Talk:Ardat-Yakshi

Citations:Ardat-Yakshi

@Daniel Carrero, Equinox, PUC There was a discussion at Appendix talk:Mass Effect, and I'd just like to confirm that what I'm doing here with 'Ardat-Yakshi' is meaningful for Wiktionary. The three/four cites are all universe-related, very similar to your Citations:protocol droid (created circa 2005-7) in most respects. I think that Citations:genophage may one day mature into an out-of-universe term too (like Klingon). Just let me know what you think. I feel it is wise to hold on to the remnants of the early 2000s that are still with us, which is why I edit Wiktionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

@Geographyinitiative: I think this is bad. We have had similar trouble in the past with Harry Potter, Pokémon, etc. Wait until it already has generic usage. Don't assume that it will. 99.99% of pop culture is quickly forgotten. Equinox ◑ 02:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox I don't know how Wiktionary should appropriately cover this situation. However, to shed light on the issue, I have demonstrated that the word could very likely meet the requirements of WT:ATTEST and WT:FICTION. Do with that what you will. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (Modification)

@Geographyinitiative: I don't think you understand the requirement of being "independent of the fictional universe". Most of the citations are unusable. To clarify: if I say "those Klingons in Star Trek are horrible!" then I am still talking about Star Trek, so that is not a usable citation for the word Klingon. It would need to be something like "my husband is such a Klingon, he keeps beating me" (with no reference to Star Trek). Equinox ◑ 05:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox Thanks for your help! Please help me understand your view- let's proceed very slowly. Okay, here's the sentence I'm reading at WT:FICTION. "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." Now to me, what this sentence means is that if you have three citiations in "separate works", but those three separate works are not independent of reference to a given fiction universe, then the term in question "may be included" in a fiction universe appendix page. And then "separate works" means what WT:FICTION says when it writes: "For purposes of defining a single work, a series of books, films, or television episodes by the same author, documenting the exploits of a common set of characters in a fictional universe (e.g. the Harry Potter books, Tolkien's Middle Earth books, the Star Wars films), shall be considered a single work in multiple parts." Basically, Harry Potter 6 and Harry Potter 7 are not considered separate works, but Harry Potter 7 and an academic analysis of Harry Potter universe concepts by a different author are separate works. Is my understanding of that first sentence in WT:FICTION and the definition of "separate works" under WT:FICTION correct? I believe you will say that my understanding is wrong, but I'd like you to rephrase that first sentence and/or the definition of "separate works" the way that you understand it, if you would be so kind. PS: On re-reading, I'm unclear on what you're actually arguing for; please also see Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC) (Modified)