Keep as cited. bd2412T 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
DeleteDaffy Duck offense is the proper name of a specific football play named after the character: a variation of the “Donald Duck.” The coots quotation refers to the fact that the species has similar coloration to the character. A “Daffy Duck shuffle” is the walk you see in a Daffy Duck cartoon. The last two quotations are specific references to the character and two of his attributes, and not attributive use as a word. The “Daffy Duck election” may be just a comic play on words following lame-duck. I don't see any evidence that the duck's name is used as a word with fixed meaning in any of these. Clearly, in none of these is it being used “attributively, with a widely understood meaning,” as required by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-06 13:17 z
Are the examples of Daffy Duck the noun or rather of Daffy Duck the adjective? If they are actually of the latter, the definition should read "Having a characteristic associated with Daffy Duck, a comiccharacter." Defining the word like this would render Daffy Duck voice as unnecessary. --Hekaheka 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We need attributive use for attestation. The PoS is Noun. Ergo, the definition is nounal. It wouldn't hurt to have a common noun use of the term, eg, of "a Daffy Duck" or "Daffy Ducks" to make clear that we are defining a noun. The true proper noun sense should be confined to the etymology and Wikipedia. DCDuringTALK 14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How could "a Daffy Duck offense" be the name of a "play"? Clearly the author is commenting on the goofiness of a style of play that characterizes the offense of a team.
I don't see how CFI mandates absence of humor in attributive use.
There are a various possibilities for the specific analogy with coots: color, goofy behavior, long neck, sound. Why one would use Daffy Duck to convey blackness or a specific gait is beyond me. These seem like incidentals.
I think most attributive use of Proper nouns is broadly evocative of certain attributes of the referent. Our effort to define such use is necessarily focused on salient, distinguishing characteristics. I think the salient ones are goofiness, wise-guy-itude, and the voice.
Frankly, I don't think that very many of us could meet MZ's apparent standards to attest the specifics of any definition of any term in Wiktionary. It seems to me that we would need more or less three attestations for each noun, verb, adjective, or adverb in a definition. (It is possible that a given quote could attest to more than one defining word, but it is also possible that some function words might need attestation). I don't think that the OED meets that standard. DCDuringTALK 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1 Clearly, you haven't followed the link next to my post above, which is an article about the Daffy Duck offense.
2 I think you miss my point. In the election quotation, the meaning would not change at all if you substitute a made-up name, like “Dopey Duck.” This quotation doesn't assign any meaning to Daffy Duck, except that it sounds like lame-duck but daffier.
3 The others mentioned are not used “attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” The one is virtually synonymous with “coots look like Daffy Duck,” and the other compares the author's walk to the cartoon Duck's walk. There is no widely understood meaning, there's just the duck. The current “definition” doesn't have any meaning, it just names the duck. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-06 23:30 z
I was not aware that CFI requires that attributive use is limited to common noun phrases. The "Daffy Duck" name for the offense is intended to evoke the idea of trick plays, that the offensive formation and ensuing plays "look funny".
The capitalization of Daffy Duck is clearly a reference to the character. That it also may be a pun is irrelevant. That the meaning does not involve many attributes of the character is also irrelevant. The point of the reference is that the speaker wanted to disparage an election (presumed serious in many countries) by invoking a comical character.
The point with coots is that they are funny looking, not like an ordinary duck, but like a comical duck, as the definition has specified.
Hm... The definition seems to be morphing. When we discussed it earlier, it was a specific comic duck. Now Daffy Duck means “a comical duck,” which is just wrong (if not, then one could explain Donald Duck by saying he's a Daffy Duck).
The selection of quotations is getting ridiculous. “Daffy Duck voice” actually mean's Daffy Duck's voice, fer cryin' out loud. Just look at this excerpt. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-07 01:35 z
1987, UTAH'S DAFFY OFFENSE HAS QB MENDONCA IN STATE OF CONFUSION
[...] otherwise known as the Utes' “Donald Duck Offense” for its daffy formations.
1987, U. making quacks in defense with Daffy Duck plays
[...] their “Daffy Duck” offense. [¶]Of course, it's been seen before. It's a variation of the “Donald Duck” the Utes ran two years ago on rare occasion.
1987, Meet Mr. Inspiration—he's the short guy nobody wanted
They experimented on some new variations of the “Duck” offense (they are calling them Dewey and Daisy Duck).”
1987 Oct 7, “HERE'S FRESH NEWS: EVERTHING IS JUST DUCKY AT OREGON”, Dallas Morning News:
At Utah, the Utes are sporting a Daffy Duck offense. The linemen come out of the huddle and go to one side of the field. A wide receiver snaps to the quarterback...
You ask an interesting question about attributive use, which could probably stand some discussion, perhaps at Wiktionary Talk:CFI, leading to clarification at BP. DCDuringTALK 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
“... attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” I take that to mean that it has its own meaning as a word in English, beyond simply the proper name of the character. For example, meaning that you don't have to know about the Venetian adventurer to call someone a casanova. But the wording is open to different interpretations, and should be clarified. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-12 22:10 z
As I've said before, it says a "widely understood meaning" - it doesn't put any limits on what the word means. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The examples demonstrate clear limits. Denoting a single specific referent like George Walker Bush, Thomas Jefferson, or Daffy Duck is not a widely understood meaning of a word. Otherwise every specific entity would be allowed and the “Names of specific entities” rule would be meaningless, thanks to common specific attributive formations like “the Thomas Jefferson estate,” “the Thomas Jefferson letters,” “the Thomas Jefferson presidency,” or “a Daffy Duck cartoon.” —MichaelZ. 2009-10-13 00:05 z
Oh I completely agree. However that's not what CFI says right now. If we're basing this on CFI, this has to be kept. If this part of CFI gets changed (and I really hope it does) this might get renominated for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A Daffy Duck voice is definitely not a Donald Duck voice nor a duck voice. At a minimum, if this is deleted, Daffy Duck voice ought to be kept in its stead, as it is more often used in the sense of speaking like Daffy Duck, than of the voice of Daffy Duck himself. To not do so would be dethpicable. Narrowing the sense of this entry also works for me. — Carolina wrendiscussió 04:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why not. Certainly the collocation Hitler moustache refers to a particular style of moustache, just as Beatle haircut, John Lennon glasses (or spectacles), and Nehru jecket all refer to very specific forms of items. Either we have a compound noun in each of these, or else we have attributive nouns with very peculiar properties. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What we have are encyclopedic references to specific people. They are sum-of-parts phrases composed of an inadmissible proper name plus a common word with no special meaning. They aren't found in any dictionary, and we'd stand out as foolish if we started adding these to ours. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-14 13:11 z
Your statements are easily proven wrong. In fact, I own several dictionaries that include an entry for Nehru jacket (including Webster's). I even own dictionaries that have entries for specific individuals (AHD notable among them). Your conclusion is thus not supported by the facts. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, which statements have you proven wrong, then? —MichaelZ. 2009-10-15 00:02 z
"They aren't found in any dictionary", and "we'd stand out as foolish if we started adding these to ours." --EncycloPetey 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't be telling me that I'm full of shit when you are citing yourself. I didn't mention Nehru jacket, Mr. Daffy Duck voice. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-15 01:42 z
Then your comment was either a non sequituur or suffers from a severe lack of clarity in lacking antecedents to the pronouns. If Nehru jacket (from the preceding comment) does not fall within the scope of your description, then could you please clarify exactly what you did and did not mean by "They are sum-of-parts phrases composed of an inadmissible proper name plus a common word with no special meaning"? --EncycloPetey 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The phrases I named, along with Daffy Duck voice and the principle under which you want to include it in the dictionary. —MichaelZ. 2009-10-15 02:02 z
So, the phrases that I named are all OK then? What distinguishes my list of phrases from your list? --EncycloPetey 02:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)