Moving to "Kenner Products":
← Older revision
Revision as of 18:04, April 26, 2013
Line 22:
Line 22:
****It is impossible (for me, anyway; maybe someone with a high-quality camera can pull it off) to take a legible photo of the tiny type on the packaging. But I'll tell you everything it says. Five of the six sides of the box I'm looking at (that of the [[ATL Interceptor]]) have the Kenner logo followed by a registered trademark symbol and an asterisk. The side containing the UPC bar code has two lines of text. The top one reads: "(R), TM & (C) Lucasfilm Ltd. (LFL) 1985. All rights reserved. Kenner Products, a Div. of CPG Products Corp., Authorized User." ((R) and (C) represent the letters inside a circle.) The second line is the footnote correlating to all those other asterisks: "*Kenner is a trademark of CPG Products Corp., by its Div. Kenner Products, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. MADE IN MACAO."
This appears to be in line with what Chachap1 said at the beginning of this thread: Kenner Products is the company, and Kenner is the trademark under which it marketed its toys. Which is more appropriate for the article title? My inclination would be the latter: the name highly visible on all the logos is a better choice than the name only visible to those who squint at the fine print. It seems to me that the page could live at "Kenner," and then in its text somewhere, explain the distinction between this trademark name and the company name. But "Kenner Products" is a legitimate (if, arguably, inferior) choice. [[User:Asithol|Asithol]] ([[User talk:Asithol|talk]]) 09:33, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
****It is impossible (for me, anyway; maybe someone with a high-quality camera can pull it off) to take a legible photo of the tiny type on the packaging. But I'll tell you everything it says. Five of the six sides of the box I'm looking at (that of the [[ATL Interceptor]]) have the Kenner logo followed by a registered trademark symbol and an asterisk. The side containing the UPC bar code has two lines of text. The top one reads: "(R), TM & (C) Lucasfilm Ltd. (LFL) 1985. All rights reserved. Kenner Products, a Div. of CPG Products Corp., Authorized User." ((R) and (C) represent the letters inside a circle.) The second line is the footnote correlating to all those other asterisks: "*Kenner is a trademark of CPG Products Corp., by its Div. Kenner Products, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. MADE IN MACAO."
This appears to be in line with what Chachap1 said at the beginning of this thread: Kenner Products is the company, and Kenner is the trademark under which it marketed its toys. Which is more appropriate for the article title? My inclination would be the latter: the name highly visible on all the logos is a better choice than the name only visible to those who squint at the fine print. It seems to me that the page could live at "Kenner," and then in its text somewhere, explain the distinction between this trademark name and the company name. But "Kenner Products" is a legitimate (if, arguably, inferior) choice. [[User:Asithol|Asithol]] ([[User talk:Asithol|talk]]) 09:33, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
*****I'm okay with changing the article title back to "'''Kenner'''" for brevity's sake, however, the full name of the company SHOULD be stated in the FIRST sentence, as in "'''Kenner Products'''…blah, blah, blah." 'Toprawa and Ralltiir' regarding 'PROOF' of the company name (then division of CPG) actually being "Kenner Products" -- Keep searching; I'm sure you'll find something. Your ignorance on the topic needn't translate to a burden being placed on ME to provide a photo to you; anybody with an original packaged Star Wars toy, or Indiana Jones toy can simply scrutinze the carton text to see that for themselves. (I'm not saying that to be 'smart ass' or disrespectful, it's just that somethings can be take at face value without having to be proven -- it's NOT a disputable fact in need of support. The fact that the trademark 'brand' may appear in a slightly more stylized way than the actual company name is farily common business practice.) --[[User:Chachap1|Chachap1]] ([[User talk:Chachap1|talk]]) 13:22, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
*****I'm okay with changing the article title back to "'''Kenner'''" for brevity's sake, however, the full name of the company SHOULD be stated in the FIRST sentence, as in "'''Kenner Products'''…blah, blah, blah." 'Toprawa and Ralltiir' regarding 'PROOF' of the company name (then division of CPG) actually being "Kenner Products" -- Keep searching; I'm sure you'll find something. Your ignorance on the topic needn't translate to a burden being placed on ME to provide a photo to you; anybody with an original packaged Star Wars toy, or Indiana Jones toy can simply scrutinze the carton text to see that for themselves. (I'm not saying that to be 'smart ass' or disrespectful, it's just that somethings can be take at face value without having to be proven -- it's NOT a disputable fact in need of support. The fact that the trademark 'brand' may appear in a slightly more stylized way than the actual company name is farily common business practice.) --[[User:Chachap1|Chachap1]] ([[User talk:Chachap1|talk]]) 13:22, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
+
******Thank you, Asithol, for providing that. And yes, "Chapchap1," you ''are'' being a disrespectful smart ass. You needn't take it as a personal sleight when someone asks you to provide a source or evidence for any type of information you add to this wiki. This is the [[Wookieepedia:Attribution|very foundation]] of what Wookieepedia stands on. The burden will ''always'' be on ''you'' or anyone to provide evidence for suspect information, and no one will ''ever'' take your word at face value just because you assure us that your information is accurate. I suggest you learn this now before you potentially get yourself in an uglier situation. As for the name of the article itself, I think I would also be in favor leaving the title at "Kenner" while mentioning "Kenner Products" (with attributable sourcing for that name) in the introduction. I'll invite others to weigh in on this as well. [[User:Toprawa and Ralltiir|Toprawa and Ralltiir]] ([[User talk:Toprawa and Ralltiir|talk]]) 18:04, April 26, 2013 (UTC)