Talk:RTMark
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RTMark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
unencyclopedic
edit"It thus operates outside the laws governing human individuals, and benefits from the much looser laws governing corporations."
That's quite pretentious. One has to be rather pompous to claim their organization operates outside the laws governing human individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:857A:C53A:549D:3C4 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Internal inconsistency
editThe title of this article is "®TM", but both the first and second lines of the article refer to "®TMark". Which is correct? Note that I understand the superscript limitation; I'm referring to the presence/absence of the "ark" bit. -- DH85868993 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Note: there is no such limitation for this case, since there is a ™ symbol) +mt 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Move back to RTMark
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 move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The present name of "®TM" is not a really good choice, and is only rendered for logos on the website (all other references use upper case "RTMARK"). Move this back to RTMark? +mt 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Concur with this rational logic, and per naming convention and WP:MOSTM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
What SimCopter hack?
editThis is not explained in the article, and the external link is dead. Could someone please fix this? Loganberry (Talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Unexplained past tense
editThis article is written in the past tense without explaining why. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)