Talk:Ewok

RFV discussion
Failed; see archived discussion at Requests for verification archive/September 2009/Star Wars stuff. —Ruakh TALK 14:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So how come the entry still exists? Equinox ◑ 23:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . Mglovesfun (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The 2005 quotation about Ewoks tripping a walker is a direct reference to a scene in Return of the Jedi, not an independent citation. —Michael Z. 2012-03-12 03:31 z 


 * No, I read that book. It is referring to any walking robots, not to walkers as they are seen in that movie. That's what makes the Ewok reference funny. DAVilla 03:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say “robot,” an English word, it says “walker,” a trademark if LucasFilm Inc. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 14:54 z 


 * I see no evidence that walker is a trademark of LucasFilm, though they may have stuck a trademark symbol beside it at some point (like TSR did on their behalf for Nazi when producing the Indiana Jones game). It's certainly not a registered trademark of LucasFilm; that's easily enough checked.


 * This book has not apparently been scanned for Google Books, but reveals that the noun "walker" is used for robots frequently, usually in conjugation with robot (in part a bias of the search), but occasionally not. In the book given, robot could probably be assumed as obvious in the context of walker.


 * It happens that another book by Daniel H. Wilson, How to Build a Robot Army: Tips on Defending Planet Earth Against Alien Invaders, Ninjas, and Zombies, is available on Google Books in snippet view, which gives us this convenient quotation.
 * "Guide your walker through backyards instead (just kick the fences down and trample any swing sets or patio furniture that get in your way). Avoid unstable surfaces and water. Generally, the more legs a robot has, the more stable it is."
 * So it's clear to me that walker is any robot that walks, not just an AT-AT.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It does say "walker", but that's the only thing we agree on. With a dozen definitions, saying you know which meaning is intended from one snippet is mighty bold of you. Like I said, I read the book. DAVilla 03:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the quotation is insufficient to convey the meaning of the term as used, then by all means, quote a longer passage. That's the point of these citations. (Why are we discussing it here, instead of in the RFV?) —Michael Z. 2012-04-06 05:27 z 

The current discussion is at Requests_for_verification

RFV 2
Rfv-sense “midget”. This is supported by a single figurative citation, that doesn't fall under the main definition. —Michael Z. 2012-03-12 00:50 z 

Rfv-sense “A member of a fictional, primitive race of teddy-bear-like creatures.” The first quotation mentions tripping a walker, a reference to a specific scene in Return of the Jedi, and not “independent of reference to that universe” —Michael Z. 2012-04-01 17:13 z 


 * Nope. See talk page. DAVilla 03:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I read that book. It is referring to any walking robots, not to walkers as they are seen in that movie. That's what makes the Ewok reference funny. DAVilla 03:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say “robot,” an English word, it says “walker,” a trademark if LucasFilm Inc. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 14:54 z 


 * Google begs to differ: robot+walker shows numerous instances of "walker" being used to describe some generic non-Star-Wars walking contraption. It looks like Lucasfilm has trademarks on specific kinds of "walker", such as "scout walker" or "Imperial Walker", but not on the generic term itself.  (walker+trademark+lucasfilm) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't attest using Google, and citations of robot walker are just evidence that walker alone means “something that walks,” and not “walking robot.” But this is academic. The quotation describes a specific scene in the Ewok movie. It's not an independent use of the term. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 16:28 z 


 * We have Appendix:Star Wars for terms like this. Depending on on whether we attest that non-Star-Wars sense, we should move it there, or link to it from there. ~ Robin (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Michael -- The links to Google weren't intended as citable attestations, merely as refutation of your claim that Lucasfilm has a trademark on the generic term . -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Anyway, “Ewoks” using a cable to trip a giant mechanical “walker” is not independent of Star Wars. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 17:49 z 


 * I'm certainly happy to concede that point. And, FWIW, the quote currently showing for the midget sense seems to be used less to mean midget in the broad sense, and more to mean a specific person who is a midget and who played a part as an Ewok in the Star Wars franchise.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't even realized that. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 18:47 z 


 * Why, because it says "Ewoks"? Then what the heck would be considered independent? I'm not conceding anything. The passage has nothing to do with Star Wars apart from that humorous reference. It's a completely legitimate quote, whatever your misguided opinions may be. DAVilla 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I shall then point out that “nothing to do with Star Wars apart from” is the same as “something to do with Star Wars.” If the author wrote a humorous passage that depends on having seen Return of the Jedi, then it is not independent of Star Wars. —Michael Z. 2012-04-05 06:41 z 


 * No, it's not the same as having something to do with Star Wars. The Robert Whiting quotation in CFI has nothing to do with Star Wars apart from the comparison to Darth Vader. Basically, in other words, it has nothing to do with Star Wars.
 * It's incorrect to conclude that the Darth Vader quotation is invalidated because understanding that metaphor requires knowledge of the character. Why would that conclusion be incorrect? Because the quotation is in CFI as an example of a valid citation! There's obviously going to be some connection between a statement using a term from a fictional universe and the fiction universe that it references. The point is that the citation does not discuss nor is embedded in the world of the fictional universe.
 * What my words meant, which you've tried to twist, is that there is a reference to Ewoks, with use of that very term, and nothing else to do with Star Wars. Daniel Wilson could have just written:
 * Tripping a walker the size of a house is difficult but not impossible. You will need high-tensile wire and suitably grounded posts.
 * This is his advice on, as the title says, how to survive a robot uprising. None of this specifically references Star Wars. It makes sense far outside of that fictional world. You do not have to consume any of Lucas's works to appreciate it, only to appreciate the next line, "ask you Ewok friends for help". DAVilla 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Davilla on this. The criteria exist to ensure that only terms which have come to be used outside of their fictional universes of origin are accepted into Wiktionary, and this term, at least in the 2005 citation, meets those criteria. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The criteria are specific: “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.” Original emphasis.


 * The example isn't just independent use of the name Ewok. The entire description of the scene, and the use of “walker,” are specific references to the movie. DAVilla wrote himself that the passage depends on these references for its humour.


 * Dudes, really! If you really think this is an English word, just a third quotation that clearly meet the letter or spirit of the guideline. You might have been able to do that several times over in the time you've spent arguing that this lame quotation is something that it isn't. The requirement is just three little little quotations. If you can't be bothered to find that, then maybe it isn't an English word.


 * By the way, the Stuart Heritage quotation seems to be from a website, and not any durable source. —Michael Z. 2012-04-10 16:25 z 


 * FWIW, I managed to find a reference to robot "walkers" that predates Star Wars:
 * 1976, Problemy upravleniia i teorii informatsii (published in Hungary), volume 5:
 * dynamics of six-legged walkers, movement control system structure,
 * - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What indicates that that doesn't just mean “something that walks?” If it said “dynamics of six-wheeled vehicles” that wouldn't prove that vehicle means “robot”. (Incidentally, the Star Wars walkers are manned vehicles, not robots, in case that matters.) —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 18:47 z 


 * It is a generic sense of "walker" = "something that walks" (incidentally, I will broaden our currently human-only entry on [[walker]] accordingly). My point is that the Star Wars franchise also used this generic sense; I'm reinforcing Eirikr's comment that Lucasfilm doesn't own the word "walker" and the use of that word in the 2005 citation is thus not (in itself) a reference to Star Wars. The use of "Ewok" is a reference to Star Wars, but I'm not sure whether the citation meets our standards of not otherwise being about Star Wars, or not. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As there is disagreement about the 2005 quotation, I've added another quotation: the 2007 one. We seem to agree that the 2000 and 2008 citations count, so that makes this cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
Here's a fun fact I just discovered. There's a type of monkey in Southeast Asia and Southern China called in some languages something sounding a lot like "ewok":
 * Lü:
 * Shan:

&mdash; hippietrail (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)