Talk:Shamy

Shamy
A fictional universe name for the Sheldon/Amy couple. 128.91.40.233 13:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not used in the universe, but only outside the universe (by fans), so that rule doesn't apply. Equinox ◑ 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been used in-universe. At least once, very early on.  Penny called them Shamy, Amy said she didn't like it. 128.91.40.233 15:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At least twice, apparently. TBBT wiki says the name was first used by Howard. 128.91.40.233 15:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Shamy" has been used in a couple of episodes of the show, but it's also been used by fans. Combining the names of characters to create smush names is an established practice in fandom. Thus, it's difficult to gauge whether fan usage of "Shamy" is always the product of "Shamy" being used on the show, or whether some fans, following the fandom tradition of smush-naming, may have coined "Shamy" independently of the show's writers (it's certainly more catchy than the alternative "Ameldon"). "Shamy" already meets CFI by having three independent, durably-archived cites spread over a period of at least a year. Trying to answer the chicken-or-egg question of whether it should be considered a term originating in a fictional universe or fandom slang seems like an exercise in hair-splitting. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hair-splitting? Chicken-or-egg?  You're bluffing with nothing.  Fans pick up on every last show usage.  In the contrary direction, shows cherry-pick a very very limited number of names/terms/ideas from fans, since doing so usually leaves them vulnerable to copyright lawsuits.  (Which used to happen: there's a reason shows/comics/etc have policies of not reading unsolicited manuscripts, tightly limiting fan/creator interactions, and so on.)  I'd say the burden of proof that this is originally a fan coinage is squarely on those who claim it is so, because on its face it's a longshot.  And WT:FICTION says terms originating from a fictional universe go into an appendix, unless they have three references that are made independently of the fictional source.  The three citations are obviously direct references to the show.
 * You want fan coinage, try "Shenny". Google hits everywhere, I'm sure three of them will easily come from durable sources.  Meanwhile, note that TBBT wiki claims "Shenny" is a fan coinage, something they pointedly do not say regarding "Shamy".  128.91.40.233 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The portion of WT:FICTION you referred to is intended to apply to stuff like lightsaber and Jabba the Hutt. Both of these originate directly from the Star Wars franchise, but they've since entered into general use in English. One can find uses of both which don't directly reference the Star Wars franchise. Lightsaber is used as a generic word for the type of sci-fi weapon depicted in the films and Jabba the Hutt is used to mean "overweight person." These are examples of terms derived directly from a fictional universe being used independent of reference to that universe.
 * Contrast this to terms like Snapefic, which does not derive directly from a fictional universe (i.e., it's not used within the Harry Potter series), but rather is a fan coinage that references a character within a fictional universe. Smush names generally fall into this category. Thus, WT:FICTION doesn't apply to them. In the rare case of a smush name being used in canon, it's difficult to determine whether fan use predates, or arose independently of, the canon use, and thus standard citation criteria ought to apply. The standard citation criteria are pretty good at weeding out canonically-used smush names that were never adopted/independently coined by fans (see what's happening to Koothrapenny).
 * In practice, "durably-archived media" includes things published in physical mediums (books, newspapers, films), and excludes all digital mediums except Usenet posts. This is why I haven't been able to attest attest Shenny to date. "Non-durable" citations can be collected on citations pages for reference purposes, but they don't count toward the three citations needed to minimally attest a term. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the debate, I will point out that "Shenny" has been as well-attested as "Shamy". Choor monster (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the citations used to attest Shamy are from print publications. Whereas we don't currently have three "durable" citations for Shenny.  is an online-only publication, and the Today cite uses it as a hashtag, so it's kind of iffy. That's why I held off creating a Shenny entry in mainspace. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per CCL. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Regardless whether it's coined by fans or the show writers, it's a fictional thing which exists only in a fictional universe. Snapefic is a thing in this universe; Shamy is not. WT:FICTION applies, as it should to all smushes of fictional character names. —Pengo (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pedantically, even if this was first used in the fictional universe doesn't mean it originates from the fictional universe; the subsequent uses could have been coined independently without being a reference to the usage in the show. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By this logic, we shouldn't have entries for unicorn, ray gun, or warp drive, as these these are all fictional/speculative things which exist only in fictional/speculative realms. Whether something is real or unreal has zero bearing on whether it's worthy of inclusion. Our mandate is "all words in all languages," not "all words for things that actually exist." Pairing smush names don't fall under WT:FICTION. They refer to elements from a fictional universe, but they're generally not taken directly from a fictional universe. Nor are they "names of persons or places from fictional universes." They're names for relationships (generally romantic or sexual) between characters. Not to mention, many, if not most, "ships" don't exist in canon. They don't exist in an established fictional universe, only in the imaginations of fans. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your examples of unicorn, ray gun, and warp drive exist in multiple distinct fictional universes, not just in a fictional universe. They would also all pass WT:FICTION for attributive use. "All words in all languages" is tempered by WT:CFI. In this case you need citations that are independent of reference to that universe (emphasis in original document), i.e. find citations that nothing to do with the show or its fanfic. Fanfic and fan commentary is not "independent" of the show. In fact, it's very much dependent, as it references the same characters of the TV show when it uses the term sharmy. Exactly the same rules as apply as for lightsaber or Darth Vader. Those terms pass. Shamy fails. Who coined the word is, again, utterly irrelevant. —Pengo (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The logic used by Pengo is WT:FICTION. The terms unicorn, ray gun, and warp drive have numerous instances of use made independently of whatever fictional universes they each came from.
 * As a style issue, should fan-jargon like "ship" be part of our definitions? Seems a bit urban to me. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest it's okay as long as the sense has the "fandom" gloss: this makes it clear enough what sort of ship is meant. Equinox ◑ 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's clear. I am disapproving, not bewildered. Choor monster (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Pengo. Finding citations of Janto or Snapefic that do not reference Torchwood or Harry Potter, respectively, would be impossible, as those fictional universes are inherent to the meanings of the terms in question. That's not what "independent of reference to [a fictional] universe" was intended to mean. It was not intended to exclude fandom slang that references elements from fictional universe. It was intended to cover words and names that originate directly from a fictional universe, to prevent mainspace from being crowded with crufty entries for jargon from Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. In order to support the existence of an entry for Muggle, one would need to find citations independent of reference to the fictional universe from which the term originates, i.e. not citations from the Harry Potter novels, the series of films based on the novels, books about the novels, etc. A hypothetical scene in a sitcom in which one character declares, "Stand back, Muggle, this is a job for a real computer expert" would count, as it would be an example of taking a term from the Harry Potter novels (a fictional universe) and using it in a way that doesn't directly reference those novels. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly zero words "originate directly from a fictional universe", because a fictional universe does not create new words. People do. I disagree with what you believe WT:FICTION intends. In my opinion, Janto should indeed be deleted because it is exactly the kind entry we do not want, whether it was created by the TV writers or the fans: It describes a concept that is only relevant to a single universe and has no meaning in English outside of that discussion of that universe. And this is what WT:FICTION intends to weed out: Words with no broader meaning, i.e. what you call "cruft". Snapefic gets a pass because it is not a fictional person or concept. —Pengo (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Terms originating in fictional universes" is the wording used in WT:CFI. I definitely think that wording could be changed to better communicate the concept in question ("terms originating from works of fiction and used exclusively within these works of fiction"?), but the implication that fictional universes can somehow generate words is CFI's fault, not mine. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I realise, which is why I was focusing on it, and showing that it needs interpretation. I agree that wording could be better. —Pengo (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seems there is agreement that the existing WT:FICTION is less than clear for this type of construction, and as such, it would be better to have a general rethink of what we want rather than just wikilawyer our way to a no-consensus keep.  In general, fictional universe ontology poses some interesting philosophical questions, see  for a by-now classic discussion.  People here are just shooting from their hips as if it's black-and-white.
 * Note that fanfic is not particularly new, just way more common and visible nowadays. What is the boundary of a fictional universe?  Do we, for example, count The Aeneid as part of Homer's universe?  Do we distinguish between Canon and non-Canon?  Do we care if the author named something first?  (Shamy vs Shenny illustrates both questions, which is why there seems to be three opinions above.)  Consider the thousands of latter-day additions to Alice, Sherlock, Oz, Conan.  (From Sherlock/Irene or Johnlock shipping to Oz threeway slash, it's all there somewhere.)  As an example of how this would matter, we ought to be clear whether a review of non-Canon is "independent" of the originating fictional universe (or rephrase our guideline). Choor monster (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)