Latin based languages.)  Furthermore, even legitimate prefixes to proper nouns are not allowed to be in lower case unless hyphenated.
 * We are left with the fact that these are exceptions to the Rule (ie: they are not standard usage). Why do we allow this deviation?  The reason we allow this deviation is because this deviation has fallen into common usage (not because it is now standard English usage which is backed up by the rules set forth in anything).  When and if style guides ever cannonize these deviations, we can say they are standard English.  We need to be up front and straightforward with this fact in this guideline as to keep this guideline logical and correct to practice.  Whether or not you disagree, your claim is original research unless you can back it up with reliable citations.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Your comments above were certainly combative ("you are completely wrong"). I really don't have anything more to add to this conversation.  You assert that i- and e- are not prefixes in this case, but you don't explain why it matters, so I don't much care.  "Capitalize proper nouns" doesn't really get to this specific case, which has come about in recent years.  AP style, for instance, agrees with our usage, but I don't think that means that the Associated Press discards standard English because of "commonality" as you suggest that we must if we go with iPod rather than Ipod.  Even if we set aside my argument that i- and e- prefixes are special cases that are treated differently, you make a very big unsupported assumption about this guideline.  Because this guideline makes an exception for iPod and eBay, you say, this guideline cares mostly about "common" usage, despite the fact that the word "common" has, to my knowledge, never appeared within it in with any kind of consensus behind it.  You hinge your entire "common usage" argument on the case of iPod because every other case cuts against "commonality" and for standard English.  Considering that nobody else here thinks that this guideline means what you think it means, I don't think there's much more to be said about this topic.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys don't seem to be using the word "standard" in the same way. Defining that might help. Does "standard" mean that the style guides recommend it? All of them? Two of them? Does "standard" mean the New York Times does it? It may be that the style books will eventually include exceptions for certain prefixes. If that happens, it will be because such use has become so overwhelmingly standard common that most everybody changes usage despite the books. Those things do evolve over the centuries. I'd like to see more examples of proper nouns with "i-" or "e-" prefixes that are lower-cased in all or nearly-all cases. That could constitute evidence of the new syntactic category that Croctotheface is arguing exists. (Is that the right word?) Also, for such examples, what decisions have we made? Are we entirely consistent with the "i-" and "e-" rule? Eventually, this page should be describing the community's decision rather than prescribing it. Thus, the decisions made at Talk:iPod and Talk:eBay and elsewhere are the real guideline, which we're writing down more or less accurately. It might be advisable to bring more eyes to the situation. I can really see both sides, and am not sure which is a more accurate description of consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's true that there are a critical mass of grammar and usage books, style guides, and so forth that say "iPod" is wrong and "Ipod" is standard English, then that may persuade me that we should use "Ipod". However, my suspicion is that they don't exist because i- and e- prefixes are a relatively new phenomenon, and there's a capital pretty close to where it should be.  I have a couple of points of contention here, though: first, style guides are prescriptive by nature.  We shouldn't seek to "describe" substandard practice despite the fact that editors out there like it.  There are a lot of editors who think that we should just use "official names", especially for their pet article.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The one that User:Nslsmith linked above would seem to favor "Ipod". I haven't checked the others. To be fair though, the one doesn't actually address the case of proper nouns that are rendered by most users of English with lower-cased initial letters. I assume most of the style books are largely silent on the question, because as you say, it's new. CamelCase is a related style choice that the books haven't had time to make a ruling on. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Capitalize proper nouns" doesn't get at this case. AP Style calls for iPod very specifically.  Also, this discussion occurred at this page already, and you can refer to the archive for it.  The point of this guide is NOT to reflect "common usage"; it's to create a set of coherent rules to unify the way trademarks are formatted at this encyclopedia.  There is no way to determine "common usage", as I've asserted many times, and it's not really a useful principle.  WP:UCN is designed to apply only if the rest of the encyclopedia's guidelines don't apply, and really, in that case, it's more about saying, "The rest of our recommendations have failed you, so just make sure to use something that makes sense."  Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor revision: the point is not to reflect "common usage", but it's important to say that sometimes, by way of something being commonly used, it becomes standard as well. In these cases, of which, I submit, iPod is one, we acknowledge that the language has changed and that something that may have previously been unacceptable is now considered standard.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Under that AP Style link, the principle they cite is that "Generally, we follow the company's preference in spelling their name." That's pretty much the opposite of the principle that we tend to apply, so it's a bit strange that we should follow their example in our attempt to do the opposite of what they do. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reason we use "iPod" and not "ipod", "IPod", "Ipod" is a result of the "styles already in use" clause. None of these alternatives have a significant amount of usage anywhere, and hence they don't meet the treshold for consideration, even though "Ipod" would undoubtedly win a standard English test in terms of formatting. So "iPod" is not an exception to the rule, it is merely a result of having only one real choice. Dragons flight (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My goal here is to be complete - if we allow unconventional capitalization, we ought to describe when we allow it. I agree with Dragons flight, that there is no reasonable alternative for such examples in frequent or common use; however, we are still missing the point that these are new issues which do indeed break rules in use today which prescribe how we do things in the English language.  Why is iPod the only way we write that particular proper noun?  The reason is that Apple was successful in its marketing campaign, and most people adopted (incorrectly) the intent of Apple Computer.  As this went on, we began to accept it as normal, and it became common English (but not correct according to standard (meaning according to prescribed rules)).  Will any future names be allowed to follow this convention?  According to the way this guideline is worded, the answer is a resounding no.  Capitalization of certain articles will be an artifact of when they were originated with respect to this introduction (which seems absurd).  We can't get around the need for informing writers when unconventional capitalization is needed by simply saying that certain forms of unconventional capitalization are now "standard" just because - we allow it? - because it is used? (slang is not standard just because many or most people use it).  What I propose is a description of when we allow proper nouns to break standard or conventional English rules of proper noun capitalization.  Omission of this information is also absurd.
 * The addition of a line which suggests that we "consider common usage" serves our purposes here. Nicholas SL Smith chatter 01:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The guideline is very descriptive; it says, "Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules." I've described in great detail why it is that I think we do this.  You seem to believe that prescribed rules prohibit this; it's my contention that, in this case, common use of an unconventional formatting led that formatting to become standard.  It could be that we are just using terms differently, as someone above suggested, but I don't think so.  You seem to want to say that because we made an exception to what you consider standard for one case, we should make it in all cases if there is a "commonality" concern.  If we did that, most or all of the other examples in the guideline would flip, and the guideline would recommend for what it currently recommends against.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you didn't want to add a line that says to consider common usage: your edit made "common usage" the main criterion we should look to. To the extent that we say that we should not invent formats, I agree with you on this point.  However, I do not think it would be better for us to use, say, PGA TOUR because we somehow determined that it is more "common".  Croctotheface (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Croctotheface, what is your definition of "standard English"? Is it determined by the Associated Press? by style guides? How common does something have to be before it has become a new standard, and who makes that call? How do we know that "eBay" is part of a new syntactic category, but "PGA TOUR" isn't? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the rule we're actually following is this: We follow standard English (as defined by style guides, etc), except when we decide to make exceptions. Exceptions we have made include, besides iPod and eBay, examples such as Yahoo!, Jeopardy!, and brian d foy. I don't think there's a common thread unifying these, except that a consensus formed. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus! I think we're getting somewhere -- ok -- so we do make exceptions when we form consensus.  Shouldn't we state what binds these consensuses together? (or at least state "unless consensus is formed to the contrary...").  From what I've read, consensus is found when there is an overwhelming body of usage which is unconventional, or against standard English usage.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the "unless consensus is formed to the contrary..." language; it feels right. Perhaps a good way to define where the line is drawn is to give examples on either side of it. Are there cases parallel to "Jeopardy!" and "Yahoo!", but where we decide to suppress the nonstandard punctuation? Why is brian d foy different from bell hooks, anyway? I think I know why iPod is different from TNA iMPACT. DeviantArt is as close to the center of the gray area as I believe I've seen, so it plays a prominent role in indicating just where the line is. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we put that language in, we may as well just remove this guideline. If we just say, "do this unless you don't want to", we're not recommending anything.  There is a strong consensus to standardize nonstandard styles.  There are cases where, I'd argue, seemingly nonstandard use is actually standard or there is some greater purpose to having seemingly decorative punctuation.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. There is a strong consensus that our guidelines, at their best, are more descriptive of consensus than prescriptive. They describe decisions we've made. The fewer than half-dozen of us have no business telling the community what to do by making a "law" of some kind. The best thing we can do is descibe what solutions the community has made, over hundreds of pages with thousands of participants. Guidelines reflect community decisions; they don't dictate them. Rather than making them pointless, this is precisely the usefulness of guidelines. They guide the formation of new consensus, by reminding us what we've thought in the past. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that WE prescribe for people, I'm suggesting that the idea behind the MOS is that it represents a strong consensus across the encyclopedia. So, if the editors of some obscure article arrived at the consensus to use a green background with yellow typeface, write in all caps, or allow some wacky formatting for a trademark, this guideline exists to tell them that they should not.  If this guideline, instead of saying what it does now, said that we should use whatever style the TM owner uses on its press releases, then most naming or move discussions that came out in favor of standard English would go the other way because people who participate look to guidelines for guidance.  I suspect that, before this guideline became well known, very few nonstandard trademarks were standardized.  Now, many if not most have been standardized.  If the purpose of this guideline were to reflect what editors are doing out there in the "field", then it would say something very different.  I don't believe that it's good practice to say that editors of individual articles can come to whatever consensus to ignore the MOS that they please and then implement that. Croctotheface (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, we seem to be using the word "consensus" differently. A few editors at an obscure article don't represent as broad of a consensus as this guideline. Examples that we would cite in this guideline, such as iPod and Jeopardy! and DeviantArt and TNA Impact!, are based on pretty broad consensuses, because they were debated across pages and months, and there was a lot of community input. Saying that we come to a consensus decision to do something doesn't mean that a few editors make a decision - it's the community that decides what kind of exceptions we make. Reflecting what editors do "in the field" is precisely what guidelines are for; that's how most of our guidelines have been written. You suspect that, before this guideline was written, very few non-standard trademarks were standardized, but I suspect that this guideline was written precisely because we were already standardizing non-standard trademarks. That's where guidelines come from. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that the consensus that formed this guideline is broad enough to trump editors at individual articles, then we agree. I thought that you were saying that consensus from individual articles could override the consensus that formed this guideline.  I thought you wanted the guideline to be amended so as to say something like, "The MOS says you should standardize, but if you guys want to come to a different consensus, then just do what you want."  If you agree that consensus at an individual article does not trump this guideline, then there's no point of contention here.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I say "We use standard English formatting, except when we decide to make an exception", I'm using the strong form of the word "we". I might take issue with some of your language, but I suspect we're in broad agreement that I'm not saying that a few people get to make a decision that flies in the face of a decision made by many. "Consensus at a particular article" - just isn't consensus. Consensus is a community thing. People's opinions at a particular article may or may not indicate what consensus is, but they don't make it. What I'm suggesting is that we avoid "should" language to the extent that we can, and instead use descriptive language, such as "we have decided such-and-such in the past". We might as well acknowledge that we might decide to make exceptions for reasons other than those already described, and that we may change our minds at any point. It would take a pretty strong demonstration of consensus to start using a bunch of non-standard formatting, but if that happens, then we'll document it here. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm with you, more or less, as to the first part. It would certainly be possible for the consensus that formed this guideline to change, but it could not simply be ignored on a case by case basis without a reasonable basis.  To the second part, I don't think I agree with you at all about the whole notion of "descriptive" guidelines, unless you mean simply that they describe a current consensus and that consensus can change.  When I think of some of the core concepts of Wikipedia, like WP:N and WP:AGF, that have "guideline" status, I can't help but think that guidelines are really the norm of enforcement here, and it is right and proper for them to say that editors should do X and should not do Y. WP:AGF, for instance, is comprised of line after line telling editors what they should do.  Should we really say something like, "Editors have found it helpful to assume good faith in the past" and leave the door open to changing that?  If we really endeavored to "describe" practice in the field, then we would acknowledge that many editors assume good faith but some do not, and make no recommendation at all.  Furthermore, for a style guide such as WP:MOS, it's necessary to be prescriptive for the sake of uniformity.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not necessary, because uniformity is not necessary at all costs. We have judged it desirable to be uniform in certain ways, and to let uniformity slip away in other cases. We have every right to decide that. Many of our guidelines are currently written to prescriptively, and ought to be re-worked. As for the idea that we would just describe that "some people AGF and other don't," that's not the idea at all. What guidelines are supposed to do is describe best practices that we've discovered. A guideline such as AGF should be pointing out that failing to Assume Good Faith is pointless, useless, and unhelpful. There is no situation in which not assuming good faith is a good idea. That's what the guideline should be telling people. (Personally, I think it's absurd that anybody would read WP:AGF. Isn't its message obvious from its title? What's the point of reading it, except to look for loopholes?) Guidelines describe decisions we've made. Those decisions do indeed provide guidance, because in the context of a consensus-driven project, knowing what decisions have been made is quite helpful in making new decisions. Prescriptive rules are counter to the spirit of WP:IAR. I'd request that you give it a try, and see how well non-prescriptive guidelines work. They might seem like they wouldn't work, but so does Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It has to be a little prescriptive and a little descriptive. There are definite English rules, and we all seem to thing it is okay to sometimes make exceptions.  Proper nouns must have the first letter capitalized.  In some cases we allow exceptions to the rule (as is true with almost every English rule).  Why not require that we follow standard English, except where there is strong evidence and a consensus that the rule should not apply in a certain case (such as with eBay or iPod).  This is what we do, and I think it's what we want people to do.  This guideline still would guide, and for the vast majority of cases, standard English will prevail.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than "require" that we follow standard English (except in certain cases), why not "observe" that a general consensus of Wikipedians has agreed to follow standard English, except in certain cases where a general consensus has agreed not to? We don't want people to use standard English or not according to what a rulebook says. We want them to use standard English or not according to whether or not it makes sense, and to keep in mind that a lot of thought has already been put into just when it does and does not make sense. The results of that thought are documented here. Doing this makes it much easier to adapt to new situations. People get a lot touchier about "violating a rule" than they do about considering how well a previous agreement applies to a new situation. We don't want Wikilawyering, and hangups about whether or not something is permitted or forbidden. We want to keep people focused on the reasons behind the "rules". -GTBacchus(talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In my entire experience editing Wikipedia, I can recall a single instance where I thought that "ignoring all rules" actually improved the encyclopedia. It can happen, but there needs to be a valid basis for it.  If you're just defining "descriptive" as "describing the best practice", I don't see how that's different from prescribing what is best.  You basically say that nobody could ever fail to assume good faith and be in accordance with the guideline.  How is that guideline not prescribing that editors assume good faith?  Croctotheface (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen many instances where ignoring a rule helped. (Ignoring a rule doesn't necessarily mean breaking it.) The difference between describing best practices and prescribing them is that using descriptive language more clearly captures the nature of our guidelines and policies here. Casting agreements as laws disguises the fact that they're agreements made by a bunch of people on a bunch of pages. It makes it clearer that this page isn't the source of guidance, but that consensus is the source, and that this page is useful for identifying that consensus. Assuming good faith is something that we've agreed to do because it's practical to do so. It's how you work collaboratively. Casting it as a simple necessity that we've observed makes that clear. Casting it as a law encourages many people to look for loopholes, and to miss the point of why we assume good faith. We don't do it because it's a rule; we do it because it works. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose we have to rewrite WP:AGF, then, because it's clearly prescriptive. Croctotheface (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewriting it would probably be helpful, and probably very difficult. I've been involved in some discussions about how to go about making our policy pages less prescriptive, as many feel they should be. It will take a lot of work, but I'm thinking we can start with small changes and a lot of talking. The best advice is not to read WP:AGF at all, but simply to assume good faith, and not to worry about whether you're in a situation where the rule "permits" you to make an exception. More disputes derail that way than any other way I've seen. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(removing indents) I'm sympathetic to the "if it's set up as rules, people will try to find the exceptions" notion, but I don't think the answer is changing the guidelines such that they merely "describe the best practice". I think that suffers from a similar drawback: someone could see that and say that, well, the guideline represents what's best, but there's room for my approach to be at least good, so I'll ignore the guideline. I just think that if you believe people should basically follow guidelines, then there's no point in changing the way that they're worded. More specifically, if you believe that guidelines should be followed, then making them "descriptive" is a distinction without a difference. If people should follow them, then they do prescribe a certain kind of conduct. Croctotheface (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that guidelines should be followed blindly. I think people should act mindfully in each situation, and apply a guideline, when appropriate, fully understanding that it's an agreement and not a law. As for the drawback of descriptive writing, that people will sometimes ignore the guideline, and try different approaches... I'd say that's precisely what we should encourage. People should always be asking whether the reasoning behind a guideline applies to their current situation. That's how we stay alert to dealing with new situations. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the guideline applies, it should be followed unless there's a reason to make an exception. Obviously, guidelines shouldn't be followed if they don't apply.  However, as to "encouraging different approaches", I think that necessarily means that I should try a green background because I think it looks cool on, say, the St. Patrick's Day article, or I should assume bad faith, or revert every edit a person makes because one of their edits was vandalism.  If guidelines apply, they should be followed.  Croctotheface (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm saying something different from that. If there's not a reason to try something different, then it doesn't really make sense to do it. I'm not suggesting that we encourage arbitrary innovation, just that we don't give the impression that our "rules" are somehow finalized, or based on something other than existing consensus, developed in respect to actual concrete pages such as eBay and DeviantArt. I think we would make it clear that certain conventions enjoy broad and robust support. We should also indicate which ones are somewhat shaky, rather than claiming that a consensus exists when there's actually significant dissent. When I say "some people will ignore the guideline and try different approaches," I don't mean that they'll act at random, and I don't mean that they will persist in doing something if they're approached with discussion. That would be foolish. Some people do that, but they don't last long. I mean that people will ignore it for well-considered, good-faith, BOLD reasons, and this will lead to good conversations. The less the sense of sanctity around the guideline, the easier those conversations are to have in good faith. You know, people will accuse others of bad faith around here just for trying something in a new, and possibly improved, way. Law-like language encourages that kind of nonsense. I'm not suggesting that we de-tooth the guideline. I just think that it's good to acknowledge that the teeth are nothing other than the community's agreement to do certain things, and that agreement is a dynamic, living thing. It's ok to remind editors that they are the teeth of the guideline. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible additions to guideline
I'm going to take a break from responding to the threads here, since edit conflicts just render my replies obsolete anyway. I guess my question is this: Nicholas, what do you want from the guideline? Your prior change, where you made "commonality" the first principle we look to, flies in the face of the way this guideline was always written and understood. If you want it to say something like, "it's all about consensus", well, the idea behind this guideline is that it represents the consensus of the community in a way that trumps what people editing individual pages might want. If you want to to say that individual talk page consensus could trump this guideline, there's really no point in having this guideline at all. Croctotheface (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having the same problem - anyway, I guess we are stuck in that place, and we need a place to go from there. I must point out that the last thing we want is for Wikipedia Trademarks to be written willy-nilly.  I don't want all of our titles to change, and I don't want to throw out the requirement to use standard English rules.  Perhaps we should mention that in addition to standard English usage, "overwhelming usage to the contrary" or "overwhelming in common usage" should be considered in deciding how to capitalize a trademark...  This addition would not allow all unconventional trademarks pushed by marketers to "enter the vernacular," but it would allow future unconventionally to become common if it was overwhelmingly used.  Such an addition would not go against the spirit of the guideline because this is how we conduct such business today, and will in the future.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually mostly OK with this, but I'd want to define overwhelming as something approaching 100% of reliable sources. I wouldn't consider, say, 60% overwhelming, even though it's a clear majority of usage.  I don't want anything that would call for, say, counting Google hits to try to establish how frequently a style shows up.   Perhaps we could get more explicit about what we mean by "inventing new formats". Croctotheface (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am all with you there, Google is not a tool designed for counting proper usage of a word, nor should it be used as such. How about this.  Under the nutshell, let's add "Generally, " to the beginning of the sentence, and under the section on inventing formats, something to the effect of "If a trademark's capitalization deviates from standard English in the vast majority of cases, it should be capitalized differently.." arg, that sounds bad, but something like that that sounds better (I'm trying to pay attention to my Copyright class as I am typing this).  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like that seems like a good solution. We really should define what "inventing formats" is.  My concern is that we might not agree on the definition.  Croctotheface (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet defining it broadly might work - say "changing the trademark to a form never before used, and completely outside of the vast majority of usage"... something like that? Nicholas SL Smith chatter 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the difference between "common usage" and "standard usage" is that the latter has been approved by those we consider to be authoritative. For example, many people say 'Hoover' when they mean 'vacuum cleaner'. This is common usage, but because it is incorrect it is not standard usage. But eBay is explicitly recommended by three style guides: AP Style Guide, Guardian Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style. So it (and iPod) have become "standard", and we can follow this style without contradicting our own guide.
 * Perhaps this guide needs to do more of citing reliable sources, just as articles in the main space must do. That way we will not be accused of making rules up for ourselves. If we can show for each of our rules that they follow the rules of existing style guidelines, we do not need to change any of them, or worry that we cannot agree on definitions. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All of these guides recommend using the trademark holder's preference. I agree, however, as the guideline stands now, we are not to do this.  Here's the conflict, we can do one of the following:
 * We can use trademark holder's preferences (all all of these sources prescribe for trademarks)
 * We can use standard English (as all of these sources prescribe for non-trademark proper nouns, and as the guideline now prescribes)
 * We can use standard English with exceptions in some instances of overwhelming evidence of deviation (as is actually done in Wikipedia today)
 * We just need to decide. Currently we prescribe the second option, but make allowances without reason for a very very limited number of trademarks. As it stands now, this follows no logical process, and confuses editors (such as myself).  A guideline which can not be followed is useless.   Nicholas SL Smith chatter 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, NONE of those style guides use the overarching principle of "owner's preference". Those guides, like ours, are neither hostile toward nor express a preference for what the owner uses, it just does not trump anything.  We follow the owner's formatting most of the time, since most of the time the owner uses a format that comports with standard English.  As you know, I don't agree with you that "iPod" is nonstandard, but I don't think we need to reach that here.  We can just amend the guideline to be clearer about what we mean by "choosing from among formats already in use", as we had been discussing.  I don't really take issue with the definition you gave, though I may want to tweak it a bit.  For me, the question is where to put it.  We could put it right on top, but I don't think it's more important than the most basic of the rules mentioned in the "general" section.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Descriptivist vs. Prescriptivist
Much of Wikipedia policy (and especially, much of the most highly regarded, most well accepted Wikipedia policy) is descriptivist, that is, it describes what is actually done (by reasonable editors) rather than what some wish would be done. I am struck by how this capitalization rule might be one of the more prescriptivist areas... WP editors who formulated the trademark rules have taken it on themselves to prescribe how things will be done, in the face of the rest of the world, at least to a certain extent. It's claimed to be on behalf of the readership but I wonder. Who is really served by WP imposing idiosyncratic rules of capitalization instead of capitalizing things the way everyone else, most notably the trademark developers, does? ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's a case where "everyone else" capitalizes one way, this guideline does not get at it. If you are asserting, for instance, that "everyone" renders Time magazine AS "TIME", I'd suggest that you look at this search of Google News.  There are some cases that are less overwhelming than this, certainly, but it seems that most of the time those discussions come up, the consensus among editors who participate is that we should standardize rather than allow weird formatting.  For the record, I think this whole notion that "prescribing" is bad is silly for a style guide.  The whole point of a style guide is indeed to say that X should be done and Y should not.  Much of the time, people "in the field" want to do something wacky.  There are lots of cases where, for instance, commas are placed inside quotation marks.  Does that mean we should change the MOS to say that either inside or outside is acceptable?  It would certainly be more "descriptive" of actual practice.   I think that being "descriptive" might be good practice for guidelines that are not part of the MOS.  The MOS must necessarily prescribe what we consider the best practice. Croctotheface (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Try this search... On the first page, the only non all caps usage is... ours. I think it's highly presumptive of us to dictate that we know better than the owner, inventor, or developer of a thing what something should be called than they do. In general, style manuals ARE descriptive, not prescriptive. Ours should be too. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A Google News search for "lego" turned up a mixed bag. It's certainly not that we're the only one.  How can a style guide not prescribe the style of the publication? Croctotheface (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Google searches really are a sticky subject. They really aren't undeniable proof of the correctness of a certain type of usage.  Time magazine is far older than Google; for decades Time was written as prescribed by English rules (except of course on the cover page).  I think this is why we use "Time."  iPod and eBay, however, have really never been referred to as Ipod and Ebay.  If we require standard English with very few exceptions (and outline when we have and will allow exceptions), I think we'll be good to go!  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nicholas, I think you also suggest another important point here: as the intro says, our job here is to choose which style to use. In general, we've decided that it is not helpful to use "mimic the TM owner" as our basis for choosing.  Rather, when there is a variety of different styles, we've decided that the readers are best served by styles that most comport with standard English.  In some cases, such as with iPod, we can have an arguably nonstandard style that is really the only one used, so we choose to use it.  (I also contend that, for this narrow class of names, the "official" formatting has become standard English for this one class.  You can look at it as an exception if you like, but it is, to me, an exception would nonetheless be contained within standard English.)  Croctotheface (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was curious as to what would transpire... it's said that WP policy is such a thicket that no one person can get their arms around all of it. It's also said that much WP policy is made by the small groups that hang out at particular policy pages (shifting over time to be sure) and say "this is how it has to be" to all comers. I suspect that possibly, if you could get everyone that edits here interested in this topic all at once, you'd find the consensus isn't actually what you think it is. Or maybe not. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to point out that this guideline, as well as the MOS as a whole derives some of its basic rationale from WP:NPOV, which, as we probably all know and agree with, is non-negotiable and hence, inherently prescriptive. In that light it is actually quite desirable for us to "know better" than the respective creator or owner of something and that the likes of PLAYSTATION 3 and TIME are to remain firmly confined to unobtrusive, descriptive notes in lead paragraphs. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I daresay that prescribing that it is "Lego" rather than "LEGO" is very far from neutral. (as is prescribing it to be the other way round), and to call it an application of NPOV is somewhat... amusing, at best. Kind of like when a US politician wraps themselves in the flag. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(another edit conflict)
 * That certainly is a problem with the "consensus" concept as it is used today - I agree but I'm not sure what to do about it. Crocto, I think you've found the root cause of our disagreement.
 * Are capitalization anomalies such as iPod and eBay now "Standard English," or acceptable exceptions to the rule governing the capitalization of proper nouns?
 * I do think they are exceptions, and that another iException, or xException may come along in the future. For this reason, I don't think we should limit ourselves by stating that these two specific examples are not standard.  There is nothing standard about an i- or e- prefix.  There could just as well be an x-, n-, etc...  I have also never seen any evidence that these examples are not standard, only evidence that they are exceptions to the rule.  For this reason, I have to say that they are not standard.  Anything else would be original research.  Nicholas SL Smith chatter 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I say above, I see the difference between "common usage" and "standard usage" is that the latter has been approved by those we consider to be authoritative. For example, many people say 'Hoover' when they mean 'vacuum cleaner'. This is common usage, but because it is incorrect it is not standard usage. But eBay is explicitly recommended by three style guides: AP Style Guide, Guardian Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style. So it (and iPod) have become "standard". Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can rephrase. These style guides don't say that the unconventional capitalization scheme is standard, they say that we ought to simply follow the convention of the trademark holder.  Those authorities don't make judgments about the "correctness" or "standardness" of these trademarks, as you seem to be claiming.  If ThIs is the way I want to make a trademark, each of these authorities would condone ThIs.
 * I am okay with ThIs (as they recommend), or This (as we recommend), but we need to pick one.
 * Bad logic is being used - we can't say we must follow standard English rules for nouns, and then say we will make exceptions for some because they have become standard English and use an authority which says trademark holder preference is the correct form (they don't say that commonly used forms are standard English). Why don't we change this guideline to align with either 1)the authorities on the subject, or 2) standard English for capitalization of proper nouns.
 * *Note: a trademark is a legal concept, not a grammatical concept. In English, a trademark word is no different than a popper noun (but it need not be a word at all, it need only be a mark).  Portraying a trademark as the holder wishes seems to be the correct thing to do, and is condoned by the above referenced style guides no doubt to prevent confusion (whether it happens to be a noun, or a mark, swoosh, swirly, etc...), but, the style guides above are not modifying the English language, they still dictate that all proper nouns remain capitalized as they have always been (unless, as I'm sure I'm being rather repetitive, a writer is conveying a trademark...) Nicholas SL Smith chatter 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)  (I kinda went crazy with the bold there - but I don't mean to convey an angry tone though)


 * I don't think the law/grammar distinction really matters here: when we talk about trademarks, everyone knows what we mean. The Chicago MOS's rationale is similar to mine; words like eBay, they say, are "already capitalized", it's just that the capital falls on the B rather than the E.  Even if we agree that this is an exception, I would argue that it's an exception made within the concept of standard English, not an exception TO standard English. Croctotheface (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the AP and Chicago guides state that the first letter should be capitalised at the start of a sentence (e.g., EBay), which is not what we say. Is this intended? (I can't help feeling that "otherwise follow normal capitalization rules" implies it should be capitalised - but in the example, it isn't!)


 * More generally, if we allow exceptions via consensus, I think there should be a note for this, as there may be a consensus for other exceptions in future. The way it reads now is as if it's an explicit rule that can't allow for exceptions. Mdwh (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to reach EBay vs. eBay at the beginning of sentences; I don't much object to either personally. To the second part of what you said, it's my view that we do not allow exceptions via consensus, at least not talk page consensus.  The consensus that formed this guideline is stronger than any consensus formed at some miscellaneous article talk page to accept the nonstandard spelling preferred by some trademark owner.  The dispute that had been going on here was more about an editor saying, "Hey, this page says we do X, but I don't think that's standard English, so there's a contradiction."  The explanation for that, then, was basically that editors here can form a consensus about either what is or is not standard English or whether or not a certain type of case merits an exception to our "follow standard English" rule.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't mind whether the consensus for a particular trademark is reached at the article's talk page or here, but either way, my understanding of the discussions here is that an exception was allowed via consensus, and that the exception was made specifically for "iPod" and "eBay", whilst the article suggests this is a rule for all words with a second capital letter, and only those words. Mdwh (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the rule is for all i- and e- prefixes, and any similar prefix that would form a similar construction. Croctotheface (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that "[the guides] say that we ought to simply follow the convention of the trademark holder", but I think this is not true, at least for TM words. The AP style guide answers 'How would AP handle a brand name that is trademarked all in caps?' with 'Our legal experts say it depends on whether it's a "word" mark or a "graphic" trademark (such as the AP red logo). If it is a "word" mark, there is no need to keep the all-caps.' From searching the site of The Guardian I see that they never capitalise LEGO, for example: . I do not know for sure about the Chicago Manual of Style but if I find a publication which uses it, I think it will also not follow TM holders preference. Can you show me why you think they do otherwise? Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cases like SAT
I am puzzled by the fact that someone would insist that we go with SAT rather than "Sat" because of inventing new formats. The issue here is clearly that the letters are pronounced as if it were an acronym, even though it no longer is. If some sources used "Sat" but still pronounced it ess-ay-tee, then we would still go with SAT even though "Sat" would not be an invented format. The guideline should reflect the actual practice we follow. Second, DVD does stand for, according to the DVD article, "digital versatile disc", so the rule that the most recent edit catalogued it under doesn't even apply, since it's just an acronym. While I do think that we should clarify what we mean by "inventing new formats", the SAT case really isn't about inventing formats so much as pronunciation. Why should the guideline not reflect this? Croctotheface (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It probably should, but if you consider orphaned acronyms like SAT and DVD (though we have conflicting sources on the latter ) to be inappropriate examples for format invention, what should be mentioned instead? - Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pronunciation, as I said. (For the record, I don't think DVD is "ophaned", at least according to our article, but SAT certainly is.) The test is whether the phrase is pronounced as an acronym would be, letter by letter.  I think that's the principle that's followed in "the field", anyway.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I should have phrased that question more clearly. I meant to inquire what you would rather list as examples for format invention. I agree that the pronunciation of SAT already suggests the use of all-caps, even without taking its original function as an acronym into consideration. But I also suspect that the list of "real" would-be acronyms (with per-letter pronunciation but without any original meaning) will be very short. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the pronounciation rule, I think we need broader discussion around this issue, particularly around the titles of articles about companies. We have numerous cases that currently seem contrary to the guideline, for example: WESCO International, NOVA Chemicals, DISH Network Corporation, PACCAR, NVIDIA, CIGNA, ENSCO International, etc. I think it is appropriate to continue to have these as is (I certainly don't want to be the one to kick-off the massive article move effort, and face the consequences), and the guideline should be expanded to reflect this. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Face the consequences? The worst thing that could happen is we'd clarify consensus, right? Anyway, you might find the move request currently in progress at Talk:NVIDIA interesting. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:WAX. I agree that those articles should be moved and would support a move request.  TJ   Spyke   05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Avoid use of trademarks as a noun..."
Could someone please expand upon this? I understand that this is normal practice in the US, and thus for US-hosted Wikipedia, but it isn't normal practice everywhere. For example, a Snickers bar wrapper where I am (the UK) just says "Snickers" on the front; it does not add "bar" in small letters underneath as the American wrapper does. Secondly, are there any exceptions to this rule? I'm sure I've never seen "Ford brand car" or whatever! 86.136.255.69 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Form that most closely resembles standard English
Does this manual suggest renaming all articles on bands to most closely resemble standard English? This suggest moving R%C3%B6yksopp to Royksopp and Sa%C3%AFan Supa Crew to Saian Supa Crew and not vice versa. I believe this would be wrong. Please add a corresponding note to the manual. Netrat_msk (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As this is obviously a follow-up from a discussion at Talk:L'Arc-en-Ciel, it should probably be mentioned here. Regarding these other examples you mention, rather than deferring you to WP:WAX right away, let me ask you, are there any reliable sources that employ those "proposed" move targets? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Manual says When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. It doesn't say anything about reliable sources. Both R%C3%B6yksopp and Royksopp, as well as Sa%C3%AFan Supa Crew and Saian Supa Crew are already in use. So according to the current manual, it makes no matter.


 * (2) However, there are reliable sources anyway. Official Röyksopp web site uses both versions, and Amazon.com names this act Royksopp, in spite of the fact that cover art clearly reads Röyksopp - pretty much like L'Arc~en~Ciel.


 * The same is true for Saian Supa Crew. Also, please refer to these English and Russian articles. Both are pretty competent, except for using incorrect spelling of band's name. If BBC is not a reliable source then I don't know what is ;-). However, even generally reliable sources sometimes are not 100% accurate - especially when they are dealing with names originally from a foreign language - again, pretty much like L'Arc~en~Ciel. P.S. Sorry for my lame English. Netrat_msk (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These are tough cases. Reliable sources do matter; when we say "already in use", we really mean "already in use by reliable sources".  This should probably be amended in the guideline.  I don't have much of an issue with the umlauts and such; they don't strike me as especially disruptive, though I'd also be fine with removing them.  The tildes-in-place-of-hypens, though, are SO nonstandard that I'm inclined to favor going with hypens there.  Croctotheface (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

CoLours TV
Should this article be named this? Or should it be Colours TV? It appears the "L" is only stylistically capitalized.  TJ   Spyke   00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks stylistic to me; I'm 100% behind "Colours TV". Croctotheface (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. It's camelCase, but since "lours" is not be a word on its own (at least not in this context), the capital 'L' would be used purely for decoration. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
Having read all the pros and cons of the capitalization, camel-case, initial-caps, punctuation, etc. nightmare that Wikipedia has concocted - I still don't see the point of it all. I think we all need to be humble and show some respect to the name-inventors (whomever they may be) and keep the casing etc. as it was intended. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference of factual information, and the way a name is intended to be capitalized etc. is part of that information.

Nowadays, when I need to use one of the names in question, instead of using Wikipedia as my one source of reference, I find myself having to visit the name-owner's web-site to find out how they intended to write the name. This extra step shouldn't be necessary. Wikipdeia should be able to tell me, but it refuses to...

-Andreas Toth (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly keeps you from adding a note on official renderings in the respective article leads or upload a logo that illustrates it? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Including that information should be part of the official Wikipedia standard for such names.


 * Please note that a logo does not always reflect the printed version of the name, e.g., NVIDIA [sic.], so the printed convention should be represented as part of the introduction (the title would have been the most logical place, but that appears to be "inappropriate" for Wikipedia).


 * -Andreas Toth (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, but this overly negative "you guys got it all wrong"-attitude is less than persuasive. If other established, general-purpose publications (i.e. newspapers) normalize text formatting for the purpose of a consistent and neutral presentation, why should this one not? – Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if I offended anyone. The point I was trying to raise is that the current Wikipedia standard may need reviewing to include the above details, and, since I've never done anything like this before, I was trying to suggest (in a rather in-between-the-line-like manner) that, someone with the know-how may take this further. So, to paraphrase myself, should this perhaps become part of the standard, and, if so, how does one start the ball rolling to maybe have it so?


 * -Andreas Toth (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a pretty strong consensus that we should not change the guideline to say that we should use the formatting styles preferred by trademark owners. As Cyrus said, your initial issue (not sure from an article what the official formatting is) can be solved very quickly by adding a single phrase to the articles themselves.  If you just believe that we should use official formattings, well, that raises all the issues that have led this guideline to say what it does now.  Do we need to replicate color? Font size?  Use of the (r), TM, or (c) symbols?  I don't think you're likely to succeed at swaying that consensus, though you're welcome to try.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is this "single phrase" that I'm suggesting become part of the guidelines for articles involving these sort of names - not the naming of the articles themselves. Basically the official formatting of a name should be represented, in print, with the standard Wikipedia font and color, as part of the introduction sentence of the article. The representation should be as close as possible to to the way the name is represented, in print, by the owners themselves.


 * -Andreas Toth (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be comfortable having the guideline recommend doing this. It happens quite often in practice, anyway.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention Manual of Style (capital letters) already mandates such a note, so adding one here would only improve consistency. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

More about iPod and the guideline in general
I don't see why iPod remains valid as a trademark name instead of converting it to Ipod or camel-cased as IPod. After all, if we are following English grammar rules, then names must start with a capital. Not to offend anyone, but I feel the reason iPod and eBay has remained as this is because of their huge popularity and the media influence their brands have had on people. People have bought in so hard to the way these words "should" be written that they simply cannot see it as being "correct" any other way. But this just highlights my argument against the current Wikipedia naming convention for names like NVIDIA, LEGO etc. i.e., it goes against the norm of what is accepted by those who use these names on a daily basis. -Andreas Toth (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We should really archive this page more; this discussion is from a year ago. Lower [above following page edit] down on this page, I've outlined reasons that I consider iPod standard English.  I also want to note that you seem to believe that Wikipedia is the only publication that standardizes nonstandard trademarked words.  Quite a few other manuals of style and major publications do what we do; that is, iPod and eBay, but Lego and Nvidia.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't think that I'm that naive (sorry for the missing accent) to think that this is the only place where this happens, I just don't think that because others do something it must be right. Would I jump off a bridge because someone else did or told me to? Of course not - so why follow what marketing dictates? ("Marketing" is what I meant above instead of "media".) If one looked into it, one would probably find that the formatting of names like iPod, etc. are enforced by the huge marketing departments that are behind these brands. In fact, I don't have anything against this, but why should others be treated differently because they don't take such measures? Personally (and this is just my personal opinion, and not anything against Wikipedia or anyone else for that matter) I think it is offensive not to try render anyone's name, trademark or otherwise, the way the owner thinks it should be rendered. I say this, being foreign, and seeing people dropping accents left right and center because they either don't care or simply are blind to those characters, and it upsets me that people don't take a stand when it happens. (Yes, I know, it may seem contradictory that, the original Hungarian rendering of my family-name should have an accent in it, but this is how my family has decided to represent it and this is how we identify ourselves.) Sorry for the rant, but this is a topic I feel quite close to. -Andreas Toth (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To the first part of what you said: as Cyrus and others have said elsewhere, the issue is that our concern is how to best serve our readers. In all of these cases, multiple formatting styles exist in reliable sources, and we are given the task of choosing one.  This guideline seeks to select the formatting that best serves the readers; our responsibility is to them, not to trademark owners.  In general, we believe that styles that comport with standard English conventions are superior to those that do not.  If we changed the rule to say that we should always choose the style that the trademark owner uses or that most closely resembles their logo, then we run into a lot of problems.  If Lego never mentions their brand name without an (r) or TM symbol, are we obligated to replicate that every time as well?  If we choose to omit such symbols, aren't we already violating the rule?  What about colors or font size?  Just because press releases are often distributed in a black and white medium doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to be.  Why not use the colors of the logo?  If we choose not to use them because we find it unnecessary or we believe that it does not serve our readers, are we not making the same kind of editorial decision we've made in this guideline in its current form? Croctotheface (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The only "reliable sources" is the trademark owner not third-party publications. Also, if English conventions are so superior, then there would be no iPod, but Ipod. In one of your comments above, you state that "A big NOOOOO to this idea. The reason we use "iPod" is most certainly NOT that the company prefers it." You also say that "If there is a strong "consensus" among reliable sources that the nonstandard style should be used, then we should probably follow that trend rather than buck it." You also said ""PGA TOUR" has no more communicative power than "PGA Tour"; it's only rendered in all caps because it makes it stand out in paragraphs. That's great for branding and marketing, but our goal is not to support either of those thigns, it's to inform our readers. Trademarks don't deserve special treatment compared to other proper nouns just because the trademark owner wants to grant it to them." You also said "In general, I've found that editors tend to be, for lack of a better term, fans of the subjects of articles they edit. In my experience, "fan" editors tend to believe that the subject of their fandom should be able to do whatever they please with the English language." I also see people commenting that the capitalization in these words are "odd" but that it has become the accepted norm. From a marketing perspective, this is the whole point of the oddity, it makes these names stand out from others. Someone else commented that "I vaguely remember from my schoolings that both the first letter of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns are to be capitalized." while a third person said "Then we would have a verifiable name based on our sources, rather than the opinion of Wikipedia editors."


 * My argument arises from comments like these that seem to contradict the whole notion of keeping to the English way of rendering names for a neutral impression of an article, especially for highly marketed brand names with huge fan bases like iPod and eBay. This fan-base will tend to render these names according to the way the trademark owners present these names, not the proper English way. Since the fan-base of these products are everywhere, it would be very hard to identify a reliable independent third-party source. Hence, indirectly, this powerful fan-base then ends up dictating Wikipedia's decision of how to render these names. This contradicts the whole notion of neutrality. -Andreas Toth (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what point you're looking to make about reliable sources at the very beginning of your post. The New York Times is not a reliable source?  CNN is not a reliable source?  The only place we can go for reliable information about the PGA Tour is the PGA Tour itself?  My argument about iPod and eBay has always been that they have become so ubiquitous that it is more standard to just go with iPod.  There is a capital near where it's supposed to be.  The i- is a prefix, sort of like how we use "un-American" rather than "Un-American".   Not every editor agrees with me here, and some people consider this an exception to the use standard English rule based on how overwhelming this usage is.  I don't agree with this interpretation myself, but I think it could be the basis of a valid set of exceptions.  Finally, it is not mostly the fan base that uses "iPod"; it's a vast majority of reliable sources.  We're doing the opposite of what you say we are in this case, as we are following the sources, not the fans.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you're not suggesting that the media dictates how to spell anything, i.e., if the media consistently spells something in one way then it must be right? Thats [sic.], excuse the pun. ;)


 * Based on what you say, I think it gives an unfair advantage to an established brand. What if a new brand came along and the media, for some reason, chose to be ignorant to the spelling (perhaps directly driven by competitor's smear-campaign), then, what you suggest is that this brand will simply have to suffer the consequences on Wikipedia? My personal preference, and I've stated this before, is that the spelling should reflect that of the owner's representation of their name, just like you and I dictate how our names are to be represented. That way there would be no need for long-winded discussions about how this and that should be represented. There's only one source that will give you the real answer - the owner - no other source can be more accurate than that. -Andreas Toth (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you can refer to my other comments on this page. I do not believe that we should "count votes" from sources that use a given formatting.  I do think that the existence of a style in reliable sources does mean that we should consider it as a possibility.  If a style is out there, we should not discount it as a possibility in favor of always saying that whatever the TM owner says goes.  Also, I want to say that I don't believe we should "correct spelling"; this guideline deals with how to format trademarks, not changing letters around within them. Your reply did not address my concerns with regard to this rule: what about TM and (R) symbols?  If we decide to omit them, then aren't we already departing from what the owner does? Croctotheface (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's simple: TM, (R), (C), etc., are not part of any alphabet (i.e., English, or foreign), nor are they numbers - they are, as you say, symbols, so they should not be included in the name. The exception would be standard "punctuation" symbols, including ".", "'", and perhaps "!" and "@".


 * So if we don't "count votes", then how and, most importantly, who ultimately decides upon how a name is rendered? Is that up to you and perhaps a few others to decide? -Andreas Toth (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But isn't the decision to exclude TM, (R), and so forth no different from the decision to render something like "PGA TOUR" as "PGA Tour"? You've made the determination that these symbols are not essential parts of the name, despite the fact that the trademark owner always uses them.  How is that different from deciding that the word "tour" is just the word, regardless of whether it's rendered as TOUR or TouR or ToUr?  The guideline is clear about how we decide: we choose from among formats already in use.  From them, we choose the one that most closely resembles standard English.  As far as "who decides", it's a consensus of editors who apply the guideline.  It's not me or you or some other individual.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Color, font, etc. of a trademark are not included in an article's text as everything has to render with the defaults that are in place. Special symbols fall into this category as well. After all, when sounding out a name, the symbols are not included, e.g., Name(TM) is not sounded out as 'nametrademark', but simply as 'Name'. If the official rendering includes a symbol then it should be mentioned in the introductory sentences as has been done for UNIX. (Yes, I know, capitalization and most punctuations don't modify the pronunciation of a name, but these are exceptions.)


 * When you say editors, do these include anyone who edits an article, like you and me, or is there some higher level distinction I'm not aware of? If so, what's this distinction and who exactly are these editors? After all, I consistently see your name on this page and a few others - not enough people, in my opinion, for a fair representation of major decisions such as this one. Even if the representation included everyone, the fact is that most people don't know that votes are in progress on a matter so they don't have their say until, one day, they notice that things have changed, and, when they try to voice their opinion they realize its all too late and that Wikipedia, as they knew it, has changed for better or for worse, and that, following this, there appears to be no way to reverse these decisions. If this is the case (and I hope I'm wrong), the model, in my opinion, is flawed. -Andreas Toth (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your pronunciation test favors the current form of the guideline, as you apparently recognize. Weird capitalization, punctuation, and so forth--all the things this guideline says we should leave out--are not pronounced.  I don't understand what you mean by "exceptions;" we make an exception to the pronunciation test for these things but not color, font, or the TM and (R) symbols?  Why?  Because you like some things and not others?  What I mean by "editors apply the guideline" is just that; it's the same way anything else in the MOS is applied to articles. Croctotheface (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't try to twist my words, I'm not the one that have made the exceptions by allowing names such as iPod, Yahoo! etc. when others like deviantART and LEGO, for example, have to suffer. Why have these exceptions? Perhaps because people are biased?


 * By the way, since you didn't provide any feedback on my thoughts about Wikipedia decisions, does that mean there's something in what I said? -Andreas Toth (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Twisting your words? I don't see any twisting at all: after you detailed your "pronunciation" test for excluding things like colors, fonts, or the TM symbol, you said, "Yes, I know, capitalization and most punctuations don't modify the pronunciation of a name." You then said that these are "exceptions", to which I expressed puzzlement. You want us to have a rule that says "render trademarks the way the owner does", right? I don't see the logic behind excluding font, color, or special symbols if we have that rule. You gloss over that and call them "exceptions", but I don't understand what that means. How are these cases different? Could we address this point before we get to the finer points of the specific examples you bring up?

As far as the second part, as I said, this is a guideline just like any other in the MOS. The basic principle behind it--that we should choose formats that best represent standard English--does have the broad support of a lot of editors. The initial discussions that formed this guideline involved many more editors than those of us who discuss here on a regular basis. As I said, it's like any other guideline here, editors reach a consensus, articulate that in the guideline, and then it's applied to specific cases. It's no different from any other guideline in that respect. Croctotheface (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For me, the sensible guideline (for this and for other issues such as the debate about accent and diacritical marks in foreign names or words borrowed into English) is to inquire into how a careful English-speaking writer, unaffiliated with the marketing or legal departments of the company that made the product or otherwise having any axe to grind one way or the other about the rendering of the name, but wishing to "get it right", would be likely to write the name. If these people are writing that they bought an iPod on eBay, then that's how we should write it.  If they prefer to buy an Ipod on Ebay, then that would be the better usage.  This could change over time as style and taste evolves. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan, how does one qualify a writer and how does one ensure that they are not biased in anyway? For example, what if they own an iPod and love it to pieces or have had one but had a really bad experience with it? Surely this would make them biased and their bias may then be reflected in their writing, no matter how great of a writer they are? After all, there is no such thing as completely neutral person, all people have likes and dislikes, that's life. My reasoning is that, by selecting to go with the owner's way of rendering a name, the only bias is the owner's one, which, to them, is correct. Why should we have the right to tell them otherwise? Yes, we may all have our opinions, but at the end of the day, they should not matter as they are affected by our own biased view of the world. -Andreas Toth (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Croctotheface, if you fail seeing the need for a punctuation exception, then how does one write some abbreviations (such as "i.e.") and hyphenated words and names (such as "Mary-Anne")? Also, let's remember that in-name capitalization is already a part of names, such as "McDonald" (not the restaurant). These are the type of exceptions I speak of - things that are not sounded out, but are already a part of the language. However, I think the range of acceptable characters should include some additional ones, such as "!", etc. That's my only exception. -Andreas Toth (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the notion of an "exception" that you describe. To reiterate again, you proposed replacing the current "choose the format the most closely resembles standard English" test with one that basically says "follow the practice of the trademark owner." I then asked whether, in that rule, we would need to replicate font size, (R) and TM symbols, or color.  You said no.  I asked why.  You said that those things are not pronounced.  I then said that the things that the guideline currently excludes, like nonstandard capitalization, are also not pronounced.  You then started talking about "exceptions".  Maybe this speaks to the failure of the pronunciation test to achieve a workable result; it certainly doesn't achieve the result that you want, since it would support turning "PGA TOUR" into PGA Tour.  My point here is that you concede that we can and should deviate from the practice of the trademark owner when it comes to things like TM or font or color.  I don't see how your "do as the TM owner does" position holds up if you're willing to deviate this way.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, we can call it standard English, we can call it following reliable sources, but at the end of the day, we do what we want to do. The community makes a decision, and then we either rationalize it, or we don't. We decided to use "iPod" and "eBay", but not "TNA iMPACT" nor "LEGO". Those decisions were made independently, and then when someone came along and wrote down "intial lower-case letters forming a single-letter prefix may remain lower-case," as an after the fact rationalization of our treatment of "iPod" and "eBay". I think the community generally doesn't like jumping through formatting hoops that trademark holders would want us to - it feels like advertising. I also think the community realizes that "IPod" and "EBay" are more jarring to readers than "iPod" and "eBay", because they're less common. Most sources such as the New York Times do what we do: "Nvidia", "iPod", "Bell Hooks", etc. As far as punctuation, we've decided at some point to keep the exclamation marks in Jeopardy! and Yahoo! - I'm not sure how that's rationalized, but ultimately, it's just what we decided to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel like we discuss the same cases all the time here, but I guess I'll keep saying the same stuff if the same stuff continues to be brought up. My feeling is that Yahoo was wrongly closed as no move.  The article does not use the exclamation mark throughout; it's only in the title.  The NY Times does NOT use "Yahoo!"  To me, Jeopardy(!) is a harder case.  Arguably, a show called "Jeopardy" would be different, the exclamation point could have communicative power there.  I have less of an issue with titles of television shows or movies or books.  I don't think there's any "after the fact" "rationalization" involved with i- and e- prefixes; the issue there, to me, is that this is a new category of construction that is not covered by "punctuation books" and that "proper nouns are capitalized" doesn't really address this.  It's the same for camelcase--I don't think any serious copy editor would assert that camelcase is some sort of abomination, despite the fact that compound words are not "supposed" to have internal capitals, or they weren't back in 1910 or whenever.  I suppose that what I'm really disputing here is the notion that there is not a coherent principle behind this guideline because some editors believe that standard English can't accommodate iPod.  It is not assembled on an ad hoc basis.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean, by saying that it's an after-the-fact rationalization, to say that there's anything wrong with that. You can make an argument that "iPod" is standard English, but I think that's a matter on which reasonable people may differ, and at the end of the day, we made a call. I can't say for sure that the people who decided to keep "iPod" the way it is were thinking about a general rule involving initial letters. I don't think we know that, but most of the rules on this website are after-the-fact rationalizations, and that's really alright. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)