Talk:Winnie the Pooh

We already had most of his buddies (see "See also" -section), so I thought that Winnie should have an article of his own. Personally I think that fictional characters should be banned from Wiktionary, but if they are not, we should at least have the major ones. Hekaheka 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RFV discussion
This, along with Christopher Robin, Eeyore, Owl, Piglet, and Tigger, all seem to be fictional characters. Does this belong on Wiktionary? --Yair rand 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Some fictional characters have attributes that are well known, and their names become a kind of shorthand for those attributes.  We ought to investigate to see whether these have come to be used that way, but it is certainly possible. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the obvious attributive meanings for Eeyore and Tigger, but I'm not sure what they would be for the others, and for all of the ones except Christopher Robin, the words are so common it makes searching difficult. Dominic·t 06:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. —Michael Z. 2009-08-19 08:39 z 


 * Yes, very nice. However, we now clearly need unbounce. (-) Robert Ullmann 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. Feel free to RFV the others separately. —Ruakh TALK 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recreated
The entry has been recreated, with four citations referring to the series, and four citations referring to the bear. I believe WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION have been met in each instance. Choor monster (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2022–January 2023
Rfd-sense "An English children's book series and the spun-off Disney franchise, involving several anthropomorphic animals, named for the bear character." The quotes here are not a valid reason to keep it. Yes, they're references outside of the fictional context, but any series or franchise could be used this way. There are no figurative or idiomatic uses here; "Winnie-the-Pooh wallpaper" just means "wallpaper with a Winnie the Pooh theme/styling etc.", where Winnie the Pooh could be replaced by anything else. Therefore those quotes are not a reason to keep this entry. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 08:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sense 2 "The bear from the series, noted for his sweet, simple nature, and his love of honey" is likewise suspect. If it has appropriate figurative uses, the definition should be reworded and the reference should be detailed in the etymology section. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 08:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the literal definition. The non-literal quotations show that the literal definition can be kept. There is nothing in WT:FICTION to require us to remove literal definitions. The translations are likely to fit the literal definition. The literal definition can be expanded to indicate qualities that are likely to be picked up by non-literal uses. The literal definition still correctly matches the literal uses of the term, and those are valid uses. The requirement of non-literal use is there to limit inclusion of such terms but does not require us to abandon literal definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The applicable text of the policy: "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." So we need uses out of context in an attributive sense. Such quotations are in the entry, as far as I can tell, so the fictional character is already attested as required.
 * As for "they're references outside of the fictional context, but any series or franchise could be used this way", that argument admits the quotes meet the policy and then dismisses it anyway; it seems to be a CFI override, invoking slippery slope and apparently criticizing the policy for having a requirement that "any series or franchise" could satisfy. The policy does not require any "idiomatic" or "figurative" uses of the book series sense. The argument is made outside of the policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the policy seriously does not prevent entries like this, the policy needs to be changed. It is completely bonkers to allow encyclopedic material, such as names of fictional franchises, on the basis that they are used in expressions like "X wallpaper". &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That part of the policy needs to be changed, then, because otherwise there's nothing stopping us from becoming a duplicate of Wikipedia. I could easily find citations for phrases like "Friday the 13th poster", "Homestuck shirt", "Peppa Pig pajamas", or "Star Wars: Episode III video game", but that doesn't make any of those titles dictionary material. Literally any work title can be used this way. Binarystep (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting one; it's true that virtually any media franchise can be found in phrases like "_ wallpaper", "_ poster", e.g.
 * If this would allow any and every book title, movie title, TV show title, etc in, then we may need to consider the spirit of the policy. Like how "no individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic", but in some countries and time periods, like Indonesia, millions of people only have single names, so technically, by the letter we'd have millions of entries defined as random non-notable specific individuals if they ever got mentioned 3x in their local paper or (since we allow online cites now) blogs, but by what the policy actually means... - -sche (discuss) 17:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But as others have said, I don't think this is governed by FICTION anyway, as the name of a series doesn't originate inside the fictional universe of the series. And although it's a very popular series, its existence as a series still seems better covered in the etymology section than as a sense, so delete the challenged (book series) sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But as others have said, I don't think this is governed by FICTION anyway, as the name of a series doesn't originate inside the fictional universe of the series. And although it's a very popular series, its existence as a series still seems better covered in the etymology section than as a sense, so delete the challenged (book series) sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could find cites like this for literally any fictional franchise. The fact that a title is mentioned in a sentence doesn't mean it's being used as a word. Binarystep (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this helps, but I think there's another sense, borrowed from, where it is used as a derogatory nickname for Xi Jinping. It's probably citable using web sources (example). 70.172.194.25 23:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously, per Surjection, Binarystep and -sche. I think this is not even justified by sticking to the letter of the law of WT:FICTION because the title of a work is not a term "originating in fictional universes": nothing within the universe of Winnie the Pooh uses Winnie the Pooh to mean "An English children's book..." &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming the work/book does not originate in fictional universes--and that seems correct--the applicable policy for the nominated sense 1 is not WT:FICTION but rather WT:NSE. Therefore, the rationale's "Yes, they're references outside of the fictional context" fails to refer to the applicable policy. I think the book sense can be safely deleted provided the fictional character is kept. The deliberation should then be about which names of literary works we keep and which we delete, but the posts above present no such deliberation, not even a hint. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete the book sense. That's encyclopaedic information. (If people say "oh, she's such a "Winnie the Pooh!" that might be different.) Equinox ◑ 08:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To finalize and change my stance: Keep the book sense per WT:LEMMING: the sense is in Collins and dictionary.com. We do not need the sense if we keep the character sense, but keeping it does not do any harm, and WT:NSE allows keeping it. Removing it will not make the dictionary any better. LEMMING guards against overflood of multi-word names of literary works. Keep the character sense and keep it as literal sense: Collins has the literal sense and I do not see why we should not have it. This sense is not tagged in the mainspace, but is being discussed at the top as well, hence this position. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete . This is covered by WT:FICTION: 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. I'm not convinced we want the names of franchises, either. They're like brands, where they have to serve some generic purpose first. Theknightwho (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to be covered by it since the nominated sense is not for the name of a person or place unless one argues that the term also refers to a person sense and therefore WT:FICTION applies to another sense as well. What we want is another matter, and since the sense seems covered by WT:NSE, people may vote as they see fit without violating CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sense 2 is certainly covered by that line. Theknightwho (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-sense-deleted per consensus, the book series sense, not the bear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)