Talk:Battle of the Cowshed

VfD 3 Aug 2004

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Keep

From VfD:

Should be pretty obvious. A spoof of Animal Farm that has no place here. Possible candinate for Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense. -- Kizor 12:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted that this is the second time this article has appeared in as many days - It was speedy deleted yesterday. Certainly qualifies as a bad joke. -- 62.189.228.3 12:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. For the obvious reasons, although I do love the book Animal Farm - if you've not read it, go down to the library and get a copy :) Darksun 12:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I was thinking of a way to keep it from coming back, and I thought that a redirect would do it. Naturally, there should be a redirect to Animal Farm or, I thought, to Battle of Cowpens, a notable battle in the American Revolutionary War, and then I found out that, although articles refer to this battle, and it's on the list of battles, no one has written it yet. So, if there are Revolutionary War fans, here is a needed article. As for this, redirect to Animal Farm. Geogre 13:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to look again on its last day, but I've got to say that that table sure makes this article funny, even with the text on the left telling us explicitly that it isn't. There's something truly bathetic about putting a historical battle template up on a funny passage in a fictional book. Geogre 00:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Look, it's still bathetic. That table gives me the giggles yet. I don't think we're a lot better off having it, but the left side (done by the VfD voters, mainly) makes up for the eyebrow arching oddity of the right side. Geogre 02:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I really don't think you need the redirect, but if so, I'd say let it go to Animal Farm Lyellin 14:09, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to Animal Farm. I think it's a good joke and very worthy of BJAODN but not encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I laughed when I read it - the best wiki-joke in ages, and I would love to be able to keep it. But if we do everyone out there will insist on a page for every fictional battle of their favourite book/tv series. Reluctant delete (BJAODN of course). DJ Clayworth 17:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Just found out we already have them: List of fictional battles. This more notable than many of them. Change to keep. DJ Clayworth 21:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS A JOKE! IT IS A REAL EVENT FROM ANIMAL FARM! IT IS IN CHPATER IV.-B-101 8/3/04 5:11
  • Thanks for giving the reference. However, nobody is questioning that George Orwell's book, Animal Farm, does include a description of a "Battle of the Cowshed." However, Animal Farm is a work of fiction and nothing in it is "a real event" (even though the events in it closely parallel the history of the Soviet Union). The use of the article box did not seem like the work of someone unsophisticated, so I (and apparently others) assumed that it was a straight-faced, deadpan joke. If you wrote the article, perhaps you are into fantasy-role-playing and like to feign a belief in the events of Animal Farm; if so, I am sorry if we hurt your feelings. If you actually believe that the events in "Animal Farm" are real events, then I am concerned about you. Perhaps you simply feel that rich, substantial works of fantasy (Tolkien, the Harry Potter books, etc). deserve to be treated as if they were real, with individual articles on individual events, characters, artifacts, etc. If so, I respectfully disagree. A final problem is that the article box really presents nothing useful. A paragraph describing which specific historical event the Battle of the Cowshed corresponds to would, however, be a good addition to the Animal Farm article. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know who you are, just like you don't know who I am. But, I assure you, I KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THE BOOK IS A WORK OF FICTION! I put it were it belongs: under fictional battles. I know it is fiction.-B-101 (oh, and by "real", I meant the battle is canon. I know it didn't actually occur.)
    • We do in fact have many articles such as you describe. See, for example List of Middle-earth articles and List of Harry Potter articles. There is therefore precedent for an article on this topic. However, the article in it's current form is not acceptable, as it provides no context and says nothing except what is in the standardized box. So... delete unless enough information is added to warrant a separate article. Eric119 04:36, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, but we don't need to delete it then. We can just add more info from the book.-B-101
      • Go ahead. It's perfectly OK to edit an article while it's being discussed in VfD. It's even encouraged. Votes often change as a result. Many VfD discussions end with people voting or changing their votes to "Keep in present form" or "Keep improved article." [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the article is good enough to not be deleted. I think we should remove the deletion notice and just tweak the page a little more.-B-101
• Keep. If you oppose fictional battles being included, discuss it up at Talk:Wikiproject Battles Rmhermen 18:54, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't oppose fictional battles. If anything, we should get more fictional battles.-B-101
• Delete, possibly redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if content expanded. This was one of the key events in a very famous work of literature, and should be taken as encyclopedically seriously as articles on Yossarian and Winston Smith. Denni☯ 01:21, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the article, so you can decide if it's good enough. However, it may need a little more tweaking.-B-101
    • Pretty good. I change my vote to keep. Eric119 03:42, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. I vote keep now that the article has been expanded. Spatch 19:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• As the details of the incident have been considerably expanded, my vote is now a firm keep. Would like to see an addition paragraph devoted to the outcome of the battle: what is the current command structure on the farm? Denni☯ 22:19, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can try to create a new paragraph about the outcome of the battle, but what do you mean with "the current command structure on the farm"? B-101
• Well, I'm now for keep. I guess it's okay. -- Kizor 19:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

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

command structure

What did you mean with the "current command structure of the farm"? Did you mean who was currently in charge?- B-101 19:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Human Casuality

My reading of the book leads me to understand that the man that Boxer hits in the head lays "lifeless" on the ground, but he is not actually dead. We are left to understand that Boxer believes that he has killed him, however quite soon afterward the book states that the man has disappeared - leading me to believe that he appeared lifeless, but actually was knocked unconscious - not killed. If anyone else agrees, we should ammend the table to the side that indicates that one human was killed.

• Yes, you're right. I have changed it. Eric119 01:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Snowball revisionism

The article accurately states that Napoleon's propaganda later painted Snowball as a coward who did not participate. However, a later revision by Napoleon claimed that Snowball was actually leading the human forces and shouting "Long live humanity!" until Napoleon supposedly appeared at the climax and bit Jones on the leg while proclaiming "Death to humanity!"