Talk:Pippi Longstocking

Pippi Longstocking
Fictional character. Per Talk:Clifford the Big Red Dog... etc. etc. Equinox ◑ 14:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, what in the world has this got to do with a dictionary? Why would the name of a fictional person be allowed but not the name of a reason person? Why not Tony Blair, Boris Johnson, etc., etc., etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that the difference is that Tony Blair is the same in other languages, but fictional characters tend to get translated. I would probably keep it (and the translations). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main reason I created the article was that: a fictional character has different names in various languages. Ivan Scrooge Novantotto  (parla con me) 08:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The names are not all that different: most seem to be word-for-word translations, in any case Czech Pipi Dlouhá punčocha, German Pippi Langstrumpf, Swedish Pippi Långstrump, Italian Pippi Calzelunghe. Winnie the Pooh had a much better case for translations with e.g. Polish Kubuś Puchatek or Danish Peter Plys. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, but even there most translations contain the word for "bear" (e.g. the German, French, Japanese or Portuguese ones). In any case, though Pippi Longstocking's are mostly word-to-word, those words are put together, so if you don't speak a certain language you may not know how to say, in this case, "long stocking"; I don't see why we shouldn't keep it just because translations "aren't interesting": the name is translated and that's enough (at least in my opinion). Ivan Scrooge Novantotto  (parla con me) 08:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:IvanScrooge98: For Pooh: yes, some are pretty straightforward, but interestingly many aren't. For Pippi, which are the translations that you find interesting and not straightforward?
 * As for whether a fictional character name is translated and that is enough, that will not find many supporters here, I fear. I for one support a much broader inclusion of names of fictional characters than is currently stipulated at WT:FICTION. I would like to see a proper Gollum entry and Shelob (Czech Odula). For Pooh, I provided a reasonably conservative rationale that stands a chance of appealing even to some fict-char-doubters. "Is translated at all => keep if attested" is too incusionist for many's taste, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, my argument may seem really weak to many users. So, as you proposed, I have to agree it'd be better to include it in the appendix rather than keep it as an entry.
 * I don't think that's a good idea. Appendix:Fictional characters was deleted, with discussion at Appendix_talk:Fictional_characters. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * oops, I'm sorry. I noticed there are still four pages in that Appendix which weren't deleted. Ivan Scrooge Novantotto  (parla con me) 10:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: unlike most fictional characters, Pippi Longstocking carries a lexical meaning (like Pollyanna or Sherlock Holmes or Godzilla or Cinderella, only with different shades of meaning). People with traits resembling Pippi Longstocking are often described as Pippi Longstockings, which argues strongly in favour of keeping an entry, albeit with a different definition than the current one.  This seems to be mostly an oral phenomenon, but there are dozens of references in modern fiction, where someone is described as "(just) a (regular, veritable) Pippi Longstocking" or something along those lines, with no further explanation required.  Perhaps something along the lines of, (from the fictional character created by Astrid Lindgren): a person, especially a girl or woman, characterized by flamboyant red hair, especially in pigtails; or given to headstrong, wild behaviour, flights of fancy, or irrepressible optimism.  It's true that many fictional characters could be treated this way, but relatively few actually are.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to fix it along lexical lines with citations. Better?  P Aculeius (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made sone further fixes. BTW, thanks a lot for the quotations! Ivan Scrooge Novantotto  (parla con me) 15:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does not make much sense to discuss fictional characters one by one, see the Category:en:Fictional characters, e.g. Care Bear. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you're getting at. However, the definition of "Care Bear" is the set of merchandised characters, and all three citations are references to the characters as characters and/or merchandise.  In other words, they're all references to actual Care Bears, not to other people or things being characterized by referring to them as Care Bears.  Nobody is being described as a Care Bear with the expectation that people will know what is intended.  Maybe someone could do so (despite the fact that Care Bears all look somewhat different and have differing personalities, so it might be hard to convey much meaning in this way), but in the examples provided, they haven't; so there's no lexical meaning to the name as used in the entry.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what are we going to do? Now that there are two meanings as a noun, I suggest we should keep it. Ivan Scrooge Novantotto  (parla con me) 14:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how having the names of fictional characters because they have translations is the job of a dictionary. All words and all idioms in all languages, not everything with a possible translation in any language. If we're going to do this, let's not pretend it's anything to do with being a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not being kept because it's translated into other languages. It's being kept because it has specific meanings that are used independently of references to the actual character.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If no one else has got anything against, I would consider this debate finished. In any case, let's wait until tomorrow. Ivan Scrooge Novantotto  (parla con me) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kept. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)