Wikivoyage talk:Trademarks Voyage Tips and guide

Swept in from the pub

Contents

I don't know of any policy against them, but they're certainly unnecessary and distracting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

So if we delete them, what should the stated reason be? I think it's that this is a non-commercial site and that trademark symbols are normally used only on commercial sites that are promoting the products. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I recently noticed a particular product that says on its website "Never ever use this product's name without ®!" yet the Wikipedia article about this product does not use ® at all. I think we should follow the same policy as Wikipedia does, but I haven't found their policy page about that yet. Syced (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ikan - Well enough to say we're copyediting the article so it reads better, I think. Not every edit has to have a policy-based rationale. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

True. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or I could point to this discussion as showing agreement not to use the symbols. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The WP policy, which is to not use them, is at w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Nurg (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like their policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the mere fact the symbol is unnecessary and obstructs fluency of reading is quite sufficient. I'd also go with the WP policy. Danapit (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually we have a policy on this, since almost the beginning of the site: Wikivoyage:Trademarks. Vidimian (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link! And it's a much simpler policy than Wikipedia's. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

SNUBA could probably do with some tidying up then. It even includes Trademark disclaimers as well as a few uses of the ® symbol. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

As we work on the Grand old hotels, we can get into naming conflict when it comes to hotels rebranded with a chain name, and stadiums with naming rights. Here is a suggested guideline. /Yvwv (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some venues have a proprietary chain name, or a sponsor name, used in marketing, in contrast to their traditional name (or an adopted non-proprietary name such as Fußball Arena München). Use the name that would be most recognizable for a visitor, with the other name as an alternative name.

I would tell the chain name in the description only (the "content" parameter), unless the chain name is included when people talk about the motel. Often it's totally redundant, except as information for those with loyalty programmes (or trying to fix a deadlink). Pohjanhovi or Vaakuna are known and totally recognisable as such, and I doubt any local will say "Scandic Pohjanhovi" or "Sokos Hotel Vaakuna Rovaniemi" (see Rovaniemi for those examples). For stadiums, I think the proprietary name mostly must be told (as primary or alternative name, as suggested), as they are used in marketing material as replacing, rather than complementing, the traditional name. –LPfi (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply