Talk:Saran Wrap

RFV discussion: February–July 2015

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Saran Wrap

Is this a trademark? If so, can the entry be marked suitably? Donnanz (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's in the category of stuff like Kleenex and Jell-O that start out as brand names but are now used generically. Also, it's a verb too, the most verifiable form of which is saran-wrap. Purplebackpack89 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that could be determined by rfv is whether it meets WT:BRAND. If it does, then the matter of whether it is/was a trademark should go in the etymology section (etymonline has an entry for Saran, which it says is trademarked). As PBP says, this is probably a w:Generic trademark, which means it's valid dictionary material for us and an unending source of annoyance for Dow Chemical Co.'s intellectual-property people ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is tangential, but I suspect that either Saran wrap or saran wrap is the more common capitalization. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

...although ngrams suggest otherwise. Huh. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So it's possibly 50% trademark? I haven't got a clue, I don't think it's sold here, and I think it's what we call "cling film". Donnanz (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's listed in the Oxford Dictionary of English (both hard copy and online) as a trademark. Origin: 1940s, of unknown origin. Donnanz (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that ngrams might merely reflect the fact that this product is commonly referred to as a specific trademark, and not in the generic sense required by WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As Chuck Entz says, it's valid dictionary material; if Oxford can list it without any repercussions, so can Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that it has been genericized, such as saranwrap, use of verbal inflected forms of variant spellings, and attributive use, but not all of the evidence is of the form being RfVed. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget WT:BRAND. The term is genericized, so there's no point in going through that much rigor. DAVilla 06:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest making Saran wrap the lemma, with a redirect from saran wrap (and also Saran Wrap if that form meets BRAND). Put a note in the etymology section that it originated as a brand name, if this is the case. (Avoid any other indication of trademark status, since it opens up a can of legal worms; see WT:TRADEMARK.) - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oxford uses the same format (Saran Wrap) so it must be widespread. I think this entry should keep the format it has at present. Donnanz (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The trademark can be mentioned in the etymology. Not mentioning it at all is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A few forms are in use, Saran wrap and saranwrap not being common. Saran Wrap, the trademarked product, was formerly, but is no longer made from PVDC. Saran is apparently still a trade name for PVDC. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• My position is that Saran Wrap should be the lemma, and that there is no genuine doubt about this being attested per WT:ATTEST. See also “Saran Wrap”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., which finds "Saran Wrap" and "Saran wrap" in oxforddictionaries.com[1] ("Saran Wrap", not OED), Collins[2] ("Saran wrap"), and Macmillan[3] ("Saran Wrap"). Ngram for "Saran wrap", case-insensitive does not provided any conclusive evidence that the occurrences of "Saran Wrap" are not in the genericized use. Looking for attesting quotations supporting WT:BRAND specifically (a policy that I never supported, and for which a rationale has never been presented) is something I feel disinclined to do right now. Also for comparison: (saranwrap*50),Saran Wrap,saran wrap at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it seems that (as Dan puts it) "there is no genuine doubt about this being attested per WT:ATTEST". Therefore, I have detagged the entry. I have let Saran Wrap remain the lemma for now, and created soft redirects from all the variant spellings I could think of (several already had full redundant entries, which I reduced to soft redirects). - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)