Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:The Ford model T article is incorrect usage (See ]). Just because you can find an article where MOS has been misapplied, that does not justify ignoring the rules. I could trawl up many articles equally dubious that correctly use the present tense. ] (]) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
:The Ford model T article is incorrect usage (See ]). Just because you can find an article where MOS has been misapplied, that does not justify ignoring the rules. I could trawl up many articles equally dubious that correctly use the present tense. ] (]) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
::], ], ] (and parent ]), and ] all use past tense, just to name a small selection. This means the burden is to show that the brand still meaningfully exists, and that the PDP-10 is an exception. I proposed a simple test, if you could show that it was still being officially supported that would easily show it meaningfully exists. As for popular culture, that would potentially give the brand a meaningful existence. Simple existence (the products existing) is not the bar that needs cleared to get it into present tense. ] (]) 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
The article talks about the phasing out of the phillips namimg, but this is not the case in the rest of the world, where that branding is still used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.205.232 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You misread the article. The American name was "Norelco". The present American name is "Philips Norelco." The co-branding is to allow the phaseout of the "Norelco" name in favour of the "Philips" name. Now do you get it? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Philishave is a discontinued brand
Because Philishave is a discontinued brand, articles about discontinued brands are given in the past tense. Pontiac cars are still being driven, but because Pontiac is a discontinued automotive brand, that is given on its Misplaced Pages article in the past tense. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No! Read MOS:TENSE. If the product still meaningfully exists, then present tense is compulsory. Philishave branded razors unquestionably still exist therefore Philishave is (still) a brand that appears on many razors that exist in the world. The manual of style is compulsory policy for editing articles. Going against it is disruptive editing and blockable. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
While it's true that the brand being discontinued does not put it into past tense, I do not see how it can still meaningfully exist fourteen years later. If they're still receiving official support, or if they're part of, for example, a notable current-run TV series, then it could be. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Philishave spares and parts are still available Google. The razors must therefore exist to require such spares and parts. MOS:TENSE makes no mention of being in receipt of official support or part of any TV series. The only criterion given is that they have to exist. That criterion is met. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
MOS:TENSE states that the brand itself has to meaningfully exist. It does not. Therefore past tense. Both Steelbeard1 and I agree on that, so either open an RFC or realize that the consensus is not with you. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting MOS:TENSE. It does not state the brand must not meaningfully exist (the word 'brand' does not appear anywhere so you clearly made that up) but the subject must not meaningfully exist. MOS:TENSE is unambiguous on the point and even gives a closely identical example of the discontinued PDP-10 as to correct tense usage. The PDP-10 has been out of production for decades (far longer than philishave) but the MOS unambiguously requires present tense.
To edit against the manual of style is disruptive editing and requires you to obtain a consensus on the talk page to do so (unlikely). I do not require talk page consensus to follow the manual of style.
Oh and Steelbeard1 has neither contributed to any discussion nor edited on the point since my response to him above so it would appear, on the surface, that he has accepted the point. I did say to Steelbeard1 that I happen to agree that it should be past tense. But Misplaced Pages is not edited to what I (or you) believe it should be, but by consensus. The Manual of Style is that consensus. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
PDP-10 is a brand name It is the subject of the article PDP-10. MOS:TENSE unambiguously requires the present tense. The example unambiguously says so. Similarly 'Pontiac' and 'Philishave' are the subjects of their respective articles. MOS:TENSE unambiguously demands the present tense. The manual of style exists to ensure consistency throughout the project - essential when there are god knows how many thousand editors all with their own ideas on how things should be done. Editing against the consensus established at WP:MOS is disruptive editing. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That is not at all what MOS:TENSE says, I have explained that you to many times now. It comes down to the simple idea: does the brand Philishave meaningfully exist. The answer is not at all. So we follow what MOS:TENSE says and use past tense. The PDP-10 continues to feature in popular culture which is how they continue to meaningfully exist. The Philishave brand does not. See Ford Model A (1927–31) for another example of past-tense usage. Where the products still exist, but the brand does not. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The brand Philishave exists as much as not as PDP-10 exists. MOS:TENSE unambiguously states that present tense is to be used. How you can claim that the brand does not exist when Philishave branded spares and parts are freely available (if you take the trouble to Google for them - link supplied above which you obviously did not follow) is beyond comprehension. Can you please quote the part of MOS:TENSE where it says that a brand must not exist in popular culture, because I seem unable to find it. Basically: you are wrong and just can't admit it. I, on the other hand, am not wrong and I have MOS:TENSE on my side.
The Ford model T article is incorrect usage (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Just because you can find an article where MOS has been misapplied, that does not justify ignoring the rules. I could trawl up many articles equally dubious that correctly use the present tense. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Saab Automobile, Mercury (automobile), Compaq Presario (and parent Compaq), and Windows Phone all use past tense, just to name a small selection. This means the burden is to show that the brand still meaningfully exists, and that the PDP-10 is an exception. I proposed a simple test, if you could show that it was still being officially supported that would easily show it meaningfully exists. As for popular culture, that would potentially give the brand a meaningful existence. Simple existence (the products existing) is not the bar that needs cleared to get it into present tense. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}