Talk:Puck (folklore)

message: Wouldn't one of the other spellings be more useful to someone looking for this?
Sean Griffing
: One supposes that Sean Griffing did some #REDIRECT pages . As for this Maureen Duffy claims that “puck” is cognate with “fuck”, as is the word “poke”. One can't help add:" And why not "fake" and "puke"? As well as "fickle"." Wetman 04:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate spelling?

message: I cut the following text from the article as it seemed that someone had inserted a comment more suited to this discussion page (it was also randomly placed in the beginning of the "Puck in Literature" section for some reason). I don't know enough about Norwegian mythology to ascertain the truth of this statement, or even to make it make more sense(!), so have posted it here in the hope that someone else can look into it.
Puk is not the other Norwegian word for "Draug" it is called NØK or his name "NØKKEN" sounds similar, but is actually very different. He is a wather demon and that thing with the girls is true(according to the stories) but he is green with big eyes and has no links to shakespeares "Puck"
Missdipsy 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the mythological nøkken is more or less true (he isn't necessarily green with big eyes, he appears in many forms, but everything else is true I think), but of course it has nothing to do in this article. 96T 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian "Puk"

message: *Don't merge. There's a brief Midsummer Night's Dream section here now, with the standard heading Main article: Puck (Shakespeare). There's been so much written about Shakespoeare's Puck, and the changes he effected in folklore of Puck, that should be represented in the Wikipedia article, that it would overweigh this one. It's a bare-bones stub as yet. It'll grow.--Wetman 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Much of the start of this article assumes that the reader also has some basic knowledge of what a puck is. For instance, it makes references to Robin Goodfellow, which some readers may not understand. This should be addressed. Elfred (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not conducive to beginners?

message: I've read that the origin of "Puck" is from the word bucca, which is, I think, Old English for "goat" - which evolved into "buck" (English), and "bode" (Portuguese) for male goats. As goats were believed to be animals of the Devil and of the faeries (the British used to say it's impossible to see the same goat for 24 hours straight, since at some point of the day it must meet the fey to comb its beard), the word bucca also gave origin to other faery names, like boggart, bogey man, pouque, phooka, púca, bug-a-boo, bugs (used by some to refer to demons), pixies, etc.
This information comes from The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Faeries, by Anna Franklin.--Midasminus (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your text merely said that a 'strange similarity' is worth noting, but you didn't provide evidence of any actual link with 'puck'. Citations based on reliable sources will definitely be needed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin 

message: I've moved the popular culture material to a new article, Puck in popular culture. This has the pleasant effect of combinding all of this information, from both this article and the Shakespeare article, into one place, where previously there was a lot of duplication. Further, this material isn't really appropriate for a scholarly investigation of mythology, and shouldn't be shoehorned here. The popular culture refs are all the standard fare, and they are more at home in :Category:In popular culture (where there are dozens of articles that are of that precise form) than here. Mintrick (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  It is better that there be one small section here that deals with references or allusions to Puck in modern popular culture.  The Puck that appears in the Shakespeare work needs to be dealt with separately, as they are different subjects in a number of important ways.  I am wholly opposed to this move and the combination of material in one poorly-thought-out article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What, exactly, is wrong? No doubt you'd like to portray your opinion as fact, but I'm afraid it's a tragically transparent move. Yes, the characters are distinct, but the references rarely give enough material to make the distinction of which one is being referenced clear. These minor references do not belong here, as they do not contribute to a scholarly understanding of the article's subject. Mintrick (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving material 

message: I deleted the user-created "picture of Puck as a fairy". Lovely and all, but a modern Wikipedian's drawing of the character is not encyclopaedic.Downstage right (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: Although, I actually really like the following bit, I had to remove it as being original research:
In modern mythology, the "merry old elf" who works with magical swiftness unseen in the night, who can "descry each thing that's done beneath the moone", whom we propitiate with a glass of milk, lest he put lumps of coal in the stockings we hang by the hob with care, and whose trademark laugh is "Ho ho ho"—is Santa Claus.
If there is a viable reference for it, then by all means put it back.  Ekwos (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Santa Claus

message: Langland in Piers Plowman uses "the pook" to mean the devil - this is glossed in the scholarly edition I have. Is it worth adding? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piers Plowman 

message: I propose that we take all the literary references currently in this article, and merge them with the current content of Puck in popular culture, to form a new article (technically done as a rename of Puck in popular culture) under that theme. Plus the Piers Plowman that I didn't get round to adding. The article would be structured roughly chronologically. Significant 20th and 21st century references can stay in, e.g. to feature films, as that is only a slight stretch of "literature". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Puck in literature]] 

message: Are Dobby and other house-elves in Harry Potter novels essentially Puck-characters? Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Dobby?

message: I had added the inclusion of Puck in DotA to the "In literature and popular culture" section.  However, user MichaelMaggs contests the inclusion as both non-noteworthy and trivial.  However, before addressing those concerns, it's perhaps better to address their Wikipedia guidelines they cited in their reversion of my edit:
With that out of the way, let's address claims of being "non-noteworthy" and "trivial".
*"Non-Noteworthy": Let's be clear that, as per WP:NOTEWORTHY, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, and what is relevant are due weight and other content policies.  Due weight does not apply here, and I also see no relevance in the other content policies listed.  If you can produce a specific content policy that is relevant here, then provide it, along with your reasoning for why its relevant.  I have no interest in giving another lengthy response to 3 apparently arbitrary links.
*"Trivial": What we have to look at here is MOS:CULTURALREFS.  I believe the most notable portions to be the following two points:
**"Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences."
**"The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance."
Ultimately, the list as it exists now is already less than ideal, but there is no harm done in continuing to "noteworthy" information in the flawed format until someone has the will to rewrite the information into proper sections. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The list as it exists is indeed less than ideal, but the fact that there are already non-significant (trivial) examples shouldn't be used as an excuse to add more. The mere existence of a 'playable character' called Puck in a video game series is not in itself evidence of significance. The character isn't even important enough to warrant a mention in the article on the series. We don't want more things added to this list that are included simply because there is something called Puck in some story. I don't see any external evidence so far that this character is significant in any way. Can a source be cited that not only establishes the verifiability of the  reference, but also its significance to this article? MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Puck's appearances in the DotA franchise 

message: It seem that for a very long time there has been overlap between the section of this article headed "In literature and popular culture" and an entirely separate article Puck in popular culture. The latter article seems unloved; perhaps it could be merged back into this one?  MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping articles 

message: Twice I added a reference to the character appearing in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, and twice the reference was removed as not noteworthy. I’d just like to say that this was rather obnoxious...the Sabrina series has more viewers than most everything else on the pop culture list. Also, the editor keeps leaving a reference to Carnival Row in the list, in which the character never appears but an unrelated race has a name that’s an homage. It’s not clear to me why this would be noteworthy but the use of the actual character is not. Or why random novels that appear on no best seller lists would be,listed over a major studio production. 
The reason I added the reference was because I came to Wiki to verify the character connection when he showed up in the series, which isn’t evident until well into the plot line, and the article didn’t contain a reference. So I did the research and fleshed out the reference with appropriate citations, as this is a series still in production. 
I’m not going to put it back in, but just wanted to express that when boomers take out references that would be meaningful to Millennials and Gen Z readers, it decreases the value of the articles. There should not be a self-appointed censor who makes themselves the arbiter of what can and cannot be referenced. Contributions should be appreciated...this is our page, not one person’s page. Davey1107 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't anyone's personal page, but Wikipedia does have some pretty comprehensive rules about what is and what is not considered noteworthy - and the decision is never based on an editor's personal experience or opinion. So while it's not permitted to add information based on a bald statement that it would be "meaningful to Millennials and Gen Z readers", if you could provide reliable sources that support such a statement that would be a different matter. You might like to read MOS:CULTURALREFS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VNOTSUFF. (I've moved your comment to its proper place at the bottom of the page, btw). MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabrina

message: A "merge" tag was recently added to the Puck and Púca articles. Typically this is done to prompt discussion (or draw attention to an existing discussion) on a merge proposal. As the tagging editor has not opened any discussion/thread, and I can find no existing discussion here or at Talk:Puck (folklore) or separately at Talk:Púca, I will do so. Mainly to:
* Oppose - The proposing editor has provided no rationale for the merge. Nor does there seem to be any existing discussion in which a significant overlap was discussed. Absent any rationale for a merge, I'm unclear how it can be supported. For myself I don't see that any of the typical WP:MERGEREASONs apply (neither article is especially short, overlapping/duplicating of the other, or requiring that both be read to provide the full context to the reader). Otherwise, while there are acknowledged etymological overlaps between the Irish púca, English puck, Cornish bucca, and other types of pixie and bogies, the folklore and traditions surrounding each (mythical) creature are largely distinct. And I don't see the case for dealing with any/all of them together. As if each was indistinguishable from the other. Guliolopez (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (Proposer did not create and copy his notice to this discussion area:)  Discuss continues here.  GenQuest "scribble" 12:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: How is it related? The link exists in other languages too, so it's not a coincidence.79.180.57.39 (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hockey puck