The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process..
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
[] BC Rich, maker of Warlock
- This is a model of guitar by a particular maker. You would say "a B.C. Rich Warlock" to refer to the guitar, much as you would say "a Chevy Impala" to refer to the car. These would fail under WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia and Wiktionary:What_Wiktionary_is_not. Unless these terms have become "generic" in some degree (such as kleenex for any tissue) or ubiquitous to the degree that the term is generally understood to mean that thing, without further reference, this should not be included here. This content is entirely appropriate at Wikipedia, however (assuming it meets their notability criterion.) --Jeffqyzt 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In the guitar playing community, Warlock would indeed be universally understood as a type of guitar, and most would be able to describe its unique shape if asked. 184.108.40.206 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it would still be intrinsically associated with the brand/manufacturer (according to a few guitar players who I've asked.) A random manufacturer couldn't make a "warlock guitar" or a "warlock"; they'd be sued for trademark infringement. At best they could make a "warlock-style" or a guitar that "looks like a Warlock". Unless you have cites that say otherwise. --Jeffqyzt 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- (in response to above) Just as a kleenex or a hoover or a remington would refer to the original brand, and a random manufacturer couldn't make a "kleenex tissue" or a "hoover vacuum" or a "remington rifle" without being sued for trademark infringement. That doesn't mean the term hasn't become generic, and it might still be possible to cite as such. DAVilla 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)