Talk:Scheherazade

RFD discussion: May–December 2020

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

Scheherazade

RFD-sense: A fictional character, the wife and storyteller of the king Shahryar in One Thousand and One Nights.

Should this sense exist in the English Wiktionary, in addition to sense "A female given name from Persian"? In “Scheherazade”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., a similar sense is in M-W[1], Lexico[2], and Collins[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep since we have the likes of Snow White which I suppose won't be going away any time soon. This is a name of long standing that literate people might well expect to encounter in passing while reading other texts ("it was like one of the tales of S~!, he said"). Equinox ◑ 15:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW the adjectives Scheherazadean and Scheherazadian exist. I'll create 'em. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep, although I wish we had some sort of objective notability criterion that we could apply to such cases. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We have WT:FICTION. Does the name comply with the policy? — SGconlaw (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's have a look: google books:"the Scheherazade of" looks very promising: "Thus, to put things succinctly, Mandelbrot, if not the Scheherazade of the natural order [...]", "This was none other than the Scheherazade of my dreams and imagination with her glorious and slender stature and her round radiant face and black eyes which emitted the legendary magic with which she tamed the beast.", "I'd mentioned some bizarre case history from Oliver Sacks, the Scheherazade of neurobiology, and he asked me—with real intensity—where I'd read it", "Angleton had become the Scheherazade of the Cold War". Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes mentions "[...] was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" as an example of out of universe use. Whether Scheherazade really originates in a fictional universe is another question; this fictional character seems to be imagined to exist in this universe, not a fictional one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"the Scheherazade of neurobiology" is fantastic (in the good sense) because it literally just means "storyteller" with no implication of telling stories to save your life, or to defer a fate (as in the Nights). So there has been dilution of the sense. BTW Sacks is great. Equinox ◑ 13:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've always thought a "fictional universe" doesn't have to mean one that is apart from the world we are in, or the universe occupied by planet Earth. It could be an imaginary place on Earth populated by imaginary people, or simply a community of fictional people living on Earth. Batman (a fictional character) occupies a fictional universe in that he lives in the fictional Gotham City which is somewhere on Earth. King Arthur and Merlin are fictional characters supposedly living in bygone Britain. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The policy says what it says. It says "names of persons or places from fictional universes" rather than "names of fictional people and fictional places", and it uses Harry Potter books, Tolkien's Middle Earth books, and the Star Wars films as examples. Middle-Earth is part of a fictional universe, the Earth is not, and Old Shatterhand is not a person from a fictional universe, by a plain sum-of-parts reading of "fictional universe". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that Harry Potter is set on Earth- he grew up in England, after all. The conceit is that it's all part of what we consider to be the real world, but that it's hidden from muggles like us by magic. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Along with the Marauder's Map and any sense of proportion. Equinox ◑ 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about Harry Potter; if the above is true, it would mean that WT:FICTION contradicts itself, or that for Harry Potter the world he lives in is considered to be "fictional universe"; after all, it is a universe full of magic, which this universe is not. By contrast, Harpagon is a fictional character that does not live in a fictional universe. I would say, if "names of fictional people and fictional places" is what is meant, put it to policy and be done with it. I think WT:FICTION is a rather unfortunate policy, and the broader its scope, the worse. For names of fictional characters not covered by WT:FICTION, we have WT:NSE, a time-tested policy that leaves things open-ended on the policy level. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're over-analyzing it. "Fictional universe" can just mean "alternative to reality". It doesn't have to literally be another universe in the scientific or philosophical sense. After all, Star Wars doesn't take place in another universe, but in a "galaxy far, far away". And I see no reason why it should have to be a different planet. That seems arbitrary to me. The spirit of CFI is quite clear. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Policies should be clear and be written in reasonably literal language. Let editors change the phrasing of the policy from "names of persons or places from fictional universes" to "names of fictional persons or fictional places" if that is what is intended. To me, "fictional universe" is a universe that is fictional and therefore, one that does not really exist rather than one that possibly exists yet with fictional characters moving in it. I will oppose such a change since I find WT:FICTION problematic and extending it to Scheherazade is not a good idea, in my view. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Now I see that "names of persons or places from fictional universes" is broken anyway. Since even if the universe of Sherlock Holmes is a fictional universe as some suggest, then London is a place from fictional universe (the place is not required by the phrase to be fictional, only the universe) and is subject to WT:FICTION. This cannot be the intention. Therefore, literal reading of WT:FICTION seems impossible anyway, and one has to read into (or edit into) the policy things that the policy does not say. Discarding WT:FICTION and replacing it with editor discretion should probably be considered, like "Inclusion or exclusion of attested names of fictional persons and fictional places is subject to editor discretion"; then, editors could use any tentative policy they like in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If this fails and "Jigglypuff" passes then let's slit our wrists. Equinox ◑ 17:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree that this cannot reasonably fail and "Jigglypuff" pass. Tharthan (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Classic character from folklore whose name is often brought up and encountered in literature. No different than King Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, Pied Piper, Sleeping Beauty etc. Tharthan (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep, IMO. As to whether this should be or is subject to FICTION: ehh. De facto we treat very old "fiction" different from modern stuff, e.g. we have Aeneas and (and indeed Aeneid) and Abednego whereas we wouldn't have the character Tom Riddle or the book title Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I consider Merlin and Scheherazade to be in the same boat as Aeneas. (I agree with Chuck that based on the use, in the text of WT:FICTION, of Harry Potter as an example of a "fictional universe", it's clear that fiction set on earth is still a "fictional universe".) - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear that fiction set on Earth is in a "fictional universe" since that is contrary to the usual meaning of "fictional universe". What it means is that, probably, WT:FICTION is broken, which is not surprising given how difficult it is for humans to write policies that are not broken. When interpreting WT:FICTION, it is upon the interpreter to decide whether to abide by the specification part of the policy or whether to use the Harry Potter example to override a common meaning of the term "fictional universe". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence for your belief about the usual meaning of "fictional universe", and I see plenty of evidence against it. As far as I have seen, "fictional universes" usually include universes of fiction set on Earth, like the MCU: google:"fictional universes" MCU finds plenty of references to the MCU as one of the most famous fictional universes, and it is set on Earth with battles being fought in New York City and characters referring to Starbucks and so on. Indeed, searching for examples via the phrases google books:"fictional universes like" and google books:"fictional universes such as" turns up many books naming universes of fiction set on Earth as fictional universes, and few books where the list happens not to name (but it is hard to conclude the author would definitively rule out) such universes:

• 1986, Thomas G. Pavel, Fictional Worlds, page 101:

  With respect to scope, we can construct a scalar typology ranging between maximal fictional universes, such as the universe of the Divine Comedy, and minimal universes, such as the world of Malone Dies.

• 2015, Torill Elvira Mortensen, Jonas Linderoth, Ashley ML Brown, The Dark Side of Game Play, page 88:

  This changed during the 1990s when Lego not only started producing toy products that were essentially imitations of specific, high-profile fictional universes such as the worlds of Star Wars, Disney, or Harry Potter movies […]

• 1998, Greg Cox, Battle On!: An Unauthorized, Irreverent Look at Xena, page 230:

  […] flashbacks to unrevealed chapters of Xena's past, hopeful projections of the Warrior Princess's future, crossover sagas blending the Xenaverse with other popular fictional universes such as those of Star Trek or Highlander, and […]

• 2017, Vanda Zajko, Helena Hoyle, A Handbook to the Reception of Classical Mythology:

  These are fictional universes like those of Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Who, or the Marvel Universe, in which multiply authored, serial and/or interconnecting narratives […] play out […]

• 2019, Vanessa Frangville, Gwennaël Gaffric, China’s Youth Cultures and Collective Spaces (naming two universes not set on earth, and one set on a fictionalized earth):

  […] and often on fictional universes, like Warcraft, Game of Thrones, DC Comics Universe, etc.

• 2018, Cynthia J. Miller, A. Bowdoin Van Riper, Terrifying Texts: Essays on Books of Good and Evil in Horror...:

  Likewise we pass the time with friends, in meaningless card games, or in fictional universes like Dostoevsky's […]

- -sche (discuss) 20:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:-sche: As per above, some authors do appear to use the phrase "fictional universe" in the way that I find contrary to plain sum of parts reading of "fictional universe". Let me ask: do you believe that each fictional character lives in fictional universe? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete the proper noun and add a common noun. Why are we including proper noun senses for fictional characters? By all means include common nouns derived from their characteristics; I'm glad for the noun sense at Darth Vader, because I truly did not understand what "becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball" at CFI/Fictional universes meant. But the page includes the proper noun with a pointless quote even though this is a dictionary. Benedict Arnold, although not fictional, is exactly what I think pages named for individuals should look like. The many examples for "the Scheherazade of" point to a common noun sense meaning "storyteller" which is all we should include on the page. We need to be more explicit about our treatment of proper nouns at WT:FICTION and individuals at WT:CFI#Names of specific entities.

Also, the last example at CFI/Fictional universe is terrible. "...who looked at us as if we had just announced that we were from the planet Vulcan." It doesn't refer to the characteristics of Vulcan or Vulcans in any way. She could have written "from the planet Zeepzorp" for the exact same effect. Ultimateria (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As for "Why are we including proper noun senses for fictional characters?", I don't see why we should not; other dictionaries do it, and translations are bound to these proper-noun senses. These senses make for a better dictionary. The criterion of "attributive sense" is in CFI to provide some filter to make exclusionists happy; it does not generate a common noun sense. Various attributive or metaphorical uses are going to pick different characteristics of the fictional character so there is not even a common-noun sense to be defined. I know no dictonary that defines "Scheherazade" via a common-noun definition. The above seems like a creative invention not bound with any lexicographical tradition known to man, and not based on any sources.

We have all sorts of names of fictional entities, including mythological creatures, and define them as proper nouns.

We have "Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany between 1933 and 1945" as a definition rather than a common-noun definition "a very evil man" or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete the character sense; keep any idiomatic sense. I agree with Ultimateria. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the above is based on policy, nor do I know of a dictionary that does what the above proposes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That is my understanding of the sentence from 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." Thus, say, Bazookaman may be defined out of context in an attributive sense as "a very strong man", but not as "an ABC comic character who wields a bazooka". But if I'm interpreting it wrongly, then I'm happy to be corrected. (@Ultimateria.) — SGconlaw (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence says that "[...] they [names of persons or places from fictional universes] shall not be included unless [...]"; thus, the sentence regulates names and not sense/definition lines. In particular, the sentence does not say that the "attributive sense" is what is to be placed on the definition line. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that if "used out of context in an attributive sense" is emphasized in that sentence, the attributive sense must be one of the senses (otherwise an editor would not be able to tell if WT:FICTION has been satisfied). But I accept that the sentence may not exclude adding the character sense as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The sentence does not say where the evidence of meeting the requirement should be placed, whether in the entry, on the entry talk page or elsewhere. The sentence as worded does not indicate that an attributive sense should be created in the mainspace. Furthermore, one might argue that these quotations can be put under the literal sense since these are metaphorical uses of that literal sense, but that is not clear and is open to discussion. It is not clear to me why a Wiktionary regulation should propose to do in a Scheherazade entry definition what other dictionaries having Scheherazade entry do not do; of course it might, but then if it intends to deviate from common dictionary practice concerning these kinds of entries, it should be very clear and explicit about it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Strong keep. This meets WP:FICTION, as hundreds of writers have used the name (the adjective Scheherazadean was even given at the National Spelling Bee several years ago) without naming 1,001 Arabian Nights. Khemehekis (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that there are adjectives, etc., based on a fictional character or real person is by itself justification for also including the character or person. For example, the fact that Leonardeschi and Lessepsian exist as words does not, in my view, support the inclusion of Leonardo da Vinci and Ferdinand de Lesseps in the Wiktionary. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on that point. However, I would be OK with Leonardo defined as "Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci". Scheherazade, though, is a one-word name, and those are kept. We couldn't have a Ferdinand de Lesseps entry for the same reason we couldn't have a Walt Disnet entry. Khemehekis (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)