Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/September 2009/Star Wars stuff

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

Star Wars stuff[edit]

These need to be attested as English and German words per WT:CFI#Fictional universes. They also need out-of-universe definitions, and the Star Wars restricted-use label should be removed. Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:29 z

See also #Vader, WT:RFDO#Template:Star WarsMichael Z. 2009-09-01 11:45 z

Good to see the citations being added below. We'd prefer to see attributive or generic uses, rather than specific mentions of characters. See for example the distinction in Citations:Princess Leia, and Han SoloMichael Z. 2009-09-02 13:34 z

Chewbacca[edit]

Darth[edit]

RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Death Star (old)[edit]

Star Wars sense RFV failed, converted to etymology. Other senses moved to a separate section (below).RuakhTALK 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ewok[edit]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt[edit]

Easily attestable; here's one:

  • 2009, Theresa Rebeck, Three Girls and Their Brother‎, page 267
    "I think she looks like Jabba the Hutt. I've been calling her Jabba the Hutt in my head. Don't you think she looks like Jabba the Hutt, or some science project, some science project gone hideously awry, in that green dress?"
Not really. This is simply a direct reference to the character in the movie. “She looks like Scarlett O'Hara” wouldn't show that that characters name is part of the English language either. Please see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities for an explanation. Michael Z. 2009-09-03 01:25 z
I disagree. The comparison here depends on a particular attribute rather than a general physical resemblance. It thus assumed that the reader is aware of the Star Wars character and ties a specific physical attribute to that character above all others. The comparison is not made for lack of legs, vertically-slitted pupils, or the presence of a lengthy tail. Only the obesity of the character is intended, as there is a single attribute associated here with the charatcer. It's the same as calling someone "like Florence Nightingale", whose name implies an attribute of compassion and service to those in need of medical aid. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps the excerpt is missing important context, because I don't see any physical attribute of comparison mentioned here—not Jabba the Hutt's size, his ugliness, his obesity, or his lack of neck, for example. In fact it exactly depends on the unspecified, general mention of resemblence alone (unless I missed the Star Wars movie where Jabba wears a green dress...). Michael Z. 2009-09-03 13:31 z
Yes, Jabba the Hutt is partly green, but I don't see him described as green (e.g. in w:Jabba the Hutt or in Wookieepedia). Wearing a green dress doesn't make someone akin to Jabba in any way, and something else or something more is implied—if the “she” in the citation were a thin, pretty woman, then this would make no sense. The author implies only general unattractive appearance, and hedges her bets by throwing in the science project comparison. Michael Z. 2009-09-03 14:34 z
As I recollect, we haven't been accepting quotes where the challenged Proper noun was used in a simile. The cite above uses the word "like" twice. The other use looks more like a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't recollect any such restriction. CFI certainly says nothing, as it only gives one positive reason for inclusion. It doesn't restrict the use of other rationale. --EncycloPetey 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think accepting similes is going to have good consequences. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've now added attributive use quotes for "Jabba the Hutt torso", "Jabba the Hutt voice", and "Jabba the Hutt moment". And.... ooH! I find a cite for non-Jabba-esque. --EncycloPetey 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's looking a lot better. Some of the quotations might be using some a fictional character's specific nickname, which arguably wouldn't qualify as an English-language use, but I think this and a few of the other entries are looking more like keep than delete to me now. Michael Z. 2009-09-08 05:31 z
I tried to formulate a definition based on the citations, but this is only a character's name in every quote. It's not an adjective, nor a common noun. There is no “widely used meaning” beyond the scope of Star Wars. (By the way, “Jabba the Hutt” and “Tatooine” are properties of Lucasfilm Inc.) DeleteMichael Z. 2010-05-06 00:35 z
  • Analysis.
    The applicable ConFI is:
    Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space. With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense. See examples.
    This imposes a lot of restrictions on the attestation, but pace Mzajac (talkcontribs)'s last comment, I don't think it imposes any restriction on the definition. That is to say, it does allow us to define Jabba the Hutt as referring to the fictional character. (At the time of his comment, the CFI were a bit different, but even then I'm not sure such a restriction was imposed. Regardless, the phrase "widely used meaning" no longer occurs anywhere in WT:CFI.)
    I contend that the 1995, 2005, and 2009 cites are not quite "out of context", because in each case, the name Jabba the Hutt has appeared earlier in the same work. (The 2005 cite is also weak for other reasons, in that an editor has added a footnote earlier in the book explicitly stating that Jabba the Hutt is a Star Wars character.)
    However, the 1999, 2001, 2007, and 2008 cites seem to be O.K. for non-appendix use; the 1999 cite has some metadata problems, but I don't think they affect the quote's validity or applicability.
    Therefore, if no one objects in the next week or so, I intend to mark this RFV passed.
    RuakhTALK 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV passed.RuakhTALK 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jedi[edit]

Easily attestable; here's one:

  • 2008, Gary Berntsen, Ralph Pezzullo, The Walk-In‎, page 222
    Lescher launched into another assault, "The president and I still can't fathom how you could let a man like Freed disappear and then present his findings at the eleventh hour like he's some kind of Jedi warrior back from—"
Aren't citations for "Jedi master" and "Jedi mind trick" necessarily also supportive of the word, Jedi? bd2412 T 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily—English Jedi mind trick jocularly describes “magically” persuading someone: if it is an English term with a life outside of Star Wars, then that implies that it is probably used by people who are not Jedis. Another way to look at it, by example: English coup d'état doesn't make état an English word. Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:32 z
I don't see how the example is comparable, since "Jedi" does not originate in any language other than English. Otherwise, the same could be said of the phrase "Jedi warrior" in the citation above, and Jedi would be excluded from inclusion simply because it can be used as an adjective. bd2412 T 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The question is whether Jedi is a word in English according to our criteria, no matter where it originated. If Jedi mind trick is idiomatic, then Jedi would have to be attested separately. It's possible for either one or both of these (or neither) to meet our criteria, so it would save a bunch of haggling if both were attested independently. Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:49 z

I think this can probably be cited successfully, but I really have no desire to do so myself. So, I'll wait a week before marking this RFV failed, to give other editors a chance. Citations:

  • must be outside of reference to the Star Wars universe.
  • should not, IMHO (per Mzajac (talkcontribs)), be using it in larger phrases that are potentially their own set phrases ("Jedi master", "Jedi mind trick", and "Jedi warrior" all seem risky), but I welcome other editors' opinions on this.
  • do not need to be attributive, IMHO, since I don't think Jedi falls into the category of "names of persons or places from fictional universes". (But, attributive use would still probably be best.)

RuakhTALK 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to Citations:Jedi. —RuakhTALK 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jedi Master[edit]

Easily attestable; here's one:

  • 2007, D. J. MacHale, The Lost City of Faar‎, page 3
    It's like he's some kind of Jedi master who only drips out information on a need-to-know basis. Well, I need to know bad. —This comment was unsigned.
Do we call this attributive use? Jedi master and Jedi Master are each three cites short. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Now each two short. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a specific entity or proper noun, so this doesn't depend on attributive uses, although we should have at least three solid examples which are independent of Star Wars (as in, scan the reference to ensure it doesn't explain the term or refer to Star Wars at all). I wouldn't separate the capitalizations, though—they are just variants of the same term. Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:36 z

RFV failed, entry moved redirectlessly to Citations:Jedi Master, and redirect thereto created from Citations:Jedi master. —RuakhTALK 00:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Jedi mind trick[edit]

Easily attestable; here's one:

  • 2005, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove , The New Rules of Lifting: Six Basic Moves for Maximum Muscle‎, page 205
    I've met personal trainers who were phenominally good at figuring out their clients' starting wieghts [] Maybe it's some kind of Jedi mind trick. But unless you have one of those trainers, you have to figure it out on your own. —This comment was unsigned.
Entry needs three more cites than it has. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it needs two more cites. It already has one, and only three are required. --EncycloPetey 04:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There were none in the entry when I made the remark. I don't understand why this page is ever used as a quote repository. It is one of the bulkiest pages we have. It does not need to be cited; the entries do. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Now has three cites. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Cited. Equinox 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lichtschwert[edit]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sith Lord[edit]

Bad caps: the Sith are a race, and as a title this is usually written Sith Lord. Equinox 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whichever form, but please capitalize by attested usage, not Star Warsy facts like this representing a race. Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:52 z
Changed caps to match what I said above. Equinox 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Skywalker[edit]

Tatooine planet (old RFV)[edit]

This may be of interest : w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatooine planet

It appears to be a term coined by one of the discoverers of a triple-sun planet, and not used by other people. 76.66.196.139 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to a separate section below. (Not actually a Star Wars term per se.) —RuakhTALK 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Todesstern[edit]

RFV failed, entry deleted (together with entries for inflected forms). —RuakhTALK 19:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wookie[edit]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yoda[edit]

Easily attestable; here's one:

  • 2006, Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce, Time‎
    It wasn't uncommon to see therapists gazing at him between presentations as though he were Yoda.
As with Jabba the Hutt above, this is a mention of the specific (fictional) person, not an example of Yoda becoming a word in the language. Doesn't help for inclusion. Michael Z. 2009-09-03 01:25 z
You have questioned the fictional character sense in the entry. I provided a quotation outside the Star Wars universe, so it meets the request you posted. The quote assumes that the reader is familiar with the connotation of the character and his attributes, so it does qualify. --EncycloPetey 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem is with the definition. The Star Wars content may be better in the etymology with the actual definition covering the meaning it has in the three attributive-use cites once there are enough to infer the meaning. DCDuring TALK 10:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
EP, I have asked for verification, based on our CFI. Please don't assume that I would want anything else. I don't see any evidence in the content of this quotation, or in, say, an overwhelming volume of similar quotations, indicating that this is any more than a pop-culture reference aimed at readers who have seen a Star Wars movie. It's possible that this quotation might support a body of cites, but alone it doesn't look helpful to me.
DCD, yes I think some of these definitions may change based on the attestations found, as in how I amended Han SoloMichael Z. 2009-09-03 13:44 z
  • 2008, Cecelia Ahern, There's No Place Like Here, p. 41:
    I expected Mr. Burton to be a wise old man with a head of wild gray hair, a monocle in one eye, a waistcoat with a pocket watch attached by a chain, a brain exploding with knowledge after years of extensive research into the human mind. I expected Yoda of the Western world, cloaked in wisdom, who spoke in riddles and tried to convince me that the Force in me was strong.
  • bd2412 T 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that EP's example doesn't cut the mustard. By that token, we should have an entry for Marilyn Monroe because there are equally plenty of texts that refer to Monroe and expect the reader to know who she is. Equinox 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be interesting to cite a Marilyn Monroe. It might be possible if there are enough accessible works from 1955 to 1975. Please take a look at Citations:Yoda. Two seem like use of noun in attributive position. The other is an out of context use as a noun that uses him as an exemplar of wisdom. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
“Yoda doll” and “Yoda mask” are direct pop-culture references to the character, and probably don't belong here at all. The other's look not bad, assuming the context doesn't explain who Yoda is. The mouse example may be using the name in a different sense than the others, for something small and old, rather than a sage. Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:57 z
We now have citations for Yoda that appear to be a common noun meaning "wise overseer" (the Yoda of the operation) and "long-lived dwarf" (the Yoda of rodents). --EncycloPetey 22:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
These uses of his name just mean “Yoda,” the specific person in Star Wars, and property of Lucasfilm Inc. (Heck, your “wise overseer” quotation starts with “If the invasion of Iraq was Star Wars . . .”) I'll find you a dozen quotes like “the Churchill of Brazil,” “the Churchill of his generation,” or “illuminating our darkest hour like a Churchill,” but the specific name Churchill continues to refer to Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (1874–1965), the specific man, with his specific history and qualities. Michael Z. 2010-05-06 01:05 z
  • Analysis.
    The 2000 and 2008 citations aren't attributive. I mean, they're what grammarians call "attributive", and what we call "attributive" when we're discussing whether something is an adjective vs. an attributive noun; but WT:FICTION makes it obvious that this is not what it means by the word.
    The first 2005 citation is problematic, in that it's using "Yoda" in reference to a mouse named Yoda. Clearly the mouse is named Yoda because of its longevity, and the headline is punning on that as well … but it's still not a great example.
    The second 2005 citation isn't "out of context", in that Yoda has already been mentioned on the same page.
    I can't find the third 2005 citation via Google or Google Books or Google News Archive. So, maybe it wasn't as durably archived as the person who added it thought it was?
    The 2006 citation is perfect.
    The 2009 citation isn't "out of context", in that it mentions Star Wars and/or other Star Wars characters at the same time.
    So, if no one either (1) objects to some part of my analysis or (2) adds more valid citations in the next week or so, I plan to mark this RFV failed.
    RuakhTALK 01:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 02:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)