Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 6 June 2009

The contents of the Bugbears in popular culture page were merged into Bugbear on 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Mythology Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Splitting the Article

Since the bugbears of legend are little like the ones of D&D, I'd suggest making a separate article for the D&D version, called Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons)

Offensive

The pronunciation of "bear" sounding like "bar" isn't limited to "rednecks" (offensive cultural label) but is widespread through the American South and Midwest. Perhaps a less offensive, more linguistically accurate annotation could be put on the bullet item, or the parenthetical comment removed altogether.

The American Midwest? What part of the Midwest, pray tell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.75.198 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

extremophile

I've heard of a moss parasite known as a bug-bear. It is microscopic, has six limbs and curls up in a ball retracting its' legs and excreting most of its' liquids. Any one know what its' proper name is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.217.54 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Right, since this was done rather without consensus, rather than reverting back I am opening this up for discussion. Now we're left with two even more stubby pages about a folkloric and fictional critter subdivided by an arbitrary definition of popular culture. Judge this not on quality but whether there is justification for a separate article. My opinion is that the bugbear article is not a bugbear-but-minus-references-from-popular-culture article. And, yes, i will try to find some references. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Mintrick (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Stubbiness is not a product of length, it is a product of coverage. Stuffing a bunch of name-only modern allusions does nothing to help understand the myth. And, while I cannot conceive of any useful purpose for the list of modern allusions, these references are far more cohesive together, and in-context with the rest of the pop-culture articles.

  There is an obvious distinction between foundational cultural myths, and modern works which simply borrow its name. Origin and definition of a legend are substantially different from a bunch of times fantasy authors needed a name for a monster. While, like all things in life, there is not a perfect line of division, it is fallacious to claim that there is no way to draw lines. Mintrick (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, they have a lot more in common than a name, both refer to a supernatural humanoid creature commonly nocturnal which is malign. And both are fairly poorly defined and can be nebulous, with differing attributes at times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Would that be the pop culture appearance where they're eugenic goblins, or the one where they're "large greenish bears with 4 spines in their backs"? Or maybe it's the one where a bugbear is a "levitating eyeball with a long tail and a pair of spikes coming out of either end of the eyeball". I don't see one whit of evidence for the assertion you just made. Mintrick (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, there is a castlevania reference (which may be some form of mistranscription anyway) which is notable for its stark difference to the others. Otherwise the others are all similar (largish) gobliney like creatures. I do see evidence of a theme and connection with folklore, I am sorry if you don't. Anyway, I will leave it up to others so we can get a consensus as I highyl doubt we will convince each other, eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to remind you that surveying these lists and drawing broad generalizations from them constitutes original research. Please build a thesis from research, not the other way around. Mintrick (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So slap a tag on it rather than blindly reverting. Can't be discussed if it can't be seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's compromise (see below). Mintrick (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen Mintrick do this before: he just moves pop culture sections to new articles with little or NO consensus at all. One of his comments at an AFD of an article reads: I happen to believe that this isn't a good article, either, as I've said about similar articles up for deletion. The difference is that I've seen too many new users and potential users add to these lists, and I am not sure if I want to scare them away. The content in this article might not be a loss to Misplaced Pages, but the people attached to it might be. Which leads me to assume, he doesn't understand Misplaced Pages isn't a trivia guide. People add and edit lots of things here, we simply can't please everyone just because they are fascinated by trivia that isn't always suitable here. At best, the sections are just trivial clutter. When in doubt: condense them (with only notable notes if there is any), do NOT move them. Especially when size isn't an issue, as in this case: this article is small. I took a look at Category:In popular culture and it currently has 144 pages, along with 17 subcategories. This is an issue. I would say at least 80 percent of those articles should be deleted, or merged back into the original articles in some shape or form. Remember: just because someone writes it here, doesn't automatically mean it's notable. These long trivia cruft lists just keep getting built on, because too many people sit back and allow it. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Point me to the policy that says Misplaced Pages isn't a trivia collection. I assure you, it doesn't exist. These mentions are only "clutter" when they appear in the wrong place. In category: in popular culture, they're right at home.

You can drop your meaningless attack about consensus. I edit pages. It's what Misplaced Pages's about. When it gets controversial, like it did here, I discuss. I know how nice feels to claim your enemy is acting against consensus, but right here, it's a baseless attack. Mintrick (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean what I said was an attack. Article splits should be discussed prior to the article creation. See Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections for information on these types of sections. It clearly states trivia sections should be avoided. How exactly does moving a trivia section to a new article even help? All it does is move the trivia clutter elsewhere. You could be condensing the section in the first place, but rather you just choose to cut it and move it. That's not helping. Article splits can be useful, but none of these pop culture ones are. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The trivia page is actually very carefully limited in scope, and does not apply in this case. WP:TRIVIA is about "lists of isolated information, which are often grouped into their own section". IPC articles tend to be about appearances in modern media, and could not be incorporated into another section. Obliteration is certainly an option there (and seems to be the one you favor), but I'm not sure that's the best thing for the community. IPC articles are a compromise; the main article isn't cluttered by navel-gazing fiction obsession, and the people who are interested in that sort of thing have a place to do whatever it is they do. Mintrick (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The main article isn't cluttered, but the new article is cluttered. You personally don't want the main article to look bad, so you just move the clutter somewhere else. That's not helping, so why do you think it is? Look at the lists, they are usually just random lists of appearances/spoofs/anything that includes the subject. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This original research was previously in the article:

"Bugbears are often depicted in modern fiction as large evil gobline-like humanoids, such as in the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons."

This needs a citation before it can be used. Mintrick (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will hunt for some sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class Mythology articles
• Low-importance Mythology articles