Talk:List of fictional badgers

message: i hope i included much badgers. feel free to add more.
Ribbedebie 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from 2007

message: In order to cut out as much of the bickering as possible, I think it would be helpful for a neutral party to review our particular stances on that the inclusion criteria should be. Below I've created two subsections in which I think we should outline our views regarding the three inclusion criteria and how we think they differ from the other person's view. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Summaries

message: I think the following criteria are required for this article:
#Fictional - From a work of fiction from any/all genres. As I understand it, Andy Dingley and I are in agreement on this criterion.
#Badger - A biological badger as demonstrated by sources if challenged or likely to be challenged. Andy Dingley and I disagree sharply on this point. Andy believes that the list should include rock hyraxes (distant relatives of elephants that bear a passing resemblance to badgers) and raccoon-dogs (distant relatives of the domestic dog that also looks kind of like a badger). When pressed, Andy explains that some sources have described these species to be badgers. I have conceded that if reliable sources call them badgers then this is ok for the list. Andy still seems to be in favor of dropping the biological definition as an inclusion criterion.
#Notable - The character should be individually notable (i.e. it should either have independent notability and be capable of supporting a stand-alone article or if not then it should be a major character from a notable work as demonstrated by sources.). This is in line with the LSC guideline's criteria #1 - a set of criteria that are used in "most of the best lists on Wikipedia." Andy Dingley and I disagree on this point, but I think it is a largely rhetorical disagreement. Andy seems to prefer separately mandating a) significance of the character's role in the work, b) the work's notability, and c) the use of the character as a purposeful element whose badgerness is intentional (or something like this). Whereas I believe that the very sources used to demonstrate Andy's 3 points already demonstrate notability of the character and so I am in favor of simplifying this to "notable" for the benefit of readers and potential contributors. Although this seems to be the focus of Andy's biggest concern here, I think that we are actually nearly in agreement on this point and I am very optimistic that we can resolve this.
I've left a note at Andy's talk page asking him to present his view, but in case he is not interested then I think we can use this edit as a fair presentation of Andy's view on the matter. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Thibbs' view

message: The list as it was before Thibbs began editing did not specifically state that notability was a requirement for list entries. In addition, the entries prove that notability was not a de facto standard. Badgers such as the god figure from The Immortals (series) were listed even though this badger god is not notable by itself. I don't think it is appropriate to change the rules of the list in such a draconian manner. The listed badgers should be from notable works.
Regarding the definition of "badger", we follow reliable sources. The list entries should be portrayed and described as a badger. Since the pool of entries are fictional, there is no need to establish species as a requirement. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Regarding this edit, I'd like to ask for some clarification of the consensus here. From the 3O discussion of June 2012, Binksternet suggested that "If reviewers of the fictional work compare the tanuki to a badger or describe it, right or wrong, as a badger, then I think the reviews can be argued as sufficient to bring the tanuki into this list." (emphasis added). So my question is whether badger-like creatures are supposed to be part of this list as well. Considering that the article's topic is by its nature a small topic, it might not hurt to include badger-like creatures as well, but if this is not already part of the consensus then I'd be inclined to support the removal of this kind of character to keep the article more in line with the other lists of fictional animals. Can anyone shed some light on this? -Thibbs (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd include "badger-like creatures" (of any meaning), provided that some non-OR source has already described them as "badger-like".  Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, Andy Dingley. I'll put the characters that were just removed below so they can be re-added if anyone finds a source to verify them. -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The Linoone pokemon might have been described as badger-inspired (from uncited comments on the WP article), but not the mouse-like Typhlosion. Even then though, the "rushing" behaviour, long legs and big sharp claws isn't very badger like. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From the name alone I've always assumed that Linoone/Massuguma is based on the raccoon/araiguma (which is admittedly similar to badger/anaguma) and Typhlosion (an "evolution" of Cyndaquil and Quilava) is based on the porcupine (Cyndaquil/Hinoarashi and Quilava/Magmarashi vs porcupine/yamarashi in Japanese). But the real question is whether sources can be found to verify the badger connection. If not then we leave it off the list. -Thibbs (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Badger-like animals

message: I just added the list of fictional raccoons (which includes some tanukis) and the list of fictional miscellaneous animals (which includes all hyraxes) to the "See also" section and I was looking for the list that more primarily covered tanukis to add as well, but I don't find that such a list has ever been created. The way I see it we could either add them all to the list of fictional raccoons (since that is apparently the American translation) or all to the list of fictional badgers (apparently the European translation) or we could create a new list of tanukis, or maybe we could add them to the List of miscellaneous fictional animals instead. Any thoughts on this? -Thibbs (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanukis do not belong on this list. Plantdrew (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was whether tanukis not described as badgers should be added to the list. The question of whether tanukis compared/described/translated as badgers belong on this list was settled in the affirmative during a 2012-era "Third-Opinion-moderated" discussion. The 3O report is long but it appears on the talk page above. The most salient points are: "" and "".Regarding the question of whether all tanukis should be added to this article, I think the question remains unanswered. I would still appreciate thoughts on that question... -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we add fictional Tanukis to the list?

message: I wanted to make the case that the "Hufflepuff Badger" might be an outlier on this list. All of the other members of this list are badger characters that appear in works of fiction, but the "Hufflepuff Badger" isn't a fictional badger in the books. It is a fictional logo/mascot that is a representation of a badger (so it is a fictional fictional badger instead of a fictional badger). Does a fictional badger have to be a character to be on this list, or are fictional images/symbols of a badger that don't map to a character also allowed? --Herebutforthegraceofbadgers (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What about putting mention of it in the "See also" section? I've done this with list examples that don't fit the scope. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me, for both the hufflepuff mascot and any other fictional but non-character badger representations that are out there. --Herebutforthegraceofbadgers (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how deeply you've delved into the Potterverse, but the hufflepuff badger does make spot appearances as a character too. In Pottermore, it appears as a Patronus and of course in the Harry Potter TCG it can be summoned with 3 health to deliver 1 damage to other characters in the game. I don't really care. I slightly misunderstood your argument anyway. "See also" would probably be fine. -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hufflepuff Badger 

message: Hello, the Honey Badger series is very well know with readers of romance or urban fantasy.
I put a link here, but it’s not to the right kind of source. https://www.goodreads.com/series/210022-honey-badger-chronicles
shouldn’t these books be on the list of fictional badgers? 2600:1700:F90:6950:FD91:B6AA:FD0:F840 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honey badger series?