Talk:Marilyn Monroe

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

The definition is semi-abstract, but the only quotation refers directly to the person. —Michael Z. 2009-09-21 05:33 z

I sort of think delete, but I feel pretty sure that this meets WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep if properly cited. The example given does not convey what I think the contributor wanted, as it refers to the specific person, not the algory of that person.--Dmol 23:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited, so kept. Anyone disagree? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–April 2018

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Marilyn Monroe

The current quotes aren't a good proof of usage. All are examples of attributive use, and in my view they refer to the real person. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've added three citations for the plural. I'm pretty sure there was only one of the real person. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still not convinced... I think we're going to disagree all along on how to interpret these cites, and thus I don't know if it's an RFV or RFD matter. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

    Why would attributive use of a noun disqualify the cite? Is that in WT:CFI or WT:ATTEST? DCDuring (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

    I think the point is that they could also be attributive use of the proper noun Marilyn Monroe instead. But I think SemperBlotto's new cites are good and support the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

    To DCDuring: No it's not, but methinks it should (as well as notes on the fact that words used in italics or between quote marks are somewhat mention-y).

    To Lingo Bingo Dingo and DCDuring: Yes. The attributive position has a tendency to erase certain distinctions (cf. the frequent mistaking of nouns in attributive position for adjectives).

    I'm not saying all cites displaying an attributive use should necessarily be disqualified, but that we shouldn't have only that type of cites (or it means that something's up). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

    How about the ones on Citations:Marilyn Monroe? DCDuring (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

    @Per utramque cavernam That sounds like a proposal for a policy overhaul. I'm somewhat sympathetic to your point, but I would not support a change like that. It's worth noting that "conveying meaning" could be used in weeding out the ambiguous cases. Anyway, I have added a few more cites, of which one falls outside the current definition. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Yes, you're right that the "conveying meaning" part makes all the difference; a quote like this one thus seems fundamentally valid. I guess what I'd argue for would be the compulsory use of labels like "rare" or "nonstandard", or the addition of some usage notes, when all or most of the quotes are of that type.

    What I'm really bothered with are cases such as this one; I don't see anything in our policy that forbids us from creating a French ager entry (which in fact exists), but it's imo very wrong (which is why I've RFV'ed that entry). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• No particular preference on the entry itself, but I do agree that the current quotes are bad, and obviously all refer to the actual Marilyn Monroe. Ƿidsiþ 06:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I have rearranged the quotes, moving in some from the citations page that look more generic to me, and moving the ones that seem to refer to the actual Marilyn Monroe back to the citations page. At this point it looks cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Why have we upped the ugliness score of this entry by having the silly "References" to what is perfectly obvious? DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)