Talk:Torbugesic

RFD discussion
" The Wyeth Corporation brand name for butorphanol tartrate." --Volants 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could this be compared to Fluoxetine (Prozac)? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A surer way to handle such terms is to subject them to RfV under WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kept and sent to RFV. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Needs to meet the CFI of brand names. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What effort have you spent in trying to find citations that meet the seven complex requirements for brand names, citations of this name of pharmaceutical drug, if any? What benefit does Wiktionary derive from your action of sending this to RFV, and getting it deleted?
 * I am asking not so much for the sake of "Torbugesic" as for the sake of brand names of pharmaceuticals in general. For instance. I immediately recognize the brand name "Tamiflu" as referring a pharmaceutical, one that I would expect my communication partners to recognize much more quickly than "oseltamivir". Likewise, "Prozac" is quite possibly more easily recognized than "fluoxetine". I immediately recognize "Rohypnol", unlike "flunitrazepam". Like it or not, people are using brand names to refer to chemical substances that act as pharmaceutical drugs, and they do not ask whether they are violating someone's CFI for brand names. Oddly enough, the very fact that a quoted sentence makes it clear that the term in question refers to a pharmaceutical violates one of the requirements, which I find absurd.
 * Right, the voted-on CFI rules for brand names give you right to send brand names of pharmaceuticals to RFV, and get them deleted. But the CFI support alone seems a really poor rationale to me. If you would create a proposal for amendment or simplification of the overly complex CFI for brand names, so that the effort of citing could actually be worth it, that would be a much more useful action, IMHO anyway.
 * Is there any brand name, of a pharmaceutical or anything else, that you have successfully cited? What about giving it a go at "Prozac", using the seven complex rules? See also also . --Dan Polansky 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not nominate Prozac, as I know it's in common use. Even if hits are hard to find — heck, even if I did a perfectly thorough search on the various Google subsites and found no good hits — I would not nominate it. I've never heard or seen Torbugesic, so after a(n admittedly cursory) check on Google Scholar and Google Books with no good hits, I nominated it. To answer your penultimate question, whether I've ever cited a brand name, yes, I believe so, though I don't recall what. And others have, many times. (Ruakh, especially, IIRC.) By the way, re your "the very fact that a quoted sentence makes it clear that the term in question refers to a pharmaceutical violates one of the requirements", well, yes and no. The CFI say that the text can't imply "some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent". That means that if there is such a necessary quality unimplied, the cite is fine (rather than to mean that every necessary quality must be unimplied: see for example the William Braxton Irvine quotation in the examples attached to the CFI). So if a text describes Torbugesic as a drug and does not imply what it's for, but you need to understand that it's an analgesic in order to understand the text, then the cite is fine. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the whole requirement R7 is this: "R7: The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent."
 * Now Q1: "He went down as gently as a lamb once Tally injected him with a cocktail mix of Ketamine and Xylazine, with a few cc's of Torbugesic thrown in for good measure."
 * Does Q1 meet R7? I don't know. It is clear from the quotation that "Torbugesic" is a drug, but it is not clear what for. If you and other people agree that Q1 meets R7, I can spend more effort searching for other quotations. If "type and purpose" as mentioned in R7 includes "drug, without knowing what for", then the quotation Q1 fails R7.
 * In any case, I would like to see a list of seven brand names that actually passed RFV, so I could use them as a real model and as a precedent argument. --Dan Polansky 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the first citation I found in Google Books that is any good, which is unfortunate as it doesn't appear until the ninth page of results. (Sometimes it's easier to just jump forward a few pages to skip all the keyword-in-title and high-occurrence hits.) I would think the purpose is important in this case to understand why its use was a "good measure". More specifically, WT:BRAND explicitly gives pain relief as an example of a purpose that is not assumed in certain context. I don't want to give the impression that I'm ruling on this, but it's more than a good candidate to me. Even if I'm missing something, generally speaking this would be the type of citation you'd be looking for. DAVilla 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would really like to see the quotations for "Prozac" that meet the diabolic 7th requirement. --Dan Polansky 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I can't think of a single brand-name that has passed RFV since the new requirements. That's not to say that there haven't been any, but it's definitely not the norm. Personally I never cite them, because I'm not interested in keeping them, and because the rules seem illogical to me, and because it's very, very difficult to find unambiguously valid citations. The "out of context" requirement means that you can't craft a clever b.g.c. search and skim the quoted snippets to see if any are useful. If I worked for a pharmaceutical company's marketing division, I might be willing to put in the effort to cite the names of the drugs I was trying to promote, but I don't, so I'm not.
 * Regarding Prozac, though, how's this one? :
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=HhwQvmA2SLcC&pg=PA180&dq=Prozac
 * Consider serious mental illness or impairment, and cognitive and mood enhancements by surgery, therapy, or medication or even gender reassignment. All of these possibilities might lead the recipient to say: “The real me has now surfaced thanks to Prozac” or “I feel ‘myself’ for the first time in my life!”
 * Context makes relatively clear that it must be some sort of "surgery, therapy, or medication, or even gender reassignment" that has a "recipient" in which it induces "cognitive and[/or] mood enhancements", but I feel confident that the author expects readers to know almost exactly what it is. On the other hand, maybe his statement that "all of these possibilities" can lead a patient to praise Prozac suggests that he really doesn't care, at least in this paragraph, about the details?
 * —Ruakh TALK 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Prozac quotation you have given could meet R7, although, among the items listed ("surgery, therapy, or medication or even gender reassignment"), only medications usualy carry a name, so it could be inferred that Prozac is a drug. The inference would be rather tentative, though.
 * To my knowledge, neither msh210 nor Ruakh nor anyone else has as yet stated an example of a brand name that has actually passed RFV governed by the new regulation for brand names. So there is no evidence that any brand name at all would actually pass RFV. It is not the same to give an example in a regulation as to send an example to RFV, where the example can be disputed and argued.
 * Promotion: I find it absurd to think that Wiktionary promotes "Torbugesic" by having an entry that says "The Wyeth Corporation brand name for butorphanol tartrate." Even if the definition were expanded to state at least one intended use of the drug (as it should I think), I do not see how this would promote anything. Actually, the quotation just given for Prozac seems promotional, although that is not the intention of the quotation. ("The real me has now surfaced thanks to Prozac.")
 * I have spoken slightly off-topic above, and I admit that RFV is not necessarily the right venue for discussion of policy. I would just like to see people stop sending brand names of pharmaceuticals to RFV, as this can only succeed thanks to what to me looks like a regulation in dire need of repair. Instead of sending "Torbugesic" for RFV, "Prozac" should be sent to RFV first, as a test of the new regulation. The result of a RFV for Prozac, and the arguments and distinctions drawn in that RFV, could serve as an input for adjustment of CFI, or as a precedent to argue from in less important or highlighted cases. As, if "Prozac" would not pass, I think the regulation would need to be fixed first before it gets applied to other brand names.--Dan Polansky 08:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can also see this quotation going either way. I would probably count it not because of what we might think the author expects us to know, which is definitely on the fence in this case, but because the inference of medication is tentative. Or you could say that in combination with that, the first makes a stronger case.
 * Luckily, there are a lot of really good quotations for this term. Prozac is now cited, and fairly easily. I think any of those citations would count, but I'd like to invite others' comments. DAVilla 22:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From the quotations you have posted to Citations:Prozac, take this quotation:
 * "If the prediction comes true, network managers may be glad Prozac will be getting very cheap in a few months." It is immediately preceded by this: "On Aug. 2, right above a story about a new and cheaper generic version of Prozac, ...".
 * The phrase "generic version of Prozac" identifies Prozac as a pharmaceutical, right?
 * Another citation on Prozac is this:
 * "A guy who reminds you that no matter how crazy things get, it can always get worse. Goodman turns the Ridge into a Prozac-pushing dog kennel.", preceded by "Goodman's dog takes Prozac."
 * What else could Googman's dog take if not a drug? Maybe some brand dog food? But then, does the dog "take" the food?
 * An this citation:
 * "My doctor […] purses his lips / Suggests I start Prozac. / ..."
 * What else could doctor suggest I start if not a drug?
 * Recall that R7 requires you to look to passages around the quotation rather than only into the quotation. --Dan Polansky 07:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The doctor could suggest you start yoga.--Prosfilaes 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are entirely right about context. The quotations I extracted were in my opinion more interesting than the first use, but I definitely started with the first use to make sure the trademark wasn't completely explained. So it comes down to an argument about how well it is explained. Prosfilaes has exactly the right attitude. You have to completely forget that you know what the term means. Sometimes that can be difficult to do, so substituting other terms can be a useful exercise.
 * A lot of things can have a generic version. But even if you understood Prozac as a pharmaceutical, you would have to know what the effects of the drug are to understand why network managers would want it to be cheaper. Furthermore, the earlier statement said that the generic version would be cheaper, but the use I cited said that Prozac, not its imitations, would be cheaper. This is arguably a generic use of the trademark, which is much stronger than the criteria laid out.
 * Prozac is not a drug used to treat animals. It is used to treat depression, and we don't normally think of animals as being in need of anti-depressants. The author thinks its use on animals is crazy, but he doesn't explain why. Even if you understood that it was a drug, the humor would pass over you if you didn't understand it was intended for humans. I would argue that the phrase "Prozac-pushing" makes it sound addictive and illegal, which is entirely misleading.
 * These aren't all cut and dry, nor is the proof of a truly genericised trademark as far as I know, but possibly it could be if there might be any proposals for adjusting the language of CFI. I don't know of any way to describe assumed understanding of the term without examples, which (as a disclaimer) I provide to explain or maybe defend my viewpoint. If it still isn't clear, then maybe someone else will be better able in a more clever way, or skew the idea to something more objective, which can only be of benefit to us. DAVilla 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Finnair and Sony passed RFV, but I'm not sure that they should have. They each define the company, which we aren't supposed to include. (Not that I totally agree with that.) Gameboy went through RFV but was actually deleted despite being cited. Cheerios, Chuck E. Cheese, and Jeopardy are also well cited but never actually went through RFV. Neither did Care Bears or Cheetos which for some reason are defined in the plural but not the singular. There are a lot of other weakly cited trademarks floating around out there, some with entries and some without. DAVilla 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "Gameboy went through RFV but was actually deleted despite being cited": Not at all. A generic sense went through RFV, and was deleted because no one cited it. We have some citations for the brand-name sense, but that sense wasn't in the entry, so didn't go through RFV. If someone thinks the citations satisfy WT:BRAND, they can certainly create the entry accordingly. —Ruakh TALK 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense. So we don't have a good example that Dan was asking for. Really the brand names criteria were set up to say, yes, we can include certain brand names instead of shooting on sight. It was a really tough negotiation at the time, and still opposed by some who I'm sure would be glad to know nothing has passed. DAVilla 20:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect Cheerios, Care Bears and Cheetos are "defined in the plural but not the singular" because that is how they are trademarked. I once whimsically added Pringle: on the grounds that it isn't a trademark but does have a meaning ("An individual potato snack of the Pringles® brand"). Equinox ◑ 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pringles would probably be acceptable now too. Back in the day Connel MacKenzie shot it on sight.
 * Cracker Jack is the opposite of the plural rule. The trademark does not have the S that we tend to add. Hardly cited though.
 * Another example I forgot to list is Shasta which already had references at Wikipedia when I added it. Unfortunately these are "notable" quotations and not ones that particularly aid in citation. DAVilla 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry removed: no citations have been provided. —Ruakh TALK 14:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)