Talk:Tupperware
RFV discussion[edit]
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
RFV-sense "a corporation which produces plastic containers". Can any citation of this sense pass WT:BRAND? Also, can any citation that distinguishes the second sense from the third sense pass BRAND? If not, they should be combined. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I added a tag to the third definition showing that it is trademark erosion. I think they should be split. --Dmol (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- How are other cases of trademark erosion handled? I note "bic" has only a general sense; "refidex" has only a general sense, but mentions the brand in the etymology; "kerlix" has only a general sense, but has a usage note; "Zamboni" has an ambiguous definition that might refer to any ice-resurfacing machine or only to those of the particular brand. I haven't found any other entries that split brand-specific from trademark-eroded senses (but then, I haven't found many entries at all, so examples may be out there). - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. The definition was never tagged with
{{RFV-sense}}. — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
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.
- Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#Tupperware.
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
The second definition of "trademark erosion" was deleted because it was incorrect, as the term "Tupperware" is a Registered Trademark. — This unsigned comment was added by 206.71.224.226 (talk • contribs).
- I agree that Tupperware has not suffered trademark erosion, the term is used generically in common parlance. The problem is with the "trademark erosion" label, not the definition. - TheDaveRoss 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "has not suffered trademark erosion"? Hasn't it? --WikiTiki89 18:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't an RFD, and it's not tagged, so no further action? Strike it? DonnanZ (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am moving to RFV and I will tag it. I think the OP has an argument, and is just unfamiliar with process. - TheDaveRoss 11:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can find one book that uses it so generically, it uses it of a different named brand’s products:
- 2010, Jeffrey Grafe, The Pinnacle of Heaven and Hell →ISBN:
- As she reaches the kitchen she gets out the Ziploc Tupperware and put[s] away the food she made for John leaving a reasonable portion for herself. She puts the Tupperware in the fridge and grabs her plate and briskly walks to the table[.]
- 2010, Jeffrey Grafe, The Pinnacle of Heaven and Hell →ISBN:
- In a lot of other cases, it's difficult (perhaps impossible) to tell whether it means the specific Tupper brand or not. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- IMO, the senses should be combined, because it is unlikely to ever mean "container(s) produced by another company, but not Tupper's company" — the sense should be like "a plastic container or set of plastic containers produced by this company, or (by extension) by any similar container". And it can refer to both one container and a set (like "silverware" is a set), because some books use e.g. "a Tupperware full of..." while others use "..got Tupperware full of...", and some pluralize it as "Tupperwares full of...", but others say "[several, various, etc] Tupperware full of...". - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this, and I agree that a merger is a good solution. I searched "off-brand Tupperware" and that has some decent results as well for generic, but not as good as your Ziploc instance. - TheDaveRoss 18:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- IMO, the senses should be combined, because it is unlikely to ever mean "container(s) produced by another company, but not Tupper's company" — the sense should be like "a plastic container or set of plastic containers produced by this company, or (by extension) by any similar container". And it can refer to both one container and a set (like "silverware" is a set), because some books use e.g. "a Tupperware full of..." while others use "..got Tupperware full of...", and some pluralize it as "Tupperwares full of...", but others say "[several, various, etc] Tupperware full of...". - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Btw, this is attested in Portuguese and Spanish, if anyone wants to add those entries (search "um tupperware" and "de tupperware"). I'll add the German entry later. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion, tupperware does not have to be plastic. The pyrex glass containers with plastic covers are also tupperware. Also, it can be spelled in lowercase (tupperware). --WikiTiki89 18:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- I added a second generic use, this one about geocaching (which I know to be generic from experience with geocachers) - given the combined definition, I would call this one cited. Kiwima (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and haveremoved the tag, also expanding the definition a bit beyond plastic, per WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)