Appendix talk:Fiction/Films

RFD discussion - kept

Fanwank Fancruft. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WT:FICTION. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Really why are you here? Did TVTropes ban you or something? Equinox ◑ 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Here in Wiktionary or in this RFDO discussion? I like Wiktionary and this subject interests me, which should answer both. Also User:Daniel Carrero/Stuff I've done. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

See also Appendix talk:Harry Potter where I commented a bit more about fictional words. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise, that was a jerk comment. But I am still very wary of creating appendices of pop culture. Hey-ho, I'll go create some words and let other people respond. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and I welcome criticism to this project. Let's discuss stuff if you want. By the way, maybe having just one appendix like Appendix:Fiction/Films for all films is way better than having one appendix per film. I would suggest deleting Appendix:Harry Potter and Appendix:A Clockwork Orange in favor of including them in big lists. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to have them (!!!) then we need to consider that there is a huge number of films, not just recent popular stuff that people want to add because they are fans, but older things that may have spawned terms (gaslight?) and there is no way that one page will suffice. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Then I'll correct what I said: instead of exactly 1, it could be more: 2, 3, 4, 10, n appendices, I don't know. As long as they are large lists of films, as opposed to having one appendix per film. The current Appendix:Fiction/Films is small at the moment but that format can be expanded with the actual huge, ever-increasing number of films. Maybe we can compare that notion to our protologisms somehow, we have 3 pages at the moment: Appendix:List of protologisms/A–F, Appendix:List of protologisms/G–P and Appendix:List of protologisms/Q–Z. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

How we organise our pop culture is obviously bureaucracy. The RFD question is whether we keep it or not. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. That is a new way to organize our pop culture. So, the format is important. Opinions like these are valid: "Delete, terrible format", or "Keep, I loved that format", or "Delete and move all films to separate pages like Appendix:Harry Potter" (which I wouldn't recommend). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: Are you serious? Daniel puts forth a lot of effort here. Re: pop culture appendices: this is exactly what appendices are--they have virtually no requirements for what constitutes them outside of hoaxes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why you don't post before you read the whole thread. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm flattered but it's all good here. I would add, of course, that fictional words have lexicographical value. It's a good point that appendices have virtually no requirements, but to state the obvious, we don't create appendices for food recipes, political speeches and Olympic records; only dictionary stuff. I created Appendix:Fiction/Films strictly as dictionary stuff. Naturally, it wouldn't contain any of the zillions of films that never invented a new word. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Part of my issue with this is that I think people have a very small focus. For example I could create an appendix of "demoscene slang that 8-bit computer nerds used in the 1990s" and I could fill it pretty full. Is that good? Maybe! But if they are words that were briefly spoken slang in a tiny group, I don't really know what we're gaining by recording it. Back when you were in school, you probably had your own slang that you used for a year or two, and then forgot. -- So, for whatever reason, we live in a time when people tend to form INTENSE attachments to television and comics... you get the idea... Equinox ◑ 01:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: On the contrary, I think that would be extremely valuable for documenting English. If it's a slang purely of your high school buddies that died out in three years, that's one thing but if there is some kind of definable community over a period of time, then that would be perfect for an appendix. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Equinox, let's assume we can find actual citations for demoscene slang. I would support having Appendix:Demoscene slang and would oppose having Appendix:Demoscene slang that 8-bit computer nerds used in the 1990s. This is my initial reaction at this abstract idea and my opinion could change somehow if I saw the appendices created in reality. My point is: the "that 8-bit computer nerds used in the 1990s" makes it way too specific, but I would consider valuable to document words like these, yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I imagine that ultimately documenting slang is important if the slang is going to be encountered in any way. If a few people used those words and died, never mind. If they wrote it into software (cough) then maybe. I'm gonna stop because this is not really on topic. But naturally I fret about this all the time. POP CULTURE? ON *MY* WIKTIONARY? Equinox ◑ 01:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL, *MY* Wiktionary.

To repeat something I said in Appendix talk:Harry Potter, I would probably support only keeping fictional words if we can find 3 citations for them. This is a specific WT:FICTION rule already established by vote in 2008. If there are citations, they can be found somewhere; otherwise the words can be deleted from the appendix. The use of the fictional word in the film itself counts as 1 citation. And people may still watch old films and talk about them, and mention them in books. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, on 10 November 2017, Equinox gave me a public "thank you" for my message above, so I assume he liked something I said, either completely or partially. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: I have to disagree again: documenting dead languages/lects of languages is a very valuable activity, even outside of its practical application. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Can we count your position as "keep" Appendix:Fiction/Films? Your comments seem to be on the keep-ish side, but you didn't say it explicitly. I could be wrong. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep yes. It may need to be revised but this is a wiki. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess this one can be kept as no consensus. I'm counting two keeps (me, Koavf) and two deletes (Equinox, Metaknowledge). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–April 2022

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Appendix:Fiction/Films

Tagged by User:Metaknowledge (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero, Equinox, Koavf as the participants of the last RFD. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep It's entirely appropriate that someone may hear a word in a film, wonder what it means, and come here to find out. We won't include every one-off nonce word from movies in the main dictionary, but this is exactly the kind of thing that an appendix should have. We have no space constrictions due to not being in print, so let's include this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, I suppose. Wikipedia has articles about films. Wikiquote has quotes from films. Commons has free media about films (like the Category:Indiana Jones). Wiktionary can have lists of words from films, right? But to be fair, this appendix is pretty small and looks like I added most of those words (years ago). So it seems like this project has not been very popular in the community so far. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per Daniel Carrero. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-kept —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)