Talk:Mickey Mouse

Needs attributive cites. (I assume that the translations can be removed if this fails and don't have to be rfv'd separately?) --Yair rand 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the proper noun defn that's being RfV'd, though for the life of me I can't think why. Normally, when there is an associated adjectival sense, the proper noun is kept in the entry for reference. But even so, haven't we all heard of Mickey Mouse ears, gloves, voice, etc. If you really think it needs attributive cites, there are thousands of them along similar lines. -- A LGRIF  talk 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cites for "Mickey Mouse ears, gloves, voice, etc." do not make the entry pass CFI AFAIK. It needs attributive cites, like Tigger or Prince Charming. If terms passed CFI just by having things related to them being mentioned in durably archived works, we could probably cite half the Disney characters and a decent portion of video game franchises (one could find cites for "Mario jump" and "Mario style" fairly easily). --Yair rand 23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know what is meant by "attributive" in CFI?
 * I oppose the deletion on the ground that this RFV invokes the controversial attributive-use rule, and does so by reading "attributive" in one particular way, whereas when "attributive" is read as "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase", the term sent for RFV is cited. --Dan Polansky 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been controversial in the context of brand names and fictional characters (but see Wookiee). It has been more controversial when the oxen that were being gored were folk's favorite place names or national or cultural heroes. We clearly need to include the adjective sense, which is almost an archetype of attributive use of a proper noun. What is a bit unusual is that Mickey Mouse is a true adjective (appearing after "become", gradable, and comparable). Most proper nouns that we've discussed haven't been so thoroughly transformed. As a result the citations that would normally only support attributive use of a noun PoS now support an adjective PoS, showing yet another inconsistency in the conceptual framework implicit in WT:ELE and WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The attributive-use rule is the one in the section "Names of specific entities"; the sections of CFI "Fictional universes" and "Brand names" do not invoke the term "used attributively". Explicitly, the attributive-use rule is the sentence "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning" under the section heading "Names of specific entities". This sentence applies neither to brand names nor to fictional universes, so introducing brand names and fictional universes into the discussion is off-topic.
 * That the attributive-use rule actually is controversial is plentifully documented in various votes; to refute this you would need to do more than invoking rhetorical language in "...oxen that were being gored were folk's favorite place names or national or cultural heroes".
 * If you want to demonstrate that the attributive-use rule does have a community consensus, why don't you start a vote for confirmation of the rule? Good luck :p. --Dan Polansky 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an idea with merit. Or have a vote-off between the existing rule and proposed alternatives, rather than trying to amend it. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:31 z 

Mickey Mouse (adj.) is 1) formed as an attributive noun, and 2) has a widely understood meaning independent of the eponymic specific entity.

Mickey Mouse (proper n.) can be used attributively, but then it just means “of or relating to Mickey Mouse.” It's not an English word; it's the name of a cartoon. It should be plain that this doesn't belong in the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:31 z 


 * Very very easily cited. DAVilla 07:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the first citation would not seem to meet WT:BRAND. I am also unclear on the semantics of this. But, as we no longer have the attributive-use rule, other more or less normal citation principles must apply. If the semantics of the citations don't fit the proper noun definition (as almost all attributive-use citations don't, almost by definition), then they don't count for that. They may count for another sense of the noun, perhaps one marked (attributively). There is of course no shortage of attestation for the proper noun as name of an individual entity, presumably under WT:FICTION, though I am not sure that very many of such citations would actually support the numerous attributes appearing in some of our definitions. They mostly seem to attest the mere existence of a well-known entity having a given name. It would seem to me that an ostensive definition is the best we can do. The main ways would be a minimalist gloss (perhaps taken from WP), a sense-line link to WP, an image, commons clips or sounds, or external links, such as to YouTube or to official sites of self-proclaimed trademark owners.
 * The semantics of proper nouns that apply to individuals seems quite different from what applies to common nouns and even given names and surnames. If we are to include them, then we must throw off our old ways of looking at such entries and approach them more straightforwardly. I see some point to limiting ourselves to proper noun entries that embody some meaning and don't see why we would not require our entries to specify the meaning, just as we do for common nouns. Perhaps we can even use non-gloss definitions.
 * It is also possible that we would choose to dispense with any semantic or importance requirements whatsoever for including proper nouns. If so, I see some value in reserving them to be entered by unregistered users as only format and not semantic content or attestation would be an issue. Our more skilled users could work on the minimal corrections required or on making forms to facilitate the creation of the entries with WP links, Commons images, and appropriate external links. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The cites support the existence of the term and that the referent is well known ("famous"), but not the other elements in the definition ("The most famous Disney character, an anthropomorphic mouse."). I would guess that a good definition might include that the character is animated. The 1974 quote implies that the Mouse must be a cartoon character. More quotes of this type are probably available.
 * The entry probably would benefit from more time for citations. Alternatively, the definition could be replaced with . DCDuring TALK 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if may be perverse, the point of WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION is basically to find cites that don't support the information in the definition. I suppose cites that do would also be nice, but firstly, such cites would get in the way as we try to evaluate which cites (if any) satisfy WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION, and secondly, we all know what refers to (it's in clearly widespread use). It doesn't make sense to discuss whether individual elements in the definition are citeable; if they're accurate descriptions of Mickey Mouse, and we know that  refers to Mickey Mouse, then attestation is not an issue. (Appropriateness to a dictionary may be an issue, but if WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION are met, then we've done basically all that WT:RFV can.) —Ruakh TALK 14:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If a dictionary is about usage, then what "Mickey Mouse" really is is not our concern. The issue is: how is the term used. What are the salient characteristics of the character the general understanding of which an author or speaker can rely on? If we include more, we are becoming a short-attention-span encyclopedia. If "Mickey Mouse", the proper noun, means all propositions about the character and brand name, then no reference work can encompass them. If "Mickey Mouse" means just some of them, then some principle of selection should apply. Wikipedia has its criteria, mostly the existence of authoritative sources for the propositions. What should ours be? I would argue that they should be about salient characteristics illustrated in usage. If we aren't being selective, then we aren't offering much of a service to our users, should we have any users for this type of entry. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I like the implications of it. For example, our entry for uses the phrase "of the family Anatidae", which is a true predicate about the animals that get referred to as "geese", but probably not something that most users of the term know. By your approach, would we remove that phrase on the grounds that it's a statement about geese rather than about ?  —Ruakh TALK 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've long been troubled by such definitions because they do not reflect usage, except by those with specialized expertise. That is one reason why I have striven to add pictures. We need a substitute approach for definitions of "natural kinds" that has less recourse to technical terms. DCDuring TALK 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kept as cited. Feel free to improve the definition based on your interpretation of the citations, or to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dating original usage
Are we SURE this doesn't date back further than Disney's Mickey Mouse? Twitter (insufficient source, I know) dates | this Mickey five years before Disney's. Maybe the term is also older? Thmazing (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Although this does not get to the definition of Mickey Mouse here in this article, | this puts the phrase backwards another couple decades.Thmazing (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I trust | the 1890 date on this source, but now we're into the 19th century. Thmazing (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * | Bit Skeptical of this date (1894), as well. Thmazing (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A closer examination shows those dates to be wrong. If you look at the "Pagan's Progress" book, you'll find that it's made up of two completely unrelated books, with the second one being an Australian book first published in 1947, with born in 1904 and the  born in 1893 (here's the front cover of the second book. I'm not sure whether the physical books got bound together or the scans got merged, but you can be sure that the second one wouldn't be available without restriction in a free e-book if Google was aware of it.
 * If you search for "year" in the works with only snippet view, you find sentences like "If you want to record the activities of your chapter for the year 1947-1948, the club reports should be sent in immediately" for The American Mathematical Monthly, and 'The Tennessee Jaycees selected him as "The Outstanding Young Man in Tennessee" in 1964" in the Tennessee Blue Book, which turns out, after searching for various years in the search box, to be the edition for 1977-1978. That should cover your Google Books examples- I get nothing when I click on your Twitter link. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nice work. Here's the correct Twitter link (not sure what happened): |https://twitter.com/dee_bax/status/1231441176672309248 Thmazing (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)