Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Talk:warlock

Keep tidy.svg

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.


warlockEdit

Sense: A style of guitar. --Connel MacKenzie 04:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[1] , [2] sewnmouthsecret 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[[3]] BC Rich, maker of Warlock

There are also now listings for others. See Stratocaster, Telecaster, etc.

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. 70.153.195.164 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)

RFV discussion: July–November 2016Edit

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.


RFV-sense: "a traitor or oath-breaker" and "the Devil, Satan; a demon". See diff. Can we determine (1) whether these senses were used, and (2) whether they were used recently or are obsolete? And (3) is the "Satan" sense properly capitalized, i.e. "the Warlock"? - -sche (discuss) 00:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The OED only has Old and Middle English citations (not with the same spelling), so you might be able to find some from the 16th century. Nothing beyond that seems likely. For "The Devil; Satan" the latest citation is from 1568, and it is variously spelled warlau, warlo, warloo, varlo (none spelled warlock, and not capitalized). DTLHS (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm then we should note those senses as obsolete. Benwing2 (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


Return to "warlock" page.