DefinedMeaning talk:hobgoblin (8301)
The image is labeled in Commons as being that of a kobold, which is a different creature from a hobgoblin. Hobgoblins are supposed to be hairy according to Wikipedia but that's too vague of a definition to put an image for this dictionary entry. Since anybody can upload a cartoon they have drawn of an imaginary creature to Commons, such images should not be used here unless they are clearly authentic. --InfoCan 21:50, 3 June 2012 (CEST)
- It is translated in German as Kobold, which is why I added the picture.
- Maybe you are right, so we need a separate entry for "Kobold" in the German mythology and move the image there. --Kip 10:08, 4 June 2012 (CEST)
- According to the Wikipedia, a hobgoblin is a type of goblin, and "it may be related to the kobold". But my objection here is more fundamental, I am questioning the value of using this particular picture at all. In fact somebody else objected to this particular drawing in the talk page of the Wikipedia article : "That image of an illustration of a goblin is really stupid. It looks like someone just drew himself as a goblin and put it up as a joke." Look at the pictures shown at Commons under category Kobolds or Goblins. They have nothing in common with each other other than what their artist (none of whom appear to be an authority or a notable person) decided to call them. They are not authenticatable because their subject matter is fictitious. If OmegaWiki articles are to have illustrations, they should add value to the definition by effectively saying "this is what is being defined on this page". A picture of a lion tells you a lot more about the animal than a one sentence definition of the animal. A picture of an imaginary characters that have been consistently drawn in art history, like the unicorn or Pegasus, also would add to the verbal definition of these creatures. However the hobgoblin and similar characters do not have a generally agreed-upon appearance, so pictures should not be used for them. --InfoCan 17:27, 4 June 2012 (CEST)
- Ok, image removed ;-) --Kip 18:31, 4 June 2012 (CEST)
- I am also removing the synonyms "hob", goblin" and the translations "kobold", "klabautermann", "duende", "kwelgeest" and "gobelin". The Wikipedia has separate articles for each of these so I assume they are distinct. Also, according to the Dutch Wikipedia, "kwelgeest" is a broad term that includes a number of creatures and the hobgoblin. Even if some of these fictional characters are roughly equivalent to each other (the duende is a "a fairy- or goblin-like creature in Spanish and Latin American mythology" says Wikipedia), they should still be treated as separate entities because they belong to different cultures and have had their individual cultural evolutions. Similarity is different from identity. --InfoCan 17:31, 7 June 2012 (CEST)
- Ok, but then we need to think of a more specific definition than the current one, so that other contributors do not add these translations again. --Kip 18:40, 7 June 2012 (CEST)