Talk:Zoloft
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RFD[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Registered trademark for a medication. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Brand names of pharmaceuticals seem to be a rather common way of refering to them, perhaps more common than using the generic name, which is sertraline in this case. I would tend to keep based on this consideration alone, but I don't really know, hence no boldface on "keep".
- The relevant section of CFI is probably in this vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/Brand_names_of_products. The text that can be found in CFI differts slightly from what the vote says, it seems. The vote does not indicate a particular edit to CFI that should be done. The vote mentions four requirements or criteria. It seems that it should not be too difficult to find quotations meeting the criteria, but then I am not sure I understand all the criteria. I am rather unhappy with the criteria, as I do not quite understand how they should be applied, in spite of the examples given in the vote.
- Some other dictionaries, as a check: “Zoloft”, in OneLook Dictionary Search..
- One approach to this nomination is sending it to RFV for attestation, if that is proper for brand names. That does not solve for me the problem that, rather than starting to studying the criteria and their meaning, I would probably out of a combination of laziness and exhaustion give up on Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, Rohypnol, and Tylenol, to cite examples. Does anyone have a link to a brand name of a pharmaceutical that has survived a RFV and has model attestations? --Dan Polansky 08:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Some attestations, and let us see how they meet the criteria by the judgment of those editors who claim to understand them:
- C1: "Instead, after a second consulatin in July, a prescription for Zoloft was arranged."[1]
- C2: "Studies show that Zoloft is effective among those over age 60, and there are no recommendations for a lower does in senior citizens."[2]
- C3: "Shane went on to take a short ride on Zoloft that day and every other day he came to the ranch."[3]
- C4: "Had it not ceased, a friend pointed out, I could have simply taken Zoloft to treat my obsessive-compulsiveness."[4]
- C5: "Actually, St. John's wort is fast becoming a Zoloft competitor, and is being studied as such at Duke University."[5]
- --Dan Polansky 08:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- IMO: C1 and C2: These books are about Zoloft, and the cites clearly don't meet the CFI (the book can't be about the type of product; text preceding the cite must not identify the product). C4 and C5: these cites (from the same book) identify what Zoloft is for precisely (page 26), so don't meet the CFI (text preceding the cite can't identify the product). C3: this quote in particular is about a horse, not a drug. But the line, from earlier in the story, about the drug seems to be a good cite per the CFI. It's "'I took a drug called Zoloft that helps calm me down and not be so afraid. From now on, I think [the horse] Olaf should be called Zoloft because that's what he does for me.'". This identifies Zoloft as a drug, yes, but it's useful to the story's reader to know that Zoloft is an antidepressant, which the story does not make clear (at all). So that's one good cite. (This belongs at RFV, incidentally, rather than here.)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
moved to RFV -- Liliana • 20:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RFV[edit]
I'm sure this will make some heads spin, explode or shake, but I closed this as RFV-kept (not quite "it passes RFV", but "its continued existence is tolerated"), because it does seem to meet CFI, though no-one wants to be bothered adding the citations to the entry.
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
From RfD, needs citations meeting WT:BRAND criteria. -- Liliana • 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- This example shows that WT:BRAND is inadequate for Wiktionary's complete coverage of syntactic objects (terms) that have a meaning, pronunciation, and etymology. "Zoloft" is used more commonly to refer to the drug by its users than "sertraline". Furthermore, "Zoloft" gets pronounced in a way that I can only guess at as a non-native speaker. In RFD, I would vote keep. In RFV, I ask that the nomination is withdrawn. In BP, I would ask that WT:BRAND gets scratched and claim that the alleged risk of commerical spam relating to brand names is absent, and that each brand name can be defined in very neutral terms, as, for "Zoloft", "the anti-depression medicine sertraline", which does not say anything about how great, efficacious, or side-effect free or helpful the drug is. --Dan Polansky 07:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would imagine this trademark is easily widespread enough to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone object to closing this as "in widespread use"? If so, cite it or delete it as uncited... - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like it would be widespread use, though I don't recollect that being done for WT:BRAND. If we could just get some of our lawyers to put some effort into citations, these things could be cleared up more quickly. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, kept. - -sche (discuss) 05:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like it would be widespread use, though I don't recollect that being done for WT:BRAND. If we could just get some of our lawyers to put some effort into citations, these things could be cleared up more quickly. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)