Talk:Betty Boop

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RfV February 2013[edit]

Green check.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


"(trademark) A female fictional character introduced in the 1930s." Hardly a useful dicdef. Needs to meet WT:BRAND, which is conceivable I suppose. Is there any generic sense: "a Betty Boop"? Equinox 23:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I have just come across 2010, Andrew Delahunty, ‎Sheila Dignen, Adonis to Zorro: Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Allusion. This book seems to be a great resource for these kind of entries, having quotes from other works showing usage (including some dictionary usage) of figures in popular culture - for example, page 54, citing ChartAttack Live Reviews 2000:
    Her voice embodied a Betty Boop sweetness, but had the power to hold out through the band's more than hour long set without losing a trace of its strength.
  • Cheers! bd2412 T 13:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • See also:
  • Verified? bd2412 T 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There being no objections, striking as verified. bd2412 T 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

All nouns, including proper nouns, can be used attributively. What do these citations show other than that? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Each citation for this kind of thing needs a url so one can see the whole context. Even in the absence of the urls, I am willing to bet that inspecting the context would show that there was no prior reference or definition of who or what Betty Boop was. Thus the citations indicate that Betty Boop conveys some meaning, specifying the nature of a particular "pitch", "bob cut", "red sweetheart lips" (somehow inferred from black and white cartoons?), "'ooh'", "look of horror", and "sweetness". This was the idea behind the CFI section on specific entities nihilistically destroyed while offering no offsetting advantages in terms on increased user contributions to our core efforts. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Since all of these are from Google Books, a search for the exact text (e.g. "straight black hair with a Betty Boop bob cut and ruby red sweetheart lips") will return the work from which the quote is derived. There are dozens more; I picked four because that exceeds the CFI requirement. Note that in this particular example, "Betty Boop" modifies "bob cut"; it is ambiguous as to whether it also modifies "ruby red sweetheart lips" (although not all appearances of Betty Boop were in black and white, and you can guess how her lips were portrayed in color). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I know and I'm not challenging the cites or the definition, but more transparency would be desirable. Why make each person find the link, even here, when they can fairly readily be provided by the person putting the citations in the entry, so they are available for all, including more casual users, as is part of the point of having the citations. I don't think the extra step of providing the url is normally worthwhile, but it is for this type of definition and for some others. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
All linked up. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
BD2412 does a huge amount of work on this page. One encourages editors to do more by thanking them for what they have done, not discouraging them by criticising for what they have not (like not providing urls). Volunteers should be able to do the amount of stuff they feel comfortable with without pressure to do more. SpinningSpark 08:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks, BD. That addresses MG's concerns, I think. RfV-passed. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)