Talk:Glup Shitto

Proper noun / common noun

 * Most uses are as a proper noun/a name, i.e., without an article, etc. J3133 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and can be used in the same way and both are capitalised common nouns. These aren't proper-noun nicknames for specific characters, or memetic characters with varying interpretations of a common form (e.g.  or ). They're terms for character archetypes like  or . Any character that fits the defining attributes can be considered an example of the archetype. Any minor or obscure Star Wars character can be considered Glup Shitto, just as an implausibly-perfect fan fiction heroine can be considered Mary Sue. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * “She is Mary Sue” (not attributive, e.g., “her Mary Sue flawlessness”, which is one of the quotations) would be a use as a proper noun, unlike “She is a Mary Sue”, unless you are calling those uses uncountable. We have as a proper noun. J3133 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We also have, , , and as capitalised common nouns. Wiktionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. The line isn't always as clear as   vs. . It's not hard to find modern quotes like "She is Beauty through and through." or "Beatrice draws Dante towards God because she is Love, but she enables him to see because she is also Wisdom, Theology, and Contemplation.". I mean, sure, one could make the case that Beauty and Wisdom therein refer to personifications of virtues, not the virtues themselves. Should we have a proper-noun version of every abstract noun on that basis? I'm not saying we shouldn't as a hard rule. Capitalising nouns we wouldn't typically capitalise today was definitely a Thing in Early Modern English. What I don't see a cause for is unnecessarily fragmenting entries based on a prescriptivist distinction. How would having two definitions of Glup Shitto (or Mary Sue) in two POS sections better serve readers than a single unified sense? I fear it would just create unnecessary and avoidable confusion. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is descriptive—not prescriptive—the entry should inform how it is used (cf. ); capitalization is not an indication of how a term is used. J3133 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Three cites are functioning as common nouns: "the original Glup Shitto," "a true Glup Shitto," "Glup Shittos." Three more cites are ambiguous attributive uses: "Glup Shitto meme," "Glup Shitto-level," "Glup Shitto moments." I don't really see this type of hair-splitting and score-keeping as productive. Will it improve the entry clarity and accuracy of the entry for readers? WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not specifically referring to the cites that you added; here are some examples from Google News functioning as proper nouns: “15 years' worth of "Star Wars" media being required to recognize Glup Shitto”, “veering away from the story in favor of Glup Shitto”, “you’ll get a mess of Glup Shitto and Luke Skywalker fighting”. J3133 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention those additional examples in your initial post. You simply said "Most uses are as a proper noun/a name." The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from that statement was that you were referencing the examples already collected in the entry and on the citations page. If you want to add those additional examples to the ones already gathered, that might change the picture. I still don't think this warrants two senses, though. It's not a name referring to a specific character, but a placeholder that could refer to many characters, or even a hypothetical character. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)