Talk:Zelda

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

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.

---

Incorrect capitalization (edit: corrected DAVilla), no attributive use. --Connel MacKenzie 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see now the original definition was for the character. For the game itself (or games themselves), there's no doubt to the non-attributive use, which qualifies as a shortened form, IMO. Would it be okay to remove the rfv then?DAVilla 09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. SemperBlotto 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering Keffey's inclusionist's manifesto, I am inclined to leave it. However, objectively Since we don't keep Moby Dick as a short form of Moby Dick or the White Whale or The Decline and Fall as a short form of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Why should we keep Zelda? Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Def =# The Legend of Zelda video game.

RfD discussion.

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests 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.

---

Incorrect capitalization (edit: corrected DAVilla), no attributive use. --Connel MacKenzie 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see now the original definition was for the character. For the game itself (or games themselves), there's no doubt to the non-attributive use, which qualifies as a shortened form, IMO. Would it be okay to remove the rfv then?DAVilla 09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. SemperBlotto 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering Keffey's inclusionist's manifesto, I am inclined to leave it. However, objectively Since we don't keep Moby Dick as a short form of Moby Dick or the White Whale or The Decline and Fall as a short form of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Why should we keep Zelda? Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: wikified above with apologies. DAVilla 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, or if it is I absolutely disagree with it. Short forms are kept, or should be kept, since they substitute for the full form without introduction. DAVilla 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm for keeping the disputed sense, too.  Short forms should be kept (User:DAVilla's argument is a good one).  I was just imagining not being familiar with video games (which I'm not) and reading something like this: "He was playing Zelda when his friends came over," and if someone looked at what is currently in the entry, not knowing what Zelda was, one would think the guy in question in the example was playing with some woman named Zelda, or something outlandish like that. — V-ball 15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To rfd. Andrew massyn 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"RFD-sense"? Is this the right place for this? DAVilla 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted ages ago (promotional nonsense.) Given name kept. --Connel MacKenzie 22:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–October 2022

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.

---

Zelda

Rfd-sense: (video games) Shortened form of Legend of Zelda

I'd like to reconsider this sense since it seems from Talk:Zelda it was removed via some chaotic RFD, and it was added later in diff, and it is unclear what the consensus is.

• Keep using the derived-adjective principle: there is Zeldaesque covering specifically the video game. Covered by WT:NSE? If so, the derived-adjective principle can be freely accepted or rejected by RFD participants. The application of the derived-adjective principle would lead us to have Charles Darwin in Darwin because of Darwinian, and that's what we do, as part of the lead sense. (Darwin entry has 14 specific entities, so much for the fear of them.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  For tracking, this is per User:Dan Polansky/IA § Derived-term principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per principles above. bd2412 T 06:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete, not dictionary material. I don't see why we need the term "Zelda" to have the term "Zeldaesque", or "Darwin" to have "Darwinian" for that matter. See the entry for roguelike for an example of how these sorts of terms can be handled, mention the origin in the etymology and link to Wikipedia for more information on the encyclopedic subjects. The definition is probably better if it avoids referencing the origin, since these terms are usually specific to certain aspects of the originating thing. - TheDaveRoss 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to have Zelda due to Zeldaesque, but the adjective predicts prominence of the sense in Zelda, so the sense is likely to be very often invoked by Zelda. And the derived-term principle includes New York via New Yorker, for instance. New York is saved by current CFI anyway, but the CFI criteria for inclusion of geographic names are arbitrary and encyclopedic, not lexicographical, whereas the derived-adjective principle is purely lexicographical. We don't need to fear specific entities on sense lines so much; we don't fear them for geographic names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

And what is the basis behind "not dictionary material"? There needs to be some specific administrable principle. "No senses for specific entities" is not that principle. "No senses for specific video games" could be that principle, but 1) we don't apply it to Tetris and other games, and 2) it is not clear why games should be treated different from people, places or countries. The lexicographical viewpoint does not give us any reason to differentiate by classes of referents. --Dan Polansky (talk)

Keep - I never refer to the game by its exhaustive title The Legend of Zelda. Leasnam (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep per reasons already given. AG202 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete. All kinds of proper names can be, and are, abbreviated, e.g. a book Life in the Sun: An Autobiography might merely be referred to as Life in the Sun, or in familiar contexts just Life. Keeping these is IMO very foolish and short-sighted. Equinox ◑ 15:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Merely among video game titles, this would legitimise Sonic 2 for Sonic the Hedgehog 2; Doom II for Doom II: Hell on Earth; and probably thousands of others, even with the three-cites requirement. Equinox ◑ 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

See also Talk:HP1 regarding a series of Harry Potter numbers we deleted. Equinox ◑ 15:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Zeldaesque guarantees a high standard of prominence; how does "Life" as in "Life in the Sun" meet that standard? It is the same standard that the philosopher Aristotle meets via Aristotelian. Life in the Sun and Doom II are not single words and are not supported by a derived term; the specific criterion for inclusion does not apply to them. As for Life, is there any Lifeesque or something? The notion is not of listing all referents ever referred to by a name; that is not practicable. The referents need to meet a high standard of notoriety. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

HP1 was argued to be sum of parts = HP + 1, and HP does have a sense for Harry Potter. I don't see any analogy between HP1 and Zelda; Zelda is not Zeld + a or something. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

We have other video games, although not abbreviations: we have Doom and Doomer, Minecraft and Minecrafter, Sokoban, Tetris, Pong, Warcrack and we could have Zork via Zorkian, and we could have Sims via Simmer. We have Mario character in Mario and Marioesque. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the existence of words like Zeldaesque or Minecrafter necessitates the creation of encyclopedic entries. Why can't we just include that information in the etymology? Binarystep (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not necessary, just preferable since the adjective predicts notoriety, setting a high standard for it. For Minecraft, the game is the primary meaning of the name: how does the dictionary become better by moving the primary meaning of Minecraft into the etymology of that entry? We want to list the most prominent referents of names as senses to cover at least part of the meaning. We do this for place names, thereby duplicating Wikipedia. London could have only 2 to 3 senses for places, one of them being "any of multiple other municipalities"; instead, it has so many "encyclopedic" senses, including subsenses. Zelda with the game included as a sense is no worse than London. If we remove Zelda, it will be no big loss for lexicography, although we will thereby fail to document a particular small piece of human lexical behavior. If we removed most of the senses from London, it would not be a big loss either; other dictionaries do not do in their London entries what we do. M-W:London covers 2 senses; AHD has no "London". The idea is, let's bring some consistency of treatment here: we document specific entities quite extensively, so let's do it. The derived adjective sets the bar pretty high. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

HP1 never should have been deleted. It's a fandom slang abbreviation. It isn't an official name for a work of fiction. Nor is it sum-of-parts. "The first Harry Potter book" would be SOP. "Harry Potter One" could technically refer to multiple things: the first book, the film based on this book, the real Harry Potter in a room full of doppelgangers (a situation that happens in the seventh book), the first Harry Potter cosplayer to show up at a convention, etc. HP1 is generally only used to refer to the first book and film. And even if it is SOP, it passes COALMINE. We have plenty of unidiomatic acronyms: WHO, FBI, LOTR, MRI. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete Has no use outside of references to the fictional work. Dictionaries don't contain proper names. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The above is invalid: we have approved extensive coverage of geographic proper names. "Dictionaries don't contain proper names" is not even a statement of preference; it is plain wrong factually; even OED has some. The above user has less than 50 edits in content spaces: 14 edits. In our votes, they would be ineligible, although RFD has no such rules. I ask the closer to discount the above vote in so far as permissible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep. The proper name of the series is The Legend of Zelda. None of its constituent games is titled simply Zelda (although the second game was titled Zelda II outside Japan). This is an informal name for the series, coined by fans or the gaming press. We have informal names for other works of fiction: COD for Call of Duty, Eastie for EastEnders, Trek for Star Trek. Also worth noting that this can pluralized ("Ocarina of Time is the best of all the Zeldas" etc.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep per WordyAndNerdy. Binarystep (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

My inclination is to delete per Equinox; any multi-word work title that gets mentioned often will get shorted — someone was reading Deathly Hallows (or Hallows), Barack Obama wrote such-and-such in his Audacity of Hope [the full title starts with The and has a colon and a bunch of extra words], etc — and I don't think it makes sense to consider Hallows or Life somehow includable where Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Life of William Warburton, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester would not be. Wordy is right that we have some abbreviations (COD) and modified terms (Eastie), but I don't know if that means we should have trivial omissions-of-extra-words like this (although we have Trek and I did create a similar sense at Who years ago). The ability to refer to plural Zeldas is interesting, but then it seems the definition might need to be modified to something like "a game in the Legend of Zelda franchise". - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem comparable to Hallows as a short form of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That's an ellipsis of the title of a single specific work of fiction. Zelda, on the other hand, serves as an informal term for any of several video games, as evidenced by the existence of plural usages. (Harry Potter seems similarly attestible as a generic term for any of the seven Potter books.) This may very well warrant two senses: one for the series as a whole, one for any individual game in it. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• RFD-kept: 6 keeps, 3 deletes. One of the deletes absurdly claims that "Dictionaries don't contain proper names". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)