Talk:Kleenex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Name

From Kimberly-Clark's own websites, Kleenex is not required to be written all in caps. -- Infrogmation 06:55 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

  • The publisher's house style determines this sort of thing anyway. Most companies want their name and brands in all caps. Most editors don't. --Tysto 21:19, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
I think "Kleenex" is only a generic term in USA. Elsewhere I think "facial tissue" is the term used. Lisa 10:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenpeace

I don't see why Greenpeace gets free advertising on this page. I'm sure lots of other fringe groups have problems with Kimberly-Clark, should we give them all their own paragraphs? Capsela 12:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I removed most of it and refered to the Kim-Clark article. The same basic text was on Kim-Clark's other product pages. (Don't ask me why an encyclopedia needs to document Kim-Wipes in the first place...). --Tysto 21:16, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
The campaign and the marketing practice both are major news events, and as such, deserve to be mentioned. Coolgamer 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kleenex vs tissue

How come there is a Kleenex article, but not a 'tissue' article. Over here at least, 'tissue' is the generic term with 'facial tissue' used formally, 'hanky' or 'handkerchief' by a certain group. We don't say Kleenex if we don't mean Kleenex.

There is a tissue article, but it's a disambiguation page for body tissues (organs) and whatnot. A facial tissue article sounds stupendously boring, but there's no reason not to have one. There's a lovely article on toilet paper. --Tysto 12:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried to suggest this, but Wikipedia was messed up, so I forgot about it. Yes, there should be an article for facial tissue. That's their name. Twilight Realm 23:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

en francai mais kel ordure c kleenex il non po de pitié pour la fone (la forêt)



auteur:roxanne rouselle

[edit] kleenex in spain

In spain people also use the word kleenex for refering any kind of tissue. Could it be put in the article? does it happen in other countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.77.14.161 (talk • contribs) .

Yes. Genericized trademark. Powers 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Link with Al Qaeda

The last sentence in the second paragraph: "In the year 1999 the Kleenex brand company then helped fund the Al Queda." is correct, the CIA also told me about it in a dream. Dorje 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government Secrets

The Sentence in the last paragraph "In the year 1999 the Kleenex brand company then helped fund the Al Queda" does no need to be cited. This is so because the Secret Service needs not to cite aything.

[edit] Kleenex and Al Queda

HAs the cia formally published this? otherwise you must be careful of defimation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prom3th3an (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why an ®?

This seems to be a nonstandard way of printing a name of a brand in articles concerning the brand. See, for example, Windex, Band-Aid, or Tide (brand). What is the justification for doing it here? If none, the ® symbol should be removed. fishhead64 (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)