Talk:Houdini

Houdini
From WT:CFI: "Wiktionary will give the etymologies, pronunciations, alternative spellings, and eponymous meanings, of the names Darlington, Hastings, David, Houdini, and Britney. But articles on the specific towns (Darlington, Hastings), statue (David), escapologist (Houdini), and pop singer (Britney) are Wikipedia's job." Sense: "The magician and escape artist Harry Houdini." Hmm... --Yair rand (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per this infallible analysis. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, in the sentence (from Google books) "But the more the film focuses on the psychological cat-and-mouse game between its heroine, who is a troubled police detective, and its villain, a megalomaniac who fancies himself a new Houdini, the more it loses momentum and its claims to credibility." - we are just to read the meaning of "Houdini" as just another surname? Shouldn't we tell our users what it actually means? SemperBlotto 07:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. We provide an etymology and a WP link. en.wikt is not an encyclopedia. We are not a print dictionary and are therefore not limited to our own content, but also include by quick reference all the content of WP. delete. DCDuring TALK 08:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * keep: the current page is not about the artist, it's about the word Houdini. And it's quite normal to include a definition with the meaning of this word (I don't know what eponymous meaning means). This page is no more encyclopedic than blue fox : blue fox also provides the meaning, but the page is not about the animal. Lmaltier 18:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing under challenge is the proper noun sense, which specifies an individual person. This is clearly not in accord with our existing policies and practices. I don't know whether the surname "Houdini" has actually been used by anyone besides the famous Houdini. If not, I don't think that we would include the proper noun PoS at all. But I'm not inclined to challenge a proper-noun definition as a surname. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah Lmaltier, per yourself "we don't include specific individuals, we include words". This entry as a whole isn't nominated for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We include words, and explain their meanings. We don't include animals, we include words used as names for animals, but we also explain which animal this name is used for. I don't see the difference. Of course, the meaning of a surname or a first name is not a list of individuals, and it's difficult to provide a definition for them. But in the present case, it happens that the meaning is a specific individual. I just wanted to insist on the fact that the page is not about the artist, it's about the word, and the reason given for deletion does not apply. Lmaltier 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This should also be kept - just like Hitler. BedfordLibrary 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "The magician and escape artist Harry Houdini" if it can be shown that the surname "Houdini" is commonly used to refer to the escapologist; the quotation provided by SemperBlotto suggests that. As regards the text from CFI, show me the vote or Beer parlour discussion; back then, CFI was edited by regulators wanna-be as they saw fit, failing to track community consensus. If I had the courage, I would just send the whole section of CFI titled "Wiktionary_is_not_an_encyclopedia" for removal from CFI. The section tries to regulate things that are "names of specific entities", and we now well know that "there is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities", per Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities.
 * The quoted section of CFI first appeared in the current full reading with the examples in a 13 September 2005 revision of CFI, by Eclecticology, in an edit deceptively summarized as "Some simplification and re-ordering", an edit that increased the complexity and detail of CFI. Eclecticology, a wannabe regulator, incidentally claims that voting is evil: Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2010-06/Number_vs._numeral. When voting is evil and forbidden, regulators have free hand to impose regulations as they see fit, as there is no other sound process of creating or rejecting regulations. --Dan Polansky 09:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read m:WM:PIE, w:WP:POLL, or any of the other similar, consensus-supported pages throughout Wikimedia? (Or WT:NPA, for that matter?) --Yair rand (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I did. Polls are not evil. m:WM:PIE is not supported by consensus; it is an essay expressing views of some Wikipedians. That is also what it says on the tin at the top of the page: "This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some wikimedians or Meta-Wiki users but may not have wide support. This is not policy on the Meta-Wiki, but it may be policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes." The opening passage of the page is this: "Polls are evil. Don't vote on everything, and if you can help it, don't vote on anything," with which I utterly disagree. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:POLL says that "polling is not a substitute for discussion". I agree. But it also holds that discussion is not a substitute for a vote.
 * On WT:NPA or no personal attacks, the things I have stated about Eclecticology are relevant to the authority of the section that you have quoted. I admit that I could have avoided them, especially the "wonnabe regulator". Nonetheless, the "wonnabe regulator" hypothesis can be verified from the history of WT:CFI and has bearing on the discussed subject, so it is not the species of fallacy of relevance known as ad hominem. In any case, the section added by Eclecticology has no trace to a vote or a discussion; it is a regulation imposed by Eclecticology, AFAICT. The diff that I have given above gives a deceptive summary: that is a fact. This raises even stronger doubt about the legitimacy of the section that you have quoted. --Dan Polansky 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, the edit summary is an accurate description of the edit. I don't see any content in that edit that wasn't there before. The content quoted was added in this edit by User:Uncle G. --Yair rand (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is embarassing. I should double-check before I make an accusation. I am sorry, and I naturally take back what I have said: the summary given by Eclecticology was not deceptive--that was my misreading.
 * The Houdini thing has arrived on 22 May 2005, as you have pointed out. --Dan Polansky 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding above: Houdini is not a surname. As a proper noun, it always refers to this artist. The artist is the meaning of the word, this is the reason for my opinion. Lmaltier 16:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep sense and delete the offending section on CFI, which directly contradicts the section on place names. DAVilla 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Prince Kassad 23:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2013–June 2014
Rfv-sense: "to appear etc. quickly". Seems to be straight out of Urban Dictionary. Google seems to suggest that this actually exists, at least in the past tense, but what does it actually mean? Can it be durably cited? This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RFV failed: no attesting quotations provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unstriking, since and  looks promising, although possibly in a different sense. Specific hits:, , . --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In 12 Monkeys, a character refers to the protagonist, who escaped from being shackled in a locked room, as "the paranoid who pulled the Houdini back in '90". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None of them support "appear" as opposed to "vanish" or "escape". Siuenti (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That bit should be removed if no one finds citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * RFV passed: attesting quotations are in the entry. I removed "appear" part of the definition as unattested, as per suggestion above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)