Talk:Tiny Tim

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFV[edit]

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

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.

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. Note that this does not prevent the entry from being RFD'd; Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Fictional universes establishes necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, criteria for such terms. —RuakhTALK 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFD[edit]

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.

Tiny Tim[edit]

Not a word or an idiom, just the name of a fictional character. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Equinox ◑ 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though, WT:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals says "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. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." Does this not apply to fictional individuals too? For example we have Fred Flinstone Fred Flintstone. Would be nice to avoid some RFDs and speedy delete some of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we don't have Fred Flinstone, and never have done. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the vote cited above does not apply here, as neither "Tiny" nor "Tim" is the character's family name or patronymic. I suspect this is an example of a fictional name that has come into attributive use in English, but right now I have neither the time nor inclination to bother. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the reason given in the nomination for deletion is invalid ("not a word or an idiom"), and the term seems to meet CFI by actually meeting the more stringent attestation criteria for fictional universes. Details follow.
The term in question is a name of a specific entity governed by Wiktionary:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities, a section that correctly states that "Names of fictional people and places are subject to the “Fictional universes” section of this page". As the term in question is a name of a fictional character, it is more specifically governed by Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes; the entry of the term features quotations chosen to meet that regulation. See also Talk:Tiny Tim#RFV, which shows that the entry has passed RFV in April 2011.
Furthermore, WT:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals does not apply to "Tiny Tim", as pointed out by EncycloPetey.
As an aside, we do have Fred Flintstone (with "t" after "Flin"), sent to RFV on 15 November 2011‎. For other names of fictional characters, see Category:en:Fictional_characters. Some of these include Little Red Riding Hood and Sherlock Holmes. --Dan Polansky 13:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WT:FICTION is vague enough that anyone can simply dispute that a term has passed RFV under those criteria. I'm tempted to say that WT:FICTION actually has no meaning for our purposes. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also both word and idiom are mentioned in WT:CFI. Look 'em up. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you propose that "New York" should be deleted, as not being a word or an idiom? In this discussion, is it correct that you refuse to apply Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes to "Tiny Tim"? --Dan Polansky 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply say that Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes cannot be applied, as it makes no sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you propose that "New York" should be deleted, as not being a word or an idiom? --Dan Polansky 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a word. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So "New York" is a word, while "Tiny Tim" is not, right? That's implausible to me. Anyway. --Dan Polansky 18:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WT:RFV only verifies existence, not admissibility. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Wiktionary:CFI#Fictional_universes doesn't trump "attested and idiomatic". Well, I don't dispute attested, just idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny Tim does not mean any Tim who is tiny. It refers to a specific young Tim, one who notably uses a crutch. All three quotations make this connection, yet there is nothing about disability in the individual words. Your claim that the term is not idiomatic makes no sense in the context of proper nouns. That's a keep for me. DAVilla 16:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Good citations added[edit]

The citations in the entry are not attributive, the recently added citations on the Citations page are attributive. Choor monster (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a fictional poor and disabled boy"[edit]

Anyone else think this sounds stupid? Equinox ◑ 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Choor monster (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That it ought to have a better definition. Any ideas? Equinox ◑ 15:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definition reads a wee bit clunky. Personally I think it would be better without "foretold". But somebody liked it, and I don't see the point of further tinkering. The perfect is the enemy of the good enough. Choor monster (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFD 2[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

"An American singer, a one-hit wonder noted for his unusual falsetto, ukulele, and distinctive appearance." Doesn't seem like dictionary material. Equinox ◑ 19:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: specific people are for Wikipedia. See Britney Spears for the only way I could possibly support this entry (and even then I'd dislike it). Equinox ◑ 23:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's got citations, uses wherein people could be unsure what it means and look it up in the dictionary. Wikipedia would not really explain how it is being used. Only a dictionary or dictionary-like project like us would explain it in a useful way. WurdSnatcher (talk)
    Our definition does not explain how it is used. Perhaps you'd like to add that. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asking for deletion because the entry lacks a Usage Note? Seriously? Choor monster (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm saying it is a definition that would only fit as the first line of a WP article. Our first definition of the meaning of Tiny Tim is how Charles Dickens uses it and the authors of derivative works use it. A usage note is usually a note about the usage context or some style question - hardly relevant here. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying different things now, and all are just as bizarre. Numerous WT entries could pass for the first line (or at least a reasonable first draft for a first line) of a WP article, for example, seven-layer cake or monkey wrench or olinguito. So your attempt to somehow argue that we're looking at an "encyclopedic" entry instead of a "dictionary" entry doesn't work.
You seem to ignore that the fictional Tiny Tim in Dickens and derived works is nowhere cited. Our rules for WT:FICTION would not allow such an entry, and restrict its appearance to an appendix only. Instead, we have a definition based closely on Dickens, and multiple citations that show us that the term "Tiny Tim" has gained currency in contexts where Dickens is nowhere to be found except by knowing inference. That's what makes it allowable here as a term in the language.
I don't see how the singer's entry is any different. As for replacing the entry with something like "laughing stock", I personally cannot evaluate the citations, since I know pretty much nothing about the people that are compared with Tiny Tim. As it is, some names have passed into common usage so deeply (Einstein, Quisling, Benedict Arnold) that the names are complete synonyms for other words. "Tiny Tim" (in both senses) strikes me as rather shallow instead, which means the various high points are up for grabs, and any attempt to pinpoint them down is inaccurate. Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, DCDuring is right. The definition of this sense as it currently stands does not tell the user what characteristics a Tiny Tim has - it only points to a specific Tiny Tim. That is what makes it encyclopedic, and not dictionary material. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this rate, we should delete mathematics #1, philosophy #2, physics #1, etc. Choor monster (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mathematics" is a word; "Tiny Tim" is a specific person's (nick)name. If you don't see why the first one is more includable than the second one... - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This goes back to the criticism that what's wrong is we don't have a Usage Note. That criticism is equally valid against the Dickens' character. Moreover, we're discussing "include" vs. "not-include", not SNOW KEEPs vs. borderline entries: bringing up "more includable" is a point-missing irrelevancy. So far as I can tell, "Tiny Tim" the singer meets CFI. People have proposed how this term and its definition do not actually meet CFI, and they have offered reasons (or more precisely, hinted at reasons) that are rank nonsense. The latest seems to be that as a complete definition can only be encyclopedic in nature, the term is inherently encyclopedic, hence delete. I was pointing out that they would apply to the terms I mentioned above. It would also apply to dog #1, ekpyrotic #1, etc. All these terms have absolutely pathetic definitions (from an accuracy or utility point of view), it's simply not possible to fix them (well, maybe ekpyrotic), but all we do to help our readers is link to WP and let it go. Choor monster (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ƿidsiþ 07:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (In case my earlier comments aren't clear.) And to add what I think is relevant background: when there was a round of RFV/RFD's regarding various fictional characters I found several "Tiny Tim" citations for the Dickens character that meet our requirements for fictional characters. While slogging through the mess, I also found two other usages of "Tiny Tim", the singer and the rocket, both with multiple citations. I came across no citations for the other "Tiny Tim" dabs on WP. I'm old to enough to vaguely remember Tiny Tim back in the late 60s, but not much else about him. If it wasn't for that memory, those citations would have been extremely confusing to me. And to anyone younger, I wouldn't be surprised if some plausible construction like "Donald Trump is the Tiny Tim of politics" might be genuinely confusing. If such a reader looks it up here, as it is now, they would at least get the correct reference. If it's deleted, we've done a deliberate disservice. Choor monster (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice some people have made something of the fact that the citations are all of the form "X is the Tiny Tim of Y". This is probably nothing more than an artifact of the search terms I used to find them. Choor monster (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not, and definitely should not, have "well-known vocalist" senses for Madonna, Chicago, Babyface, Gaga, or The Band either. We should also reconsider the mistaken decisions to keep our entries for Beatles and Rolling Stones (both of which squeaked through rfds in years gone by). -- · (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the multitude of reasons given above. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per consensus. We do, however, need to establish clearer standards for the kinds of use and the kinds of citation that support including an actual person as a lexical term. bd2412 T 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiny_Tim&oldid=49608949"