Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Zelda. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Zelda, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Zelda in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Zelda you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Zelda will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Zelda, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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?DAVilla09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 massyn20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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?DAVilla09:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 massyn20:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. DAVilla18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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-ball15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. - TheDaveRoss13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 , 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)Reply
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)Reply
