Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Ghostbusters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the discussion's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn, but heading for allow anyway. --bainer (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 [view]

[edit] Ghostbusters (talk · contribs)

Trademark violation. Refused by WP:AIV. RJASE1 Talk 02:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn nom per Chairboy. RJASE1 Talk 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Disallow a movie's name, and not a common name. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Using the title of a movie or a book is not a violation of WP:U, and to the best of my imperfect knowledge it never has been. -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ghostbusters, while being the name of a popular film franchise, is also a generic term meaning "Someone who participates in ghost hunting or paranormal investigation." I don't think that the trademark overrules the generic meaning to the point where this couldn't be solved by username diambiguation. Leebo T/C 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I highly doubt the "generic term" existed before the movie. But I'm aware that groups have sprung up claiming to do such work in order to fleece money out of suckers. TortureIsWrong 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Deny - Per nominator, Trademark violation. Thor Malmjursson 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That can only be true if the word was trademarked. (Not the word with the ghost-logo replacing the "O", but the word itself.) Was it? I've looked, and so far found no evidence of it. Some fannish/marketing webpages add the letters "TM" after the title (apparently assuming it's a trademark), but the actual film company's webpages don't. example -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow - Please read WP:U, it only disallows misleading usernames that "Match the name or a trademark of a well-known company or groups". Ghostbusters is not a company. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unless I am reading WP:U wrongly - I think this being a trademark of Columbia Pictures, means that to use this name, the person is to represent that they work for Columbia or own the copyrights...I think i misunderstand the policy. Thor Malmjursson 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:U says nothing about any of this speculation, where are you getting this? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The old username policy was a little more explicit about trademarks. Remember the 'Pillsbury Doughboy' dicussion last week? I'm not sure how the new policy applies to situations like this, am open to inputs. RJASE1 Talk 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The old policy said "Unique trademarked names: Complex trademarked names that undoubtedly refer to the owner of the trademark, especially sports teams like the Miami Heat, the Carolina Hurricanes, or the New York Yankees.", which doesn't reflect this situation, per above comments. Also, as you note, the current WP:U does not disallow this. This RFCN is predicated on a misinterpretation of the policy, perhaps withdrawing it is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this has truly become a generic term it doesn't matter if there's a movie and a copyright. TheGodfather would be an acceptable username, for example. So would TheExorcist. TortureIsWrong 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - We should be cautious here, as there are many users who use the names of films, books, and so forth. If we disallow this, we will need to be ready to do so for all others who are similar. --Kukini hablame aqui 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between User:Matrix and User:PiratesofTheCaribbeans, because Matrix is also a common word and expression, while Pirates of the Caribbeans can only be a specific movie's name. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, somebody, find somewhere on any of the film company's webpages (for instance on the Ghostbusters homepage) some occurrence of the word "Ghostbusters" being followed by a trademark symbol ("TM" or "™" or "®"). As near as I can tell, the only thing trademarked was the logo of a Casper's-uncle-style ghost in a red-circle-and-stripe "not" sign, which replaces the "O" in the title. The title word itself does not appear to have been trademarked, again as near as I can tell. And it can't have been copyrighted; titles can't be copyrighted. So where's the violation? -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Per Chairboy, plus after checking the USPTO site the term Ghostbusters is not in itself trademarked, except in the form of the logo. One Night In Hackney303 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow, unless Columbia Pictures or Filmation object. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 05:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow as no apparent evidence of trademarking has been produced. Kukini hablame aqui 05:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow Ghostbusters not trademarked and generic term listed on on-line dictionaries. Donato (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - May I refer you to this link, and the text concerning Ghostbusters: http://www.justforfun.co.uk/about/copyright.htm and I quote to you the text of the entry on Ghostbusters: Ghostbusters TM & © 1984, 2004 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - I am pretty sure that covers it. I could refer it to Columbia Pictures, if that would satisfy you more. Thor Malmjursson 12:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow. What is the purpose of disallowing this name? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Allow per One Night In Hackney. If the mark had been registered it would say "®" not "™". Coemgenus 12:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.