Talk:Han Solo

RFD-deleted

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

Han Solo

Encyclopedia material, no? bd2412 T 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cited I've put some cites together that seem attributive of various ineffable aspects of "Han Solo"-ishness. It might meet pass RfV, somewhat to my surprise. By what other criteria should it be deleted? DCDuring 13:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: words don't "meet RfV", they meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition should explain what it means to be Han Solo-ish. Hekaheka 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would if I could. The quotes were the only b.g.c. quotes that seemed attributive. I'd have to go to news or (gulp) groups to find more for each candidate aspect of "Han Solo"-ishness. Would you want to have to do that for Finnair? DCDuring 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wiktionary had a policy against fictional names which Han Solo undoubtedly is. If it has a meaning beyond that one should know what it is, if it is going to be included in a dictionary. If there's no such policy, welcome Harry Potter, and countless others. Hekaheka 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find such a policy on the CFI page, but I could have missed it. There seem to be some who are dead-set against one or more classes of capitalized entries. I don't know whether there are fictional characters that are in Wiktionary or not. What do I know? I can't tell the difference between a word with an apostrophe and a contraction. DCDuring 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary has quite a few mythological figures that are proper names, not to mention the apparently non-historical figures from religious writings. Many of them do not have senses (let alone attested ones) apart from their reference to the mythical figures themselves. DCDuring 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's permissible, but highly subjective. Following the same CFI standard as with common terms is too lenient as it would open the door to every celebrity, book and movie title, etc. There are some characters that should clearly be included, but no objective test. I tried citations a while back with Foxy Loxy and it was ignored. I've recently had trouble convincing anyone that Decline and Fall is acceptable. These things take time to be written. Even the brand name test is brand new and hasn't seen its first real battle. DAVilla 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that WT is making a big mistake if WT merely imitates OED in setting its standards. WT would make a similar mistake in merely imitating urbandictionary. Being a bit ahead of the curve on some classes of usage, whether fictional words, hip-hop, military slang and acronyms, tech and business jargon is playing to WT's advantage over the print-oriented dictionaries. Being more selective (a labor-intensive process) is WT's competitive edge over urbandictionary and similar. A good general reputation with the using public who click through to WT is a good indicator of success so far, so WT needs to be judicious in making adjustments. I wouldn't want to stake very much on whether or not WT has an entry for "Han Solo", but I would be disturbed by policies that seemed to be continually adjusted against current popular low-brow commercial culture in favor of a retrograde devotion to older, antiquarian/classical, elitist, high-brow, anti-commercial culture. OED will always be better on much of that, anyway. That is not to say that we shouldn't stand ready to exploit machine-readable copyright-free corpera as they become more and more available. It is also not to say that we should just roll over and incorporate everything on a cereal box or in movies, television, or Harry Potter. (This is getting too BP-ish, isnt it?) DCDuring 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RFV-failed

See this. — Beobach 02:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)