216:
porkers and the myths we've attached to them. I think the nominator has stretched the meaning of "cruft" so that it's meaning isn't "something that only fans of the subject would be interested in" to "something I think is too trivial for an encyclopedia". But pigs, like pterodactyls and orangutans, we will always have, and all it takes is to be interested in culture in general to be interested in this subject. I don't like the lack of references, but again, I think we need to wait for someone to stick the footnotes in, because
Knowledge would be worse off for not covering this subject. And it's too obvious that these items can be referenced for us to use that alone as the reason for deleting.
273:, what would that prove? Nobody sees pterodactyls, except fossilized in museums or on "The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", but that is no sign that there are no pterodactyls. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see unless they rent the right DVDs. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. (On second thought, don't answer that last question.) Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
282:
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the
Wikipedians that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, Netflix, can push aside
250:
Yes, OTTO4711, there are pterodactyls. They exist as certainly as love and generosity and carnivorous terror exists, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy, and some damn fine B movies. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no pterodactyls. It would
504:
The one thing that concerns me is the vague term "Cultural references". I might even say that at least a few of the sections in this article could be made into articles of their own. The umbrella term "cultural references" strikes me as almost meaningless. (Disclosure: No porcine related industry or
117:
Unsourced crufty article that is another example of the mass trivia cruft all these pop culture/cultural references that has invaded
Knowledge. The excuse of "it was made to help the article be less bloated" has been said many times on Knowledge, when it comes to this. But a section (in this case,
240:
OTTO4711, you are wrong. You have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. Too many skeptics do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, OTTO4711, whether they be men's or children's, or even pop culture
215:
This long list convinces me that pigs are just too important as cultural symbols. You can't merge all the citable items into any article without them overwhelming that article. This list is long and deserves to be long because thare are, in fact, a lot of significant cultural references to the
268:
Not believe in pterodactyls! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your Jimbo Wales to hire men to watch in all the World Wide Web sites to catch news reports on pterodactyl sitings, but even if they did not see pterodactyls come squawking out of some excavation site, as in
241:
consumers', are little (especially pop culture consumers, come to think of it). In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
409:
I have gone in and attempted to make parts of the text more discursive and less list-y. I created a section about "pigs in mythology and religion", and "pigs in folklore". Further sections might include "anthropomorphic pigs," "pigs as symbols," "pigs as metaphor", and so forth. -
546:
Like all articles, these have to be judged individually; I do not see how the same comments can be used to justify the same !vote for three separate articles, either for or against. This one is really vague--the use is not really specialized, and the items included uncritical.
357:- indiscriminate collection seeking to capture not only every time a pig is mentioned in "popular culture" but every time something with a name like "piggy" or "pig" exists or is mentioned. Oppose merging any of this to the main pig article or anywhere else.
331:
articles, but should still be merged back into the main article. "Pigs and people" could easily be condensed into a well-written prose paragraph or two, "Pig-related idioms" should be transwikied to
Wiktionary, and "Music and art" can be mostly trashed as
462:
article should be - more than just a laundry list of appearances, it attempts to treat the topic of pigs in cultural references, why they are used, inherent symbolism, etc. However if no sources can be found, it simply becomes OR.
292:
No pterodactyls! Thank God! They live, and they live forever. A thousand years from now, OTTO4711, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, they will continue to strike terror in the heart of pop culture consumers.
122:
as the root of this problem. 12 subcats, along with 81 pages in the regular part of the category. I think people assuming "because this has a pop culture page, this one should be fine too" needs to be put to rest.
283:
that curtain and view and picture the supernal terror and horror beyond. Is it all real? Ah, OTTO4711, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. We just have to cite references for it.
313:, and I apologize. I will say that I think we should limit the meaning to the more restrictive sense I mention, because one editor's "fancruft" could then be another's "sciencecruft".
52:
110:
458:
but if references can be added to attribute some of these statements that would go a long way to helping this article. If properly sourced this article becomes what a
83:
78:
388:. This one probably needs to stay. It needs to be better organized and broader in scope; my brief look didn't notice some cultural references that belong, like
87:
438:
will deteriorate in no time. The solution, for now, is to take care and improve the ".. in popular culture" article (example of sucessful maintenance is e.g.
396:. But pigs are a domestic animal, and there are just too many fictional and anthropomorphic pigs out there to merge into the article in chief about swine. -
70:
309:
I take back what I said about the nominator stretching the meaning of "cruft", apparently the nom's usage is used that way by others, as shown at
49:
369:-- obviously this needs work and lots of pruning but I think I can make something worthwhile out of this mess. (Per Krimpet, kind of).
592:
439:
373:
74:
345:
17:
144:). Some of the statements don't even make any sense. Although this can be fixed, the current article clearly doesn't belong.--
597:
565:
553:
538:
518:
496:
484:
467:
446:
414:
400:
380:
361:
349:
317:
297:
233:
220:
207:
154:
127:
587:
255:
to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which
166:
the cultural reference is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event/whatever that the work/movie/game/whatever
229:
Um, so far as I know we won't actually always have pterodactyls and havent actually had them for millions of years...
119:
66:
58:
118:
and most/all culture references) should be just trimmed: instead of moved just because it gets too big. Let's use
612:
256:
36:
611:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
480:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
203:
anything at this namespace; I believe the rest of the references can get by without a reciprocal wikilink. --
251:
be as dreary as if there were no OTTO4711s. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance or
582:
454:
contingent on cleanup. This is in dire need of sourcing. As it stands it seeems to suffer from a lot of
514:
459:
535:
443:
252:
476:
574:
562:
434:
article remained clean and on-topic since then. Delete it (or even worse, merge it back) and the
310:
341:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
506:
370:
493:
393:
358:
333:
328:
230:
204:
124:
505:
business pays me a promotional fee. I am a fully autonomous pig in these matters.)
455:
389:
337:
314:
294:
217:
141:
137:
104:
464:
411:
397:
191:
into the main article. Any appearance foucsing on a related species should be
164:
any entries where it can be verified through the use of reliable sources that
270:
549:
196:
147:
605:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
435:
431:
427:
199:, if following the aforementioned limitations and sourcing.
195:
to an article relating to that species instead (warthogs to
426:. It was offloaded from the main text by me "to help the
189:
undeniably important to promoting the subject in question
100:
96:
92:
430:
to be less bloated" and it obviously works well - the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
534:cultural cruft into serious biology articles. --
615:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
259:fills the world would be extinguished.
185:multiple reliable fact-checked sources
7:
573:Worth keeping though it needs work.
327:. This article isn't as bad as most
440:Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc
24:
187:indicate that the appearance is
140:), probably original research (
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
179:back into the main article.
561:-- interesting article. --
120:Category:In popular culture
67:Cultural references to pigs
59:Cultural references to pigs
632:
598:15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
566:06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
554:23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
539:00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
519:21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
497:16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
485:16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
468:15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
447:14:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
415:16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
401:14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
381:12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
362:12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
350:05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
318:04:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
298:15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
234:12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
221:04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
208:04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
155:03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
128:03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
53:01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
257:The Land That Time Forgot
608:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
136:- no sources provided (
475:Referenced, notable.
253:One Million Years BC
176:lifeform in question
492:per everyone else.
311:Knowledge:Fancruft
183:any entries where
483:
623:
610:
595:
590:
585:
580:
577:
510:
479:
460:X in pop culture
452:Conditional Keep
378:
170:in its entirety
150:
108:
90:
34:
631:
630:
626:
625:
624:
622:
621:
620:
619:
613:deletion review
606:
593:
588:
583:
578:
575:
536:Michael Johnson
517:
508:
444:Pavel Vozenilek
412:Smerdis of Tlön
398:Smerdis of Tlön
374:
168:could not exist
148:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
629:
627:
618:
617:
601:
600:
568:
556:
541:
521:
513:
499:
487:
477:CanadianCaesar
470:
449:
420:
419:
418:
417:
404:
403:
394:Chinese zodiac
383:
364:
352:
334:indiscriminate
321:
320:
305:
303:
302:
301:
300:
287:
286:
285:
284:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:London in 1856
263:
262:
261:
260:
245:
244:
243:
242:
237:
236:
224:
223:
210:
158:
157:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
628:
616:
614:
609:
603:
602:
599:
596:
591:
586:
581:
572:
569:
567:
564:
563:WassermannNYC
560:
557:
555:
552:
551:
545:
542:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
522:
520:
516:
512:
511:
503:
500:
498:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
481:Et tu, Brute?
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
461:
457:
453:
450:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
416:
413:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
372:
368:
365:
363:
360:
356:
353:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
326:
323:
322:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
299:
296:
291:
290:
289:
288:
281:
280:
279:
278:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
239:
238:
235:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
219:
214:
211:
209:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
177:
173:
169:
163:
160:
159:
156:
153:
152:
151:
143:
139:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
121:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
607:
604:
570:
558:
548:
543:
532:do not Merge
531:
527:
523:
507:
501:
489:
472:
451:
423:
385:
375:
366:
354:
324:
304:
212:
200:
192:
188:
184:
180:
175:
171:
167:
165:
161:
146:
145:
133:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
544:weak delete
502:Weak Keep
494:Acalamari
515:dialogue
359:Otto4711
231:Otto4711
205:saberwyn
125:RobJ1981
111:View log
594:veritas
576:Captain
392:in the
338:Krimpet
315:Noroton
295:Noroton
218:Noroton
197:Warthog
172:without
84:protect
79:history
528:Delete
465:Arkyan
355:Delete
346:review
201:Delete
193:merged
134:Delete
88:delete
579:panda
456:WP:OR
376:juice
371:Mango
325:Merge
181:Merge
162:Merge
142:WP:OR
138:WP:RS
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
589:vino
571:Keep
559:KEEP
530:but
524:Keep
490:Keep
473:Keep
424:Keep
390:Pigs
386:Keep
367:Keep
342:talk
336:. —
213:Keep
174:the
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
550:DGG
526:or
509:Pig
442:).
436:Pig
432:Pig
428:Pig
329:IPC
109:– (
584:In
348:)
149:Ed
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
344:/
340:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.