Talk:Lassie

Lassie
The specific dog from some films. (And "Category:Fictional dogs"? How did we get here?!) If anyone else is concerned about the recent mass of encyclo stuff, now is the time to stand up. Equinox ◑ 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally often consider "encyclopedical content" (and its varieties) a mere verbal tic prone to multiple interpretations... I don't necessarily want to see people standing up against this and other entries, but I would be interested in this phenomenon, particularly if they are willing to to discuss and rationalize this issue.
 * Meanwhile, let's just use WT:FICTION for the entry in question. I assume it would be attestable. The fact that the concept is covered on an encyclopedia (or that the encyclopedia provides in-depth information) does not necessarily make it inelligible for Wiktionary. --Daniel. 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why aren't there cites first for a questionable entry? DCDuring TALK 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell us more about whose tic you are talking about, please. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Citations:Lassie is now cited; it was easy. Given our current rules, virtually any iconic fictional character is attestable. DCDuring, do you have any more specific questions about my interpretation of encyclopedical content? I'm not sure how to start to merely elaborate the "tic" out of the blue. --Daniel. 03:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the one who introduced the term "verbal tic" "out of the blue" in reference to "encyclopedic content". What did you mean? DCDuring TALK 04:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean what I said: the words "encyclopedic content" together are prone to multiple interpretations, so I would like to know more and more opinions of more and more people about it (especially since this argument is being so used lately, particularly without further explanations). For example, from discussions that I have seen, the basic argument "Wiktionary should not have encyclopedic information" may be interpreted as: (1) we shouldn't elaborate a sense more than the strictly necessary to recognize it; (2) this entry is just a link to Wikipedia, so let's delete it; (3) Wikipedia already mentions it, so we shouldn't have it; (4) all specific entities, like this one, should be deleted; (5) this one specific entity should be deleted. The 3rd example appears from time to time but is relatively ridiculous, so it's more comfortable for me to think that there is an "obvious" implied context such as "If Wikipedia didn't exist, we might consider making Wiktionary an encyclopedic dictionary, which isn't the case." Finally, the words "encyclopedic content" used to endorse statements like my examples 4 and 5, when said without further explanation, simply don't form compelling arguments in my point of view.
 * I might add that you, DCDuring, isn't the case. While you too wield the argument of encyclopedic content, you explain your points of view detailedly. I appreciate that. --Daniel. 05:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other contributors choose different and essential roles. Please do not minimize their roles simply because their roles inconvenience or irritate you. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell more about the different and essential roles of contributors. --Daniel. 13:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The citations provided, coming after the definition as they do, do not well support any of the attributes in the definition given ("A fictional female long-haired collie who is the protagonist of the American novel Lassie Come-Home.") None of the attributes in the definition is presupposed in any of the quotes. There is only indirect presupposition that Lassie is fictional in one of the four quotations. The novel is not mentioned, hardly surprising since more people saw Lassie on TV than read the novel. No mention of Lassie being female or a protagonist. Neither breed nor hair are mentioned either. Stylistically, "fictional" is redundant if the name of the fictional work is mentioned. What might be inferred about the meaning of "Lassie" from a focus on usage as shown in the quotes would be that she was a dog, a well-known one, and possibly that she represented a idealized image of a dog. The latter point would need some additional support.
 * The rest of the definition is therefore encyclopedic, best handled by a reference to Wikipedia. Otherwise all we are doing is making a trivial short-attention-span copy of Wikipedia. This should be beneath us. DCDuring TALK 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Being well-known, and being a idealized image of a dog, helps Lassie being able to meet WT:FICTION. That policy does not require identification of each attribute mentioned in the sense. In fact, apparently, giving out too much information about the series makes a source inelligible to be counted for attestation. Other attributes such as the race and the origin may come from especialized sources, now that a sense to describe the fictional dog is assured already.
 * The word "fictional" makes a difference, so I'd prefer it kept within the sense. It's not stated that the book is about a fictional story, so there isn't redundancy (unless one already knows this fact about the book). --Daniel. 05:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point of a dictionary and mistake the need for attestation to justify inclusion and attestation to support the wording of a definition. The definition is encyclopedic. Whether our contributors are willing and able to carry out the project of providing non-encyclopedic definitions for proper-named entries is very much in doubt. I wish I could have articulated the issue at the time of the vote on toponyms. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How did I mistake these two needs for attestation? Both are important in my opinion, and this fact does not contradict my previous messages. --Daniel. 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We should already know who Lassie is. That if anything is what the quotations are meant to show. At this point it's just a matter of distilling down the most relevant information. Why do you seek quotations for each trait easily verified by other means? That to me just sounds laborious. DAVilla 06:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we are a dictionary concerned with how words are actually used, not an encyclopedia providing relatively deep knowledge derived from authorities. A focus on usage would not be necessary if we were not being beset with encyclopedic content by contributors insensitive to usage. The fact is that dictionary definitions can and should be short because the actual meaning invoked in actual usage is not a whole panoply of attributes, but a very small subset. I think it might be very interesting to find more about which attributes of Lassie are actually evoked by usage of the name. Endless possibilities for lexicographic original research.
 * The meanings evoked by allusions to proper-named persons, places, and organizations and to animals and objects all seem to me arguably within the reach of usage-based lexicographical method. Of course it would be more wikiesque to simply copy and edit whatever appeared on the first line of the Wikipedia article. We have a choice of ways to go. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedic definitions that are being introduced strike me as a reversion to prescriptive definition. What I have liked about Wiktionary and lexicography is that it has been ultimately descriptive, at least when it breaks new ground (new words, new senses, etc). If it turns out that contributors don't value or can't carry out a descriptive approach, the project seems a little less to me. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience, senses of proper names from fiction usually have author, origin, location, species, etc. which I wouldn't call "prescriptive". They describe something that was formally created by someone and attested by other people who imitate their usage.
 * DCDuring, I don't necessarily agree with your opinions, but I got more citations and organized them by the meanings invoked, among other circunstances; see Citations:Lassie. Is it close to what you wanted? Would you be able to use an organizational system like this to develop non-encyclopedic definitions? Do you need anything else? --Daniel. 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Complete nonsense. The first two citations in particular are totally worthless. Someone really needs to find Daniel, and stop him. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 07:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How worthless? They seemed pretty good to me. By the way, there are more citations now; you may or may not be interested in seeing them. --Daniel. 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the entry and the controversy thereover are products of a lack of explicit agreement on what a proper-noun entry should be. Until there is some agreement that, for example, a simple ostensive definition, pointing to a wikipedia article on the exact headword, is standard, I think each attribute of a proper-noun entry should be attested. For other classes of words we seem to be more in the habit of following other lexicographic lemmings. Where we break new ground we need to assume the responsibility of attestation.
 * Daniel. has begun the task of citing individual attributes of the use of the word "Lassie", though no single attribute is yet fully attested, except that Lassie is a "notable exemplar of a dog".
 * Once this effort is complete, we can have similar efforts to attest the other fictional character entries we may be able to come to some consensus on this type of entry, especially on the nature of the sense line. Perhaps we could then move on to other classes of entries with other types of problems, eg, abbreviations and affixes. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that citations of the form "Lassie is X" show that "Lassie" means "X". We need citations that show that "X" can be presumed to be understood by the audience/readers. The "Lassie is X" citations show, if anything, that "X" needs to be made explicit. Citations of the form "Lassie is X", were they from authoritative sources, might be suitable evidence for Wikipedia AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so, the irrelevant citations need pruning out then we can see what we're left with - if anything. Spinni ng  Spark  19:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. As I see it: That Lassie is fictional is established by the '93, '95, and '97 cities, and possibly the '07 cite. All three cites for "exemplar dog" (which might support a non-gloss definition) seem OK. "Idealized dog", possibly unrealistically so, is supported by the 1996 cite. Only the 1997 cite supports female directly. Displaying some intelligence is supported by a single 1986 cite. "Long-haired collie" is supported by the 2001 cite. That Lassie is used as a name for female dogs is really a separate matter and should be easily supported by searches for "Lassie" and "his|her|their|your|my|our dog" and "she|her". I don't think other attributes are supported at all by the citations given.
 * It wouldn't surprise me that (long-haired/rough) collies were referred to as "Lassie dogs", especially by children when the show was airing ('50s and '60s).
 * I think that this exercise may be helpful in suggesting what kind of defining attributes for proper nouns are likely to be supportable by citations and which should be dispensed with in Wiktionary entries, which can link to Wikipedia for their treatment. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Encyclopedic stuff. Jaseon might beat the wazookies out of me if he takes it the wrong way, but what is the point of excluding a performing artist of Homo Sapiens whilst including a performing artist of Canis Lupis????Geof Bard 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My close review of Citations:Lassie makes me believe that almost all uses of the term are accompanied by some kind of explicit reminder of a specific attribute of the fictional dog Lassie. The uses of Lassie that convey meaning are few. IMO, the attested meanings conveyed by the word in the examples are that Lassie is "famous", an "exemplary dog", a "collie" (possibly a "long-haired collie"). But that is just my judgment. Other may see it differently.

This kind of effort may help to make clear what is meant by an encyclopedic definition. If we can win some agreement that Wiktionary is not Wikipedia and that a focus on conveying meaning allows us to identify encyclopedic content we might be able to revise many of the definitions of proper nouns to make them more appropriate for a dictionary. An entry that cannot be shown to have anything other than an encyclopedic definition could either be excluded from Wiktionary or have some kind of definition that was ostensive in nature, pointing to a Wikipedia article or section. "See Krypto at Wikipedia." would be be an example of such a definition-by-link. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete — I like the way the OED phrases this, it would require an "extended or elusive" meaning to be worth including in a dictionary. (Clearly "being like the original Lassie" is not an extended or an elusive meaning — you can use any word in that sense, providing your readers have contextual knowledge — I take for granted that Wikipedia is much better at giving people contextual knowledge than we are). Conrad.Irwin 02:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The questions everybody should ask are: 1. Is this a word? My answer is yes. 2. Is this word used in English? Yes (and in other languages too). 3. What does this word mean? I think that the definition is OK, it cannot be clear and more succinct (but adding a list of books, etc. would have made the page encyclopedic). 4. In the case of fictional characters, a 4th question is very useful too: could this page help readers? (or: Is it reasonable to think that somebody will be interested by linguistic information from the page?) Clearly, my answer is yes. Very probably, there have already been people trying to use the word Lassie in English without knowing the precise English pronunciation, or people knowing the English pronunciation, but not the precise pronunciation in another language (in French, it's not too difficult, it's /la.si/). (Unfortunately, there is no pronunciation in the page). Lmaltier 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete first sense. Keep second (because we are keeping attestable names). If it has an extended meaning I'd like to see it too. But we shouldn't be keeping encyclopedic content - that's Wikipedia's job. ---&gt; Tooironic 03:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that the meaning was a particular dog. If not, I agree with you. But keeping the meaning (or the original meaning) of a word cannot be encyclopedic, even when this meaning is a specific dog. Lmaltier 07:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction between original and nonoriginal meanings is better explained within etymology sections. That said, an entry should mention all the suitable meanings. --Daniel. 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Winston Churchill is not a meaning of Churchill, the meaning is surname. I think we can keep the first sense only if it was the only meaning at the time the series was created. Another possible course of action: adding to the second definition, mainly known for.... Lmaltier 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the suggestion of defining names of certain specific entities simply because they were neologisms once. In my opinion, the originality of one's namer should not be a criterion for inclusion of names on Wiktionary. --Daniel. 17:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When you define a word, you have to provide its meaning. We define even obsolete words, we may also define the only meaning the word was having at a time. Lmaltier 21:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if we discover that an individual has a very original name, like Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousson, and that name appears within three separate sources, would you expect that individual to merit a sense on Wiktionary? --Daniel. 21:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to be able to include the sense of words, whatever this sense, even when this sense is an individual. For Lassie, I think the best solution is a single definition with ... mainly known for... Lmaltier 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last response was not very helpful in comparison with your other messages. Can you please answer my last question more directly, perhaps with an "yes" or "no"? --Daniel. 03:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if this is a word, and the individual is the meaning of this word (which is not the case for Disney ou Churchill, but which is the case for Charlemagne). Lmaltier 06:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the fictional dog. Like Piglet, and unlike Tigger and Eeyore, it has no general meaning. Hesitant Keep as a dog's name, since it seems common and doesn't mean anything else, though I'd hope for citations without the word dog, like "All the Lassies and Fidos of the neighborhood". The CFI for given names and surnames does not apply to names of animals. A dog, or pet animal, can be named almost anything - any human name, place name, vocabulary word. I could probably find three citations for a dog ( or a cat, or a teddy bear) named Susan or Peter. Clifford and Pluto should not be defined as dog's names. Category:Dogs' names isn't needed. Possibly Category:Common names for animals.--Makaokalani 17:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We have earlier deleted Winnie the Pooh. In terms of attestability and other virtues that make the difference between keep and delete Lassie's got nothing that Pooh doesn't have. For the sake of logic, delete. --Hekaheka 20:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WT:CFI. My interpretation of that policy is basically that few names are expected to be kept, while most are expected to be deleted. The absence of one term is not per se a reason to delete another. FWIW, we have Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Santa Claus and Cinderella as other fictional characters. While Winnie the Pooh was deleted per a RFV discussion that didn't find valid citations, Lassie is properly cited. --Daniel. 00:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't CFI:FicUni specifically forbid this? "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense." Which Lassie is not. 86.144.27.125 20:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is used out of context in an attributive sense. For example, two of the citations from Citations:Lassie are "Talking about your little Cindy is fascinating. Next time, could we talk about your pets? I bet your dog is the Lassie of the neighborhood." and "Max makes about a thousand different sounds. Yodels, yelps, has a lassie bark-sounds just like Lassie. Has special sounds for when he sees bunnies, one for squirrels too." --Daniel. 21:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

deleted. Kept the given name sense though, for obvious reasons. -- Prince Kassad 10:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)