Talk:washing bear

RFV discussion: March–August 2016
The literal translation of raccoon in various languages is "washing bear". However, there's little evidence to suggest this name is used in English. --AK and PK (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I found two cites which seem to be more than just mentions:, . Einstein2 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The presence of quotation marks make them seem like less than full uses, though; especially in the second link where it's clearly simply glossing . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough citations:     to satisfy CFI it seems; even though originally a translation. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first and third cites are not visible to me. Could formatted versions be placed in the entry or its citations page? The other two seem to me to be mentions not uses, but I could be persuaded otherwise. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Try changing books.google.ro to books.google.com in the URL. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look for that kind of solution in the future. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding Sonofcawdrey's citations:
 * The first one (which is apparently quoting Einstein2's first citation) says "... since the dog of some early settler first treed a raccoon and the farmer's son discovered the excitement of shaking the 'washing bear' to the ground. ... When the first dog yelps, the little 'washing bear', one of Nature's comedians, pricks up his pointed ears and starts to travel." This looks like a use to me, though it is in quotation marks.
 * The second one is clearly a mention.
 * The third one says "This 'washing bear' or masked bandit has a long nosed and tailed cousin that lives in Texas." This sentence is a clue for a scavenger hunt, and the answer is presumably "raccoon".
 * I can't view the fourth one, but Google's excerpt that appears on the search results page looks like a mention: "Raccoons have been given the name washing bear."
 * The fifth one is clearly a mention.
 * Einstein2's second citation looks like a mention. So it looks to me like we have four mentions (Einstein2 2, Sonofcawdrey 2, Sonofcawdrey 4, Sonofcawdrey 5) and two dubious uses (Sonofcawdrey 1, Sonofcawdrey 3). —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I labeled this "rare", just in case it would pass the rfv. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi all - I found some other cites where "washing bears" is used as an article heading (in books on mammals) - I guess this counts as a use rather than a mention? - if so, I will add the non-mention citations to the entry, and three should be enough to conclude business.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Headline writers are hucksters. They are trying to get folks to buy the magazine, read the article, be influenced by the ads. One would expect them to abuse the reader in this way. And italics and quotes might interfere with the selling process. IOW, I don't think we should treat headlines as use. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my lack of clarity - they aren't headlines - they are chapter headings or article heading within the pages of books - so not really selling points of eyecatchers - sure, they may have the associated attraction of adding interest for the reader, but I can't see that that would disqualify them from being actual uses and not mentions, and since they are in wholly English-language books and are used to refer to the animals. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)