Talk:Snoopy

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

Snoopy

Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See Citations:Snoopy. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Passes. I do hope, Yair and everyone else, that you look for citations (at least cursorily) before RFVing.​—msh210℠ 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this considered cited? "Snoopy eyes", "Snoopy look"? These are "attributive cites"?? --Yair rand 22:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: these citations do not fulfil the CFI. Four citations refer to four different attributes of Snoopy: sad-looking, roughly-drawn, enigmatic, and surprised, respectively. But in each one the writer has had to explain the relationship; in none does the word Snoopy convey this meaning. The only definition the citations attest to is (adj.) “of or relating to Snoopy.” So this is just a plain attributive use of the name, not an English word having any “widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 21:33 z

As you know, CFI makes no attempt to, and never has attempted to, explain what "used attributively means", and I certainly don't know. This is why I don't nominate specific entries for RFV as nobody knows what a pass or a fail is. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Read attributive. The attributive use of a noun is well defined, both in and out of the context of a dictionary, and not at all controversial. That a few editors don't know what it means is a different sort of problem.

What I do know is that editors get fixated on attributive use, and completely ignore the requirement that the attributive use have “a widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 22:04 z

There are different issues. Firstly, these names are not just proper names. They are brand names, for which we have somewhat different standards. The first issue is inclusion. The second issue is meaning. The attributive use standard is required to warrant inclusion of a sense other than a bare name without a referent (eg. Ford as a brand name for a car vs. "Ford" as a surname and given name). For a brand name there is the specific question of there having been a prior mention of the noun. As to the determination of the sense, it would be helpful to be able to suggest what is typically evoked by the mention of the name, but that is not always abundantly clear. In such cases, we are left with the proper noun tout court and must leave it the citations to provide usage examples for the en-wikt user to infer what it might mean in any specific case.

It is not explicit in WT:CFI that all of the attributive citations must be of any one specific sense to allow for inclusion. I don't recall it ever having been interpreted that way. But it would be sensible to require multiple attestations before including some specific attributive sense.

It is often the case that the attributes evoked by brand names are rather hard to pin down, partially because they change over time, but also because they operate in emotion space. If this is too complicated, then we can dispense with a portion of our extended slogan ("All senses from all times of all words [read "terms"] in all (official) languages") to make it more easy for us to operate with the talent available. I would by no means object to dispensing with any definition for a proper noun that referenced a specific individual. They all seem to be encyclopedic. We can readily direct users to a certain encyclopedia that we know of to find all the specific bearers of a name word. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about attributive use and the Ford example. That citing “a Ford car” makes it a common noun? So then do the diverse ”Snoopy ___” quotations satisfy the rule in your view? The don't convey any “widely understood meaning” to me, and we seem to have fallen back on “defining” the word by identifying its eponym—substituting etymology for lack of any definition.

It looks like the brand names rule only applies to physical objects (although all trademarks should still be labelled). But we should consider the fictional universes rule, which has a special clause for names. I infer from it that we shouldn't define Snoopy as the dog in Peanuts cartoons. If the word is sufficiently cited out-of-universe, then why the heck can't we define it out-of-universe?

“With a widely understood meaning” tells me that the noun Casanova is rightly defined in the figurative sense. And that entries like Daisy Duck and Snoopy, which we claim to be English words but are unable to define as such, don't meet this criterion. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 00:55 z

Ford: I offered this as an example of a trademark that we have included based on attributive use. I didn't think that we wanted to abandon settled precedent, laboriously worked out, merely because some currently active contributors weren't involved in those discussions. (That is not to say that we should not reevaluate it at BP.) What PoS it (and its cousins) should have makes my head hurt. Accordingly, I leave such matters to the professionals or to more gifted amateurs than me.

We do seem to include service marks such as those of some retailers Mickey D and airlines too. I don't see why we should carry the water of trademark holders. Let them protect their own purported intellectual property. Clearly in the case of Snoopy the word is used out of universe in all four citations (and without explanation in three). I have trouble defining many words and often leave {{rfdef}} tags so others can join the fun. To me "Snoopy" seems to have a meaning something like "doggishly soulful". But, then, I'm a dog person.

I have no truck with the entry for Daisy Duck, though, come to think of it, there might be some usage in feminist circles. Older words (like Casanova) seem to have more settled meaning, perhaps because they gained that meaning in slower-moving times or because it has ossified. We have many entries that do not bear very satisfactory definitions because they are used in evocative ways. I think of Category:English degree adverbs, especially but not limited to the vulgar ones. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, function words like frikkin’ defy substitutable definition. Sometimes you just have to write “an intensifier.”

All four Snoopy quotes are references to the specific dog Snoopy, in the specific universe of Peanuts (and only as drawn by Charles Schulz!). They aren't invoking some conventional attributes of “a snoopy,” for example. The dialogue is not between Lucy and Linus, but they refer to that Snoopy, not some other one.

All four incorporate explanations. If they merely said “beagles with snoopy eyes,” “my daughter calls these snoopy eyes,” “giving her snoopy look,” and “gives the patient a snoopy look,” then you'd have no idea that they meant four different things: “soulful,” “simply-drawn,” “enigmatic,” and “surprised,” respectively (at least two pointedly do not mean “doggishly soulful”). Snoopy does not carry the meaning conveyed, it only refers you to Schulz's drawing, so you get an impression of which kind of enigmatic, and only if you have read the comic. It's not a metaphor, figurative use, or analogy, just a straight reference. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 04:04 z

Ah, I've wasted too much of your time with my academic arguments. Let's just see if this has been cited sufficiently.

As to the determination of the sense, it would be helpful to be able to suggest what is typically evoked by the mention of the name, but that is not always abundantly clear. In such cases, we are left with the proper noun tout court and must leave it the citations to provide usage examples for the en-wikt user to infer what it might mean in any specific case.

So, find three citation which don't indicate what the word means? That seems like a failure to cite the word. That would be contrary to the point of RFV.

It is not explicit in WT:CFI that all of the attributive citations must be of any one specific sense to allow for inclusion. I don't recall it ever having been interpreted that way.

It's explicit in {rfv-sense} that a sense which can't be supported by three citations goes out the window. I'll add the tags.

To me "Snoopy" seems to have a meaning something like "doggishly soulful". But, then, I'm a dog person.

I was brought up by poodles, but I'm skeptical. Let's try it on for size. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 05:07 z

RFV passed, since the attributive-use rule has been removed from WT:CFI. But, feel free to list this at WT:RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second look, this is clearly a fictional-universe name, and we omitted to remove the attributive-use rule for those. However, we no longer have the "with a widely understood meaning" requirement, so all that matters is that each quotation use it in an attributive sense, not that all quotations use it in the same sense. (But again, please feel free to list this at WT:RFD.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)