Talk:Popsicle (brand)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popsicle (brand) → Popsicle – Per the USPTO Popsicle is a live, registered trademark owned by Unilever, not a generic term for ice pop (similar to Kleenex). Lexlex (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 11:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Contested. Popsicle is a North American brand of ice pop owned by Unilever, and a genericized trademark for any type of ice pop, due to its popularity and long-term use. From the lead of Popsicle (brand). This is potentially controversial and should be decided at RM. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comments. This is actually a revert from a 2013 move. The editor who made the move did not provide a source that it's a Generic trademark. However it's very clear Unilever owns this trademark, so therefore the move is straightforward (and I would think urgent). We have no source it's generic! A WP:Opinion survey is not a source. Note also, this cite from Popsicle.com: "The POPSICLE® trademark can only be used to refer to the specific frozen pop products manufactured and sold by Unilever and should not be used to refer to frozen pop products of other companies or to frozen pops generally. Appropriate generic terminology for frozen pops on a stick includes the terms "pop(s)," "ice pop(s)" and "freezer pop(s)." Misuse of these trademarks may violate Unilever’s exclusive rights in the mark." Lexlex (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see these legal instructions on the correct way to use the name: SICLE™ Trademark Family.Lexlex (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is not manufacturing, selling or marketing such products, that information is irrelevant. Note WP:MOSTM: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." (my emphases) —  AjaxSmack  16:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 10:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Right now, Popsicle redirects to Ice pop, which isn't accurate because Popsicle is actually a brand of ice pop. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Here is a source for popsicle being a generic trademark though, as noted, not provided by the 2013 page mover. We all agree that Popsicle, the brand named product is indeed a trademark for a Unilver product but, especially in the United States, popsicle has become the common name for any sort or brand of water-based frozen snack on a stick with a worldwide topic article ice pop. Just look at all the products you can buy on eBay or Amazon, or books, use the term generically: none refer to the Unilever branded product. Ok, maybe you can find a few. The common named product should direct to the general topic article ice pop and the branded product to the named brand article Popsicle (brand), i.e., keep things as they are. Of course Lexlex you can only use "POPSICLE®" to refer to the Unilever product but we don't have such an article here. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! But note however that Wikipedia articles for the terms in this citation are for the trademark brand, NOT the generic article for the term. (e.g. Jacuzzi, Band-Aid, Jell-O, Xerox, do NOT redirect to Hydro massage, Adhesive bandage, Gelatin dessert, Photocopier). They instead have hat notes to the generics - as suggested in the above move request. So I would think we should follow that precedent, no? Lexlex (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles for the terms in this citation are for the trademark brand." Some are and some aren't, depending on common usage in reliable sources. The following do direct to generic terms or disambiguation pages: realtor, thermos, tarmac, frisbee, adrenalin, dumpster, bubble wrap, ping-pong, crock-pot, and aspirin. —  AjaxSmack  17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lexlex I have to disagree with you. I think we should be following the commonname, as you have just proven there is actually no fixed precedent, some go to the trademark brand name and some don't. Generic trademark name should go to the commonname article and non-generic trademark name can go to the trademark brand for the very reason they are not common names. ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems like this is a redirect question: When evidence exists for a generic trademark, what threshold should we as editors use to definitively determine whether to direct the trademark name to the trademark page or its generic equivalent page? I see examples of both in above comments and see no guidance within WP:Trademark or Category:Redirects from brand names. Leaving the decision to an editor/survey on whether or not Wikipedia should respect a book citation over easily verified live trademark ownership seems tenuous. I will cross post this to see if we can get some more input. Lexlex (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance you are looking for is WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POLA. For the purposes of article naming, whether something is a trademark or not and/or whether any given trademark is generic is irrelevant, as is who owns or owned a trademark. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POLA and the spirit of WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Wikpedia is not beholden to the United States Patent and Trademark Office but does have relevant policy and guidelines. As with frisbee, dumpster, ping-pong, and aspirin, Wikipedia titles are based on common usage. A variety of sources can confirm that the most common meaning of "popsicle" in (at least American) English is the ice pop in the generic sense and not the Unilever brand product. This genericised name has even migrated to subsidiary topics such as popsicle sticks. Lexicographers at Merriam-Webster.com notes that, "it might be surprising, but Popsicle is trademarked" ("Popsicle" has been in their print dictionary since at least 1961.) It is not Wikipedia's job to surprise readers. (Additional reading on the topic here and here; Unilever's trademark would of course be enforceable if Wikipedia decided to market popsicles frozen ice treats on a stick.) —  AjaxSmack  16:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per AjaxSmack, the generic product is the clear primary topic for the term "Popsicle" in common usage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Being that there is no clear precedent for this, I would think there needs to be more than a single source to make the move. Google Book source appears legitimate, but would need additional. Both the ice pop and popsicle (brand) pages do a good job of making it clear that one is a type of the other. Redirect in this situation could further confuse. Greente28 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.