Talk:Garfield

RFV discussion (2)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Does not belong in Wiktionary. --Yair rand 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Most good dictionaries have them (at least, American dictionaries have them). Why don’t they belong, do you think? —Stephen 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See WT:CFI#Names of specific entities: "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included. ...and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not." --Yair rand 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson are two different things. Which one are you talking about? —Stephen 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about Jefferson definition #2:

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826); the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). --Yair rand 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

move the actual people to the etymology where there are other sense. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The examples in CFI, ELE and elsewhere are not authoritative. For example "information" is claimed to be the exemplar of an uncountable noun in Appendix:Glossary, when it actually has a sense that forms a plural.

Our standard for the proper nouns senses is actual attestation of attributive use of the word, which is an RfV matter. The cat Garfield seems more likely to have such attestable use than the president. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep (all). They are used, singly, in very many texts to mean the US president with that surname. People need to know that meaning. SemperBlotto 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete sense. As surnames, they should be kept; of course. But the meaning a specific person with that surname is something common to all surnames and to everybody (including you and me), and would be best addressed through a link to the Wikipedia page dealing with this surname. Otherwise, notability criteria would be necessary, and they should not be required here (all words are accepted). Lmaltier 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for notability criteria. The only criterion needed is that the surname alone is used to refer to the person, without the referent being explained or obvious from context. Most US presidents, Canadian and modern British prime ministers, etc., meet this test without much question; not because they meet any standard of encyclopedic notability, but simply because their surnames have demonstrably entered the lexicon. Similarly Foucault, Kant, Hegel, Bach, Beethoven, et al. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your own surname used alone has probably entered the lexicon, at least for some people that know you. But I don't think you would like to enter yourself as a sense of this word. This is what I mean by notability criterion, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. As a word, it's a surname, nothing else. However, if the translation of this word in a language (e.g. Russian) is different depending on the person, all possible translations should be given, with appropriate comments. Lmaltier 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, supposing that my surname -- let's call it "Smith" -- had indeed entered my friends' lexicon. And suppose that at least three of my friends had published independent works which referred to me as "Smith", without any further explanation, because they assumed that the reader would immediately understand the Smith to whom they referred. In such a case -- and only in such a case -- I would certainly merit my own sense in the Smith entry. -- Visviva 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that what you explain is a typical example of a notability criterion. Lmaltier 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Move to RfV for attributive use citations. All accept "Garfield" have a reasonable to excellent chance of being attestable in attributive use. I enjoy demonstrating errors in our own documentation, so "Jefferson" will get my immediate attention. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep per SemperBlotto. There should be no need for attributive use (as there would be for "James Garfield" or "Thomas Jefferson") because these are not proper names in the first place. If policy says otherwise -- and I don't think it actually does -- then the policy is wrong. -- Visviva 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep for all, as per SemperBlotto. Usage is effectivly attributive, as it means the president without other mention being included. Should also accept most major world leaders. --Dmol 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You missed the part where the guideline says “attributive,” and not “eddectively attributive.”

Everyone, please don't waste your and my valuable time by voting—this is not about self-gratification. Either get on with citing these “words” according to the guideline, or propose a change to the guideline. —Michael Z. 2009-09-19 23:56 z

Why cite if someone decides it's not such a matter? If it were kept, it might not be RfV'd. Once it is here it has to play out. I'm not sure that the process can be simplified when both matters are potentially at issue. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAICR we have always treated RFD as a vote. Not saying it's particularly wise, but it is what we've done. As for the guideline, it says clearly that surnames should be included. And if we're going to include them, it should be rather obvious that we should include all senses that a person might encounter and need to look up. -- Visviva 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No ... it was never a "vote", and never intended to be; the idea is that there is, or should be, a right answer. The bolded "keep" or "delete" is just a way of highlighting the summary of an opinion. See, for example, at the top of WT:RFV: Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. Robert Ullmann 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is RFD, not RFV. I could have been more precise and said that we always treated votes as indicators of consensus (or the lack thereof). It has generally been considered highly improper to delete an RFD'd entry that has a majority of editors (or even a large minority of editors) opposing deletion. If that really doesn't sound familiar, I can only conclude that we have been contributing to different projects. ;-) -- Visviva 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in that case, surnames like Jackson and Johnson are missing a lot of senses. However I'd like to see these deleted as POV and just generally that surely a lot of people called Adams, Jackson etc. I wonder if George Washington could be cited attributively, would it meet CFI? I say yes, it's a proper noun, widely known and used attributively, right? There's nothing that prohibits it in our rules. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes WT:CFI confirms it. Therefore I added Michael Jackson to Jackson and RFD'ed it at the same time. Genius! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I've already got two attributive uses of Michael Jackson. This is an excellent example of of why this proper noun policy makes no sense. Why is attributive use so important? As far as I can see, we never refuse proper nouns as long as they are used attributively. I'd be pretty surprised if more than three cites for George Washington weren't available. WT:CFI#Names of specific entities actually says "...George Walker Bush thus should not be included unless used attributively. Again, George Walker Bush has a legitimate chance to get an entry here. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Attributive use is important because it gives us something useful to say about them, as a dictionary. If a proper name is used only to refer to its literal referent, a Wiktionary entry for that name serves no purpose to anyone. If it used as a byword to suggest some particular quality, that is a fact that even Wikipedia is unlikely to include, but which might nonetheless be of great significance to someone puzzled by a name's appearance in a particular context. Likewise for surnames; going to w:Jackson (disambiguation) is not going to give the user much insight as to which of the people listed there is likely to be the "Jackson" mentioned without any context whatsoever in some work. Thus again, there is something useful for us to say about such usage. -- Visviva 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced there are even three cases where "Jackson" is used to refer to the singer without "Michael Jackson" being specified somewhere nearby (particularly since he isn't exactly the only pop singer by that surname). I'm sure there are some Jacksons besides Andrew who would meet this test, but I doubt if there are very many. -- Visviva 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I could get three attributive uses for Michael Jackson though. It took me about 2 minutes to get 2. Anyway, I'd better bring this up on WT:BP. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so may I add the senses of specific US presidents to RFV right now, or am I prohibited until this RFD is closed? —Michael Z. 2009-09-20 23:09 z

There's no rule, but some knuckles have been rapped for opening an RfV while the RfD was active. If the conversation seems over and this is deemed kept and closed, then the RfV can be opened with a link to the archived discussion.

BTW, If anyone would like to challenge some two-part human names, the following are available for consideration: Arnold Schwartzenegger, Britney Spears, Brigitte Bardot, and Marilyn Monroe. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as you'll accept any three works that refer to the president as "Garfield" without identifying him elsewhere, I think RFV would be fine. But if that's not the case, it would kind of seem to me like you were trying to use RFV as cover for a policy agenda, which would be somewhat uncool. -- Visviva 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(from a wrongly created sub-section, Mglovesfun (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) If you delete the George Washington meaning, you will only have to inlcude it in the etymology anyway to explain why the city and state are called Washington. Keep. --Richardb 09:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We do that kind of thing routinely, with a link to the Wikipedia article on the person. I believe that the community considers it a the best way to handle such things. Marilyn Monroe for an example. That entry is also an example of the kinds of usage that might justify keeping a full personal name. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete, see WT:CFI#Given and family names. This sort of entry could go very far, how about Tony Blair in Blair, or John Major in Major. Sports stars and singers and very well known, how about Michael Jordan in Jordan or Britney Spears in Spears. I'd love to RFV these, but since CFI is so vague on the names of specific entries, nobody would know if they had passed or not, so I think a pure vote like this is best. What do SemperBlotto et al. think of that? — This unsigned comment was added by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs).

Moving to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't like these entries I believe there is a distinction. An essay on American history might very well mention "Jefferson" throughout and never use the word "Thomas". An essay on pop culture would not mention "Spears" without "Britney", at least the first time she was named — right? Equinox ◑ 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

So there you go, our voters overturn WT:CFI to keep these. They all now need three attributive citations, not that anyone knows what that means. Get ready for disagreement, folks. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fail, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the sense for the U.S. president: the sense has not failed RFD (5 for keeping, 6 for deletion). As regards RFV, it should be fairly easy to attest; the attributive-use rule has been removed from CFI in this vote: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities.

This archival is from a batch of requests, one that involved Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and Garfield. See the past revision of RFV. --Dan Polansky 11:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion (2)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Rfv-sense: A comic strip character. This would also seem to need to meet both WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sense has been (improperly?) deleted. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been replaced with: "The fictional, orange, overweight, selfish, lazy and anthropomorphic cat who is the protagonist of the comic strip Garfield" This would seem much harder to attest as few of the usages are likely to cover even one specific attribute of the character. This definition has about nine attributes. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The new def is subjective, encyclopedic, and inappropriate, but it's denotationally equivalent to the correct definition ("A certain comic strip character", or "The protagonist of the comic strip Garfield", or whatnot). I don't see why it matters, for RFV purposes, whether a given usage relates to all (or any) of the details mentioned in the def. (Analogously: if our definition of "cat" mentions that cats are quadrupeds — which it currently doesn't, but easily could — we wouldn't RFV that to determine if cats are attestably quadrupedal or something. And conversely, just because a given attribute is relevant three times, that doesn't suddenly mean we have to include it. I mean, I bet I could find three cites that mention cats in the context of furballs, but I really don't think furballs should make it into our def.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is another example of the lack of logic that doesn't cease annoying me. We have deleted Winnie the Pooh and Christopher Robin. Why even discuss Garfield? Perhaps because we have Eeyore and Tigger, and we don't know whether Garfield is a main character in the strip (in which case the entry should be deleted) or not (in which case the entry should be kept)! --Hekaheka 11:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too quick. Eeyore and Tigger seem to have a meaning that goes beyond them being fictional characters. Garfield looks doomed, unless someone provides a new sense to the word. --Hekaheka 11:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The possible definition ""A certain comic strip character" for Garfield would not be very helpful, mainly due to the enormous quantity of comic book characters in the world. It would be like defining cat as "A certain animal." --Daniel. 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "A member of a certain species of animal", but yes, I agree. I wasn't suggesting we use that definition, specifically; I was just giving it as an example of a correct def (and an improvement over the current one). In fact, I'd rather we just deleted this sense. I think it's much more helpful to our readers to let them find a resource that answers their non-lexicographic question, than to try to pretend that we are such a resource ourselves. —Ruakh_TALK 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Garfield" is really a "brand name for a physical product", so I don't see how this falls under WT:BRAND. --Yair rand (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Because as a matter of fact it is a trademark. All trademarks are brand names, though not all brand names are trademarks. Merchandise bearing the likeness of the character Garfield cannot be legally sold in many jurisdictions (eg, US) without the consent of the trademark holder, which consent can usually be gained by enforceable promise of payment. Almost all animated characters originating in the US since the 1920s are in this condition. OTOH, we could decide not to apply WT:BRAND to cuddly commercial brands such as this and to, say, not for profit organization names. A vote, perhaps? DCDuring TALK 12:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it isn't a brand name, I'm suggesting that it isn't a physical product. --Yair rand (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Garfield" in the meaning cluster involved in this discussion and its citation page refers to at least:

1. a fictional character (covered by brand name)
2. a title of a comic strip (covered by the brand name)
3. a brand name, sometimes used in titles of other works involving the character and in merchandise (physical products) bearing the image of the character etc.

This is not unusual for animated characters. Sometimes there is no specific work that has the bare name as title. "Harry Potter", not principally thought of as an animated character, would be similar, as might be the pirate character played by Johnny Depp in w:Pirates of the Caribbean.

Also, are service marks (not necessarily associated with physical products, eg, "Google") not covered by WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not, plus there's some overlap. I don't have any objection to changing this, but I want to see it passed in a vote before trying to apply it. See WT:BP#Company names for other tangentially related opinions. DAVilla 10:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How do our current rules apply to Garfield the character; the eponymous cartoon strip, movie, and TV animation; and the brand? If we exclude the brand as a sense, does WT:BRAND not apply to the other senses? Would Michelin Man (almost certainly attestable, especially if similes are allowed) be similarly exempt from WT:BRAND? DCDuring TALK 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely some holes to plug. The brand name criteria are not well liked, but the only other workable solution we have is abstinence. DAVilla 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone has added some cites. I'd appreciate people's input about whether they feel these cites satisfy WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

None of them meets WT:FICTION, except maybe the last. (I therefore didn't investigate which meet WT:BRAND.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed, deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)