Talk:William Underwood Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
William Underwood Company was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 15, 2008 |
 |
An entry from William Underwood Company appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 November 2006. |
 |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Boston; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] Name of Company
As far as I know it was never called the "Underwood Canning Company", it was always the William Underwood Company. I would have changed the title but I don't see how to. It didn't even use cans when it was started by my great-great-great-great-grandfather. 72.229.151.216 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trademark
The author states that Deviled Ham is a trademark of William Underwood Company, and the successors in interest to the Underwood Deviled Ham product. Further he/she states that it is the longest-running food trademark in the U.S. I did not believe this to be true - so I checked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. There is, in fact, no trademark registered for "Deviled Ham," and, given the long term use of the mark and the failure to either file or protect, it is unlikely that one could be obtained at this point. (Albert Case)
- Mr. Case, if you look at one of the cans you'll see an (R) next to the devil logo. I am not sure if this is for the logo, or if it is also for the words "Underwood Deviled Ham" because "Underwood" is somewhat part of the logo. I believe it is for the devil logo, as the (R) is also present on the sardines next to the devil logo.
- Also, if you search on the USPTO website, you can easily find the live trademark for Underwood: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=2metm1.2.25 . This page indicates that it was "used in a different form" in 1867. There are two other Underwood (Wm. Underwood) registrations on this search page: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=2metm1.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=underwood&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query .
- The company also claims that it is the oldest currently in-use trademark in the US: http://www.underwoodspreads.com/underwd_history.html
[edit] Preppie Handbook
I've been told it is also listed in the Preppie Handbook (the hysterical 1980s send-up) as an item to have but have been unable to verify this online, and I don't have a copy of the book (which of course is more reliable than some random web page). --Wmjames (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pikmin 2
It's appearence in Pikmin 2 should be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.123.239 (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, have done so. --Wmjames (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Involvement with MIT
Most of this section is a verbatim lift from the Biography section of the William Lyman Underwood article. Should it be re-written for this article? Just asking Glane23 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that in a bunch of places in Wikipedia... It never seems clear where the "original" is or maybe an author wrote a section that they then posted on several pages. Honestly, it doesn't bother me, but maybe there is official Wikipedia policy that I don't know about. I'd like to add cites to it, but it's from the two books and I have neither of them currently (I just ordered one though). I think the section is important in both places since it was an important achievement for both the company and WLU.--Wmjames (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
I have quick-failed the GA nomination due to a lack of reliable sources. Almost every source is primary, and there are large portions of the article which are unsourced. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
