Talk:Post-it note/Archives/2015

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: 'not moved (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 03:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Post-it note → Sticky note – "Post-it note" is a trademark and, while sometimes used generically, it's my impression that people usually refer to them as "sticky notes". See a Google Ngram presentation of the relative frequency of use of the two terms in a corpus of books. "Sticky notes" is consistently found from year to year to be used more frequently than "Post-it notes", seven times as often in the latest year for which the site gives data, 2008. A comparable result obtains from the singular forms of the two terms. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:RETAIN is about selection of a variety of English, which this isn't about. Anyway, it says not to make changes without a consensus—which is exactly what I was looking to see if there might be, as opposed to just moving the article myself without asking. So if there is consensus, then that will be the answer. As for common names, I supplied evidence that "sticky note" is, by far, the more common name. —Largo Plazo (talk)
• Oppose because it's the name of the product that started sticky notes and dominated the market via patent in still-recent history. No matter how common a generic naming becomes, Post-it notes as of themselves are a notable topic. Perhaps the solution is to have a separate article for the generic "sticky note", referring back to this article as the original product/version of them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I oppose a split of the article as an unnecessary content fork. —  AjaxSmack  22:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't call it a "fork", but rather the establishment of an article about the generic sticky note, like having an article for correction fluid despite a first product dominating what correction fluids are commonly called. The current redirect from Sticky note to this article is inaccurate as there are other firms that make them today. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.101.114 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's a contradiction in light of the evidence I provided that "sticky note" is the more common of the two names. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is a corpus-of-books Ngrams search an entirely fair test here? Some books will be avoiding the phrase "Post-it note" for trademark reasons, and there'll be an unclear amount of overlap from people talking about the Microsoft "Sticky Notes" software. (Skimming Google Books, a lot of the results for "sticky notes" are Microsoft tech books.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. I didn't realize there was another use for the term. I call them "sticky notes", or even "stickies", and I've heard other people do so as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevietheman (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I've never heard anyone call them "sticky notes". Certainly not in the UK. Elsewhere maybe, but per WP:RETAIN it should stay where it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.