Talk:Catchphrase/Archive 1

Archive 1

Precedents for "catch-phrase"

I'm the last person to move ahead slowly with changes so maybe that gives this some weight... I noticed someone put "or catch-phrase" on the main definition as secondary to "catchphrase". Perhaps "catch-phrase" might actually be the ideal term, because things are commonly hyphenated for a period before they're condensed. I think you could argue we're still in a period of transition. The reason respectable dictionaries may have condensed to "catchphrase" is that dictionaries are mostly one-word definitions.

I think this is a major, relevant distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Wikipedia will usually entirely ignore a dictionary definition if there's something more encyclopedia-relevant. E.g., if there's a major international band by the name of "Shoe", "Climate", or "Nifty", an article will bring articles on these bands up before the words. I think we could consider the simultaneous existence of the encyclopedia-relevant phenomenon of a "catch phrase", and an official dictionary word "catchphrase".

Just because "catchphrase" is a word does not mean it embodies the spirit of the term "catch phrase". It simply means it's very related. Because this opinion I'm presenting is debatable (my reasoning for "catch phrase" over "catchphrase") perhaps the precedent of hyphenation in such cases would be a very good middle ground... Squish7 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources have to say about a subject, and in this particular case, the reliable sources are dictionaries. As you can see from the discussion and overwhelming consensus above, the reliable sources say that it is "catchphrase". Now, if you can produce more sources of equal or greater reliability to the ones we have already investigated, and they say that "catch-phrase" is a preferred spelling, then we can talk. Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Extension

I know there's a lot of talk about including examples in the article in previuos years, but I still see none there. I wonder why this is. Surely there's a simple list of basic phrases that can be agreed upon, or that are well-documented. For instance, I once explored where the term "wife beater" came from, and stumbled upon a very thorough article listing influences throughout the middle ages as well as modern day media. There must be some epitome examples of catch-phrases with that kind of documentation behind them.

E.g... movie quotes ("Here's looking at you, kid."), classic plays ("To be or not to be"), sci-fi phrases ("Today is a good day to die."), poem phrases ("I took the path less traveled by."), song phrases ("A hundred bottles of beer on the wall."), etc, etc... surely some of these note actually mentioning as examples. Squish7 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead and add them if you think they bear inclusion. Elizium23 (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the burgeoning list of examples blurs the distinction between a catchphrase and a "famous quote". A catchphrase is something repeated over and over by a certain character. Quotes such as "There's no place like home" and "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship" are simply memorable quotes and do not merit inclusion in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

These memorable quotes are also categorized as catchphrases. A catchphrase doesn't simply have to be repeated over and over again by a fictional character. Plenty of writers try to inspire catchphrases that way, but the phrases sometimes never catch on, hence failing to become a catchphrase. Catchphrases are about quotes that inspire the public to say them over and over again. This extends to phrases said by real-life people, as the article notes. The way you are distinguishing "catchphrase" and "memorable quote" is not something I have seen, certainly not in reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

List of catchphrases

Since it is clear that this section is going to become a dumping ground for fancruft of all kinds, I propose that we establish a minimum level of notability for inclusion, as well as a requirement to cite a reliable source that specifically describes the quote as a "catchphrase". Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your ideas are good. I suggest the minimum standard for inclusion be articles that can be linked internally, as I've done with More cowbell. That way the catchphrase's notability is already established and if articles are deleted the catchphrase can be deleted as well. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 02:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, we can pretty much pick and choose from Category:Catchphrases what we want to include. I've wikilinked those that can be linked, and I'll give it a week or so for more discussion, then begin to remove those that are unsourced and unlinked. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the Casablanca entry to reflect what I think can be done with a number of sources for catch phrases. The Simpsons and Star Trek articles might need to be updated with a section on catchphrases or separate articles on the catchphrases those shows are responsible for. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 15:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest we change the section title from "Examples in fiction" to "Examples in media" before this article is too widely known. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That is reasonable. But regarding your recent edit, the "man's best friend" assertion needs a citation. Elizium23 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I made an assertion when I intended to make an illustration for the lead section. Please feel free to copy edit as you see fit. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 16:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time we do something for the Simpsons like I did for Casablanca. Do you want to take a crack at it?

Here are a few of the top 10 from the article AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes I think merit inclusion:

"Go ahead, make my day"

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"May the Force be with you"

"You talkin' to me?" -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 01:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan off including all of those. Those are some classics right there. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a catalog

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOG and not a place to collect favorite sayings, quotes, slogans, catchwords, idioms, neologisms etc. Therefore since it is appropriate to includes some examples of notable catchphrases, they should be worked into the body of the article. If we are to do this it is important to recognize that american english is not the only language that develops them. Examples should highlight their relationship to their native language. As stated above only examples that are from notable, cited sources with internal wiki links should be included in this generic article. As to what is a catchphrase the following external link is to an aggregator of internet sources. The consensus among those sources appears to be that it:

1) attract attention

2) originaties in popular culture

3) is associated with a famous person or character

4) may come to identify the person or character that uses it

-- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have move the list to List of catchphrases please continue the work and this discussion there. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Context

The recent deletions by user:Agent 86 may have reduced this article too much. It now lacks context that assist the reader in understanding the topic. Please help to provide samples that illustrate what a catchphrase is and indicate where they come from. I believe the sections "In American culture" and "In politics" are an appropriate start at further describing and catagorizing catchphrases. Reducing this information to a "see also" section is not in line with the idea of an encyclopedic resource. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Agent 86 that these articles should not be duplicated in the body of this one. I think it would be a good idea to choose one catchphrase as an example and work it into the prose already here. Any list beyond that will be a magnet for more additions, and we should try to keep that in the list articles. My suggestion is problematic, in that choosing just one may invite controversy, and may invite many people to change it to their preferred example. But I think that one example is needed for explanation of the term. Elizium23 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I find it difficult to see how the article is lacking in context or that there is any need to start inserting examples. Nothing more than the link to List of Catchphrases is necessary. The article speaks for itself and there is no need to start building a list within the article. A number of years ago the article was pared back because it had essentially become a random collection of catchphrases. Even with the format of the material I removed, there was no real means to limit or select what are suitable examples. Moreover, it began to read like an essay. Agent 86 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What's with the pot?

The picture of the Greek pot and accompanying caption doesn't make any sense. Is the "advertising catchphrase" written on the urb or something? It isn't clear from the picture. --93.152.83.69 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the caption for the image currently shown in the article, that text is also presented on the image description. Apparently, that phrase is somewhere on the artwork. Either that, or it's clear what is mean from by gestures. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase is written in Greek on the urn, which is located in the Louvre museum in Paris. The word "catchphrase" in the English description is meant as in the French description, "advertising slogan". Since the article seems to be about widely-recognized quotations, not advertising slogans in general, the picture is removed. IamNotU (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Article lacks focus - what's it about?

What exactly is this article about, what is its scope? Does it include any or all of the following:

• established idiomatic expressions, eg. "to eat humble pie",
• currently trending phrases or slang without any obvious source, eg. "shit happens",
• phrases associated with certain groups, eg. "forget about it",
• popular quotations said one time by a famous person or character, eg. "go ahead, make my day",
• phrases used recurringly by famous persons or characters, eg. "live long and prosper",
• well-known advertising slogans, such as "I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs",
• advertising slogans in general, eg. "buy me and you'll get a good bargain",
• advertising phrases that have become popular in an ironic way, eg. "I've fallen - and I can't get up!",
• common phrases used in particular situations, eg. "knock on wood",
• famous quotations from political speeches, eg. "A house divided against itself cannot stand",
• official political slogans, like "make america great again",
• general political sayings, eg. "america, love it or leave it",
• "bumper sticker" phrases in general, eg. "Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you're a jerk."

...or any sort of commonly-used phrase, such as "have nice day"?

Because basically all of these things are listed in Wikipedia Category:Catchphrases.

The article starts off saying a catchphrase is a popular phrase or expression recognized by its repeated utterance, which seems overly broad, since it could apply to phrases such as "good morning". It was suggested above that the article should cover only phrases "associated with a famous person or character", which "may come to identify the person or character that uses it". If that's to be the case, then the article must explain why all the other aspects of the concept of "catchphrase", in particular, political or advertising slogans or mottos, are excluded from the article entitled "Catchphrase". The article needs a more balanced and defined focus. IamNotU (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)