Talk:Uncle Scrooge

RfD
Disney character; unlike Mickey Mouse, very unlikely to have any generic sense. Equinox ◑ 14:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Found cites and corrected the definition. —Michael Z. 2009-05-16 16:43 z 


 * New sense looks fairly promising, despite a couple of citations with quotation marks, but the 1977 cite refers to an "Uncle Scrooge Money Bin" (a specific thing from the cartoon series, not something belonging to a "rich miser"), so perhaps that one should go. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Move it to the citations page rather than just deleting. Even if it is not a perfectly qualifying citation for CFI, it may demonstrate how the term is used or contribute to the history of its adoption (or that of another term).  You'll notice that in Schraeder 2005, it appears once in quotation marks, but later without, demonstrating that the author introduces it self-consciously, but then just uses it.  In the “Money Bin” citation I would argue that Uncle Scrooge is used to introduce the Money Bin, so readers who don't understand the direct reference to the second term would still get the gist of it from the mention of the first.  Also notable is that the very first citation may be a transcription of speech. —Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:19 z 


 * Well, I won't kick up a fuss about the one citation. Closing my own RFD, because the newly created sense seems dictionary-worthy. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good rewrite--Jackofclubs 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Michael Z. 2009-05-16 22:19 z 
 * Keep as rewritten and cited. --Dmol 21:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is good too (okay, excellent), but what's wrong with the original definition? (edit:) Why not keep that as well? DAVilla 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. I don't know if it is possible to find citations which meet CFI's requirement for attributive use and also support a definition of Uncle Scrooge as the cartoon duck.  The subject sounds encyclopedic and non-lexicographical to me.  In my opinion, the etymology and Wikipedia link already have all the encyclopedic details we need.  But only the quotations will tell for sure.
 * Should we RfV all of the Disney characters for consistency? —Michael Z. 2009-05-21 14:47 z 


 * I think they would all pass, that is, the major characters that we already include. I don't know what to make of attributive use, but it is cited according to both that and the proposed criterion of metaphoric use as well. DAVilla 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck after adding back original sense. Keep. DAVilla 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? There are no quotations concerning cartoon ducks. —Michael Z. 2009-05-26 04:40 z 


 * What good would that do? Do you really doubt this is what it means when not in metaphor? The only question is if it's "noteworthy" enough to keep, in the sense that it has entered the lexicon. Clearly it has. DAVilla 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Noteworthiness doesn't enter into WT:CFI. It says “attributively, with a widely understood meaning,” which describes sense 2, not 1.  Barack Obama is noteworthy too, but the person and and the duck don't belong in the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2009-05-27 03:27 z 


 * Thank you for stating the complete obvious. I though that a term entering the lexicon would be a compelling reason to include it, but you've just forged a rock solid rationale on what must be the most contested, ambiguous, and outdated section of CFI. I feel it almost a complete waste to make arguments that aren't taken into consideration in the slightest, other than to be dismissed out of hand. You position I will grant you is totally consistent with itelf, but not consistent with the fact that there are a great number of specific people, characters, and the like on Wiktionary already. If you disagree with this then please vote against my proposal and be done with it. Oh, and you might have to ignore Google Book hits like "Barack Obama supporter" and "Uncle Scrooge comic book". I'm not sure why you might find those sorts of quotations the least bit interesting, but they do meet the holy criterion of CFI section 32 verse 1. DAVilla 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The last two are direct references to the specific entities. An Uncle Scrooge comic book is a comic book about Uncle Scrooge.  It is a mention of the actual (fictional) duck, not the use of a word stemming from the duck's name; it's as useful for CFI as “Uncle Scrooge said ‘quack.’”  A person being mentioned, even a lot, is not the same as their name “entering the lexicon,” that is becoming a word in the language. —Michael Z. 2009-05-30 02:31 z 


 * I agree completely (and not being sarcastic as I partly was above). Although I believe Uncle Scrooge has entered the lexicon, the quotation of "Uncle Scrooge comic book" does not support that assertion. It does however illustrate the literal sense that you disputed, and attributively so, where by attributive I mean in the grammatical sense of modifying a noun. I don't think this is a very good way to judge terms, hence the vote. If you can exemplify another use of attributive then by all means suggest that instead. The examples we have though are not applicable to the types of information we do include. As noted elsewhere, Empire State Building was given as an example of what we do not include until we voted to keep it after all, and you should also know that there are many types of fictional characters included besides just Disney. DAVilla 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly do know. That guideline needs clarification, but perhaps not any substantial change (at least if we can agree on what it means).  Also, the examples aren't helping with this.


 * “A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning.” I believe this means something like “with a widely understood meaning, independent of its referent.”  I think it is often applied this way.  Does that sum it up?  Is that an improved wording? —Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:19 z 
 * No mention of Charles Dickens?

Request for deletion
"The novel by J. M. Barrie.", "The eponymous protagonist of the novel". The attributive use is given as the third sense, so no need for these. --Yair rand 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need an RFD for a sense. Edit the entry. -  00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Individual senses don't need an RFD? Then why in the world do we have ? --Yair rand 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As with the entirety of RFD, it is for debatable deletions. These aren't debatable, they are clearly outside the CFI: 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.. -  00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We've already got the "dictionary sense", which is a man who hasn't grown up. We aren't here to document literature. Equinox ◑ 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * deleted. - 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tinkerbell
"A fairy, a companion of Peter Pan, who depends on the faith of others to live." Again, attributive use is given in a different sense, so no need for this. --Yair rand 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Peter Pan above: we have the sense that isn't the specific character, and she can be mentioned in the etymology. Equinox ◑ 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * deleted. - 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Scrooge
One more. --Yair rand 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * deleted. - 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)