Talk:PowerPoint

Rfv-sense: Brand name of a product. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wondering why we would want to eliminate the proper noun sense from any entry where an attributive or generic form can be cited. Seems to me that these cases would always be worthy of inclusion.  If we only include the generic sense we may mislead people who see it used in the specific sense.  I am not convinced that a mention in the etymology is sufficient. -  22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about mention in the etymology, and a usage note indicating the likely trademark status? (Both of which should be there even if this is kept.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The very high usage of the term "death by PowerPoint" should be enough to verify this.--Dmol 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But does any individual citation attest to PowerPoint or to PowerPoint? I look forward to seeing the citations. BTW, see also PowerPoint. DCDuring TALK 09:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited. DAVilla 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, citer. The Shenk cite doesn't seem to fit the CFI of brand names ("text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies"), but the others do IMO. Anyone else want to opine? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The cites (except Shenk) seem support the qualification of the term for inclusion, but not the attributes of the definition, which is why they should remain on the Citations page.
 * While we are at it:
 * The definition is not one of a proper noun.
 * It does not exclude having as referent Microsoft's old product "Presenter".
 * I am unclear as to whether, 1., usage does and, 2., our definition should conflate brand and product, all named releases of the product (eg, PowerPoint 2010), and all numbered and lettered release of each named release. Clearly there would be attestable usage of each of these, at least in Groups. If a complaining user says "PowerPoint doesn't let me do X" and a usergroup respondent says "my PowerPoint does", the complainer could by referring to all products bearing the PowerPoint brand or the version or copy on the machine being used and the respondent is probably referring to the version or copy. Should the wording of our definition reflect such ontological variation in referent or do we assume that our users understand this? We currently assume they cannot decode some two-part noun phrases/nominals, which seems to imply inconsistency on our part or theirs. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a physical product, so WT:BRAND does not apply. --Dan Polansky 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PowerPoint may be distributed on tangible media. In any event, bits are physical. WT:BRAND does not say tangible. Furthermore, at sufficiently high voltage bits could be tangible. Therefore, WT:BRAND does apply. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, DAVilla! —Ruakh TALK 16:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)