Talk:Woody Woodpecker

2010 RFV discussion
Cites please, as other than encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 12:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you cannot impose rules that are of your own design. CFI states that, "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." If this is what you meant by "other than encyclopedic" I would suggest that it is highly misleading. DAVilla 20:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you mean RFD? Clear widespread use I'd have thought. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What non-encyclopedic definition might this have? For Donald Duck we have cites that show use of the term conveying meaning relating to the voice of said character. The laugh of this character might be an attribute or possibly the appearance (See below.). DCDuring TALK 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this usage fits either sense given:
 * 1999, Briony Penn, A Year on the Wild Side,
 * Nuthatches, owls, squirrels, martens, raccoons and bats — you name it, they rely on old Woody Woodpecker to open up the holes for their nests.
 * The Pileated Woodpecker, the elusive but spectacular king of woodpeckers, is the archetypical Woody Woodpecker.
 * —Pingku 13:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the first involves no distinctive attribute of "Woody" as opposed to any woodpecker. The second suggests the distinctive appearance (pronounced red crested head) of the character, which is more familiar to many than the Pileated woodpecker on whom the character was modeled. I am not sure that a focus on usage invoking distinctive attributes of the individuals will prove entirely satisfactory, but it hews closely to the quaint notion that we are a dictionary that complements and does not compete with WP and other sister projects. DCDuring TALK 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? CFI states only that the term must be used attributively, not that a distinctive characteristic be indicated attributively. If you're going to argue the latter, then you'll have to explain what specific quality the following quotations ascribe:
 * "Irabu had hired Nomura, a manwho, as we have seen, was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball."
 * "our childrenlooked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan."
 * DAVilla 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely my problem. In the absence of a particular meaning, who can say what this means (Darth Vader: bete noir? eminence grise? bad actor? guy with funny voice?)? What do we contribute that WP does not have? One can only refer the user to Darth Vader where s/he can (or maybe not) figure it for him/herself. We have pedia links, including for items that have no includable sense, to accomplish that. By focusing on those items that have a definable meaning, we can thus maintain a relatively simple bright-line distinction between included and excluded items within each class of presumptively excluded (for now) proper nouns. I would not want to depend on a single construction (such as "the [proper noun] of") to maintain a similar bright line. DCDuring TALK  22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a wonderful idea, the more I think of it, but if you require a characteristic for citations but cannot determine one in either of the two quotes above, then your reading of CFI must be wrong because both quotations were taken from CFI as examples that would permit the linked words. DAVilla 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a wonderful idea, the more I think of it, but if you require a characteristic for citations but cannot determine one in either of the two quotes above, then your reading of CFI must be wrong because both quotations were taken from CFI as examples that would permit the linked words. DAVilla 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Extremely easily cited several times beyond requirement from just the first few pages of Google Books. I would do more except I think the point is already made. This could just as easily have been clearly widespread knowledge. Minus three brownie points for you. DAVilla 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thank you. --Daniel. 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 RFD discussion
—Ruakh TALK 02:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to list Woody Woodpecker here? --Daniel. 02:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd like to see it deleted, because I don't think it's dictionary material, and WT:CFI doesn't give us objective criteria to definitively keep or delete it. (If it were completely unciteable, or unciteable per WT:FICTION, then we could objectively delete it, but it's definitely not the former, and apparently not the latter.) Does that count as a reason to list it here, or had you rather I just speedied it? —Ruakh TALK 02:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, we don't define TV series, movies, etc. and I remember speedying some before that were entered by newbies. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But then again, this term has valid citations.... —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, see Ruakh's comment, above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Category:Artistic works contains other artistic works. --Daniel. 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete specific TV shows and characters. Equinox ◑ 10:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An instructive comparison might be a page like Colonel Blimp:. So rewrite & keep if we can do something similar, ie move the current definitions to the Etymology section and have a definition which is more semantic, if citations support it. Otherwise delete. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 10:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most terms that aren't dictionary material are gonna be attestable. Citations don't really help. This is no different from Desperate Housewives for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very different from "Desperate Housewives" which as far as I can tell would be difficult just to cite out of context. Several of the citations you're dismissing are not only far enough out of context to meet WT:BRAND but are also metaphorical use. Delete Woody Woodpecker as the series, keep the cartoon character. DAVilla 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see which citations are supposed to address WT:BRAND.
 * Citations could show some specific meaning(s), not merely supporting a definition that is essentially a link to the WP article.
 * Two-part proper nouns were not part of the apparent consensus on the straw poll. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just about anything can be used as a metaphor. WT:BRAND shouldn't overrule "not dictionary material, see WT:CFI". Seems like Wikipedia is happy to delete unencyclopedic stuff, Wikisource will delete things that aren't source texts, Wikiquote will delete things that aren't quotations, but we are very reluctant to delete non-lexical terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Loren D. Estleman (2000), Gerald Petievich (2001), Mockingbird Foundation (2004), Gary Giddins (2004), Thomas Urquhart (2006), Randi Reisfeld (2007), and Tana French (2008) don't seem to indicate at all what Woody Woodpecker is.
 * Sorry, which straw poll are you referring to? I have yet to see anyone object to Big Bad Wolf, Little Red Riding Hood, Prince Charming, Santa Claus, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, or Tom Thumb. Some others that have been contested, like Foxy Loxy, were kept in the end.
 * This is a reminder to myself to read your notes at WT:RFV. DAVilla


 * Just an observation: all of the characters you (DAVilla) listed there are old folk-tale characters, whereas Woody Woodpecker is a modern entity made for commercial material. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please point out any difference between these two groups of characters ("old folk-tale characters" and "modern [entities] made for commercial material"), for the purpose of including or excluding them from Wiktionary? According to Wikipedia, Sleeping Beauty is from 1697 and Woody Woodpecker is from 1940. My personal perception is merely that both are pretty old, while I simply don't see a clear correlation between age and worth as dictionary material.
 * In addition, I suppose the criterion of "made for commercial material" is also not strictly important at all; while I don't speak for you, I humbly assume you wouldn't favor fictional characters of modern works written in public domain. --Daniel. 20:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * God, I freaking hate being sideswiped like that! For the record, I was not saying that modern commercial entities are okay because older folk-tale characters are okay. I hate having to defend my argument by pointing out something so stupid. There is a lot of merit to applying stricter rules like WT:BRAND to Woody Woodpecker. My comment specifically addressed DCDuring when he said that "two-part proper nouns were not part of the apparent consensus on the straw poll". I don't remember any such straw poll unless he was talking about the one for historic individuals, and this list clearly demonstrates that those results cannot be applied here, that fictional characters cannot be rejected on the grounds of multipart names alone. To directly address my point, your comment would only make sense if you opposed, more specifically, commercial characters that had multipart names. But per your distaste for Pokemon as well, I doubt that's how you intended it. Rather, my point was addressed indirectly, flawing a list of examples without countering the argument. If you follow the thread of reasoning when reading the post, please do so in your responses as well. Yes, we know commercial characters are contentious. I was not trying to claim otherwise. DAVilla 08:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to have translations for cartoon characters though. Mutante 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

deleted. -- Prince Kassad 17:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * undeleted. A meaning of Citations:Woody Woodpecker specifically meets WT:FICTION, not to mention the possibility of other meanings being attestable. --Daniel. 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The debate here was whether to keep the entry, even acknowledging that it's attested pr FICTION, debating whether it's dictionary material. See, for example, Ruakh's comment, above, from 02:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC). Restoring it, against both consensus and another admin's closure, on the basis of cites, is completely out of line, Daniel. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual definitions provided looked encyclopedic to me, whatever might be possible in an ideal world given sufficient well-selected and -arranged citations and a skilled definer. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Woody Woodpecker
Move to undelete, based on some discussion at Requests for deletion/Non-English, the citations page (Citations:Woody Woodpecker) seems to have citations that could make the entry pass WT:FICTION after all. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 15:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are the definitions which were in the deleted entry (for those curious, and those who cannot look):


 * 1) An animated series made by Walter Lantz, beginning in 1941 and starring an anthropomorphic acorn woodpecker.
 * 2) The fictional anthropomorphic acorn woodpecker who is the protagonist and title character of the series.
 * There are also a few translations. - TheDaveRoss  12:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Undelete, the Category:en:Fictional characters already contains quite many fictional characters, and Woody Woodpecker is just as notable as some of them. 193.210.225.180 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The test is not the notability of the character, but whether the name is used as a word (i.e. to convey meaning beyond just identifying the character itself). bd2412 T 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Chignon – Пучок 08:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep/undelete per nom, that is, given WT:FICTION and Citations:Woody Woodpecker. Furthermore, the existence of Finnish translation Nakke Nakuttaja shows there is going to be at least one interesting translation, so beyond the policy, the entry is going to feature interesting lexicographical material. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I count 4 undeletes (Surjection, Sonofcawdrey, 193.210.225.180 and Dan Polansky), and 2 deletes (Equinox, Chignon). However, I am unhappy counting anons into the tally, and the argument provided by the anon ("notability") had no bearing on WT:CFI; on the other hand, the previous deletion seems to have been despite CFI's provision for fictional characters (Talk:Woody Woodpecker). It would be good to have more input. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted or move to RFV. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No consensus to restore despite extended discussion. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 18:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)