Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An editor (

Just so everyone knows what was removed... see this dif. :That noted... My answer to this question is that we should use whatever is typically and routinely used by independent sources. Now, that might be the trademarked name, but it might not. To give two contrasting examples:

1. Using the trademarked name: Most independent sources refer to the social networking website as "Tumblr"... thus we should do so as well. We should not "correct" it to "Tumbler". This actually has nothing to do with what the company wants, or whether the name is trademarked or not... the reason we present it as "Tumblr" is because that is how independent sources routinely present the name.
2. Not using the trademarked name: Most independent sources refer to the department store as "Macy's"... thus we do as well. We should not "correct" it to the trademarked "Macy*s". Again, this actually has nothing to do with what the company wants, or what the trademark might be... we use the apostrophe (and not the star) because that's how independent sources routinely present the name.

In other words... there is no one right answer here. I know that most MOS editors strive to create consistent rules, but this is a case where we simply can't have consistency... In fact, other than "follow the sources" I don't think we can even have a "rule". The answer to how to present a name really can't be determined by MOS... because that answer has already been determined by what independent sources outside of Wikipedia have done. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Caveat: "independent sources" are often media, who are not famous for their accuracy. Use common sense. Even if a majority of careless journos did call the web site "Tumbler" or the phone "Iphone", that wouldn't make them correct; the things are called tumblr (or Tumblr) and iPhone, and no amount of mistakes can change that. On the other hand, obviously (IMHO) one should "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced", as MOS:TMRULES says, hence Macy's not macy^★s. — Stanning (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't about what is "correct"... it's about what is recognizable. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's very good comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should include characters accessible from the keyboard. If you have to go through a separate menu, it is probably best to change it to something more common. User:SMcCandlish would probably have a heart attack if he found out that you were encouraging us to follow what journalists do! Use the common, recognisable name/TM unless it affects the 'look' of the page to seem like it is full of hieroglyphs. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 17:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, I agree with Blueboar on this (though I think I

WP:ABOUTSELF policy. Do not let this discussion turn into another anchor point for jingoistic "down with diacritics" cranks.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that you should be accusing other editors of jingoism ... offensive, inappropriate and totally untrue, at whomever it was aimed. It is not that easy to access the characters on Mac OS. ★ took me five clicks/taps of the keyboard. Then add superscript ... it will take forever. My point is that it is non-standard. What you said about us following the vast majority of journalists would apply to TK Maxx and TJ Hughes, I might add. 9pm and 30ft are the most common styles everywhere, they are taught in education etc. That is not about journalistic space-saving, it has just become the norm as it is seen as part of a thread, or what some would consider a noun phrase. I have got into the habit of spacing times and units, in an attempt to conform to some of the less offensive elements of NHR, but it does feel odd, and—to my surprise—people have actually picked up on it as being anomalous. Anyway, I agree that we should follow the norm, but maintain that it should be instantly-recognisable standard characterisation which is applied. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The section in question was added without discussion as part of a large series of edits that also affected other content. When I noticed the addition (which took a while), I was concerned that it could easily be misinterpreted to conflict with other longstanding

WP:MOS guidance and with many RM outcomes that seemed to have strong consensus, and I raised the issue on the Talk page of the editor who inserted it (SMcCandlish, who seems to be on a Wikibreak at the moment). More recently, it has started to be used to justify positions that are directly contrary to its author's own explained interpretation (an editor with a long track record of participation on such matters). After further discussion in relevant RMs and on its author's Talk page, it seems clear that this added language is not helpful, as it is sometimes being interpreted in a manner contrary to the more longstanding content of the MoS (as well as contrary to what its author intended). It shouldn't have been added, and it should be removed. I don't disagree with any of the specific examples that it provides, but its blanket-style statement of a new principle that can conflict with other longstanding MOS guidance is not appropriate for inclusion. —BarrelProof (talk

) 17:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not just about what one particular user thinks. Form your own opinions. If the guideline is useful—whether to assist his arguments or not—and sensible, it should stay. Please, also, bring examples of where it has caused problems, other than the one of which I am aware. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 19:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I was indeed on a break, and am still busy. Agreed it's not about what I, in particular, think, though of course I can confirm that the misinterpretation is a misinterpretation (I think this was already obvious).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your misinterpreted addition has stimulated a necessary and sensible debate. At least we are talking about something worthwhile. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest trying to use clearer wording. The advice is potentially important. While between the time I inserted that language and today,

MOS:TEXT, etc.) against doing "cutesy style crap" to mimic tradmark presentation (hell, I have a reputation as an "enforcer" against doing that, much to the chagrin of many). As the included examples should have made clear, it's just to prevent people doing things like rewriting CraigsList as "Craig's List" to suit their personal notion of "correct" English or to over-apply an MoS rule.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

' "we must mimic logos" ': this can be solved by focussing on the actual trademark. These problems would not arise if editors looked into how the company writes the TM in plain text (using what I would call 'keyboard characters'). Things like HHGregg should not be changed to H. H. Gregg. The TM is hhgregg, adding caps for clarity, when it is clear that that is what people tend to do (from a simple google search, we may see this), is harmless. It does not change the style. This guideline is useful here, and asks for the implementation of common sense. Therefore, it should stay. BP, I am still waiting for your real examples ... –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 03:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally agreed, modulo my comment above. PS, a meta-comment about this thread and many like it: things like "An editor (

the Wikipedia gestalt and should be addressed as such, not as a he-said-she-said matter.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That was included as the other editor (BP) mentioned it, and tried to suggest that it should be removed due to the fact that you did not seek consensus to apply it. It was a way of bringing the two of you into the discussion, rather than suggesting that one editor had done something wrong. Personally, I believe that it is slightly hypocritical to remove something without discussion, just because it has inconvenienced an editor once, when justification if that is was not discussed when applied. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 13:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Could we please skip the usual "You didn't discuss this" vs "Bold edits are allowed" arguments... we are discussing it now. That's what matters. It does not matter whether some bit of language is "long standing" because consensus can change. The question we need to ask is: has it changed or not?. This discussion will clarify that. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that is the central question, but it does actually matter whether language is long-standing, because consensus is presumed not to have changed absent a clear showing that it has. Otherwise our entire consensus system would collapse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My point was that you cannot remove something because it was not discussed without having discussed it. I was responding to another editor, anyway—directly addressing their concerns.The rest of your contribution is—forgive me—incomprehensible. I do not understand what you are trying to say. There never was a consensus, if that is to what you are referring. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that we already had guidance in MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM saying that we should choose among the styles used in independent reliable sources, and if independent reliable sources are consistent in the styling, then an unusual styling is acceptable. We didn't need this additional passage to say that. Aside from being apparently unnecessary, there are two things I find especially problematic about the new language: 1) It says "do not 'correct' the styling" ever, instead of just saying not to "correct" it to be different from what is found in sources. 2) It says to choose among styles when it is "marketed in more than one way with conflicting style" (emphasis added). Properly, we don't care how something is marketed. We ordinarily specifically reject the idea that marketing should affect our styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The idea that we should go on what the majority of sources say is important. It is all very well changing the guideline, but editors need to understand that several factors need to be considered—the company's name/TM and whether this is readable (if it is, we should not change it); what the majority of sources (including style guides) outside of WP write; and whether there may be ambiguity caused by changing it to something other than the company's actual registered trade mark or name. I see no reason why we should alter styles away from the real name if they are easy-to-understand and supported by external sources.

I feel that we should be emphasising that we should only be altering the name or trade mark to what the MoS advises (eg

MOS:INITIALS

) if it is clear that the company's own style is unusual to see outside of their own branding/promotional material.

Additionally, the guidelines for the title of a page need desperate review. We cannot have a situation where we are told not to change stylisation in one guideline, but to make it 'better' in another. This leads to conflict in which MoS sections editors should be following. The same, sensible do-not-change strategy needs to be applied to titles as well. We should not be the ones to decide how to style a company's name. I will present an argument such as this at TK Maxx's talk page. We need to see some sort of consensus here first, though. In the meantime, does anyone know how to stop a closer from coming along before we know what the MoS will advise. This would result in us having to re-run the RM. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 22:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Our MoS has never said to follow a mere majority of sources. Wikipedia has a house style. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It is vital that we think about whether it is important to think about presenting accurate information, or following our own style guide. I think—and am sure you will, too—that we should be giving reliable information. People trust Wikipedia. I know that there is a reputation for us being unsourced and one person's opinion, but if someone does not know something, they come to us. Why would we want to give untrue information. It is not up to us to alter a company's name to something unseen in the real world. This defeats the point of the project: easily accessible, accurate and well-sourced information.

I understand why all names (people, that is) should keep to our MoS' guidelines. This makes complete sense. In the same say, though, the MoS actually says that we should write a name without its stylisation applied if the person has expressed a preference for something else, or if they are known in a certain way. This is things like dropping full stops for initials.

Overall, it seems to me that the counter-arguments (to following real sources/the company's own styling) presented have been based on loyalty to the MoS. This is rather vague, so it will need drastically improving in certain areas if you are going to throw that argument at us. Trade marks are not the same as names. They are well-known to 'look' a certain way. It is our duty to present something familiar to the reader. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 01:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Following some research, it is incredibly rare for style guides for any sort of publication to alter trade marks. Even the Guardian, which is well-known for its next to non-existent featuring of full stops in abbreviations, does not remove them, eg 'E.ON'. It also writes some acronyms in caps, again, something which it would not normally encourage, eg 'TED' and the 'E.ON' example given previously. Other style guides do not dare to touch trade marks and company names. They recognise that it is not up to an editor/publisher to change what is a legally-standing registration.

I concur with BarrelProof's analysis of the wording issues (at "The thing is that we already had guidance in MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM saying ..." above). However, I don't agree with the broader implication that MoS shouldn't have self-reinforcing statements in multiple pages. We have a frequent problem of people trying to

WP:LAWYER around a general principle because of the section it is found in. The main cure for this is to insert the principle into multiple applicable contexts until it is absorbed as a general one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall, it seems that we should not title a page/include in a page an altered/corrected/brought-into-our-own-style version of a TM/name. This follows what major style guides do, including those from both the UK and US. I am not going to bother quoting/citing them all—unless, of course, you will not simply take my word for it, when I will re-source everything—as I see this as no benefit. It is not something upon ourselves we should take to change such functioning branding devices. Following the example set by other stylistic guidance publications seems like the only sensible way forwards. Please inform e of any objections to this. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 19:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting to abandon the idea of a house style for Wikipedia for company names, trademarks, and trade names in general, and accepting most of the examples of what not to do that are currently given in the guideline ("The PLAYERS Championship", "TIME", "KISS", "REALTOR", "skate.", "[ yellow tail ]", "Gulf+Western", "thirtysomething"). Yes, I do object to that, and I am rather skeptical of the idea that high-quality reliable sources have generally abandoned all attempts at establishing a house style that differs from the way "the company wants them to function". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all; it is unlikely that the out-of-the-ordinary styling of these names is not carried through by the company themselves on their websites etc. If it is, we can start looking at what independent sources do. NB, I have no problem (nor do most style guides) with one playing around with caps. When adding/removing some would improve readability, I think that we should go for it. It is when one starts adding spaces and full stops, and adding non-existent apostrophes that I think we are going too far. All of the above examples can be fixed by caps (except 'Gulf+Western': there are two options here; leave it as it is because it is readable; the second is to change the '+' to an 'and', because it is clear that the company's intention was for it to be read like this): 'The Players Championship'; 'Time'; 'Kiss'; 'Relator'; 'Skate.' (yes, the full stop should stay); 'ThirtySomething'. Italics may be removed, also, as shown in these examples. Do not add or remove punctuation, unless it may be replaced by something with the same impact on the reader (replacing *s with 's, changing &s to ands, etc). We would need to write some clear guidelines, but of course it is a long way from that yet. I feel that I have not fully convinced you. I will be very happy to explain it more fully, and even draft some MoS guidelines for you to review. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 11:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick comment... I don't think Sb2001 is suggesting that we should abandon the idea of having a house style... what he/she is suggesting is that we should change our existing house style (substituting it with a new house style). Whether we approve of Sb's suggestion or not, we would still have a house style. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Completely: thank you for clarifying this User:Blueboar. This is about inserting a new, more reflective of real-world style section to the MoS. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 19:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW... I still prefer "follow the independent sources" as our house style... but I understand what you are trying to say. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm with BarrelProof on this material, too. The problem here is that SB is suggesting first seeing if the company is consistent in its own materials; if and only if they are not, then seeing what independent RS are doing. This is bassakwards, per

written about extensively: Reliable sources for facts about a topic are not the most reliable sources for how WP should best write about that or any other subject for a general audience; this is most especially true of news journalism, which has its own (fairly but not entirely internally consistent) style regime, driven by space-saving demands, expediency, and reader psychological manipulation. The reliable sources, to the extent there are any, for how WP should write for its audience are mainstream, general-audience, well-regarded style guides for a somewhat formal register, and MoS is already based on them. They also do not ape trademark stylization; it's not like we made that up.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should certainly keep this as a 'fall-back' option. If the company itself is inconsistent, or we can find no information on their website/in their branding, we should follow sources from elsewhere. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 21:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

But why would Wikipedia favor what one company wants if the majority of independent sources use something different? Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Because this could have been doctored by their style guide. If they improve readability etc of it, then yes—we should look at following their lead. The chances are that independent sources will go with what the company used, just usually turned into plain text. If not, then we should consider having the guideline say something along the lines of 'use the company's styling, unless independent sources consistently use something different' (though, slightly better written ...). I do not want to reject your idea, as I completely understand it, and like it (borderline

WP:ILIKEIT!). The two cannot work together, and I happen to be more tempted towards the more official company-oriented version. That is where we require consensus. I fear nothing will happen at this rate. This is where we need an interjection from User:SMcCandlish and other MoS regulars. –Sb2001 ^{talk page}

00:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In striving to be an reliable source of objective information (without promotional "spin"), Wikipedia generally prefers sources of information that are independent of the topics it discusses. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This would generally only apply if we were following the company's logo, as this is where they apply the fancy marketing. Plain text, as seen on their website, will likely remove all of this. We then have the choice of whether we do a total cleanup, eg skate. → Skate (no italics, cap start of word, remove full stop), or we keep do not alter the punctuation, eg 'Skate'. But—as I said—if independent sources tend all to have a different stylisation to as what our 'clean' version comes out, and they are all the same, we should give strong consideration to following those instead. This is possibly where a talk page discussion would be necessary. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Plain text, as seen on their website, will likely remove all of this [styling]." Except if often doesn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer treating "cleanup" as the default option rather than only a fallback position for exceptional circumstances. I sometimes find it really irritating when I get the impression that some marketing department is using cheap typographical and naming gimmicks to try to make their product seem hip or stand out from the crowd. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof: to clarify; you would like to go with what the company does, but make it more 'readable' and remove the branding which is there to make them stand out, eg 'Skate', 'HHGregg' and 'Yellow Tail'? Or, do you mean that we should bring things into our own MoS, and guess at the topic, eg 'H. H. Gregg'? –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 20:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should pay more attention to independent reliable sources and our own styling guidelines than to self-published content from a topic's promoters. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we already have policies about that, so all this "change the guidelines to do something conflicting" wishful thinking is a waste of time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not about that at all. The point of this discussion is that there is no clarity in guidelines, anyway—editors do not pay attention to independent sources. 'T. J. Hughes' and 'H. H. Gregg' show more attention is given to

MOS:INITIALS than external sources, of which very few (in TJH's case, none) add spaces and points.

–Sb2001 ^{talk page}

14:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that this discussion is weeks old at this point, and I'm leery about resurrecting it. However, i just want to note that the comment that "it is incredibly rare for style guides for any sort of publication to alter trade marks" is simply untrue. In my experience, what tends to happen is that someone comes here looking to change the guideline because Wikipedia doesn't use a weird style for some brand the editor likes. Then, if you check the style that publications like the NY Times or AP use for that particular brand, it's the same one Wikipedia uses. Publications that care about matters of style really don't have a lot of interest in, say, companies that use regular English words but SHOUT them (Time Magazine, PGA Tour, and so forth). Croctotheface (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I am suggesting that we 'strip' TMs of their eccentric branding, eg unnecessary caps, but do not try to reformat them into our own style—so do not 'correct' grammar, punctuation, etc, or add full points/apostrophes which are not already there. We seem to be about the only style guide to suggest that trade marks should be changed in any sort of drastic way: people use the MoS to argue that 'hhgregg' should by stylised as 'H. H. Gregg', which makes little sense. We could add some caps, to make it clearer ('HHGregg')—which is what most independent sources who do change it opt to do—but we should not be placing spaces and points. There needs to be a limit to what we do. There are all sorts of other examples further up the thread. BTW, do not assert that things are 'simply untrue'. Your following fragment, 'In my experience' suggests that you are not certain about what you are saying. That comment was based on the result of research.

–Sb2001 ^{talk page} 14:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you conducted a controlled, empirical study on how editors interact with this part of the MOS, I'd be very interested to see it. Beyond that, I can see why you got a little piqued at part of what I said, and I understand if your experience has been different from mine. As a general rule, I'm in favor of doing what major publications that care about style do. The concern I have with proposals that take some form of "follow the majority of sources" is that editors who would favor, say, "hhgregg" would then post a dozen links to link aggregators or sources that reprint press releases verbatim and argue that they constitute a majority. Also, the guideline is clear that we do not invent our own styles if they don't exist in publications, so there's already language in the guideline to rebut the issues you've been running into. But we do have our own style guide, and that's quite legitimate. Croctotheface (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, There is a discussion over on Talk:Epyc#EPYC or Epyc? over the application of the MOS to a particular product page that might be of interest to editors here. It is over a recent edit which removed the "stylized as" from the lead. (I will leave it at that to keep this post neutral.) If additional editors who have particular expertise/interest in the MOS would contribute, that might help with the discussion. Thanks! Dbsseven (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Somehow,

SmC: come on mate, you know you need to make these notifications neutral and this isn't even close. Jenks24 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not state what the clear policy consensus was, only that one can be detected. Didn't suggest any pro or con, only that "no consensus" would be a bad result that would inspire further re-litigation. Plenty neutral. Expressing the opinion that a clear outcome being reached is important isn't advocating a particular outcome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to ask for detailed explanation of the following part of the manual: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one.

Does it mean that capitalization of trademarks should always follow standard English capitalization rules or should the editor always search what the usage of the trademark is and then decide? Thank you! ---Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I take it to mean that you should check reliable sources: if they follow a non-sentence case formatting, then don't invent a new capitalisation just to try to make it to fit standard formatting conventions (e.g. eBay not Ebay). That said, it's not very clear: can you suggest a better wording for this? ‑‑Yodin^T 15:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the wording to native speakers. However, another unclear thing is what to do with names which are not mentioned by reliable independent sources. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Surely in order to pass

WP:GNG it would have to be mentioned in multiple RSes? If it's say a product of a company, then maybe it isn't notable enough to be mentioned even in the company's article. ‑‑Yodin^T

09:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Moe (band)#Requested move 20 June 2018.
The proposal is to move the article to

A question raised at VPP showed that MOS:TM does not discuss the issue of generic trademarks. List of generic and genericized trademarks. It would seem that we should follow the AP Guidelines that says, when dealing with a word that may seem but is not definitively a generic trademark, we should "use a generic equivalent unless the trademark is essential to the story". EG the case at VPP involves the trademark on the word "Velcro", which is not generic regardless how many people call it that. --Masem (t) 04:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We do need to address this. I've tried several times in the past at various venues here. The problem is that a whole lot of non-lawyers think they know what "generic[ized] trademark" means and they're wrong. A trademark isn't generic until a court of competent jurisdiction says it is. We're doing a legal/ethical wrong when we treat non-generic trademarks as genericized just because some people "out there" do it.

article title criteria at all; it's simply the default name to first test against the actual criteria and against other policy concerns. If it fails any of them, we should and do use another name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  08:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we need some guidance on this... but I would not use Velcro as the example. It is too close to being a generic, and using it would be confusing to the average reader. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

hook-and-loop

. Some of those people won't find their way to the right article.

Regarding COMMONNAME is not one of the article title criteria, that's a wikilawyer argument. (Pardon the lawyer pun.) COMMONNAME is a core section of the Article titles policy, and it is virtually synonymous the "Recognizability" and "Naturalness" criteria.

Blueboar if we use any examples at all, I don't see how we can avoid using something like velco as an example. We don't need guidance on Aspirin or Ferrari. The entire point is guidance on how to handle cases which the common-public view as de facto generic. Alsee (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Except it's emphatically not a wikilawyering comment; what I said about it makes it clear why, though I'll re-explain it more detail here. It's important, because confusion that COMMONNAME (a.k.a.

WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, etc.).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  02:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing in describing this issue elsewhere is that I cannot find a list from any government or similarly authoritative source from a judicial agency that affirms what markers are generic. (I would not us WP's list, nor other various lists you can find on "interesting" sites.) We might need to make a list that exists on WP:/MOS: space that has specific reference to legal cases where the mark was determined that way, to be the whitelist of terms that are okay to use, and a separate list for things that are not yet generic. --Masem (t) 17:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

IANAL, but I worked with intellectual property lawyers (and civil liberties ones) for about a decade and did a lot of policy and case analysis with them. I have a strong suspicion that trying to take that approach could actually create liability for WMF (of at least the "anyone can file a nuisance lawsuit, whether they'd really win or not" variety), given that a decision of genericization is going to be particular to a limited jurisdiction, and decisions can be overturned, and they can be mis-read, and [etc.] that could easily lead us to mis-report something as genericized. The safest approach is to declare a general "presume and write the safest claim" default, the way with do with BLP matters and some others. A list of genericized marks might be thousands of items long, and would basically have to be a database (at least a spreadsheet) with jurisdictions, notes about what level in the legal system the decision is at, footnotes about legal definitions, etc., etc. It would be a big OR exercise. Shouldn't we simply not claim something's a genericized trademark unless reliable sources (reliable on trademark-law matters in particular) say so?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we may be getting hung up on the definition of "generic". Some are using the legal definition, but other comments here are not. Perhaps another word? Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that discussions here are confusing the ideas, but the guideline wording need not, since we can be precise and link to stuff as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a lot of

• MOS:TM says, in part, "Trademarks include words ... used by ... individuals to identify themselves", which could include stage names and the like (though it doesn't say so specifically). The purpose of this inclusion is to prevent people trying to claim that so-and-so professional pseudonym isn't technically a trademark
  , and thus can be stylized a crazy way to mimic a logo, against what this guideline says.
• MOS:CAPS
  is similarly restrictive about abusing over-capitalization to mimic marketing stylization.
• MOS:TRADEMARKS
  as the main page on this – says "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." This is a different, less expansive (very legal) definition of trademark, meaning specifically commercial, organizational, product, and service logos and wordmarks. It is not about stagenames, monickers applied to social movements, etc. (otherwise a whole big bunch of articles would be renamed). It is, rather, the rule (already accounted for at MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS) that permits "iPod" and "eBay", which pretty much no one ever writes as "Ipod" and "Ebay" or (except at the beginning of a sentence) "IPod" and "EBay".

I've proposed something specific below, though am open to other ideas, and to revision of this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Specific proposal

Change MOS:TM's lead sentence from this:

To this:

And then close the lead section with the following addition, including a technical footnote:

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Support as proposer. The confusion/gaming issue does need to be resolved. Doing it this way will be more expedient than trying to clarify the policy wording, since people are apt to argue 10× longer about policy than guideline wording, and it's more sensible to say "this guideline isn't rewriting policy" than to go rewrite the policy to better agree with the guideline's terminology.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what sort of concrete effect this would have, and therefore whether it is worth bothering with. What discussions do you think would be affected by such a change? bd2412 T 21:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  See "Extended discussion" section below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a useful clarification and wikilawyering-nip. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the MOS does not dictate the the
  WT:AT to have it accepted). -- PBS (talk
  ) 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  @PBS: That response is mistaking the entire rationale and turning it 180 degrees. This is a discussion about WP editorial consensus resolving an interpretational dispute that is actually illusory, by adjusting some wording to be clearer. It has nothing to do with guideline text "dictating" policy text. Let me repeat: 'it's more sensible to say "this guideline isn't rewriting policy" than to go rewrite the policy to better agree with the guideline's terminology.' Your reasoning above strongly suggests you should be supporting this not opposing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  Additional commentary moved to the "Extended discussion" section.

• Mildly exapserated support It's annoying that we need to go into this much detail, but if we do we do. The change seems pefectly sensible on its merits, and likely to resolve such controversies in future. Tamwin (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• I suggest this be closed as confusing/malformed/
  COMMONNAME in regards to capitalization. However we have article Charles de Gaulle (somewhere near 100% lowercase 'd' in reliable sources), and article Robert De Niro (somewhere near 100% capital 'D' in reliable sources). If I understand this correctly, this intends to resolve an in-progress article-title dispute against a COMMONNAME as it is written in 97.3% of Google News hits. I'm still trying to digest this issue. Alsee (talk
  ) 14:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  Except the "difficulties" have already been addressed, and appear to be illusory or "meta-" at best, about form not function (of the discussion). One of you asked for material in the extended discussion section to be front-loaded into the RfC, which I declined for "TL;DR" reasons. The other was a request for an example, of the kind already provided in that same material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• A month later, no one seems to object to clarifying that
  MOS:TM, then we can revisit including some kind of footnote, or doing some other kind of clarification later. No big hurry, after all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
   😼  02:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I suggest you add an example at or near the top of the question. I understand you were trying to write the question in a general manner, but this runs through a rather non-trivial string of relations between policies and guidelines. It was hard to follow what the question was asking without an example to tie together the string of policy and guideline points. I think I get it now, but I feel I'd have to re-read from the start before competently commenting. Alsee (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a general matter. I'm presenting the Kshmr/KSHMR dispute as a case in point. It seems to make more sense to do that in this section than dump another paragraph or two into the front matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• You words "explicitly defers". -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  That's not a sentence, so I'm not certain what you're getting at. What I'm getting at is that

  WP:GAME their way into an anti-consensus result, like over-capitalizing something to match a logo stylization. The reason we're here in this thread right now is that this happens again and again and again, but the fix is obvious. The clear solution is to tweak the wording to short-circuit this attempt at finding an exploitable loophole (which doesn't really exist, but the pursuit of which wastes a tremendous amount of our time, day after day, year after year).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

   😼  05:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that in the case of KSHMR we can’t dismiss it as “just a logo stylization”... since the vast majority of reliable independent sources use the all capitalized version in running text when discussing the artist. Even sources that tend to avoid over capitalization use the all caps version in that case. I think this is a key distinction. It isn’t a question of Logo stylization, but of usage that is independent of that Logo.

I would apply this principle to any trademark or stage name. We don’t care what the artist uses... but we do (or should) care what independent sources use. The independent sources indicate when we should make an exception to our normally very sound MOS style guidance. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet some RS don't do it. It took me only a few seconds to find multiple examples, which I mentioned at the RM; I could have included more, but the point was made. The RM closed with a consensus against KSHMR. WT:MOSTM (nor WT:AT for that matter) isn't a place to second-guess and relitigate that. The point of this thread is to sew up a P&G wording issue that is confusing various (though a small number of) editors into repeatedly asserting some kind battle between AT (and/or a naming conventions page) and the MOS. This "policywar" is a ridiculous illusion, perceived only to those who want there to be a conflict, so they can hopefully

WP:WIN it in favor of mimicry of logos. As for Kshmr, yes it's an edge case. So what? There will always be edge cases anywhere an edge exists. Another fact about edges is that isn't possible make 100% of parties 100% satisfied with exactly what cases are on one side of the edge versus the other at the end of the discussion. This is not a problem or an emergency, it's entirely normal and expected. Our system is not broken. We just have a tiny wording clarity problem to resolve so that people stop pretending desperately that it's broken in hopes of getting a fannish result that they want, if only they stamp their feet loud enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This guideline does not address use of the "TM" symbol (or others, including (R), etc.) in fictional contexts; specifically, I'm thinking of comedy groups such as the Firesign Theatre which sometimes would print this or a similar symbol over fictional "trademarks" that they created in liner notes for their records. As these are not actually legal trademarks, I would think use of the symbol is actually illegal, and certainly defeats the symbol's intended purpose of identifying legal trademarks. Therefore:

• Aren't Wikipedia editors who uncritically copy this "TM" from the liner notes into Wikipedia articles, doing something improper (and actually breaking the law)?
• Shouldn't this guideline have a section addressing non-use of the marks for bogus "trademarks" in fiction?

Please comment on what Wikipedia policy should be. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no law that is broken by writing descriptive text including a "TM" symbol. The law is only broken when someone tries to actually sell a product under a non-registered name with a false indication of it being a registered name. bd2412 T 21:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I apparently failed to make my question clear enough. I'm not a cop (or a lawyer); I don't care so much about whether editors are breaking the law, as I want to know what our style guideline should be in regard to this. Even if the law is wimpy in this regard, isn't the intent (spirit) of the markings being defeated by bogus use? The intent is supposed to be to tell the reader when something is intellectual property (whether "registered" or not). Should we care if Wikipedia editors uncritically copy the marks (not necessarily the registered trademark) from a comedian's liner notes? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

MoS isn't intended to cover every weird scenario. I own pretty much every English-language style guide in print, and many that are not, and have never seen any of them address this "issue", so I think it's a

WP:DGaF matter. MoS only cover what we need to, to produce consistent, professional-looking, and accessible output, and to forestall tedious, repetitive, productivity-draining "style fights".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  02:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Milwaukee Bucks#RfC for team colors

This is really beyond the Milwaukee Bucks or even sports in particular, and relevant to coverage of organizations and their

Additional editors are requested to discuss if the "from" in Spider-Man: Far From Home should be capitalized. The discussion is here Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#From or from?. The discussion seems to hinge on stylization in early promotional materials.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#The endless "fan-capping" problem
How are

Should we include

• In the gaming press, id Software dominates, though Id Software occurs, as does mimicry of one of their old logos as iD Software [2]. The company is rarely mentioned outside such sources, which lean heavily toward "honoring" trademark stylizations to the letter.
• Book sources also frequently use "id" but (after weeding out false positives for ID-card-related stuff) "Id" and even "ID" also appear [3].
• Google Scholar (with more hits than we might think) shows a similar pattern [4].

Clearly id is the most common. But do we want to enshrine it in MoS as a "stop debating it forever" example, so soon after debate about it? When the line-item about this (also recently added) already has two examples that no one actually does want to debate?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Aside from a single space, "id Software" is in the same format (lowercase initial) as iPhone and eBay, but it demonstrates that such styling isn't limited to single-word trademarks. I don't care about a specific example, but "id Software" was the subject of a recent discussion which establishes its viability. Keep in mind that this only applies to the full name of the company "id Software" but if shortened should probably best be presented as "Id". -- Netoholic @ 16:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Why on earth would be do something that inconsistent? My main reason for raising this on the talk page is that this was just now subjected to another

  WP:RM dispute, and there have been multiple in the past. And it's fairly likely to happen again. It is not as settled a case as is iPhone and eBay, at all. Nor is the usage in RS as consistent. It's "pretty darned high", but for those other two it is essentially universal except sometimes at the start of a sentence (depending on the publisher's house style rules about sentences).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

   😼  01:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Have to say, I was wondering about this when I saw the initial addition of id as an example. Might be worth sticking to the one exception as set out at
  MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter for now ("the exception is trademarks that begin with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter. These are often not capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules"), rather than generalising a recent (and controversial?) rename decision (which I can't actually find... the most recent discussion at Talk:id Software seems to be a couple of people in 2016 arguing to capitalise as Id...). ‑‑Yodin^T
  21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  It's Talk:List of id Software games#Requested move 28 July 2018, which is still open, though the nominator has backed out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What does the MOS say about usage of Inc. in article titles? (e.g.

Hi @Teratix: check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). In this case, as there don't seem to be any other topics of the same name to disambiguate, it seems pretty clear cut that the convention would be for the article to be named CytoViva (without the "Inc."). ‑‑Yodin^T 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Yodin: Great, thanks! I have gone ahead and moved the page, as I don't see any reason it would be controversial. TeraTIX 14:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We need help with a move discussion currently taking place in

The following sentence was hard to understand at first: "Not all trademarks with a pronunciation that could have fit this pattern actually do so, and should not be re-styled to conform to it (use NEdit not "nEdit", E-Trade not "eTrade"; Xbox, not "xBox")." Only after studying the links, I saw that apparently it was meant that the combination of single letter + word should only written in the iPod style if the owner choosed that style. Perhaps the sentence can be rephrased? Bever (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• What wording would you suggest, Bever? ‑‑Yodin^T 06:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps something like this:

"Not all owners of trademarks with a similar pronunciation (a compound of a single letter and a word) use this pattern of capitalization. Names should not be re-styled to conform to it (use NEdit not "nEdit", E-Trade not "eTrade"; Xbox, not "xBox")."

Or: "Only use the exception above (for names like iPod and eBay) when necessary." Bever (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In what way do you find the original unclear? PS: This has nothing to do with owner's rights, and we would never in a million years couch it in those terms. See

MOS:TM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  16:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Clarifying that UCRN is not a style policy.

• Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., "♥" used for "love", "!" used for "i") or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name. Similarly, avoid special stylization, such as superscripting or boldface, in an attempt to emulate a trademark. (See also Wikipedia:Article titles § Special characters.)
  • use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us

I propose adding:

I can't see this as controversial, so I simply implemented it with a very clear rationale: 'Adding the long-settled Deadmau5 and 3M "exceptions" (and a title-of-a-work case) – actually applications of our consistency-in-sources rule, not "exceptions" to MoS. Absence of any explicit note of this sort for this particular line-item seems to have something to do with the incorrect claims people make about MOS:TM, and their disruptive grandstanding against it at RM and other venues.)'

Someone reverted this with an edit summary that doesn't make much sense in the context: 'what's the point of this? it's just a rephrasing of what's already written and the examples and positioning are terrible.' The point of it was spelled out in detail, and its position is exactly where it should be (directly under the point it illustrates, and based carefully on the similar exceptions line immediately under the rule about camelcase. The examples are based on long-standing consensus, and were carefully selected as basically both unassailable and not over-generalizable by mistake to things that do not qualify like, say, "Ke$ha" for Kesha.

The lack of some exception examples for this specific MoS line item appears to be a direct and proximal cause of tendentious "rebellion" against MoS, denialism that it has consensus, pretense that

• How is 3M an exception? I don't see anything on the talkpage clarifying this, and there shouldn't be anything in the examples given that don't make it obvious why the examples are given. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, 3M applies because virtually no one in the world calls them "ThreeM", nor uses their full-length name, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company. They're near-universally "3M" in the reliable sources. The film title is always written that way because almost no one (including WP) changes titles of published works to suit their house style. That's an example that reinforces
    MOS:TITLES without having to explicitly cross-reference it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢
     😼  23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 4#Template:Trademark (seems to have a dubious use case on this wiki, even if it may serve some purpose on Commons). Not a style matter, but this seems to about our only trademark-specific guideline, so it seems worth a notice here, for intellectual property watchlisters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a restaurant chain whose name appears four different ways in independent media:

Beef 'O' Brady's (most common)

Beef O'Brady's (popularized by WP)

Beef O' Brady's (sometimes)

Beef O Brady's (sometimes)

I'd like to move the article to the most common version. The second usage occurs sometimes in other media (only 2 of the 12 refs in the article), but most recent instances of it may be from our own title, and Google's KG picking up our usage, making it the top search result.

Normally I would just propose the move, but this was previously discussed in 2011 (!) and left this way on MOS grounds, so I thought I'd ask for a sanity check here. – SJ + 13:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Instances from regional sources:

• Tampa Bay news
• local news
• local TV
• industry mag

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see:

Also mentions some apparently conflict between

• KΞiiNO (Keiino with the Greek letter Xi);
• STARGᐰTE SG·1 (Stargate SG-1 with a Canadian Aboriginal syllabic letter);
• AC⚡DC, proposed by me (AC/DC; at least it was the "correct symbol", a thunderbolt, but was rejected by page editors, although a thunderbolt cannot be trademarked in the U.S.).

What do you think about?--Carnby (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This relates to the discussion above. In all three cases, these stylized version only appear in the logos, and are never used in running text. I would lean to not including the stylized note on any of them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to remove them.--Carnby (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am adding another example of a trademark name that should be capitalized. This includes "Illumos". Somerandomuser (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Somerandomuser. The discussion leading up to this can be found on the Illumos talk page. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that when more notable examples are found, they should replace the "Illumos" example. Somerandomuser (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a bit about never including periods, exclamation points, and question marks, that appear in trademarked names and got reverted. To the person that reverted me, I would ask you to read

As far as breaking precedent, I'm not seeing that. The vast majority of references to Yahoo at Yahoo! do not have the exclamation point. Readability is important, and little compromises it worse than having random punctuation marks in the wrong places. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn’t this is covered by our guidance to follow the usage of reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I would think that most independent sources would omit any confusing trademark punctuation in their running text… but in the rare cases where they routinely do include it, so should we. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Bizarrely enough, it seems that most sources include it for Portugal the Man, including a lot of sources that do it in a way that leaves the impression that the band is called The Man. For example, here ^[1] includes the headline "Portugal. The Man, St. Vincent, Grizzly Bear and More Unite for Noise For Now Benefit Shows", a headline that says that a band called The Man is playing in Portugal. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We have a pretty fair standard -- follow use in reliable sources. The MOS helps us when use in reliable sources is unclear. Having a "but with this specific case no matter what you cannot follow reliable sources" does not seem helpful -- in addition to being inconsistent with precedent, given the incredible number of articles of songs, brands, bands, movies, artworks, etc, with punctuation in their names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is why it is helpful. The article on Portugal the Man includes this: "In 2009, Portugal. The Man played at Bonnaroo and also at Lollapalooza in Grant Park, Chicago." Essentially, it says that something happened in Portugal in 2009, and then says that a band called The Man played at those concerts, and neither of those statements are true. Dropping the period gives an easy-to-read and correct statement that the band played at those concerts. And there are many many other sentences in that article that are similar. Considering the nearly non-existent benefit of including the punctuation (promoting band's gimmicky styling) versus the huge benefit of dropping it (people can read the article), the choice seems clear to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(“In 2009, Portugal.” Would be an incomplete sentence… just saying). Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The band definitely has a weird name! And that name is used in the majority of reliable sourcing, and is the title of the page. There are probably also people who might think "Tyler, the Creator" must be two different artists, or that "I came, I saw, I conquered" are three different topics, or that Ben & Jerry's must be two different companies, except for the fact that they are clearly used in reliable sources and are the title of the page. All of which would be prohibited under this proposed change. --Yaksar (let's chat) 16:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The only example you provided that is really comparable is Tyler the Creator, who I think should be written without a comma in running text, but a comma isn't nearly as bad as a period. The Caesar quote and ice cream companies are just horrible comparisons. The Caesar example will be in quote marks most of the time, and companies include more than one person's name all the time. This is why I used Yahoo and Fun as similar examples. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't really matter which you'd consider comparable and which are distinct because the proposed addition would forbid us from using the correct name used in reliable sources for all of them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of our articles such as

I just read the section again, and what you're suggesting is what this page already says. So I would be interested in what specifically you are proposing to edit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe he is suggesting that it doesn't make sense to say "Facebook styles itself as 'facebook'" when that style is only used in the company's logo. Facebook uses the lowercase f in its logo but otherwise uses a capital F when referring to itself [5]. Compare that to

-- Calidum

18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That's still not specific - like, what line, what subsection, what exactly is the proposed change? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Calidum is correct in what I'm saying, TMSTYLE says not to note "colorization, attempts to emulate font choices, or other elaborate effects". I would suggest putting in front of that that we should only state "stylized as X" if the trademark owner generally uses this in running text, if it is generally only used in the logo it shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. This means we have 3 types, type 1 where the stylism is used by 3rd party sources and thus can be in the article title and running text etc Yahoo! may be an example, type 2 where the stylism is used more or less consistently used by the trademark owner even in running text such as Adidas (which even has a citation though the link is dead) but it isn't used by 3rd party sources in which case in the title and running text we use the standard English formatting rules but note the stylism in the article as with Adidas and type 3 where the stylism isn't used outside the logo (and similar) meaning the trademark owner generally uses the standard English formatting in running text, in this case it shouldn't even be mentioned in the article but a picture of the trademark (which shows it) should be included if possible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So something like: followed by a note, such as "(stylized as ...)" (or "(stylised as ...)" depending on the article's

variety of English), with the stylized version[new footnote] and the new footnote would read "the stylized version is what the trademark owner uses in running text, not their logo. For example, Facebook's logo uses a lowercase f, but in running text, Facebook always capitalizes the F, so the capital letter should be used." Oiyarbepsy (talk

) 19:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy with often just omitting any explicit mention of a styling completely, as it is obvious to anyone who looks at it and not always important at all (especially simple things like all-caps or all-lowercase or whether to include dots or spaces in an abbreviation). I would also discourage fancy contortions to try to imitate logos using special characters or color or subscripting and superscripting. I think it is only necessary to talk about the styling if a lot of independent sources also follow it or if the self-published & affiliated sources use it very consistently or if independent sources discuss the styling as something they consider important to talk about. If a company uses a styling sometimes but not consistently itself, I see no need to talk about it. Also, I would often want to say "(sometimes styled as XyZ)" or "(stylized by the company as XyZ)" rather than simply "(stylized as XyZ)", if the styling is not consistently followed. I have sometimes gotten into struggles with other editors who want to use a particular styling or want the article to talk about some styling issue despite the fact that no sources discuss it and the self-published source doesn't even discuss it and there is no indication it has any importance. For example, this arises for whether certain letters are capitalized in the title of a work or whether someone's abbreviated name should include dots or spaces or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I'd just add to the text the requirement that the stylism should generally be used by the trademark owner in running text and that if its generally only used in the logo (and similar) it shouldn't be stated in the article. I don't think a separate note would be needed either in the guideline or in the articles. I'd suggest using Facebook as an example that should not state "stylised as X" and Adidas as an example that should. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would personally be more interested in what independent sources do, and put very little weight on what is in self-published and directly affiliated material. That might result in not mentioning "adidas". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to go that far (though I wouldn't really oppose that) al least for now, I just think we need to remove "stylized as X" from type 3 cases such as Facebook. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's an alternate proposal: If a stylizing only appears in a logo, do not include stylized as at all, since the logo will be clearly visible at the top of the page, showing how it's stylized. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't rely on images to convey information. Many people who read Wikipedia may not be loading images, or are visually impaired or otherwise relying on other aids to read Wikipedia. If the information is valid and relevant, we should say as such. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree but if it only appears in the logo I don't think its valid or relevant to say its stylised that way. Do you think Wikipedia and Facebook should state "stylised as WIKIPEDIA" and "stylised as facebook" if the trademark owner uses the standard name everywhere else? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be "stylised as WikipediA", actually (although I don't suggest it). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wouldn’t it be simpler to just show how the name is styled using an image? I am not sure that we ever need to say “stylized as…” in our running text. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the "stylized as facebook" can just be used when describing logo image and removed from the first sentence of the article. Somerandomuser (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• OK everyone (apart from perhaps Canterbury Tail) seems to agree on at least requiring that if the stylism is generally only in the logo we don't need to state "stylised as" so I'll leave a note at Talk:Facebook and if no one objects I'll add this to TMSTYLE. Unlike Wikipedia logo there isn't an article on Facebook's logo but I guess it could be mentioned in the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Was a bit confusing as written, so I tried to tighten up a bit for clarity.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Per

Following no objection, I have removed the advice in question. — HTGS (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding Zombies (2018 film) and mention of the stylization Z-O-M-B-I-E-S in the opening sentence. Editors are invited to comment. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Zombies (2018 film)#Stylization and Hyphenating the title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

On 21 January 2022, I made an edit to clarify that although trademarks are ordinarily capitalized, they are not

After no response for more than 9 days, I reverted the revert. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The following line relates to names with unorthodox capitalizations:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one:

This does not appear to reflect actual practice when it comes to the use of all-caps. See for instance the recent unanimous opposition to “JVKE”, where other editors have pointed out that we consistently decapitalize names that nearly everyone else renders exclusively in all caps. So should we remove the widespread use requirement here, or add an exception to it for all-caps? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve rewritten it to distinguish between the use of all-caps that should always be ignored, and other odd formatting where widespread usage should be respected. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• We need to discuss this further. The key is get across that we ignore what the trademark holder does (the "official" capitalization)... but we do take into consideration the capitalization used in sources that are independent of the trademark holder. If those independent sources widely use all caps, so should we. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Interesting. This contradicts what other editors have said about us being very consistent in disallowing all-caps stylism. I can’t quite reconcile that. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional input at Talk:Jon_Anderson#AndersonPonty_Band_or_Anderson_Ponty_Band would be appreciated on how to style a band name. Is it the Anderson Ponty Band, or the AndersonPonty Band? Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this statement is problematic: Trademarks promoted without any capitals are capitalized like any other.

This statement is used to justify incorrectly capitalizing some names. There is a difference between a name being promoted or stylized in lowercase and a name actually being in lowercase. Compare:

• Thirtysomething — the abc.com web site uses both an initial capital letter (Thirtysomething) and all lowercase (thirtysomething). This name is stylized as lowercase thirtysomething, but that is not it's name.
• i/o (album)
  , the 2023 Peter Gabriel album. Every official source uses lowercase i/o. That is the name.

The idea that Wikipedia editors get to decide what names are "promoted" or "stylized" is silly. Nobody is arguing that it should be IOS, MacOS, IPhone (or Ios, Macos, Iphone). We should trust creators as the ultimate source of the proper presentation of a name. When that creator is consistent, as is the case for i/o, but not Thirtysomething, we should believe them.

I propose that we modify this statement to say that we respect actual names and, when a creator/owner is inconsistent, we capitalize like any other. RoyLeban (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah. This rule is not anything at all to do with "Wikipedia editors get to decide". It's applying an across-the-board rule that we do not mimic stylization of logos. If we go with what you are suggesting, the obvious secondary result is that we'd start mimicking SCREAMING ALL-CAPS LOGOS too, and we're just not going to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

First, I want to point out that is independent of the change you partially reverted, which I think you did in error. I'll address that in a separate section.

This is about names, not logos. I am not proposing that Wikipedia mimic the stylization of logos. Take Verizon, whose name is properly spelled this way. Their logo is VERIZON✔️, and it would be a bad idea (and silly) to use that on Wikipedia. This is about respecting names. macOS is not MacOS and merely stylized as macOS. iOS is not IOS. tvOS is not TVOS or TvOS. Etc. And compare those names with Apple and Amazon, the companies. Both companies have the names I just gave, but both companies use all lowercase in their logos — apple and amazon. Their pages properly use Apple and Amazon, not apple and amazon. Similarly, the Nike logo is famously NIKE with a swoosh, but the company name is Nike, Inc. and the page name reflects that, with a correct statement that it is stylized as NIKE (in their logo).

When a company or a creator always uses a name which is not capitalized in the traditional way, as is the case with macOS, dBase, FullWrite, xkcd, i/o, etc., Wikipedia should respect that (and frequently does). And there should not be a different rule for those names and names which happen to have all lowercase letters, which is what the sentence I think should be changed says. That makes no sense.

Finally, as for a SCREAMING ALL-CAPS NAME (not a logo!), that's a side point right now. But, yeah, BMW, GEICO, NASA, NATO, and UNICEF are all evidence that Wikipedia is already properly respecting names that are all uppercase. It seems the policy should reflect the reality. RoyLeban (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Acronyms have nothing to do with this, and are (with the rarest exceptions) presented in all-caps (unless, like scuba and radar, they have been re-parsed into the everyday language as words that most people don't realize originated as acronyms); this is governed by

MOS:ABBR. Aside: what is presently macOS is not a good example of anything here, since the name of that OS has varied widely over time and has not been consistent at all, in Apple's own usage or in that in independent sources (it is has been macOS, MacOS, MacOS X, and OS X, and probably something else, too). This is a guideline, not a policy. The distinction you are trying to draw between "logos" and "names" is not consistently applicable. Yes, there are some logos that are not wordmarks, and we don't need to address them, because there is no way to represent the Nike swoosh or whatever as a text glyph, so we just don't need to worry about it. BUt the primary reason MOS:TM goes into so much detail about trademarks and capitalization is that various editors (most of them noobs, but not always) continue to try to have WP go out of its ways to mimic logos, e.g. "SONY" instead of Sony. The very reason that you find observances like "(stylized as NIKE)" in various articles is because of this fact. We don't mind indicating that a wordmark stylization exists, but we're not going to keep using it Wikipedia's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  13:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's ignore acronyms and uppercase letters for now, because this isn't what I'm suggesting needs to change. That said, the idea that

WP:ABBR

has a list of exceptions is, honestly, nuts, and is not really tenable — it is laughable. All guidelines should be clear enough without manually maintained lists of exceptions (and this guideline doesn't even have a list of exceptions).

Similarly, logos have nothing to do with this. This is about names. Ignore the fact that some editors want to put Macy*s (with a star) in text.

macOS is a side note here. But, Apple's spelling of macOS is 100% consistent. It hasn't "varied widely over time". It has changed over time. People, companies, etc. are allowed to change their names. We don't continue to call Apple, Inc. "Apple Computer, Inc." because that used to be their name. The System 7, Mac OS 8, macOS, and macOS Sonoma pages are all correctly named.

So, on to what I actually am writing about ....

First, who decides that a name is merely being "promoted" or "stylized" instead of it actually being the name? Look at

dream hampton and dodie

are merely stylizing their names (note that the source that supposedly says that dream hamptom is merely stylizing her name uses lowercase throughout, and there is no source that states that dodie is merely stylizing her name). How else would you explain this other than Wikipedia editors deciding which names are actually lowercase and which are promoted? (The same is true of trademarks, but it was much easier to come up with examples of people.)

Second, under what logic does it make any sense that names which are only lowercase letters are special? That they are different from names with mixed case? The guideline should be clear enough for all the names abcde, aBcde, abCde, aBCDE, and abcDE. If there's a good reason for this (and I don't believe there is), the guideline should state it.

For these reasons, the sentence I pointed to is problematic. As I stated above, I propose that we modify this statement to say that we respect actual names and, when a creator/owner is inconsistent, we capitalize like any other. Wikipedia won't change overnight, but properly respecting a name like macOS but not a name like i/o doesn't make sense. If you have an alternate proposal, please state what it is. RoyLeban (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Lowercase prefixes on names

I made a change to the page to reflect what is actually done on Wikipedia with respect to lowercase prefixes on names. The issue arises in part because a technical flaw in the MediaWiki software prevents a section of a URL from starting with a lowercase letter. Thus the page on macOS must be named .../MacOS, with an uppercase M. There is also the case that some people are uncomfortable with words and names that break common conventions (e.e. cummings dealt with this throughout his life).

My change read as follows:

• use: He said that eBay is where he bought his iMac which runs macOS Sonoma.
• avoid: He said that EBay is where he bought his IMac which runs MacOS Sonoma.

The current version of the page, after a semi-revert by @SMcCandish, is as follows:

• use: He said that eBay is where he bought his iPod.
• avoid: He said that EBay is where he bought his IPod.

I made this change because the current text in the policy (and the text that existed before my change) is incorrect. It does not reflect what actually happens on Wikipedia, nor does it reflect common sense. SmCCandish wrote that my change" had potential substative impacts." I do not believe this to be true.

According to the policy as written, the pages for macOS, tvOS, and all of the related pages (e.g., there are individual pages for every version of macOS) are all wrong and should be changed, and Wikipedia should use MacOS and TvOS everywhere. As I said above, this is not what Wikipedia does, and it does not make sense, and these aren't the only names and pages. The removal of the example of macOS hides the reality, as if it doesn't exist.

I used the term "lowercase prefix" (changing from "one-letter lowercase prefix") to make my change as minimal as possible. I didn't coin the term "lowercase prefix". but I think it is ok. All of the other changes flow from this change.

I'm open to a different way of expressing this, but, for Wikipedia policies to mean something, we cannot have a policy which states something which is not true, and that is the case at the moment. RoyLeban (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is not a policy, it's a guideline. 'I used the term "lowercase prefix" (changing from "one-letter lowercase prefix") to make my change as minimal as possible" – But it would not be as miminal in effect as you think claim it would be. WP:Policy writing is hard, and for things like this you have to have a deep-seated understanding of how all these line-items across many pages inter-relate, the long history of wikilawyering over them, and what is likely to be the fallout. In this case, it would be read as permitting, even requiring, any logo/wordmark stylization in a stupidCompanyName form to be given by us in that form, even if RS generally do not go along with it, and write StupidCompanyName or Stupid Company Name. You do have a point about macOS and tvOS, but these are rare exceptions that are made because independent RS overwhelming go along with those stylizations, in those specific cases. This is quite uncommon. As with all guidelines, there are edge cases where a consensus at an article forms to make an exception based on a huge preponderance of the sourcing. Guidelines usually do not need to explicitly address that this happens (and no, that does not make them faulty, as you so stridently claim above). But we could add a line item that addressed this:

In a handful of cases, a lower-case prefix longer than one letter is used, e.g. tvOS. These are deterined on a case-by-case basis, based on a specific stylization being used in an overwhelming majority of independent sources.

I would not use macOS as an example, since it has had multiple names, and for releases that pre-date the current macOS styling, it should be referred to as MacOS, MacOS X, or OS X, as applicable to the release in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: see also

WP:BATTLEGROUND approach: "I would prefer it if you would revert your changes and restore the proper name. But, if you don't, I will.", etc. Any further changes to this guideline wording are going to need even more careful-than-usual examination for what effect they might have in enabling such "style PoV" pushing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't ascribe motives to me that I don't have. It amounts to an ad hominem attack. Yes, I discovered the problems with this policy because I came here after dealing with an editor who apparently thinks Peter Gabriel doesn't know the name of his own album and song (and, yes, in that case, a huge preponderance of the sourcing, including Peter Gabriel himself, indicates the album and song titles are not uppercase).

But this proposed change has nothing to do with i/o, because it is not a name with a lowercase prefix. This is just something I noticed while I was here.

It was not my intent for this to be an actual guideline change. My intent was to bring the guideline into line with what actually happens on Wikipedia. You claim that my new wording would cause other changes to be made. Can you find an example where a company or creator uses a name like abcDEF or abcDef exclusively (as is the case with macOS and i/o) and most reliable sources also use that casing, and Wikipedia does not respect it and has good reasons for doing so? I don't know of one.

The incontrovertible fact is that this guideline says that macOS, tvOS, etc., are wrong, with no indication as to when or how exceptions are to be made.

People are relying on this guideline and, as is the case on the

i/o (album)

page, are acting as if this guideline is a hard and fast rule or policy. Doing so means that macOS is wrongly cased.

When you write "These are determined on a case-by-case basis" you are essentially saying that Wikipedia editors get to decide, rather than trademark owners and creators. How does this make sense? Encyclopedias should reflect the world, not decide how the world should be.

So, first, absolutely, the guideline should not state something which is not true, and imply that macOS and tvOS are wrong. This was what I was trying to fix.

Second, the guideline should not leave decisions up to the whims of editors and, as is so often happens on Wikipedia, whoever has the most time to edit.

Finally, I believe your bias is showing when you use an example like stupidCompanyName and you use a phrase like "Peter Gabriel's supposed personal preferences." I suggest that you be more respectful. RoyLeban (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"not hearing" clear explanations of why it is not workable. You've again been met with compromise wording [12], and clear explanations why parts of your more general idea still remain impractical. Instead of reasonably trying to work toward more consensus, you've gone all ranty-pants on us (and thrashing around with what looks like "argument for sport" against anything at all you think you can find to argue about in someone else's wording choices, no matter how off-topic you wander). You have not established a consensus for what you want to put in this guideline, and are probably now much further from being able to gain such a consensus than when you started.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  03:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I made two small corrections to your change that I am confident you will be fine with. In particular, "a handful of" is an opinion unless you can back it tup with statistics, and, if we had statistics, a more exact and less loaded phrase than "handful of" would be appropriate.

I will point out that my "longwinded unconstructive tirade" reply to you was 40 words shorter than what you wrote. Calling what I wrote a tirade is, again, showing bias and a bit of incivility. Yeah, I get that you disagree. But please focus on the issues, not attacking me.

As I wrote in my change comment, what you put in the guideline is better (thanks), but I am still not happy with it. Among other things, there is no explanation why one lowercase letter is magically different than two. What is the actual difference between iOS, tvOS, and macOS? Why is iOS always ok yet tvOS and macOS require "an overwhelming majority of

WP:PRIMARY

says about primary sources being ok for facts?

Again, I'm not trying to change anything, but I am definitely disatisfied with "determined on a case-by-case basis" at the same time that you say my statement that "Wikipedia editors get to decide" is wrong — that is what you just put in the guideline! Yeah, it now says something about looking at independent sources, but it is still a value judgement made by editors. That's never a great idea.

I don't want to change the guideline or policy. I want clarity. I want somebody creating a page for newProduct to know exactly what to do, and I don't want editors to be debating about whether x% of the independent sources they looked up is sufficient to call it newProduct, like the company does, rather than Newproduct. (And, on a related note, why are all lowercase product names magically special? There seems to be no reason for this other than some people's discomfort with such names.)

Your change is clearer, but it still not completely clear. Can we work together for clarity? RoyLeban (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You've raised a bunch of disparate points, so this will necessarily be fairly long. The sort of case presented by tvOS is vanishingly rare on this project, but I don't object to "In some cases," though "Rarely," would be more accurate. Internal consensus discussions do not require statistical analyses of the obvious, just judgment and experience on the project (cf.

WP:REVELATION. It has nothing to do with a "value", and trying to paint it that way is fallacious (specifically, argument to emotion: "It's judgment, so falsely label it a 'value judgment' to imply something bad about the other party"). There is nothing "magically" special about lower-case product names. They are simply by definition a category that presents intelligibilty issues, because they are proper names, and proper names are capitalized (in English, and many other languages), but the trademark holders want to lowercase for branding-identity reasons. If we just said "to hell with it" and lowercased them all the way the trademark holders like, then we'd be inundated with demands to "obey" every other kind of trademarking preference, starting of course with SCREAMING ALL-CAPS, the most common logo stylization there is. So, we're not going to go there and make some blanket exception for lower-case trademarks. PS: Your general desire, it seems, is to change MoS from a guideline to some kind of rigid system of absolute rules, and that's not going to fly. "I don't want editors to be debating about whether x% of the independent sources they looked up is sufficient to call it newProduct" is particularly troubling, since what you don't like is absolutely what we do. We look at source usage in the aggregate, and if it's not something like 95% in favor of the trademark stylization, then we don't use the stylization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  07:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

But I'm not sure other editors would readily go along with a change that major in form (if not in effect). And it might need tweaking to avoid redundancy with examples and such ealier in the page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I will give this some thought. It certainly would need a bunch of wordsmithing, particularly in how exceptions are decided. And some words are loaded.

But there's a fundamental issue with conflating names and trademarks, and logos too. Yeah, I realize this is the Trademarks page, but there is no Names page or Logos page. In your examples:

• iPhone, tvOS, eBay, Deadmau5, and Left4Dead are all names (even if they are also trademarks); I don't think any of them are "stylizations"
• I think Ke$ha is a name, but I'm not sure (it might also be a trademark); it might be a stylization
• Sony is a name and it is not all uppercase (though Sony's logo is, and it's also in a specific font)
• Se7en is a stylization of Seven, as evidenced by the fact that the studio itself produced materials with the name "Seven"
• I think thirtysomething is a stylization of or a logo for Thirtysomething, but I'm not sure; perhaps it is not a good example for this reason

Properly, the statement should include something like "logos are irrelevant; Wikipedia sometimes shows logos in infoboxes and in images, but logos never affect how the name or trademark of a company is represented in text." Se7en, SONY, and the Verizon uppercase logo with checkmark are good examples. RoyLeban (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In keeping with your "let's keep the heat down" user-talk message, please read the following in a bemused not aggressive tone; this medium lacks tonality, body-language, and other cues. None of the distinctions you are trying to draw between "names", "stylizations", "trademarks", etc. are relevant for

unintended bad consequences). PS: I also have a degree in linguistics, a professional background in media law and policy, and more experience than anyone left on what is and isn't covered by our style guide, so when I say these are all names, and are all trademarks, and as far as MoS is concerned are all stylizations, please just trust me on that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 😼  09:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Also "in how exceptions are decided" has nothing to do with "wordsmithing" this material further. The material is describing how the exceptions are already decided, not making up a new rule about how to decide them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated. This covers more than the thread name implies, including a general need to update that guideline, which hasn't had substantive changes since 2009.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)