Delete. I can recall several times also, however, this is not the place for Slang or metaphors.(18.104.22.168 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
Actually, it is. This is why we have Categories for Slang and for Idioms. An attributive use of a proper noun is one of the criteria we consider favorable for keeping an entry. --EncycloPetey 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we've never decided what we actually mean by "attributive". :-) —RuakhTALK 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the release of Return of the Jedi, the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity and corruption. The name is frequently utilized as a literary device—either as a simile or metaphor—to illustrate character flaws. For example, in Under the Duvet (2001), Marian Keyes references a problem with gluttony when she writes, "wheel out the birthday cake, I feel a Jabba the Hutt moment coming on." Marian Keyes, Under the Duvet: Shoes, Reviews, Having the Blues, Builders, Babies, Families and Other Calamities (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), p. 199, ISBN 0-06-056208-0. Likewise, in the novel Steps and Exes: A Novel of Family (2000), Laura Kalpakian uses Jabba the Hutt to emphasize the weight of a character's father: "The girls used to call Janice's parents Jabba the Hutt and the Wookie [sic]. But then Jabba (Janice's father) died, and it didn't seem right to speak of the dead on those terms." Laura Kalpakian, Steps and Exes: A Novel of Family (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), p. 58, ISBN 0-380-80659-2.
One more such citation will swing my vote the other way. bd2412T 03:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Without context, the second quote doesn't seem to be saying anything about weight at all. It could just be a personal term of endearment; I'm not sure what a Wookiee is supposed to mean when used opposite a Jabba the Hut usage that allegedly means obesity—thinness doesn't quite make sense for a Wookiee. Dmcdevit·t 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the intent is a picture of a very tall hairy woman. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone tried google books?
Origins: The Quest for Our Cosmic Roots - Page 214
by Tom Yulsman - 2003
With a Jabba-the-Hut-like girth of 700 million miles, this star would bulge beyond the orbit of Mars if it were the center of our solar system, ...
Crossroads: A Southern Culture Annual - Page 135
edited by Ted Olson - 2005 - 506 pages
... watch the great Jabba the Hut-sized, quivering bulk of JD trap that skinny hippie, the Yankee know-it-all, and treat him to a big wet one, Dixie style. ...
The Rants - Page 112
by Dennis Miller - 1996 - 207 pages
Does anybody remember when the famous fat man was Churchill, not some huge inbred Jabba the Hut bodyguard who thinks he's a fuckin' spy? ...
Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense “disagreeable person,” “deep-voiced person.” The alternative is to use all of the quotations to support the original definition “the Star Wars character,” but in that case no citation can be considered independent, can it? —MichaelZ. 2012-03-12 03:52 z
The first two disagreeable person quotations are near-duplicates by the same author, and not independent of Star Wars, as is evident from the note. —MichaelZ. 2012-03-27 18:42 z
All of the "disagreeable person" quotations so far seem to refer to a tough employer or boss, and not to just any "disagreeable person". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Does the "same author" issue violate "in at least three independent instances" of the CFI or something else? I don't think these (or perhaps just the first one) are independent of "Star Wars." The footnote makes it clear that the use was by people involved with "Star Wars," not something in the movie itself. Also, although I did not put them up, I earlier found other citations that were definitely outside of the scope of "disagreeable" such as immoral. Perhaps the meaning should be expanded. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Independent. The second quotation fails by both “by the same author” and “verbatim or near-verbatim quotation” criteria. The earlier edition is the exact same article, merely with changed real names like “Atari” to pseudonyms like “Ashibe Research Laboratory.”
And neither is independent of the intellectual-property owner of Jabba the Hutt™, LucasFilm, through a direct mention.
Finally, these usages are all applying the proper name Jabba the Hutt as a nickname, in specific reference to the actual character from Star Wars. None of them supports the definition of “a Jabba the Hutt” being a disagreeable person. This also goes to the second sense's “looks like Jabba the Hutt,” a references to the actual Jabba the Hutt. —MichaelZ. 2012-04-01 01:26 z
CFI says the quotation has to be "independent of reference to that universe". Where does it say it has to be independent of the intellectual-property owner? That rule sounds made up to me. I do agree that they refer to the character though. For this CFI requires use "out of context in an attributive sense". Disagreeable, fat, or deep voice are the attributes. None of the quotations appear to be used in a context of anything to do with Star Wars apart from this reference. I propose that they be merged into a single sense defining the character. DAVilla 04:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
LucasFilm created and owns that universe. The note explicitly explains that the nickname came from and is associated with that universe.
Only three of the quotations use the name as an attributive proper noun: “Jabba the Hutt tide [. . .] Jabba the Hutt moment,” “Jabba the Hutt torso,” “Jabba the Hutt voice.” The others refer non-generically to the specific entity.
By “defining the character,” I guess you mean defining the term as the name of the character. This is disallowed by Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Names_of_specific_entities: “No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic.” [Updated] —MichaelZ. 2012-04-03 15:25 z
What does it matter what the note says? We know where the nickname comes from with or without an explanation. This is not WT:BRAND; there is no prohibition against crediting the reference. Like your claim that it should be independent of the intellectual-property owner, this is another rule you've confused.
I've struck this because I'm not happy with the level of negativity in this discussion when there's no sense in fighting over it. There are two quotations from Allucquére Rosanne Stone. We should simply delete the later one that includes the note. Another citation is needed, regardless of anyone's opinion about the note. DAVilla 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No one said it had to be an attributive proper noun either. If your interpretation were correct, then the examples given of Darth Vader and Vulcan, which were included in the vote, would be invalidated. You cannot push your point of view with an interpretation that counters policy.
Do not quote me CFI when I authored the line. If you had read a little further you would have seen that fictional people and places are not governed by that section. You're oh for three, so why don't you spend a little more time reviewing CFI before you try applying it?DAVilla 03:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You may have written the line but you're not the king of it. It does not appear to say that fictional people and places are not governed by that section. Jabba the Hutt is both a term originating in a fictional universe and a name of a specific entity. —MichaelZ. 2012-04-05 06:31 z
Okay, I can see the confusion. That wasn't my interpretation when it was written but we have to go by the text. The question then is if Jabba the Hutt is an "individual person". I would say no because he's a character, and not even a human character. Even if you think that bullet point applies, you'd still have to ask if Hutt is a patronymic. Again, I'd say no. Hutt is not the name of his father, it is the name of his race. DAVilla 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, we all have to go by concensus interpretation of the text (or in some cases consensus and to heck with the text).
But the guideline is about specific personal names, and not about any attribute of their referents, like race or species, or some arbitrary determination of which referent is real, mythological, or fictional. Sherlock Holmes, Gilgamesh the King, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Isaac son of Abraham, King Arthur, Bilbo Baggins, Lt. Commander Spock, and Winnie the Pooh are all specific names of persons, and ought to be treated as such according to our guidelines. —MichaelZ. 2012-04-08 22:23 z
I question if any of these citations are valid, they all seem to refer to actual Jabba the Hutt. In the same way "you look like David Beckham" refers to actual David Beckham. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)