Talk:Bugbear

message: 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)
thread_title: Offensive

message: 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)
thread_title:  extremophile 

message: Please vote on one of the following options: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: # Starting a new Merger Proposal, this time to Bogeyman.  (Not sure what to do with the discussion from the previous merge proposal, which seems to be to Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons)?  It never got closed out.)  Here is my reasoning.  There is nothing, that I can find in my sources, that separates a Bugbear from other "Bogeyman" type creatures (aka Bugaboo, Buca-Boo, Bugan, Bugs, Bogeys, etc) that are described in the Bogeyman article.  My copy of Briggs (Katharine Briggs, An Encyclopedia of Fairies, Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other Supernatural Creatures, "Bugs, bugs-a-boos, boggle-boos, bugbears, etc", p.52) which also groups these things together, describes all of these creatures as generic "Nursery bogies", which is what the Bogeyman article here describes.  Bogeyman already mentions Bugbear.  I'd suggest a redirect.  Bugbear probably does merit its own paragraph instead of just a mention in a list, so copy this paragraph over there with some edits.  If any pop culture links are needed, make this a disambiguation page, linking to Bogeyman and the two pop culture links. If someone has a few sources that depict this creature as somehow unique and deserving of its own page, I'd happily be convinced to keep it.lunaverse (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I guess it depends on which way we merge - it is true that if we look at it from a folklore POV then we have a whole bunch of synonyms as mentioned above. However if we merge with the modern fantasy concept, then we have a specific giant goblinoid creature, which would be distinct from the others. So the below is my preference. So I will tweak after I edit this section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleanup help. :)  There appears to already be an article on Bugbear as a fantasy concept, e.g.:Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons).  This article as it stands, currently is about the folklore concept with pointers to the articles on the modern fantasy creature.  I do a lot of folklore research, and my take on it is that "Bogeyman" is the more widely-used term, and Bugbear is just a different word for that concept. Briggs agrees with me in her book. lunaverse (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

text: # As below.  My opinion is that the bugbear article is not a bugbear-but-minus-references-from-popular-culture article. Better one more robust article than two stubby pages about a folkloric and fictional critter subdivided by an arbitrary definition of popular culture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

text: *Strongly Oppose this option. There are other articles in the Wikipedia namespace in which the versions, mythological and Dungeons & Dragons, have their own separate articles. For example: Selkie and Selkie (Dungeons & Dragons), and if you look at these two articles, these are two completely different "beings" as they do not resemble each other at all. A conversation regarding this option belongs elsewhere so a precedent can be set for that option, somewhere such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

text: # The modern use of the word "bugbear" distinguishes this from an article about Boogeymen.
===Previous 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)

text: # Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

text: # RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: # Mintrick (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

text: 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 Wikipedia, but the people attached to it might be. Which leads me to assume, he doesn't understand Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Point me to the policy that says Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: :# Starting a new Merger Proposal, this time to Bogeyman.  (Not sure what to do with the discussion from the previous merge proposal, which seems to be to Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons)?  It never got closed out.)  Here is my reasoning.  There is nothing, that I can find in my sources, that separates a Bugbear from other "Bogeyman" type creatures (aka Bugaboo, Buca-Boo, Bugan, Bugs, Bogeys, etc) that are described in the Bogeyman article.  My copy of Briggs (Katharine Briggs, An Encyclopedia of Fairies, Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies, and Other Supernatural Creatures, "Bugs, bugs-a-boos, boggle-boos, bugbears, etc", p.52) which also groups these things together, describes all of these creatures as generic "Nursery bogies", which is what the Bogeyman article here describes.  Bogeyman already mentions Bugbear.  I'd suggest a redirect.  Bugbear probably does merit its own paragraph instead of just a mention in a list, so copy this paragraph over there with some edits.  If any pop culture links are needed, make this a disambiguation page, linking to Bogeyman and the two pop culture links. If someone has a few sources that depict this creature as somehow unique and deserving of its own page, I'd happily be convinced to keep it.lunaverse (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on which way we merge - it is true that if we look at it from a folklore POV then we have a whole bunch of synonyms as mentioned above. However if we merge with the modern fantasy concept, then we have a specific giant goblinoid creature, which would be distinct from the others. So the below is my preference. So I will tweak after I edit this section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the cleanup help. :)  There appears to already be an article on Bugbear as a fantasy concept, e.g.:Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons).  This article as it stands, currently is about the folklore concept with pointers to the articles on the modern fantasy creature.  I do a lot of folklore research, and my take on it is that "Bogeyman" is the more widely-used term, and Bugbear is just a different word for that concept. Briggs agrees with me in her book. lunaverse (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: To [[Bogeyman]]

message: :# As below.  My opinion is that the bugbear article is not a bugbear-but-minus-references-from-popular-culture article. Better one more robust article than two stubby pages about a folkloric and fictional critter subdivided by an arbitrary definition of popular culture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strongly Oppose this option. There are other articles in the Wikipedia namespace in which the versions, mythological and Dungeons & Dragons, have their own separate articles. For example: Selkie and Selkie (Dungeons & Dragons), and if you look at these two articles, these are two completely different "beings" as they do not resemble each other at all. A conversation regarding this option belongs elsewhere so a precedent can be set for that option, somewhere such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: With [[Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons)]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Previous Merger Proposal

message: :# Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: # RobJ1981 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: :# Mintrick (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

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

text: 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 Wikipedia, but the people attached to it might be. Which leads me to assume, he doesn't understand Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Point me to the policy that says Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: I will hunt for some sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The prophet Elisha is made fun of by some young lads in the bible.  In response, He curses them in the name of the Lord and two female bears come out of the woods and kill 42 of their number.  I am curious to know if the bugbear myth might be related to that incident.  It would be interesting to know, as bogeyman may come from bugbear.  I googled but saw nothing conclusive so thought I would say something here and maybe someone more knowledgable would respond.  172.56.11.197 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Kings 2 in the bible 

message: This is quite confusing. It has been translated directly into English using the English terminology but one expects that the original title was in Italian? Since the section deals with the etymology and translation into other languages, the omission of the Italian version is jarring.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.116.176.104 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "1565 Italian play 'The Buggbear'". 

message: The claimed cognates Bögge / Bögge-mann don't exist in (Standard-)German. All I could find are family names but no mention of any kind of folklore. The Picture shows a statue called "Schrat". The German Schrat is something between a wild man and a forest spirit, similar to the Alpine Krampus or Perchten (Waldschrate are a costume in some regional carnival traditions, too) but definitely not a boogey man type of creature. I recommend to remove the German etymology and the picture it seems both to be based on misconceptions.
On a side note: The German Article yields Bugbear on switching language (which I believe is incorrect). "Wilder Mann" yields "wild man" (no surprise there) and searching for "Schrat" in the English Wikipedia will redirect to "wild man" (again, not quite the same). Not sure where else I should bring this matter up.
NorPhi (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the picture and also the sentence in etymology. Both ther without any proof. I would also recommand splitting the wikidata objects, a "bugbear" (english) is not equal to a "Schrat" (german).--Naronnas (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

text: JFTR, in 2023 the entry Schrat was changed from a redirect into a full article. Picture is still here, though M-O-W (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Came here because Schrat picture is still confusingly present. Seems direct opposite of the subject of this article. DonWW (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bögge / Bögge-Mann & Picture