Talk:Synthespians™

Doctor Who Low‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

BBC

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Original cover.[edit]

Per the fair use criteria for the English Wikipedia, it would be better if this article simply linked to the original cover, which we already do via the citation for that fact. Provided no one objects, I'll delete the image hosted here and remove the link.--Sean Black 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sean Black 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. The request appears to be the result of a misunderstanding, and the symbol appears to be an integral part of the title. The current title does not appear to conflict with WP:MOS-TM. Dekimasu よ! 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthespians™ → Synthespians — I am posting this request on WP:RM since my original move was reverted. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) states that you should not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context. We do not add it even when the trademark owner encourages it. We have Realtor instead of "Realtor®", we have Kleenex instead of "Kleenex®", and we have Mighty Morphin Power Rangers instead of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers™" [1]. So why should this be different? Amazon.com does not use it,[2] so why should we? —Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose The ™ is part of the title, it's not being used in the same sense as the examples above. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per trademarks guidelines. Using the ISBN 0563486171 shows that neither WorldCat nor Amazon have the ^TM. It's a decoration (or a trademark defense), not part of the title. It would be interesting to know which. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TM is part of the title, the title is not "Synthespians" which has been trademarked, the title is "Synthespians™" and is not a trademark Tim! 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your argument is flawed; in this case the trademark sign is part of the title itself. HalfShadow 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence for this position would be nice. It can go in the discussion below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons given above. -Ebyabe 18:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons given above - it's part of the title, not an actual trademark designation. --Brian Olsen 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it is not a trademark, then the trademark guideline doesn't apply in this case. Chris! _{my talk} 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The trademark sign is much a part of the name as the accented "e" in Pokémon. - NP Chilla 11:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The TM is revelent ot the plot of the novel. It's the title, as decided by the ) author.Black Dalek 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. WP:MOS is very clear about this.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not a trademark, so Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) does not apply. It's a book title, and the ™ symbol is part of that title in common English. Andrewa 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

From: Outpost Gallifrey: Synthespians Update Books July 4, 2004 • Posted By Shaun Lyon As Outpost Gallifrey previously reported, the BBC Books release of Synthespians™ by Craig Hinton was delayed for several weeks as the publishers printed a new cover; the original cover photo was licensed by cover designers Black Sheep, but unfortunately the license agreement specifically stated that it could not be altered (which it was, for the Auton look on the faces). Therefore a new design had to be commissioned. Writer Hinton has provided us with the full wraparound cover illustration, which you can view by clicking on the thumbnail graphic at right; please note that the caption about it being an "Eighth Doctor" adventure has been corrected for the final release: [3] HalfShadow 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Synthespiansfinal.jpg

This cover is helpful in making the distinction: whereas "Doctor Who" is a real trademark and the TM symbol is not used on the front cover next to that name. "Synthespians" is a made up trade mark and relates to the plot of the novel. Tim! 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.