Talk:Hodge (cat)

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

Explanation for article class change

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've changed the class of this article from Start to B. This is an awfully good article about an esoteric subject; it's properly sourced, and over the years, different editors have added what precious few shards of info there are about this cat. The article has probably gone as far as it can, given the paucity of information available. I don't know about its importance - probably not very - but anyone wishing to suggest what else could be done to get this article to GA should by all means do so here. Thanks. Seduisant (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Antipathy

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the quoted passage, I'm curious whether antipathy means dislike (as is the normal definition), or whether the author means he is allergic to cats. People now use allergy to mean antipathy, so it's not unreasonable that the reverse might be true. --70.194.73.183 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hodge (cat). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic