Template talk:trademark

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request 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.

---

Template:trademark

Do we want to be in the position of carrying water for trademark holders? I prefer a usage note saying "May be a trademark", which offers a warning, not a positive assertion. Trademarks also have variable geographic scope. Australia for example often does not honor trademarks well established in other jurisdictions. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, seem like a context (in the way we use the term). I think it should be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Are our users assuming that it is in place in every sense where it should be and not in any place it should not be? Are we really assuming that responsibility? Do we have an appropriate disclaimer about the reliability of our legal work? — This comment was unsigned.

• Delete. This a burden we should not assume. Trademarks are impermanent. Trademark registrations are for limited periods, and are lost if the registration is not renewed or if the mark is not used for some period of time. Furthermore, most every word in the lexicon has been used by someone at some point as a "trademark". Are we then responsible for noting that ace is a trademark for a brand of bandages, and for a hardware store; that dove is a soap maker, and a chocolate bar; that planters are nuts, Peter Pan is a peanut butter, Pam is a cooking spray, and falling star is a wine? The most we can and should say is that a word (such as aspirin or escalator) originated as a trademark, without commenting on its current status. bd2412 T 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete, and simply remove current uses as context tag.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed. Not yet orphaned. But what about category:Trademarks? I suppose that's another RFDO, but shouldn't we be emptying — or pehaps renaming (to "Possible trademarks" or something) — that, too?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the usage note rather than a definition-line template, but I'm still against deleting based on the result of the vote on trademark designations which, though (or if) unclear, strongly favors this option. The alternative needs to show community consensus first. DAVilla 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I didn't realize that that vote existed. I rescind my declaration of failure.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

rfd-passed thanks to DAVillas linking to the relevant vote. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)