Jump to content

Talk:Thinking about the immortality of the crab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spanish?

[edit]

The article refers to this as a 'Spanish' idiom. Would that be the language or the nationality? I think the distiction is important - there may be idioms used in Spain (and of course other countries) that are not widely known in the Spanish speaking world. ike9898 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have never heard this idiom in Spanish before (although I'm from Spain). Maybe is common in latinoamerican countries. In Spain it is normal to say "Pensar en las musarañas" ("To think about shrews") to refer to the act of being oblivious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.60.243.130 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

[edit]

In Hungarian one thinks about the immortality of maybugs. --Tgr (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't cockchafers and crabs the same thing?--Father Goose (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variants

[edit]

Similar phrases are used in various languages:

  • Slovak: rozmýšľať o nesmrteľnosti chrústa
  • Portuguese: pensar na morte da bezerra - "thinking in the death of the calf"
[edit]

The film and the novel currently mentioned in the article use the proverb in their titles, but references to them here do not add to an understanding of the topic of the article, which is the proverb itself. Having these as a substantial portion of the article does not appear to align with MOS:CULTURALREFS. The article does not explain how (or claim that) the proverb had an appreciable impact on these cultural products. Actually, it does not appear that the film or novel substantially relate to the meaning of the proverb even in their own uses of the phrase. Likewise, we would not discuss Ipso Facto (album) on the Ipso facto article, nor The Whole Nine Yards (film) at The whole nine yards.

Further, it seems likely that the book is not notable at all. The book exists, but it does not appear to have received great attention or sales. I can see an argument that the film could be placed in the "See also" section, since it is the film's subtitle and is thus a partial title match.

I am still unsure why these changes were objected to, since the first reversion was only labeled "restore" and the second only said that I was making "drastic changes to a stable article." Restoration is not in and of itself a reason to revert, and these are not really drastic changes, nor is having an article be permanently stable a goal on Wikipedia. I understand that User:Evrik created the article long ago, but it should be allowed to continue to develop and improve. At any rate I have gone to the talk page as requested, although this is not likely to attract much attention. Dekimasuよ! 23:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does use of the phrase in an unrelated context help establish the notability of the subject? MOS:CULTURALREFS mentions media coverage of the topic, but these references are not coverage on the topic of the proverb–they are unrelated usages that repurpose the phrase irrespective of its meaning or cultural significance. Dekimasuよ! 22:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are avoiding collaboration to the point of violating WP:3RR here. I hope you do not regard all changes to the article from your version improper. For the record, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit (all within 24 hours) added a citation with clear issues that were immediately pointed out to you. These issues are more significant than the possible informational value of the source. The issues include: 1) the source is primary, and thus not preferable (WP:RSPRIMARY); 2) it appears to be self-published, but there is no way to verify that the author is the one who actually added the review to Facebook, because the profile is not verified and anyone can add any public post to Facebook (WP:FACEBOOK, WP:SOCIALMEDIA); 3) even if the author of the book posted the review, there is nothing to indicate that the person who is said to have wrote the review actually wrote it (WP:V, WP:BLOGS, WP:RSSELF); 4) the opinion expressed in this single review is being used to support the statement that "the novel was critically acclaimed in Hispanic circles", which is improper synthesis (WP:NOR, WP:RSPRIMARY–"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors", WP:INTEGRITY). This is on top of the issue originally noted above, which is that even were the source appropriate, it would be about the book and not about the topic of this article, which is the proverb. Contrary to your statement above, the book (and its reception) do not help establish the notability of the proverb, and thus the entire paragraph is still out of place. Dekimasuよ! 20:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Los mexicanos pintados por sí mismos.

[edit]

I'm curious if anyone has a copy of the referenced work? Los mexicanos pintados por sí mismos

--evrik (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. However, I have access to the Iberoamericana article, I can see the PDF, and I have access to a print copy if you can be more specific about what you would like to know about it. Are you looking for a page number? Dekimasuよ! 21:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
José Emilio Pacheco used that book in his poem. It's featured in his poem and is part of the article. I was interested in seeing what the original poem might look like. --evrik (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a searchable version on Google Books that does not appear to contain the quote. However, from the context I would have guessed that the original was running text (a conversation), not part of a poem in the original work. Dekimasuよ! 22:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it either, but it is part of Pacheco's printed poem. Oh well. --evrik (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are, however, print references from as early as 1865 available elsewhere on Google Books if seeking to establish history of usage. Dekimasuよ! 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice, could you put together a sentence and a cite? --evrik (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWorld comic

[edit]

The WikiWorld comic merely repeats the text of the article itself, serving to be purely decorative and fails to add to the article. It should be removed.

Note: Pointers to this discussion were added to MOS:IMAGES and WP Linguistics. Opencooper (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Discussions on Wikipedia are not votes. One should substantiate one's views more than a brief "I (dis)like it". Opencooper (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, this article is about a Spanish language idiom, and the article itself was used in a single instance of a purely on-wiki (Signpost) comic which ran for about a year and a half, and we want to use that one comic to illustrate the article again? Sorry, it doesn't seem useful or appropriate to me. (In fact, it's confusing, because when I came to the page I saw the comic and assumed the article was about a comic named "Thinking about...etc." But that's not what it is, as I determined after some befuddlement.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per BOLD. Img fails per MOS and is silly. — kwami (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Johnbod's while comments aren't what I would have said, it does reflect my attitude - just leave it. One person comes along and summarily decides that it doesn't meet MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, so here we are. More seriously, the page has been here for thirteen years. It describes the idiom, and it has an image that accurately reflects the essence of the idiom. The image is relevant to the article. The image is also used on the other language versions of this page. --evrik (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find these comments pointy and bizarre, but some people are very strange about images. The policy "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" is pretty broad, & we normally allow a wide interpretation. Would a "straight" picture of a crab be accepted by the editors above? If not, why not? I suspect that the opposition mainly comes from the "in-house" nature of the cartoon, but that has no basis in policy that I can see. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the image on other wikis or the age or this article has no bearing here. You say that it "accurately reflects the essence of the idiom", but it just shows a thought bubble next to a crab and and a crab being woken up. That's just a literal rendering of the meaning rather than "illustration" and only adds to my point that it's decorative. And no, a straight image of a crab would not be acceptable because knowing how a crab looks does not aid a reader's understanding of the article. My opening comment makes no mention of the in-house nature of the comic. We don't illustrate Wikipedia articles with excerpts of themselves. If we only kept the bottom half of the comic, it would still fail to add anything that the article text itself doesn't. Opencooper (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thought bubble and the crab waking up illustrate the article. --evrik (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you think a straight picture of a crab would not do, I think you are far from aligned with the general WP attitude to image relevance. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the article for crab. This is an article for an idiom. Do explain how a cat at "let the cat out of the bag", straw for "last straw", or a broken leg at "break a leg" would help. And no, you won't find such frivolous usage on Featured Articles (in fact, many have no images at all). Not that any of this is relevant to discussing a self-excerpted comic anyway. Opencooper (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made my point above, but I agree is isn't very relevant here, as the comic image is clearly far more relevant, as it is directly about the phrase. One could write a long, long, piece analysing the assumptions and leaps of logic underlying the statement "That's just a literal rendering of the meaning rather than "illustration" and only adds to my point that it's decorative", but I can't be bothered. Suffice it to say that it is not self-evidently correct. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment made above, this whole thing is Wikipedia:POINTy. Same for the discussion on notability that follows.--evrik (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article on English-language Wikipedia?

[edit]

I don't see where this is notable from our EN perspective. I am sure it merits an article on the Spanish Wikipedia though. But since we don't have articles on every idiom of every language, what are the arguments for keeping this article? (If the comic or the film is notable, that's okay, but then it's also an argument for a different article than this one)

Please enlighten me as to why we should not delete this page (and before you ask, yes, I did look at the 2007 discussion and found it weak policy-wise)? CapnZapp (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I'm asking, what's the selection criteria for English Wikipedia having articles on foreign language expressions? This isn't a "loan expression" - it isn't used in English. Where's the notability? All sources are in Spanish. I would have thought there to be notable English-language works using the expression, but there just isn't any. I am trying to see any relevance for English Wikipedia but can't. (You could argue there's merit for an article on the cartoon, but that doesn't justify this article.) CapnZapp (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thinking_about_the_immortality_of_the_crab&oldid=1256724581"