Talk:Krypto

Krypto
Superman's dog. The citations are incredibly weak, not suggesting any particular generic usage. Equinox ◑ 06:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite the citation being weak. This can host useful lexicographical content such as pronunciation. No added value in deleting the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The citations do not show sufficient use of this term apart from the fictional universe from which it arises. bd2412 T 21:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for WT:FICTION and Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms? Where can I find it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To avoid Wiktionary becoming a detailed wiki for every fictional universe out there. --WikiTiki89 12:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How can a wiki dictionary that only defines terms and does not provide descriptive encyclopedic information beyond that become a "detailed wiki"? Furthermore, should Frodo Baggins be deleted from Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia does not become "a detailed wiki for every fictional universe out there"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. They have coverage of the content of notable works of fiction, which includes information about some of the characters. We're a dictionary. We don't. Notice also the word "notable". Wikipedia's notability criterion excludes huge quantities of information that our CFI don't. I don't think we want to have entries for every minor character in every comic book, cartoon show, etc. that has occurred in durable media three times in independent sources over more than a year. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do we want to exclude entries for [single-word terms denoting] every minor character in every comic book, cartoon show, etc. that has occurred in durable media three times in independent sources over more than a year? Italics mine; square brackets mine. Do we fear to run out of digital storage space? Do we fear the management overhead more than we fear the management overhead of all the names of all the species or all the names of chemicals? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the effect of WT:FICTION ensures "true" independence. I'm dubious whether any direct reference to Superboy's pet dog should be counted as independent.  It's somehow just a highly non-authorized "sequel", no matter how brief.  But something attributive, like Fido was always fearless, diving in to danger and loyal to his unit, a real-world Krypto strikes me as independent.  Scooby-Doo and Mighty Mouse and Mary Worth and Winnie the Pooh have all entered the language to that depth.  Has Krypto? Choor monster (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't require species names or names of chemicals to "enter the language" and gain "true independence" by referring to something else but the species and the chemicals. Ditto for Perun. Ditto for place names. (Note that my questions are so far unanswered.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume this is our version of w:WP:SNOW, really a SNOWKEEP. You have not received answers in the form you asked, true.
 * Meanwhile, why are you questioning policy here? We have a policy regarding fictional characters, and the question here is whether Krypto meets this policy, not whether this is a good policy.  In the past two weeks I've added citations for a half-dozen or so such, including a recreation of Winnie the Pooh, awaiting a Czech translation.  If there was something about Krypto that shows there's something funny or borderline about policy, that's one thing, but you're saying nothing specific regarding Krypto. Choor monster (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the habit of voting contrary to written policy if I deem it good for the dictionary; when I do, I present my reasoning. This is especially true when I use "translation target" as an argument. I am not alone in this; in Talk:olinguito, editors decided to keep the entry despite its failing WT:ATTEST; the keeping was not policy-based. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And there the pretty much unanimous consensus was that policy was obviously incorrect in that kind of instance. Like I said, it was kept as a SNOWKEEP.  The only thing missing is no one bothered to propose an official rewrite of policy. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)