Talk:List of fictional badgers

Comments from 2007

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

Cleanup

In performing the cleanup for this article, I've used the article's title, other similar articles, and common sense to guide me in crafting an appropriate lede for the list. According to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, a stand-alone list such as this should be properly defined to avoid it becoming an indiscriminate collection of information or becoming Listcruft. WP:LIST states that the definition of the list (i.e. the explicit inclusion criteria) should come in the lede paragraphe and of the three common selection criteria listed at WP:LSC, it is clear that "Every entry meets the notability criteria" makes the most sense for this article. The short lede I have added is based primarily on the title of the article. It reflects the above policies and it mirrors the ledes of other "List of fictional animal" articles. If any editors believe that the lede should be expanded, please discuss it here.

By providing the article with a clear definition, three simple inclusion criteria emerge. This means that some of the entries on the list will probably have to be removed. My motivation for this cleanup is to make the list more consistent and more encyclopedic and it is not to remove any particular badger characters. Similarly, I am not interested in removing any badger characters that do meet the inclusion criteria. I am not familiar with all of of the characters currently on the list so it is possible that I have missed the proper wikilink for a character. I have added "verification needed" tags to all characters that are red-linked because all members of the list should be independently notable. This tag does not imply that I believe the character is non-notable simply because it is red-linked, however it does mean that a source should emerge to verify that the character is notable or else the character will be removed.

Below I have made explicit the list of inclusion criteria. I find that this is helpful to avoid the probability of the article slipping back into listcruft. -Thibbs (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the condition for list inclusion the strict notability of the work, or of the badger in isolation? For Detective Inspector LeBrock of Grandville, it's pretty clear-cut - he's the lead character and appears full-muzzle on the cover of most volumes: there could be no work without that character, even though any separate article on that one character would probably be AfDed into a merge forthwith. In other cases, such as Captain Ramshackle of Automated Alice, it's less clear. The character is Noon's own creation and isn't (unlike Alice) part of Lewis Carroll's original. The broad story could still exist without this one character, yet they are major (one chapter is an Alice/badger duet) and not just a passing spear-carrier. They're individually as important as Wind in the Willows' Mr. Badger, certainly more so than its horde of nameless weasels, yet I'd be surprised to see them meet WP:N in isolation.

I would suggest that we require strict notability for either character or work, but the character's isolated notability should only be judged as being to the same level of warranting inclusion in an article on the work. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The notability should pertain to the badger character since this is a "list of fictional badgers" and not a "list of fiction about badgers". Whether or not a character is notable independent of the work is something of a line-drawing issue. It may be difficult to tell in some cases whether the character is notable independent of the work. That's why I've requested verification in the form of reliable sources. In performing these cleanups I don't have time to check every source and I certainly don't have time to familiarize myself with the characters to the extent that I could determine whether the character is notable in isolation. I'm assuming good faith in the source additions made by other editors who are probably more familiar with the subject than I, but I think that the requirement for notability of the individual in isolation is important to highlight in case disputes arise. -Thibbs (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a list of whatever we decide it to be. Short article names don't define scope, or else there would be no need to add these definitions here. Our goal should be to make a useful scope, not to be railroaded into a lesser one because of a handful of words.

A list of fictional badgers should (IMHO) list characters where some aspect of "badgerness" has been exploited for a deliberate literary purpose. This can be as simplistic as Badger (Farthing Wood) with a "respected leader" character or the no-nonsense gruffness of LeBrock. Similary Ramshackle & Mr Badger. OTOH, Trufflehunter has an article, not because they're an important character or significantly badger-specific, but because Hollywood has now filmed it, and Hollywood or TV coverage counts for more on WP than real literary merit. For My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Diddy_Kong_Racing#Characters there's barely a mention (if at all) of their 'badger character'. Nor is there any indication as to why these characters are badgers, as some deliberate analogy, rather than foxes or haddock. These are the weakest entries for inclusion here.

I still don't believe that we have to prove independent WP:notabilty for a character in a notable work, but we should require that the character is non-trivial and is a badger deliberately, for badger reasons, not just because they've already got a fox and a rabbit. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a definition which would allow all characters with any "badgerness" to them is that there is no definition for this term. WP:LSC states that the lede must "make direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected." I don't think that ambiguous or subjective terms like "badgerness" can be considered "direct" in the same sense that LSC means it. Even if this selection criteria might seem obvious to editors like you and me, an explicit standard such as the unambiguous biological definition would be helpful to others.

Although I happen to find your arguments concerning literary merit to be personally persuasive, this argument suffers from the same problem as above. Like "badgerness," literary merit is an ill-defined and unquantifiable measure of worth. I think it would be hard if not impossible to craft an clearly-defined and objective definition for "fictional badgers of literary merit." As you have suggested, reliable coverage counts for more on WP than real literary merit. Indeed, WP:Source list states that "inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." For this reason I think that a more pragmatic approach to fulfilling the notability requirement is by requiring verification with reliable sources instead of relying on personal assessments of literary merit.

As for the notability requirement, perhaps you are right that independent notability is not required. I've come to use this standard after repeated dealings with the AfD police, but there seems to be no mention of it in WP:N. Although WP:LSC suggests that all entries should be capable of having a non-redirect article based on them, I think that any one or two RSes adequately covering them could demonstrate this. I've overstruck what I said about independent notability above, however regular notability rules should still apply. So the character must be the subject of significant coverage that addresses the character directly and in detail. -Thibbs (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This article is a list of fictional badgers. To be included in this list an item must meet 3 criteria.

1. Badger - The character must be a badger - "short-legged, heavy-set omnivores in the weasel family, Mustelidae."
2. Fictional character - The character must come from the world of fiction - "any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s)".
3. Notable - The character must meet WP:N - The topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• A bluelink is usually enough to satisfy requirements #1 and #2, but for redlinks these must be verified through reliable sources.

-Thibbs (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Mustelidae alone isn't a sufficient condition for "badgerness", but it's workable and as well as the One True Badger it does include the US badgers and the ratel killer badger. However what about tanuki? These are widely (mis-)translated as badgers and given their popularity in Japanese myth, I'm sure they have contemporary fiction about them too. Are they in or out?

There's also the rock hyrax. Although taxonomically far from being any sort of badger, the King James Bible managed to mis-translate them into badgers (there's a Pentateuch prohibition on eating them). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. By using "short-legged, heavy-set omnivores in the weasel family, Mustelidae" to describe criterion #1, I am simplifying things greatly. The full definition of "badger" should be drawn from the article on badgers which has been linked. The point is that we're talking about biological animals that exist in a fictional context rather than fictional species that merely look like real animals (like aliens, monsters, robots, etc.). I think it would be hard to craft a tight definition for creatures that look like badgers without violating WP:OR. I would keep Tanuki among List of legendary creatures. -Thibbs (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Although Tanuki appear in myth, they are real creatures, the Japanese racoon dog. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why anyone include them in a list of fictional badgers then? -Thibbs (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK I reread that and I think I understand. I guess you mean what about fictionalized Japanese raccoon dogs. I'd think that they fail criterion #1 and so they could be placed among List of fictional animals (other). (Of course if we're talking about the creatures of legend then they would still fit under List of legendary creatures). -Thibbs (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that with the absence of racoon dogs in the West, Japanese references to tanuki get translated as 'badger' for Europe (I think they use racoon in the USA). Conceptually, if not zoologically, they're as close to Meles meles as the American badger is. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful cases should be resolved by examining the reliable sources on the issue. If the reliable sources say that the character is biologically a badger then he gets included in this list. If they say that the character is biologically a tanuki then he gets put on the "List of fictional animals (other)." If the sources say the character is a mythological tanuki then he gets put on the "List of legendary creatures." If the reliable sources conflict then the editors will have to come to a consensus on a case-by-case basis on the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Incident at Hawk's Hill

See the last three edits in the page history.

1. I added The mother badger from Incident at Hawk's Hill to the project page.
2. Thibbs added link markup around "mother badger". (Thibbs also added a tag requesting sources to verify the character's notability -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC))
3. I reverted as I do not believe a stand-alone article is warranted on this (or on many major animal characters and even characters in general from books that have articles on the book itself which by its nature deals with the characters therein).
4. Thibbs thereafter removed the entry, noting "this is a "list of (notable) fictional badgers", not a "list of books starring fictional badgers". If the fictional badger isn't notable enough to be redlinked it doesn't belong here."

So we are now at the "discuss" part of the bold, revert discuss cycle. I think Thibbs does not realize that in this entire list there is only one blue link to a stand-alone article (to the mascot of the University of Wisconsin). Every other blue link on this list, including to the badger in The Wind in the Willows, probably the most famous badger ever, links to: A) a section header in the article on a larger fictional work wherein the animal appears; B) a redirect to a section of the article (rather the same thing); or C) a redirect to a section of a "list of notable Characters in X" type article.

Now, of course, you might say, "well, they should all be removed as well" but if perchance you think any of these belong, then in effect you are saying that this should be kept out because there is (not yet) a section header (or redirect) to which we can link for the badger character in the somewhat stubby new article on this Newbery Medal winning book. If that's your take then we should take this to AfD now since I don't believe any of these badgers deserve stand-alone articles (and all of the red links should be removed).

I also don't believe that most characters from most fictional works should have an article separate from the work itself. As you may or may not know, we have a different notability standard for stand-alone lists that refers to the notability not of the individual parts but of the emergent whole. See WP:NOTESAL. Anyway, I would like to hear your take on how this badger should not be included when all the other badgers on this list but for one (which could be characterized as different from the rest anyway, as a sports mascot) do not have solo articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (Note added for clarity to Point #2 above. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC))

The inclusion criteria for this list are clearly stated in the article's lede. To be listed here a putative list member must be 1) fictional, 2) a badger, and 3) notable. A list of non-notable fictional badgers would be an indiscriminate collection of information requiring the inclusion of characters like the unnamed badgerlings from the forest of the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White, and the Japanese Badger that can be purchased for a cage in the video game Zoo Tycoon 3, and the very hungry badger that came to Castle Grindewald in chapter 6 of Brian Jacques' novel The Long Patrol, and ultimately all of the other countless examples of badgers that have appeared in fiction since pen was first set to paper. If the character you wish to add is notable, fictional, and a badger, then it belongs on this list. Otherwise not. I echo your sentiment that most characters from most fictional works don't deserve their own articles. Indeed these are the kinds of characters that turn a finite list into an indiscriminate collection of cruft. The notability inclusion criterion safeguards against this very problem.

In assessing notability, the presence of a stand-alone article on the character is obviously only a rough indication that notability exists. Wikipedia articles require sources and sources demonstrate notability, but of course Wikipedia articles don't yet exist for all notable topics. So instead of a bluelink we can use raw sources to demonstrate notability, and with notability demonstrated we can redlink the notable badger character because per WP:REDLINK, "an article or at least a subsection within a related article should be created for the topic" (italics represent my own view).

There may well be problematic entries in this list. If so, please feel free to modify or remove them if they fail the inclusion criteria. I am not convinced that nom-ing this article at AfD is a constructive approach in this case, however. The article is definitely rather small as far as these kinds of lists go so if you think a merge is in order then I would be happy to discuss that instead. Let me know what you think. -Thibbs (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with what you've said, because I think this badger is fictional a badger and notable and does not warrant a stand-alone article as with every other badger on this list, every single one. Notable things that naturally are discussed in the context of an intimately related larger topic can and should normally be dealt with inside the larger topic; they should not exist separately. That is the present state of all the badgers included. You won't get any argument from me about the evil of indiscriminate lists and I think we are rather of the same mind about many things in the notability sphere, but your list of indiscriminate things is a strawman, to the extent it is presented as a list of things that are equivalent to this proposed entry (there are actually a number of presently blue-linked items on this list, that are far closer to these types of indiscriminate inclusions). This is an award winning book centering on a boy adopted by a badger. There are scads of sources about it that speak about the badger. But it should not be red-linked because we shouldn't have a separate article on it and red links are not for anything notable, they are to invite creation. I think you are affirming the consequent in your argument. Notability is a necessary condition to warrant a red link but the fact that something should not have a red link is not a statement it is not notable. The only conclusion I draw is that you are being inconsistent by not removing all of the entries.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason the badger you added was removed was because it failed to meet the notability inclusion criterion spelled out in the lede of this article. When I (red)linked it and tagged it as requiring sources, you reverted the edit claiming that no article was warranted on this character. I was left to conclude that the character is non-notable. If you can furnish one of the scads of references you mentioned above that demonstrates the notability of this character then please feel free to re-add the character along with the appropriate citation. My only interest here is in keeping trivial nonsense out of this list. Whether or not an article is warranted for every or only a subset of those topics for which reliable sources demonstrating notability exist is a tangential issue. The reason I removed the entry was because it looked like you were suggesting non-notability of the character (i.e. by removing the "sources needed" tag and by suggesting that a stand-alone article couldn't be created on the character), not because it wasn't redlinked. And while redlinks are not an inclusion criterion, notability is. If I caused any confusion with my edit summary then I apologize. Note, though, that a strict requirement for notability cannot be considered a strawman in this context. Without tangible evidence in the form of references demonstrating that a character is notable, the assumption at Wikipedia is that it isn't. And without a notability inclusion criterion, indiscriminate things do creep into articles like this one.

Although perhaps unnecessary, my practice has been to redlink characters in lists like this if their notability is only supported by refs under the theory that in most cases notable and verifiable topics deserve articles on Wikipedia, and that exceptions to this can easily be handled on a case-by-case basis. If you are arguing that this particular badger should not be red-linked then I'm comfortable with doing-away with the link. In most cases a redirect would serve as a superior alternative in my view, but in this particular case the anonymous badger would seem to have no concise identifier from which to redirect. Again, I encourage you to re-add the character with a ref that demonstrates notability. No need to worry about whether or not it's red-linked. And I'm glad we are more or less on the same page. -Thibbs (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? All you wanted was a generic reliable source after the listing talking about this badger? Sorry, Thibbs, but you need to sleep on it, then come back with fresh eyes and look at what you written here and in edit summaries and think if anyone would have gotten that form anything you've said up until now (I'm saying this with a smile on my face). You're not going to find many people more keen on requiring sourcing than I am. Anyway, I don't believe any of the red links belong—the badgers can be blue-linked when the article on the wider work they appear in or the section of existing work focusing on the badgers is created, but until such time, red links invite stand-alone article creation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit I can be long-winded at times and perhaps my point can get lost in the message, but the "verification needed" tag I placed in article space after the entry you added should have tipped you off about what I was after. All I want is a plain vanilla reliable source that demonstrates the notability of the character you are seeking to add. I'm sure it seems trivial to you but consider that I have spent a great number of hours cleaning up articles like this from the morasses of nonsense they had in some cases become. I'm anxious to see that the articles don't return to the state they were in. I'm sure you can see that if we were to make an exception for entries added by you that we'd have to do the same for all editors. I don't think it's unreasonable to request references for characters without stand-alone articles. As for the red-linked articles, I disagree that they should be delinked. There may be an argument for making them into redirects, but otherwise I'm happy to invite stand-alone article creation rather than to delink them. In my experience an article is usually appropriate when a topic is notable and verifiable. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, anyway, now that we're on the same page I think, adding a source is trivially easy (I don't think it's trivial!). I'll go do that. The reason your intent was not clear to me at all (besides the fact that you never said it directly) is that you added the fact tag to the red link for the badger you had added, and not to the end of the sentence where the book link resided that linked to an article with multiple reliable sources included. Meanwhile, my edit summary made clear that I didn't believe the article on the badger itself was warranted, which you took to mean that I didn't think the topic was notable, and our misunderstandings thereafter deepened:-) Have I aptly summed up our two ships crossing in the night? Anyway, back to the current red links issue. I don't want to belabor it, but the fact that you're saying "In my experience an article is usually appropriate when a topic is notable and verifiable" in response to what I've been saying, makes me think our ships are missing each other again. The issue is not that I disagree with the statement that an article is usually appropriate when a topic is notable and verifiable, it is that the characters from fictional works, usually belong in an article on the work, so the red link should not be to the character but to the fictional work. These red links are inviting creation of articles on the badgers rather than the work they appear in. That's the problem as I see it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the entry has returned with sourcing this time. I haven't reviewed the ref, but I'll take it on good faith. Your description of our multiple misunderstandings is fair. I wasn't at all clear in my edit summary that removed the character, and you seem to have misunderstood what I was after when I tagged it for refs. The matter is behind us and I can congratulate you on some fine-looking references. They should serve as a model for editors who are uncertain how to demonstrate notability.

Turning to the issue of the redlinks, I concede that characters from fictional works often belong in an article on the work, however it's clearly an issue of editorial discretion. If all characters were merged with their parent work, then we wouldn't see articles on Donkey Kong, Snoopy, or White Rabbit. I've selected some super high-profile articles as examples here, and certainly it would be silly to argue that all notable fictional characters should have stand-alone articles, however it is equally silly to say that no character-based redlinks are justifiable. Considering that one of the prerequisites for inclusion on this list is notability of the character, it seems to me more likely than not that the character deserves at least a redirect devoted to it. In many cases it might deserve a subsection in a parent article, and in some cases it will deserve a stand-alone article. It seems to me that by delinking the character we are creating an entry in which we emphasize the work of fiction instead of the fictional character and as I said earlier, this is a list of fictional badgers, after all, not a list of fiction about badgers. What do you think about creating a series of redirects in the way of a compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New questions concerning this article's Notability Criterion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Shifted into this new subsection from unrelated discussion above. (-Thibbs (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC))
• See also Related discussion of February 2011.

{{3O}}

"source that demonstrates the notability of the character you are seeking to add. " Why are you still seeking to demonstrate notability for list entries, which are not required to be individually notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Individual notability is not required for all lists, but this list's inclusion criteria (found in the lede) establish notability as an element in determining inclusion. So in that sense it is required here. For a list of minor paracetamol brands or something of that nature, a notability criterion can safely be foregone, but for lists like this that deal with fictional items in the entirety of fiction, individual notability is extremely helpful in keeping out cruft and keeping in encyclopedic content. As I pointed out earlier, a list on non-notable fictional badgers would include ridiculous additions like the badger who asks 'why' in Andrew Hyson's song "The animals gather 'round", and the badger judges from Emil Capo's puppet-theater play "Legge della foresta", etc., etc., etc.. If we throw out notability as an inclusion criterion then all of these (and all other fictional badgers in all other fictional media) must be added as well. It also opens the doors to vandalism because nobody is going to sift through each fictional work to verify that the alleged non-notable fictional badger is even present. The list will only be of limited use to fanatics and the encyclopedic value will approach nil. Such a change to the inclusion criteria would be folly, I think. -Thibbs (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

S'ok, I've fixed it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Andy. You didn't. I've reverted your nonsense. If you want to discuss it then please try to do so like a reasonable collaboration-minded person. This is the second time you've disrupted this article to prove a point. Please don't try it again. -Thibbs (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense? No, it's called policy. List entries aren't required to show individual notability. Your repeated changes here (and the deletion of most of the article) are your opinion, no-one else's. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In many lists notability is a requirement for inclusion. Up until this morning this article used WP:LSC's "Common selection criteria #1" as it had for over a year. These "common criteria" required notability for all list members and as the guideline points out, "Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." I had explained why notability was important just above your nonsense comment (and just to clarify, by nonsense I mean that you responded to a lengthy argument demonstrating the necessity of notability as an inclusion criterion by removing it from the lede and saying that it was "ok" and that you'd "fixed it". That is nonsense and it is antithetical to the collaborative atmosphere required for editors here at Wikipedia). And I explained why I thought that changing the lede to remove notability from the article was a mistake. If you could address those concerns instead of playing childish edit warring games then I'd be much obliged. Despite the normal discussion process, I'll leave the article as you prefer for now, but I do think that it is a mistake to do away with the notability criterion and I am eager to hear some kind of rationale for your position. We may want to start a new section below this one so the issues don't get muddled. -Thibbs (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (NOTE: Shifted to a new subsection to reduce unhelpful muddle. -Thibbs (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

This is a list of fictional characters in fictional works. I'm happy to agree that the work should be notable, but there is no reason - from either WP:policy or from constructing a useful article - to hold the individual character to the same level of simplistic and dogmatic WP:Notability as the work. It is in the nature of lit crit that there will be more discussion of the overall work than of individual characters.

Your claim that each character must have its own non-redlinked article, or that it must meet WP:N individually is precisely that: your claim. You have no consensus for this or visible support from other editors. Despite that, you took it upon yourself to blank much of the article. A blanking that also left some oddly trivial and unreferenced characters behind, simply because they met your particular view of notable list inclusion.

I would be quite happy with the following as inclusion criteria:

• Part of notable works, per WP:N
• Characters that take some significant role within the work.
• Characters that are badgers. This can be quite broad: I would certainly include other mustelids beyond Meles meles, such as ratels, US badgers, rock hyrax and tanuki (if these aren't being identified more specifically in a non-badger context), as discussed previously.
• Characters that would be significantly changed if they were not badgers. A horde of "assorted woodland creatures" isn't quite enough.
• I would also be happy (within the scope of this list) to list books like Redwall and Uncle as single group entries, even though they include a considerable list of named badgers within them.

You clearly disagree with this. You've singled out Redwall as an example from The Long Patrol to show how it shouldn't be included. Yet this series probably has more badgers per page than any other children's fiction, with whole books being given over to badgers and named after individual badgers. If you're looking to exclude Redwall (and the Rupert the Bear books, and Grandville et al) where there are very obvious major badger characters within the central characters, then I have to wonder what you're trying to achieve by editing here. It certainly doesn't look like trying to establish a comprehensive encyclopedia article on badger characters in fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You keep suggesting that list member notability is a criterion endorsed uniquely by me alone. As you can see from WP:LSC that is very clearly wrong. I hope we can both agree that creating a list of every badger that has every appeared in all fiction of all media (without regard for the character's centrality in the work of fiction) is neither of any encyclopedic value whatsoever nor is it probably even attainable. If we can agree on that then there is common ground on which to build. Another point on which we can both agree is the merging of characters from the same work into one entry. This seems eminently sensible. And yet a third point you haven't touched on but which I hope we can agree on is that the character must be fictional (any fictional medium will suffice). I do see problems with your broad definition of "badger", though.

What you describe as defining badgers "broadly" I would describe as defining them "loosely". IF this is to become a list of fictional mustelids that is perfectly OK with me and we should change the title and the lede. If it is to remain a lift of fictional badgers, however, then we need a definition of a badger. The option you are suggesting is in essence nothing more than Andy Dingley's personal definition. The option I would recommend instead is the biological definition. If this excludes otters and you feel that mustelids like this should be included then the problem is the article's scope as defined by its title rather than with the definition of the word "badger". Broadening "badger" to mean "badger, otter, hyrax, etc.", though, is to loosen the definition beyond all meaning (except perhaps to User:Andy Dingley in which case a more appropriate name for the article would be "list of things that Andy Dingley calls badgers").

Moving past this criterion, let us discuss my old favorite: notability. And again I am hopeful that we can start to see eye-to-eye here because your three criteria, "Part of notable works, per WP:N", "Characters that take some significant role within the work.", and "Characters that would be significantly changed if they were not badgers." are essentially at the heart of what I am trying to safeguard in holding up the notability criterion. The only difference that I can see, in fact, is that I would require a reliable source to demonstrate that the the character is significant and you perhaps would not. The presence of Reliable Sources proves notability so all I am asking for is a citation to a reliable source that demonstrates that the character is important in the ways you have described in the three criteria of yours that I just mentioned. Sources are of course required for Stand-Alone Lists as they are at all Wikipedia articles. So I hope that your uncomfortableness with the concept of a notability requirement can be eased by my assurance that any reliable source capable of meeting WP:V will demonstrate notability if it is used to verify significance of the character within the work. I don't think we can dismiss verifiability when it comes to making claims that a character is notable in articles like this because we otherwise leave ourselves open to vandalism, misinformation, and unencyclopedic cruft.

Andy, I really do have the best interests of this article at heart and I do not have any personal investment in any of the characters listed here. Your suggestion that I have removed characters because I don't like them is untrue and it saddens me to think that you may believe this. I hope we can work together on this article and that it becomes more of a collaborative arena than a battleground. Please let me know what you think about the points I've raised above. -Thibbs (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:LSC is one broad policy written on a "one size fits all" basis. Please don't pretend that it represents the entire staff of Wikimedia carefully reviewing badger-related issues and producing it as holy writ. Also please stop trying to portray that I'm expanding a list with every minor character that has any pretence of stripey fur. In particular, you're the only person who has mentioned otters, or even who has suggested that "other (named) mustelids" is the same thing as "all mustelids". Nice opportunity for a bit of personalised disparagement of another editor though - just how many times did you find it relevant to cite my name in your complaint?

I don't care about the US badger or the ratel, but I imagine there will be complaints from Wisconsin otherwise. The rock hyrax is here because the King James Bible (fairly well considered as a "source") describes them as badgers. Tanuki are translated as badgers in nearly every English language translation of Japanese folk tales. We could exclude them, but then we confuse readers who have come here looking for "The tale of the Badger and the Nine-Tailed Fox" etc. and it also misses the opportunity to explain to badgerfans just what a tanuki really is. For much the same reason we should include them in List of fictional teapot characters too - one of the mythic tanuki's favourite tricks is to transform itself as one.

As to "characters must be fictional", then I'd considered that to be implicit in fictional works. Although it's unlikely to arise with badgers, the idea of a historical novel shouldn't exclude real characters who appear in works of fiction: this has already arisen with Greyfriars Bobby and a few other dogs and horses, at least.

"my old favorite: notability." I think that's rather the problem. Your favourite. No-one else's.

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: The definition of "badger" - To begin with let me note that I am not suggesting that you are interested in adding every random woodland creature that looks like a badger into this list. And I did not intend to disparage you as such. I am trying to point out, however, that what seems obvious to you regarding this "broad"/"loose" definition (e.g. "of course hyraxes should be considered badgers here, but otters are completely different" (paraphrased)) may not be obvious to others. Your suggestion that anything that seems like a badger should count as a badger is extremely subjective. If you are the one deciding whether it's a badger then this becomes your list. If everyone decides what is a badger and what isn't then it becomes chaos. For the sake of argument, how would you respond to someone who claimed that a wombat was a badger? What about a lhasa apso? Simply stating that those aren't badgers doesn't address how you know they aren't. In regards to the items you've listed such as the legendary tanuki and the biblical rock hyrax, I have no problem with adding them to the list if they are described by the sources as badgers. If not, then I have to resort to the dictionary definition and place tanukis under the list of legendary creatures or along with the hyraxes under the list of fictional animals (other) for characters that are biological raccoon dogs. Basically what I'm saying is that questions regarding whether or not a character is a badger are resolvable by using sources under the biological definition but they are unresolvable using your definition.

RE: Fiction as a criterion - If I understand you correctly you're arguing that characters from works of historical fiction deserve a place in this article, yes? If so then I agree (provided they are badgers and notable) because historical fiction is a genre of fiction.

RE: Notability as a criterion - Look closely at what you're saying, Andy. In one breath you've described WP:LSC (a guideline demonstrating the fact that individual notability is a common selection criterion used in "most of the best lists on Wikipedia") as a broad policy and only a few lines lower you describe an individual notability requirment as something that I alone endorse and that no-one else does. If you are limiting your point to this current time in this article's talk page then of course I am the only one endorsing this view. And you are the only one endorsing the opposite view. Apart from the two of us and User:Fuhghettaboutit (who recently objected to my having redlinked the character he added), this page has only seen edits by 5 other editors in the last 6 months. It should be noted as well that Fuhghettaboutit suggested that we would not find anyone keener on requiring sourcing than he (remember that sourcing demonstrates notability), and he commented that when it came to notability he was "rather of the same mind" as I. To find support for your notion (that I am the only person who thinks individual notability is a sensible criterion) in the fact that I am the only one expressly arguing this position in talk today at this decidedly low-traffic article is not quite fair to me and it ignores the thrust of my argument completely. Even if I were the only one who thought that it's the right move I do not think so without reasons. I've outlined them above and you've ignored them. Please re-read the sentences I wrote regarding why we should retain notability as a criterion as it has been in this article for over a year and in your response try to engage with the argument rather than with me personally. I sense that there is a lot of common ground between our two positions when it comes to notability. Whether we can come to an agreement depends largely on whether or not you're willing to consider my views and address the points I am making. I am trying very hard to understand your position but as yet it seems to me nothing more than a breaking down of the notability requirement into three parts and possibly a dismissal of WP:V. Can you give an example for instance of a fictional badger that plays a significant role in a notable work and whose badgerness is used for meaningful gain by the author of the work and yet who isn't notable? What aspect of the notability criterion are you finding troubling? Is it the fact that sourcing is required to demonstrate notability? I hope we can work together collaboratively on this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You've previously removed LeBrock of Grandville as non-notable. Ignoring for a moment that redlinks don't prove non-notability, this is a very clear example of a character that doesn't meet the simple letter of WP:N as a character, yet is part of a work that has two articles about it. A character who appears on the front cover of all three books. A character where the characterisation is specifically badger-like. They're not a character that's turned into a badger, they're a character that was cast as a badger for dramatic reasons. This is precisely the sort of character that belongs on this list, yet you're writing screeds and screeds to justify its removal. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please. They are more desperate attempts to reason with you than screeds. And I am not attempting to justify the removal of any particular characters just the class of them that is defined by non-notability. Your example of LeBrock, for instance is a pretty bad one considering that I was able to find sources demonstrating him to be notable in under 5 minutes. Consider the following sources: Taken from The Times, The Skinny Magazine, and The Guardian. Notability demonstrated. Probably because he's a notable badger. It's frankly next to impossible these days to find a main character of a notable fictional work who is not discussed anywhere in the Reliable Sources. And because such a character would be impossible to verify anyway (without tracking down the book/film/etc.), I see little point in including it in the list. It would only open the page to vandalism and misinformation. Would you mind answering some of the other questions I posed? Unless you read through my "screeds" and answer we will continue talking in circles. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So you were happy to remove LeBrock as non-notable, but now you've found some sources and are claiming that he's notable. Whether they're adequate sources to justify Detective Inspector Archie LeBrock is another question, but not relevant here. Yet now you're claiming that LeBrock and similar cases should be removed because you're now claiming LeBrock to be independently notable, as if this then invalidates the premise that there are characters from notable works who can't demonstrate individual notability to WP:N.

I find it increasingly hard to believe you have any interest in an encyclopedia as a repository of information, rather than a forum for the utterly pointless arguing of meta-trivia and the opportunity to play at self-important adminishtrivia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed LeBrock from the list on 2 July 2011 because it had been sitting there with a "citations needed" tag attached since 15 February 2011. I didn't look for sources to demonstrate notability for the characters I tagged as needing sources because there were too many. Instead I simply tagged them for sources and hoped that interested individuals would either source them or would re-add them with sources if they were removed down the road. As it turns out no sources were provided for LeBrock so I removed him. I find it curious that despite your clear interest in LeBrock's inclusion in this list you didn't bother to lift a finger to find a source that would have kept him on the list. I'm not joking when I say that it took me less than 5 minutes to uncover those refs. At any rate, I'm still waiting to hear whether you can provide any reason to do away with notability as an inclusion criterion. If there is a good reason to treat this article differently than "most of the best lists on Wikipedia", then please share it. -Thibbs (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Summaries

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)

Thibbs' view

I think the following criteria are required for this article:

1. Fictional - From a work of fiction from any/all genres. As I understand it, Andy Dingley and I are in agreement on this criterion.
2. 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.
3. 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)

Third opinion

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)

Follow-up concerns

Thanks for your view on the matter Binksternet. I am still concerned that it isn't a good idea to require notability for the work alone. Wouldn't this include all minor unnamed badger characters from every forest scene in every Disney film for instance? There are an enormous amount of unnamed and utterly trivial fictional creatures that have appeared to flesh out backgrounds of pastoral fictional scenes through the ages. Is it useful to list them here? Further, isn't verifiability still a requirement for additions to the article? If so I can't understand how notability isn't a de facto standard. AS far as I understand it notability is defined by appearance in the RSes, no?

I am also unclear about your second statement. You say that RSes should be followed, but yet that establishment of species is not a requirement. Are you saying that RSes should be used but not presented? Or are you saying that a RS statement describing the character as a "badger" is sufficient and we don't need to resolve down to the species level (i.e. M. meles)? Or something else? Can you clarify what you mean? Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a requirement for the topic of an article, not necessarily for the contents of a list. At WP:LISTN, the guideline says that a list may or may not require each entry to be notable. At WP:LSC, the guideline recommends that notability of each list entry be required if the list would otherwise be too large; more than 32k is given as an example. Historically, this List of fictional badgers has never been larger than 5k so there is a lot of leeway. There is no requirement to establish notability of each entry as a hard rule.

Regarding reliable sources, I think the work of fiction should itself say that the character is a badger or, if this is missing, the character is described in reviews and such as a badger. We don't need to resolve down to species level as we are not trying to breed these things: they are fictional. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Well I still disagree that notability should be dumped because I think a lack of notability leads to ugly results in terms of trivia and cruft but I can't deny that this article has never been as large as some of the lists I've cleaned up so the degree of "pollution" may be rather more tolerable here. I tend to prefer inter-article consistency with topics like this and I think it's worth noting that at the list of fictional dogs, a recent (Feb 2012) RfC determined that notability was indeed necessary as an inclusion criterion. Of course the list of fictional dogs is a much larger article than the list of fictional badgers so perhaps I can limit cleanup jobs of this nature to articles of 32k or higher from now on.

Thanks also for the clarification on the second part. I don't think anybody was ever suggesting proof of species beyond the RS description "badger". But I do agree that the list member should be described by its source as a badger and that if it is described in other terms (e.g. only as a tanuki) then it doesn't belong. -Thibbs (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think that much is clear. It is in fact what I'd been saying from the start. Just above I was outlining a scenario in which the character is only described as a tanuki (i.e. it is not described, right or wrong, as a badger, but rather as a tanuki only). In that case I imagine that it should not be included as a badger. Right? Or are all tanukis welcome here? -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a list of badgers, not tanukis. Binksternet (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. That's quite logical.

To flog the dead horse just a tiny bit more, I had another look at WP:LSC and noticed that you'd been looking at LSC criterion #3 (calling for a list of all members verifiably of a set) instead of #1 (calling for a list of only notable members). It looks to me like the 32k cap is only suggested for LSC #3 type lists and not #1. Criterion #1 which I'd been advocating for here is described as embodying the type of editorial judgment reflected in "most of the best lists on Wikipedia." Either way, though, I think you've made your view clear enough on the issue of notability, and I'm not seeking to sway you. I've restored the pre-notability version of the article (circa Feb 2011) now and thanks for sharing your view. A neutral third look was exactly what Andy and I needed. -Thibbs (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General notability

In prior edits I had attempted to cast this article as a "subsidiary to the list of fictional animals" in order to leech from the notability of "fictional animals" as a parent article and as a central factor justifying the removal of trivial/non-notable entries from this list. Although the article is now operating under the consensus view that notability of list members is not to be taken into consideration, I don't think there is any way we can justify doing away with general notability for the topic of the article since stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as ... notability guidelines. What this means for this article is that it we need to improve the lede so that it asserts the notability of the subject. Sadly, whereas "fictional animals" is an obviously notable topic, "fictional badgers" enjoys a much narrower degree of coverage from reliable sources.

For this reason I am requesting help from other editors who are interested in improving this article. I have uncovered one reference to cover the mythical and folkloric aspects of the fictional badger and I've begun to expand the lede using it, but the lede as written only touches on one small aspect of the article. We are in need of RSes to cover badgers in as many of the other fictional genres and media as we can. If anyone can find any fictional-badger-related RSes that cover animated badgers or badgers of literature or song, etc., please try to add them to the lede to expand it. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I found a good one for literature as well now. It's not as in-depth as I'd like but maybe it'll do in a pinch. At least it covers the topic. I'll add it later tonight. We should still get some sources to cover animated and video game badgers, and badgers of film and music though. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to cite a list of fictional badgers, published before July 2007 when this list went online. If nobody published such a list then this article is in danger of deletion. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many lists like that were ever created prior to 2007, but I know that such lists do exist to a limited extent for fictional dogs, fictional cats, and presumably for other similarly popular animals. So it's always possible that a list of badgers could be tracked down if one were a clever enough researcher. The sources that I've been adding to the lede in the meanwhile don't really do much to assert the notability of a "list of fictional badgers", but they do go some distance toward demonstrating that "fictional badgers" is a notable topic. As I understand it, this may be sufficient to allow a list-type article on the topic. Anyway, by expanding and reffing the lede this article will stand a considerably better chance of survival than most lists of its kind. I've been doing some reflecting and in the end I think that there may be more practical value in simply drafting proper ledes and in reffing the portions of these lists that are reffable than in trying to remove entries that may never. -Thibbs (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a published source discussing various badgers in fiction would be a great help in keeping the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a bit of time today and managed to dig up a source that speaks a little about modern badger characters (i.e. about visually presented badgers). The emphasis on visual media in this source centered on TV programmes and the internet, so the film and video game sub-lists still aren't summarized in the lede, but I'm not sure this is all that important. Badger-themed music is also not summarized, but it seems to be fairly minor to the overall topic. I wanted to share another source that I've been skimming today which may prove helpful in the future if anyone wants to take a look.

• Cosslett, Tess. Talking Animals in British Children's Fiction, 1786-1914. Ashgate Publishing. 2006.

This source covers what can be seen as a transition from the older and very animal-like badger characters (represented by Beatrix Potter's Tommy Brock) and the more modern (pre-1990) literary badger character who is moderately human-like (represented by Kenneth Grahame's Mr. Badger). Specifically, the source describes Potter's criticism of Grahame's too-human characterizations for the other characters and her statement that Mr. Badger is her favorite of the Wind in the Willows' cast. To fit this in, the lede's third paragraph may have to be rewritten in part.

Anyway I think the lede looks strong enough now that we can remove the "expand-lede" tag and I've done so. If there are concerns about non-summary of the characters in the film, video game, or music sections then feel free to restore it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Another source that may be of use:

• Driver, Alistair. 'Heroic' Mr Badger has clouded TB debate, research concludes. Farmers Guardian. 23 April 2012.

The article specifically highlights Dr. Angela Cassidy's "Old Brock" (the figure of the "bad badger"). -Thibbs (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

List Selection Criteria

I've been watching some recent cleanups at other lists of fictional animals and they all seem to adopt Common List Selection Criterion #1 ("Every entry meets the notability criteria") as I'd suggested would be most appropriate for this article back in June. I anticipate problems arising if someone makes another attempt at standardizing this article by imposing a member notability requirement since we've decided through consensus to forgo such a thing here. So I'd like to ask input from page watchers here so we can get a better degree of clarity as to what are the specific selection criteria for this article?

Some of this is spelled out above (i.e. we need notability of the work), but my specific question is whether this list follows CSC #3 ("Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group") or whether this list follows a non-common/unique selection criteria that doesn't appear in CSC. If this issue is not one that has been considered yet, then let's make a determination now so that we can explain ourselves should anyone try to make this list consistent with the other lists of fictional animal lists against the local consensus here. Any input is welcome. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this could also serve as a model for other of the smaller-page-sized fictional animal articles which seem to be currently treated the same as the the large-page-sized fictional animal articles. Looking at CSC#3, it's clear (from the consensus at that page if not otherwise) that a list of all dogs in all notable fiction would be ridiculously large and unhelpful and that a member notability criterion is a must, but a list of all badgers in all notable fiction may be more manageable because badgers are relatively more sparse and less popular in fiction. So if that's the goal we want for this article then it may be something to consider for other small-page-size fictional animal list articles. If we're looking at a non-common LSC, though, then perhaps it should only apply here as it may have to do more with the specific content of this article than with any broader considerations. -Thibbs (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Criteria No. 1 is very strict. Less popular animals such as badgers would have their list articles eviscerated if No. 1 was applied. Criteria No. 3 should continue to be in effect. Those who apply No. 1 to small articles should be pointed to the existence of No. 3 as it allows a small article to be useful instead of a nearly empty stub. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Compare the state of this article now, to how it was after you'd first pruned it. Why are you in favour of reducing the quality and value of the encyclopedia, just so that you can dance naked around a rulebook? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure how I gave you the impression that I was interested in pushing for Criterion #1 again after it had been clearly rejected in June, but just to settle your concerns, that is definitely not my intention here. I'm very satisfied to maintain things the way they are currently as under this local consensus. That's perfectly within the rules and I think I've demonstrated through my edits here that I've embraced it. That's not to say I wouldn't accept a change of consensus too, but I'm certainly not pushing for one anymore.

Let me be clear: My question above was about which selection criteria currently do apply here. We all know which one doesn't apply (i.e. CSC#1), and I can guess that we're not interested in CSC#2 either, but I don't think it was ever spelled out whether we are following CSC#3 or whether we are following a set of selection criteria that don't appear under CSC.

From Binksternet's comment above it looks like he's been assuming that we're following CSC#3. If that's accurate then that's fine. I'm mainly trying to come up with a game plan for what to tell editors who show up here and expect to be able to convert this article into the same format as other "list of fictional animal" articles without resistance. It would be appropriate to tell them how this page is actually maintained rather than just reject their edits on the basis of the fact that they conflict with a consensus not to use LSC#1. In other words, we should tell people what the nature of the selection criteria is instead of just what it isn't. Do you follow? -Thibbs (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Badger-like animals

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)

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)

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)

• Badger-like mammal, a character in the "The Lost Island" episode of Primeval
• Dan Halen from Squidbillies has been described as badger-like
• Rebuloc, a badger-like creature from King
• The Pokémon Linoone resembles a badger, as does Typhlosion.

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)

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)

The same thing happened again on August 3. These were the deletions:

• Artistmole, a badger/mole monster from several Mighty Morphin Power Rangers episodes.
• Badger Moles in Avatar: The Last Airbender

-Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Should we add fictional Tanukis to the list?

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)

Tanukis do not belong on this list. Plantdrew (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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: "Characters that are badgers. This can be quite broad: I would certainly include other mustelids beyond Meles meles, such as ratels, US badgers, rock hyrax and tanuki (Andy Dingley)" and "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. Binksternet".
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)

Removal of unsourced listings

I have removed numerous unsourced listings from this list as seen here. This list should only list fictional badgers that have been worth nothing in secondary sources (just like we would do for lists of anything fictional that could get indiscriminate). Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• So many problems with that 8-(

No consensus to make such a major change.

Blanking most of an article in the middle of AfD is against our AfD practice.

List articles are almost never held to such a standard.

There is no issue raised with this article as a lack of sourcing.

The items you've removed had no justfication for being removed (and wouldn't even fail individual AfDs for lack of sourcing). They might have lacked sourcing, but they were not unsourcable, and that is a significant difference. They were all (AFAICS) either sourced or linked, and those links contained adequate sourcing. This is not a consistent issue on WP lists, but the crucial aspect is that, if required, the sourcing from those linked articles could have been copied across. WP does not require sourcing on all statements, only if a statement is challenged. Also, if challenged, the test is whether soruces are available (and here they are), not whether such sources are already in place.

This was a bad blanking and should be reverted. Especially bad to do it in the middle of an AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that many listings were not unsourceable. However, at the AfD discussion, there was concern that it was an indiscriminate listing. I acted boldly in removing the listings that did not have inline citations with secondary sources, and the burden is on the editors who restore the content to support the material. This kind of list article does have to suffer a different standard than something like list of <nationality> film directors or list of <genre> films because editors readily see it as some kind of indiscriminate fancruft, especially when the topic can be laughed at. As long as a list like this looks "crufty", there is more of an eagerness to delete it and a cascading effect at AfD to support that motion. As opposed to one editor's eagerness being completely shut down by other editors recognizing the article as well-sourced with proper inclusion criteria. You're welcome to ask other editors involved with this article or the AfD if the material should be restored. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sourceability is a minimum due diligence issue for AfD, but it's definitely not an issue for removal of unsourced claims within the article. The standard that actually applies to claims within articles (including list articles) is WP:BURDEN. -Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thibbs, Andy Dingley has attempted to remove sourced content and re-insert unsourced content from around the time of the AfD. Masem, Mr. Vernon, at the AfD, you supported this list with the unsourced content removed. Do you support Andy's action here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

How about working to source some of this instead of just trying to delete it again piecemeal? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Make a pointer to the diff with the unsourced entries, and tell editors they can add entries back in if they can find sources, but the AFD absolutely closed as removing the cruft as a need to keep this list. --Masem (t) 21:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a revert to the pre-AFD state, yet the AFD was closed to keep based on the pruned state that editors agreed met a more discriminate and sourced approach. Thus its needs to be reverted back. --Masem (t) 21:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I don't think there is any other way to read the AfD. Andy correctly remembers that there was previous local consensus established in 2011-2012 but WP:CCC applies and the recent AfD was (1) better attended and (2) more recent. I share Andy's optimism that there may be sources for the unsourced entries that have been removed, but as I pointed out in February, WP:BURDEN applies: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". -Thibbs (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hufflepuff Badger

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)

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)

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)

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)