Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names

Source
The text of this page stems from the vote Votes/pl-2007-08/Brand names of products 2. --Dan Polansky 07:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"ordinarity"
Is that a word? Perhaps we should change it to ordinariness. Equinox ◑ 01:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Or we could go in the opposite direction, and change to . —Ruakh TALK


 * ✅ Changed it. Equinox ◑ 01:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction and completion
Change:


 * 2004, Gaby Triana, Backstage Pass'', page 42:

to:


 * 2004, Gaby Triana, Backstage Pass, HarperCollins, ISBN 0060560193, page 42:

DAVilla 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gameboy
A long time ago another editor had complained that in the Courage Under Fire citation, the Gameboy was not critical to any aspect of the narrative. I might suggest replacing it with the following although not ideal because it might be considered generic.


 * 2007, Yu-Ning Yang, A Study of the Relationship Between Students’ Perceptions of Goal Orientation and Physical Education Teacher Leadership Styles in Taiwan, ProQuest, ISBN 0549445897, page 1:
 * In Taiwan, students’ lifestyles have changed from “large muscle activity” such as playing basketball to “small muscle activity” such as playing gameboy.

Although clearly a game, it isn’t clear what type. From the context and in the lowercase, it would appear to be a sport. Knowing that it’s an electronic game underscores the author’s point.

DAVilla 18:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an observation: the Nintendo trademark is spelled Game Boy. Equinox ◑ 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, then. That one's far too generic for illustration. Here's another suggestion, though I'm not sure how the lyrics are spelled on the jacket:
 * 2001, Steven Curtis Chapman, “See the Glory”, Declaration, Sparrow:
 * Sometimes it’s like I’m playing Game Boy standing in the middle of the Grand Canyon.
 * DAVilla 18:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarity
This bear of little brain does not find this page (ie the project page!) particularly clear. Although there are many examples given, it isn't clear to me which ones are acceptable and which ones are not. I think this is due to the complexity of the explanatory sentences. Perhaps adding "OK:" and "Not OK:" or something similar before each example would help?
 * The ones written in green are acceptable; those in orangey-brown color are not. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)