Talk:Nemean Lion

Nemean Lion
SoP. -- Prince Kassad 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not SoP because it refers to one specific mythical lion (see ) rather than any lion of Nemea. However, it seems like encyclopaedia material to me &mdash; though we do have Medusa, Achilles, and the like. Equinox ◑ 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a proper noun MWE not specifically one of the authorized exceptions to WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? What CFI says there is "There is no agreement on specific rules for the inclusion of names of specific entities."  So, why would this have to be an exception? --EncycloPetey 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the most recent authorized change, does that wording alter our reading of (ie, override) WT:CFI and WT:CFI where there is a conflict? Is a mythical lion an inhabitant of a fictional universe and governed by WT:CFI? Is it governed by WT:CFI? As product and governmental/NGO names are not included in any other text in WT:CFI, can they be included if attestable? Actually, there is no longer any wording that excludes any name of an individual person, it attestable and with some etymological interest or translation. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't override the other sections, and "Fictional universes" applies here. Keep as idiomatic; move to RFV for attestation per the fictional-universe criterion if such attestation isn't obviously findable. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the definition a bit. It's not an ordinary lion in the myth, but one invlunerable to weapon attacks, which is not a normal property of lions. --EncycloPetey 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a proper noun. And the first sentence of CFI does not exclude proper nouns, when they can be considered as words, which is probably the case, I think (there could as well have not been a space in the noun, this is not any lion of Nemea). The definition does not strike me as too encyclopedic, it just attempts to make clear what lion this name refers to. Lmaltier 17:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether I like it or not, I see no reason to exclude it. Keep until (if) a better argument arises. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that this comes under the head of "fictional universe". The 2008 vote on fictional universe contains this text: "Proposal to require that terms originating in fictional universes (such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons) which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." The "such as" clause does not seem to include mythological beings by implication. --Dan Polansky 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? Keep. DAVilla 05:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me boldly keep, in addition to my comment above. --Dan Polansky 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * kept -- Prince Kassad 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)