This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbusiness articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
This is the essentially same thing as knockoff and should be merged, either to the current target, or to the split off page if that is implemented.Alpha3031 (t •c)09:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA You are mistaken: dupes are not counterfeit products, as the text clearly explained. I don’t understand why you changed the wording to “knockoffs.” and confused everyone to thinking knockoffs and dupes are same.Cinaroot (talk)08:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support a merge, as the concepts of illegal and legal imitations of other products are two distinctly different concepts. Reliable sources are very inconsistent in their usage of terms be it dupe, knockoff, ripoff, replica, imitation and clone as to which concept they are referring to. I think if needed this page should have a title that makes it clear that its referring to legal imitations (look-alike product, imitation product) and explain the discrepancy with other similar terms. -Shivertimbers433 (talk)04:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
Dupe (product) →Knockoff – I feel likeknockoff is sufficiently unobscure that we'd prefer the NATDAB over the PARENDAB here, but I guess there could be reasonable disagreement so going to kick it over to the full RM instead of doing a TR.Alpha3031 (t •c)07:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor altered the page in a way that confused readers by mixing up dupes and knockoffs. They also changed the knockoff redirect from “counterfeit” to “dupe,” which is incorrect.Cinaroot (talk)08:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text of thecounterfeit article currently says that a knockoffisn't a counterfeit: thatdupes andknockoffs bothmimic the physical look of other products without copying the brand name or logo of a trademarked item, unlike counterfeits. Is that incorrect, in your view?Belbury (talk)08:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think people often usedupe andknockoff interchangeably, which creates confusion, especially becauseknockoff has traditionally been associated with counterfeit goods. In recent years, however,dupe has developed its own distinct meaning, referring to legally gray look-alike products that mimic a premium item without pretending to be the original.Cinaroot (talk)09:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could consult either dictionaries or try to directly look through RS to see how they use the term (which I don't think would count as OR) but I don't really have much skin in the game here. To be honest, I don't even have strong feelings for if we should split things into a third article (maybe one title covering both, one for illegal, third one for legal, or whatever people want the distinction to be) or merge them all into one, I just think if we are to have two we should have this one at knockoff. I don't have any etymological dictionaries handy right now though.Alpha3031 (t •c)11:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are few sources. Knockoff are not used to refer to Dupes anymore.
Such items used to be called knockoffs......... But now they’redupes, a Gen Z rebranding of fashion and beauty products that are cheaper versions of the real thing — duplicate, but also duplicity, since the wearer might trick someone into believing they bought designer.
No — the sources clearly distinguish dupes from counterfeit products. I’m fine noting that “dupe” and “knockoff” are sometimes used interchangeably, but this article is about the newer trend (Dupe culture) and Dupe itself. Its recency doesn’t make it any less relevant or any less appropriate as a standalone topic.Cinaroot (talk)16:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Trends is not a reliable source, and "dupe" has several other meanings besides this specific one which conflate them; looking at the full history of the trend, the rise starts far earlier than this was ever used as a term for this, meaning the vast majority of searches aren't about this. None of the sources you provided say they are separate things! In fact, they say the exact opposite!PARAKANYAA (talk)17:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Search “dupe” on Google and look at the results — they overwhelmingly relate to dupe products. Over the past five years, interest in the term has risen from 22 to 86, while “knockoff” has stayed flat at around 4. Yes, “dupe” has other meanings, but Google’s job is to surface what people are actually looking for, and the results clearly reflect that. The term has been used for product look-alikes since the early 2000s, and its recent surge in popularity is exactly what this article should document.Cinaroot (talk)17:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get overwhelmingly that, I get a bunch of companies, dictionary definitions (which note that the primary definition for dupe is Not This). In fact, the only result on the first page of Google that is about this is this article! Yes, and that isbefore this term started to be used in reference to this, so it's clearly not why it rose.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a point in arguing anymore. I have made my points. If you feel differently, that’s fine. We will let consensus determine.Cinaroot (talk)17:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Knockoff is the primary topic. The sources that Cinaroot brought up explicitly make clear thisdoes mean the same thing; to what extent "dupe" is a separate thing, it is not notable enough for its own article and is a subtopic of "knockoff". Brief social media trends do not supplant the primary term.PARAKANYAA (talk)16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This article relies on high-quality sources specifically about dupes and dupe culture, so the title should remain unchanged. It’s sufficient to explain within the text that “knockoff” and “dupe” are sometimes used interchangeably, even though they are not identical terms. The term “knockoff” has redirected to Counterfeit since 2007.
Google Trends is not a reliable source, and "dupe" has several other meanings besides this specific one which conflate them; looking at the full history of the trend, the rise starts far earlier than this wasever used as a term for this, meaning the vast majority of searches aren't about this. None of the sources you provided say they are separate things! In fact, they say the exact opposite!PARAKANYAA (talk)17:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Dupe is a distinct concept that is sometimes used interchangeably withknockoff but that is not generally a synonym forcounterfeit. In current usage,knockoff is somewhat ambiguous. It may refer to counterfeit products like the fake Birkin bag pictured in thecounterfeit article and"Lafufus" which are sold and labeled deceptively as though they were the real thing. (This appears to still be the main meaning, soknockoff redirecting tocounterfeit is reasonable.) Whereasdupe commonly refers to products like the Trader Joe's Supergoop dupe[1][2][3] which has distinctive branding and labeling and is not claiming to actuallybe the other product. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)19:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Knockoff and dupe have thesame meaning: they look and function like another product but lack the logo. I would argue that the subtle difference is that knockoff is the broader blanket term for a product that imitates another but could have noticeable design changes, whereas a dupe blatantly copies another to the point of being visually identical (hence duplicate). For example,Samsung Galaxy Buds are a knockoff ofAirPods but not a dupe. The logo-less white earbuds sold on Amazon that look like AirPods are knockoffs but more specifically dupes. The fake AirPods sold at flea markets that say "AirPods" and have an Apple logo are counterfeits, not knockoffs or dupes. Note recent articles inthe NY Times andHollywood Reporter that use dupe and knockoff interchangeably. Also, the semantics of counterfeit vs. knockoff werealready discussed on theCounterfeit consumer good page, with the general consensus that knockoff is not the same as counterfeit and it should not redirect to that page. -Shivertimbers433 (talk)00:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Samsung Galaxy Buds a “knockoff AirPods” is a reach. If taking design inspiration counts as being a knockoff, then a lot of Apple’s own products would fall under the same label.Cinaroot (talk)02:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A shorthand for duplicate, dupes are cheaper alternatives that are basically the same as the real thing. Think of it as a cousin to counterfeit culture, but instead of being a cheap knock-off that infringes on a brand’s trademark, they’re uncannily similar imitations—promising the same qualities of the product at a fraction of the cost.[4]
Add their proliferation on social media into that mix, and the dupe culture has been normalised in ways that “knock-offs” from Canal Street never were, she says.[5]Cinaroot (talk)02:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. From the lead of the article:Dupes represent a modern, influencer-driven rebranding of cheap look-alike products, while “knockoffs” retain their older, more negative association with low-quality or counterfeit goods, so the two terms are related but not the same. A dupe is a look-alike item that loosely resembles a designer item without copying it exactly, while a knockoff is a near-identical, mass-produced imitation intended to replicate the original and raises ethical and legal concerns that dupes don’t.I2Overcometalk00:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I still think there are enough RS about dupes specifically to have a self-titled article. Perhaps a separate article would be appropriate forKnockoff. Otherwise I would not be opposed to choosing a neutral title and discussing both dupes and knockoffs, but it doesn’t make sense to change the title to Knockoff since that term appears to be more ambiguous in common usage.I2Overcometalk23:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Knockoffs are not counterfeits (see[6],[7]). Dupes are a type of knockoff. Knockoff is the better and more commonly used term for dupe in English. It's also thelegally recognized word. Dupe would not be used in a court case. Knock-off would. (see linked sources) I strongly oppose having an article at dupe.Dupe (product) is a knock-off.4meter4 (talk)01:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Modern dupe products grow out of a longer history of copycat and discount goods. In the late 20th century, retailers widely sold inexpensive perfumes, bags, and accessories that evoked high-end brands while avoiding their trademarks. Press coverage at the time usually described these items as knockoffs or imitations, and they often carried a clear stigma as being cheap or inauthentic.
The specific term dupe was popularised in online beauty and fashion communities in the early 2000s and 2010s. Bloggers and YouTube creators used “drugstore dupes” to describe affordable alternatives to prestige make-up products, framing them as savvy consumer finds rather than embarrassing counterfeits. From there, the term spread into fashion, skincare, fragrance, and homeware, and was later adopted by mainstream retailers and media outlets.
By the early 2020s, “dupe culture” had become a widely recognised trend, particularly on TikTok, Instagram, and other social-media platforms. There is lots of RS on this. This article is about thatCinaroot (talk)04:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing NATDAB variants of "imitation" as the first alternative proposal. Specify if you do or do not like a specific NATDAB out of the possible ones and reason for preference please.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer (second choice). I think I slightly prefer brand imitation over imitation product since it seems slightly more prevalent in academic sources naming the concept but it was just a quick survey nothing comprehensive to not a strong preference.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another alternative proposal I would like to put forth "OK keep it at dupe but please for the love of (insert commonly loved concept) replace the PARENDAB with any of the NATDAB options.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer (last choice). I am more and more convinced that there is zero reason a parendab should be used in this case.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, given that I am going to continue to profess no opinion on whether dupe and knockoff should cover the same topic on Wikipedia, I feel like a few alternate proposals could help given that this article was also originally created at a perfectly fine NATDAB...dupe product should probably be preferred over the original title ofdupe culture, as while the latter is more common the article is more scoped towards the actual product than the culture that surrounds it. As for other alternatives, I'm not sure ifbrand imitation orcopycat product would be met with the same vehement objections, but they seem to be more common than dupe + dab word. Either way, they're currently redlinks and should probably either redirect here or to a dab atknockoff if that's the result of the discussion. If one of the alt proposals seem more acceptable I might open a separate survey section for it specifically.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But RS uses the word Dupe. And this article is about the dupe products and culture. I do not support any other name for this article.Cinaroot (talk)01:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be worthwhile discussing and pre-agreeing on what kind of sources would convince us one way or another, instead of just asserting our opinions one way or the other. I believe all the editors participating so far would have access toWP:TWL, so I'm suggesting using the general databases (ProQuest/Gale/EBSCO) to do a search over a period of time, as their contents are likely to be stable and reproducible. As for what searches to use, I'm thinking we look for sources that contain both "dupe" and "knockoff", "dupe" and "counterfeit" and "counterfeit" and "knockoff" (and of course the ones that have all three) and see if they explicitly distinguish any of the two terms, explicitly say they are the same, or just have them in the same article without explicit comment. Possibly this should be limited to the past, say two or three years. I do also want to do a search in the scientific literature and books if possible, but I don't think TWL has any general scientific indexes like Scopus or Web of Science, so editors would have to search each publisher or archive individually, which would seem to be more burdensome (though reviewing the individual articles found would probably take more time regardless).Alpha3031 (t •c)12:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the discussion might be easier to follow if sectioned, so I have created some subsections for the RM. I would appreciate it if participants could have/move any discussion that does not fit into one of the other sections above here and/or arrange for mutual consent to do so. I, of course, have no authority to actually make anyone take this course of action.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page for dupe procuts which is different from counterfeit products. But it was changed by @PARAKANYAA to make it look like dupe andknockoffs (Counterfeit products) are the same. This is not true.Cinaroot (talk)09:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not entirely correct. There is a distinction between “dupe” and “knockoff,” even though they are often used interchangeably. A “dupe” occupies a different category—positioned above what would traditionally be called a knockoff.
I’ve already acknowledged that the terms are often used interchangeably and should be explained in the article. But the primary topic should still be Dupe. There are clear differences between dupes and knockoffs, as well as an evolution in how the term is used. The article name should reflect that — Dupe is the correct primary topic, not Knockoffs.Cinaroot (talk)04:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are treating them as equivalent it not the primary topic becauseas all the sources mention "dupe" is a new rebrand and not the historically established name for the concept.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the recentgutting of the article toe excise any source that used the term "knockoff", particularly the origins of copying designs from fashion houses in the early 20th century, I feel like "dupe" is too narrow and esoteric of a concept to warrant its own article. -Shivertimbers433 (talk)03:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
