Talk:Hämähäkkimies

RFV discussion: February–August 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

---

Hämähäkkimies

Finnish for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the official translation of the name, should be easily citable?

http://www.egmontkustannus.fi/tuotteet-ja-julkaisukalenteri/sarjakuvalehdet/spider-man/

http://dome.fi/pelit/arvostelut/spider-man-web-of-shadows

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/elokuvat/art-1288482080646.html AliHautala (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not Metaknowledge's point. He says we shouldn't have fictional characters at all. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why, though? Isn't it a slippery slope that could lead to mass deletion of religious, mythological and folkloric terms due to the sometimes thin line between those things? It would probably first affect proper nouns associated with religions that are generally not taken seriously by most people, such as Scientology and Mormonism, eg. Moroni and Xenu; nothing of value would be lost in the eyes of a majority of people regardless of their beliefs, but who knows what would be next? I find it incomprehensible that some atheists regard Scientology and Mormonism and Christianity and Islam at the same level, and further some see no difference between Darth Vader and Lucifer.

And while most people see it for the joke that it is, there are a bunch of people out there who list their official religion as Jediism and I'd bet some of them are serious. So to play the devil's advocate, who's to say that mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam are not obvious jokes as well? Maybe the entries for God and Satan should be deleted, followed by Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, etc. even though it would be pretty offensive to most people to lump them in the same category as characters from sci-fi films, including myself; but who draws the line between fiction and religion? What if someone decided that it's offensive to label Flying Spaghetti Monster as "humorous", went to the Wikimedia Foundation's headquarters and blew themselves up after shouting "SPAGHETTI IS GREAT!", killing dozens of innocent civilians? Would major religious leaders around the world be expected to publicly condemn radical Pastafarianism? I don't think so, but most likely at least one of them would; would that solidify its existence as a serious and valid religion and elevate all joke religions to the same status as serious religions?

If the choice is between deleting fictional characters and keeping them, the sheer amount of extra work that the slippery slope in the case of the former would bring about should hint to the latter being a more preferable option, when it doesn't really matter either way so long as the content is correct. Unless there are concerns over politics or trademarks, in which case it makes sense to delete "objectionable content" but only on a case-by-case basis... except, the possibility that Wiktionary is actively pushing an elitist agenda... hmm... I'll shut up before I get silenced by le bowers that bee. :DDDDD AliHautala (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My experience shows that Wiktionary is anything but elitist. There are occasional debates about whether something ought to be considered a word, or over whether particular meanings are supported, but in general it's not hard to get things into Wiktionary if you can show the appropriate amount of independent use. Since Finnish is fairly well documented on the internet... er, interwebz, it ought to be simple enough to find three mentions of Spider-Man in Finnish that merely allude to Spider-Man. For example, newspaper stories about someone scaling tall buildings or catching criminals with a net, or acquiring super-powers (or any abilities) through some kind of accident. If they're not discussions of Spider-Man, but assume that the reader already knows who Spider-Man is and are comparing someone or something else to him, then the entry can go in the main Wiktionary space. If they merely discuss Spider-Man as a character in works of fiction, then they might justify inclusion in an appendix of terms from or relating to Spider-Man, under a heading for "Finnish". It seems simple enough to create such an appendix, and I'm sure someone better versed in the process than I could help you get started. P Aculeius (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters can't be included by virtue of being fictional characters, but they can be if they become part of the language outside of their fictional universe. If you can find quotes where someone who climbs really well is described as Hämähäkkimies, for instance, that would allow the entry to be kept. See WT:FICTION for details.

As for the issues you raised: this is a dictionary. We deal with words and phrases as words and phrases. An encyclopedia answers the questions such as "Who or what is Spiderman?" and "What are some interesting facts about Spiderman?". A dictionary answers the question "what does 'Spiderman' mean?". Every work of fiction has a number of characters in it- far too many to have entries on all of them. We don't a notability criterion like Wikipedia does, so we would end up with entries such as Alice stuffed full of every character in every book, play, poem, comic, comedy sketch, etc. with that name. As for religions: we have decided to treat religious figures differently, so that's not an issue- there's no danger of our deleting Zeus, for instance. Really, the only slippery slope here is the one that would have fans of all descriptions descending on us to get the characters in their favored works represented. I would rather avoid that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks, all of you, for clearing that up. I could find a bunch of cites for hämähäkkimies as a general noun, but uncapitalised. AliHautala (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A post-deletion note: Why do we have Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and even Mickey Mouse glove, which defines a fictional glove!!! --Hekaheka (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)