Talk:Xena

So what happened in January 2006 seeing how it's June now?

Adam H, June 19, 2006


 * The proper definition of planet is pending a decision by the International Astronomical Union. See 2003 UB313. Rod (A. Smith) 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for verification
Rfv-sense “By extension, a tough, kick-ass woman”. Earlier discussion at WT:RFD. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 17:54 z 
 * I've added one of the two good quotes I found on b.g.c. However, this would be a common noun, I believe.  So, if the term is attested, then it should have the part of speech changed, and presumably the definition will also need to be corrected, since removal of the "warror princess" definition would leave:
 * A nickname for 2003 UB313, a trans-Neptunian pluton.
 * (informal, by extension) A tough, kick-ass woman.
 * ...and that just wouldn't make much sense. This is one very good reason why definitions should be written as independent entities, and not rely on the preceding definition. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite right, and templates like “by extension” should be nuked and replaced with good copy-writing. I've restructured the entry. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 18:41 z 
 * Thank you for the editing, but I disagree about nuking that template. It's extremely useful when used correctly. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you reveal your secrets at template talk:by extension? —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 23:01 z 
 * Because they're secrets. If I told everybody, then they wouldn't be secret anymore :P --EncycloPetey 04:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've so far added two citations for the proper noun and three for the common noun definitions. --EncycloPetey 04:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cited with five quotes. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2000 citation under Proper noun might also be added here. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:37 z 

“Cited”
It's premature to unilaterally approve your own quotations and close the discussion. The 2005 citation supports “a tall, muscular woman,” not “tough, physical, confidant,” and 2006 supports “a brazen woman.” 1999 supports “fierce.”

Three allusive citations of “a Xena” do not give this generic meaning. The name only means “having qualities of the titular character of Xena: Warrior Princess.” It means different things to people who have seen the show, and nothing at all to the rest of the anglosphere. —Michael Z. 2010-04-19 21:29 z 

Xena
“(informal) Xena: Warrior Princess, a television series which aired from 1995 to 2001.” Let's not start a catalogue of TV series. —Michael Z. 2010-04-06 20:14 z 
 * I'd have deleted it on sight. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 01:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it from the TV series (which had no chance of passing) to its main character. Xena is common enough to represent a tough woman. Searches such as "tough as Xena", "looks like Xena" etc, show some usage.  "What would Xena do" is even a bumper sticker.  Keep as modified.--Dmol 06:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "tough as Xena", "looks like Xena", "What would Xena do"? Fictional characters do not meet CFI, regardless of how well known. If a term was derived from a fictional character, the term may be kept, like in the case of Darth Vader. Do you think that "a Xena" meaning "a tough kick-ass woman" is in common usage? --Yair rand 06:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I think.--Dmol 08:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dmol, your sample quotations are direct references to the character. Can you provide a citation showing that Xena means “a tough woman?” —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 15:29 z 


 * Add that definition, if attestable, and delete this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, sending that one to RFV; let's still delete this one. —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 17:52 z 


 * RE Yair rand: Not true. CFI says clearly "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning."  So, if the name of the show's main character can be shown to have attributive use with a widely understood meaning, then the entry meets CFI requirements.  I've added two supporting quotes already. --EncycloPetey 07:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but interpretations of “with a widely understood meaning” vary wildly. Obviously that qualifier is important, otherwise the rule would just end with “used attributively.” I believe this requires a distinct meaning from the referent, as in “a tough, confident woman” and not “the main character in ....” I would also prefer “widely understood” to be taken as having meaning completely independent of the referent, i.e., people know what a xena is even if they've never seen or heard of Xena: Warrior Princess. Otherwise, calling me a Xena is just a pop-culture reference to a TV show, not the use of an established word. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 23:29 z 


 * Unfortunately, language itself seldom makes those distinctions, especially where new coinages derive from those cultural references. I suspect that if we were living in 1610 instead of 2010, we'd be arguing whether or not Shakespeare's cultural influence meritted inclusion. --EncycloPetey 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno. OED's first attested Romeo appears 170 years after the Bard's tale. Landau (2001:211–13) identifies how language does make those distinctions. He calls such specific references “allusive words,” that “have not developed a separate generic sense.” He says that, although they are very common, they are not understood by readers who have no knowledge of the source, they tend to have different meanings for different people, and don't last long in the lexicon. He gives the examples of Watergate and Teapot Dome (a 1922 US scandal whose name used to appear in dictionaries). —Michael Z. 2010-04-11 02:28 z 
 * Delete, it's in the etymology for Xena, which is where it should stay. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sense removed. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)