Talk:Krampus in popular culture

Contested deletion

"This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here)" This is a WP:LIST the info in which has been scrubbed from the main Krampus article (that deals almost exclusively with the European tradition). --Limulus (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

the contents were removed from the main article were removed because there were no reliable third party sources to support them. And you havent addressed that at all.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The article existed for literally 8 minutes before you started blanking sections of it (I was in the middle of trying to save edits, which is very frustrating). I hardly think you're being fair, especially since I was creating it to try to help avoid conflicts over exactly this sort of material in the Krampus article! -- Limulus (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

moving concerns about inadequately sourced content from the main article to a standalone fork is not addressing the concerns about inadequate sourcing it is merely moving them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion (2)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here)

I've been researching media sources which influences various holiday traditions in the US. This article describes, and gives valid references for, a whole topic I would have missed. The article compiles unique info I haven't been able to find elsewhere. Please keep it on Wikipedia. Others may find it useful as well. Thank you, thank you!

-A Reader --98.113.205.195 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Why "Krampus in North American popular culture" and not simply "Krampus in North America"? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. A case could be made for moving this to Krampus in North America instead, but the consensus is to expand the scope of this article beyond North America. If this expansion is not carried out, it may warrant another discussion moving it back. (non-admin closure) Bradv 13:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Krampus in North American popular culture → Krampus in popular culture – There's no need to limit this article's scope to North America, even if most pop-cultural expressions of him arise in North America (or if those are just the ones we're more familiar with). Krampus is probably more a part of the "regular" culture of Europe, but there's no reason he couldn't show up in European popular culture as well. If the point of this article is to suggest North America has somehow perverted Krampus, Krampus in North America, suggested in the above section, might be an option. If this article is not moved to my proposed title, that title should instead redirect to Krampus#In popular culture. It should not be red (cf. WP:INUSA). --BDD (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd rather see this left where it is for North America, and then another created for Seidä Pass and similar groups in Europe. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Why? Are you concerned that one or the other article would be too large (eventually)? Are there other popular culture topics that we split out into multiple articles based on geography? --BDD (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• There seem to be two totally different takes on "Krampus in popular culture", and they're geographically split. In North America, it's a slapstick horror character. In central Europe it's a serious recreation of old krampus practices. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support and expand. Seems to be an arbitrary limitation on the scope.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Cúchullain. If there is enough to split into multiple continents, we can split it then. kennethaw88 • talk 23:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. No, User:BDD, perhaps it's just because I'm not north American, but north American Krampus is not at all what I'm most familiar with. I've been familiar with central European Krampus for over a decade, but it's been less than a month since I realized that north Americans too have fun with Krampus. (And of course I don't begrudge them Krampus in the slightest. On the contrary, good for them.) ¶ Question. "Krampus in popular culture" seems to presuppose that there's a significant amount of material on Krampus not in popular culture. What is this material? How is Krampus not in popular culture? (Meaning, of course, the popular culture of the relevant time and place, e.g. Bohemian popular culture of the early 20th century.) Because User:Bohemian Baltimore created "Category:Krampus in popular culture", I asked them about this (in Category talk:Krampus in popular culture). Actually I did so a week before this move was suggested, but haven't yet received a response. I realize that in Wikipedia articles, "... in popular culture" typically means "in recent or current commercialized culture" (which in turn usually originates from the US); but rightly or wrongly I put this down to mere recentism. ¶ If my suspicions are right and "Krampus in popular culture" just means "Krampus", then this article could be "Krampus in North America". -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  I appreciate the point that Krampus is portrayed differently in North American popular culture as opposed to his European roots. But it's essentially the same figure. You could say the same about Santa Claus himself. This is less a matter for segregated articles and more for prose, to explain regional variations in how the figure is regarded. As for your second question, I don't really see folklore and religion as part of popular culture. We're supposed to use common terminology, and I think these meanings will be evident to our readers. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  Well BDD, I wouldn't call monasteries or theodicy parts of popular culture, and therefore I wouldn't call all of religion part of popular culture. And religion isn't irrelevant to Krampus. But as I read through the article "Krampus", I have trouble identifying anything in it that wasn't or isn't popular culture somewhere or other. ¶ According to a certain online encyclopedia, Popular culture or pop culture is the entirety of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, images, and other phenomena that are within the mainstream of a given culture, especially Western culture of the early to mid 20th century and the emerging global mainstream of the late 20th and early 21st century. (Grossly overlinked!) I notice that amazon.com sells lots of Krampus costumes, so maybe Krampus is in the mainstream of US culture; OTOH amazon.com sells lots of almost anything (recreational drugs aside), so perhaps not. Do millions of north Americans celebrate Krampus, or what else is our yardstick for "mainstream" there? As for especially Western culture of the early to mid 20th century and the emerging global mainstream of the late 20th and early 21st century, systemic bias much? If I'm interested in bridges (as an example of something very different), I'm likely to be more interested in reading/writing about bridges that still exist and/or are near me; but a bridge halfway around the globe that was destroyed centuries ago was just as much a bridge as is one that I cross twice a day. Nobody should begrudge an emphasis on the former, but I'd be surprised to read: A bridge is a structure built to span physical obstacles without closing the way underneath such as a body of water, valley, or road, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle, especially those in accordance with Western-led civil engineering of the late 19th to mid 20th century and the emerging global civil engineering mainstream of the late 20th and early 21st century. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support The "real" Krampus, "Krampus in culture", is dealt with at Krampus. If editors want to expand the pop culture beyond North America, we should encourage. Wikipedia=Work in Progress Ribbet32 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krampus in popular culture. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151218205257/http://gawker.com/5867091/travel-channel-pulls-touching-christmas-special-about-a-child-licking-demon to http://gawker.com/5867091/travel-channel-pulls-touching-christmas-special-about-a-child-licking-demon

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) 07:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Contested Reversion

Why was the Paladins addition reverted ? Taking into account that a skin reference is accepted for the game Overwatch, why would you revert a skin from another game ? The addition was sourced and is also easy to verify. I simply don't understand the logic applied Nitrosobacter (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it was a WP:PRIMARY source as the revert stated. The logic is this could become a WP:COATRACK of every passing mention of the the character. This could be designed to improve SEO for the reference, or to try to help keep the linked Wikipedia article. In short, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of things. We only record information that other, reliable sources have discussed. The Overwatch reference is from https://www.pcgamer.com/junkrat-krampus-is-coming-to-the-overwatch-winter-wonderland/ PC Gamer]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

star trek online version

in star trek online in the winter event there is a creature based on krampus that is called The Kramp'Ihri. maybe it should be added to the article. 84.208.108.74 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)