Talk:Hodge (cat)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

from VfD:

Just an excerpt from Boswell's Life of Johnson. I don't think wikisource wants small excerpts like this, and I doubt wikiquote is interested. Maybe a real article can be written on this, but it should be called Hodge the cat, or, probably better, Hodge (cat). And it should be completely different from this. So delete. -R. fiend 01:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup. Being that this mere feline is a subject discussed considerably in the canon of Western Civilization, providing several platforms for biographical and literary analysis of Johnson, and presented through the praise of odes and and the witty ridicule of satire, the subject of the article is notable. However, what this article needs is a cleanup and expansion to discuss this minutiae of literature, not to be a victim of deletion. —ExplorerCDT 01:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: If I can find sometime in the next day or two, I'll take a swing at it. —ExplorerCDT 01:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Anyone should feel free to clean this up, by which I mean "write an entirely new article from scratch" (not really cleanup per se). That is not what would happen at cleanup though, and that's why there is no point in sending it there. Since it needs a new title anyway, we'd be keeping basically zero content. But if you can take a swing at it please do. It'll be here for a week anyway. -R. fiend 01:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Purrfectly good title, and encyclopedic subject. Were we to insist that the people we honour with articles be similarly notable, our biography project would be decimated. Andrewa 02:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Rid us of this litcruft. Delete.Dr Zen 02:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Heh. As if "fancruft" wasn't a ridiculous enough term... What's next, listing polynomial as mathcruft? Factitious 07:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Just noting that the same people who dismiss what others are interested in as "fancruft" are here defending the same thing in different clothes. Polynomials may not be "mathcruft" but do you doubt that there are arcana here even in maths?Dr Zen 23:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Question: Are they? Seems like one of the people against "fancruft" nominated this. For the most part, the "keep" votes have come from the "OMG!!!! Keep this valuable information (from a single episode of a webcomic)" people or from people who have only voted keep for the rewrite. Geogre 13:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, they are, Geogre. Perhaps we should raise a glass to the cruft that united Wikipedia! Dr Zen 06:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Abstaining for the time being. Curious to see how this article develops. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. Excellent work on the rewrite. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 02:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: There's no way to really develop anything on Hodge. The sum of our knowledge of the cat is contained in the "article." This is biographical trivia, incidentally, and not "lit cruft." Apparently, our DWEM literature folks don't generate cruft to the same degree as our TV fans do. Go figure. There isn't much of a need to merge the material, either, to the Samuel Johnson article, as SJ's cat isn't a huge part of the man as he comes to us in history. Further note that Boswell is a highly, highly, highly unreliable source. Geogre 05:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Impressive rewrites, but my feelings are unchanged: It's a detail that can only be made interesting by, essentially, contextualizing outward to "literary cats." ("How unpleasant to meet Mr. Eliot/ With a wopsical hat and a porcupine cat.") Geogre 16:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The title needs to be fixed, as R. fiend pointed out above. I think that we can and should have a real article about Hodge, and since ExplorerCDT plans to work on it, deleting it would show a lack of faith in the wiki process. The article's on my watchlist, and I encourage others who are interested in it to put it on theirs as well. Factitious 07:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I liked it. Fix the title, though. Everyking 07:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge any interesting details into Samuel Johnson. GWO
• Keep, notable (Bosie often is, you know) and cute, but needs expansion. Wyss 10:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Move to somewhere like list of notable cats and merge other semi-notable (but non-fictional) felines there, like Humphrey. Gdr 12:37, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
• Either merge into an article on Literary cats or Cats in literature, or keep and move to Hodge (cat). chocolateboy 12:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep (epsecially with all the re-writes). But then, I'm a cat lover so I'll always vote to keep any felinecruft! P Ingerson 13:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Good job on rewrite. Changing my vote to keep. But still move to Hodge (cat). -R. fiend 17:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Excellent job. I still have a few things I can add, but someone took the wind out of my sails. —ExplorerCDT 18:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• FUI, actually there are List of historical cats and List of fictional cats. Mikkalai 21:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Amazing rewrite: Keep. Samaritan 03:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• A clear keep in its present form. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Good article on borderline topic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If there's a statue dedicated to this cat, then an encyclopedia article seems reasonable too. Bryan 06:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. - Nunh-huh 06:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion