Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2

2. must not identify any such parties
Why has this mention been included? I don't understand. The point 1 seems to be sufficient: the important thing is that the term is used independently of uses by the company. And, very often, the brand name is the name of the "such party", and using the brand name means using the name of the company. Lmaltier (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence is also very disputable. It would be much better to remove it, and to require instead a larger number of citations in this special case of brand names. Lmaltier (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Brand vs product or service
In the last three points, "product" has been replaced with "brand" where it should have better been replaced with "product or service" ("type of the product"/"type of the brand"; it should IMHO be "type of the product or service"). It is the type of the referent that is being dealt with rather than "type of the brand". Admittedly, "type of the brand" could be read as a shortcut for "type of the product or service named by the brand", but whether this reading is obvious is unclear to me.

"economic interest in the product"/"economic interest in the brand" seems okay to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that, too. I agree with you. —Ruakh TALK 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was really unsure about the wording, so if you think this is better, so be it. However, are there brands which are neither products nor services? -- Liliana • 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that this was started it came to my mind that in the second point ("about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service") instead of the whole "product or service" simply "brand" is sufficient. So it would be just "about any person or group specifically associated with the brand ", since IMHO "brand" needs no further clarification as in the first and the third point. Conversely, "type of brand" needed one as already pointed out. --BiblbroX дискашн 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

additional "to which the brand name applies
Come to think of it in the 1st point ("about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service") additional "to which the brand name applies" could help since it is the first mention of the "product or service" and the reader might be confused what "products" and "services" are these all of a sudden. I mean, if there would be such brands that are neither products nor services. Just my opinion. Cheers, --BiblbroX дискашн 19:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This could be fixed thus: "A brand name for a product or service should be included if ...". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)