Talk:Cultural depictions of Robin Hood

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Literature

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 20 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Robin Hood in popular culture to Cultural depictions of Robin Hood. The result of the discussion was moved.

Cleanup

This is just a list of pop culture works containing Robin Hood in them. This needs to be prose with explanations, not just a list that says nothing. 76.121.211.59 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to alternative Cultural depictions of Robin Hood. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood in popular culture → Robin Hood in literature and the arts – A lot of this stuff is not "popular culture". A play performed 1475 is not going to be filmed and shown at the Cineplex. It might be studied by a university professor. Ditto stuff written in 1678 and 1712 etc. "Hodd" is an academic work. There's an 1860 opera, and an MA course on Robin. Bunch of ballads and folk tales from centuries ago at least. Probably ther're a few more.

If there is such a thing as "popular culture" as opposed to just "culture" anymore, these aren't it. We don't want to split the article or name it "Robin Hood in popular and elite culture". And after all even comics are literature and pop songs the arts, so we're not being untrue. And there are a few articles already that use this form. Herostratus (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with moving this, but I don’t think the proposed title exactly works given the arts includes literature. Maybe something like Robin Hood in the arts and entertainment or simply Robin Hood in the arts would work? Rafts of Calm (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes literature is indeed one of the arts, true, but not idiomatically; wrong or right, people generally consider "the arts" to be the performing and visual and plastic arts, and literature as separate, I think. If I'd suggested just "in the arts" we'd get protests on the grounds that it doesn't include literature.

As to "entertainment", even the stupidest or most inept painting or book or film is member of "in the arts and literature" (a snob might disagree, but nuts to them), so its redundant, and also indicates that we are judging "the arts" be a separate thing from "entertainment" which we don't want to do I don't think. Still, there are lots of snobs here, so there is that.

(As a pedantic aside, there is a problem with all these, altho IMO it's ignorable: if there were a star or a highway or a mountain etc. named for Robin (there isn't any now I think but you never know). Those are science and engineering, and they don't depict Robin in any way, and they are not really "in culture" as most people would understand that word I don't think. So, there's actually no good title for these articles that covers everything without being too long. My go-to on that has been: don't overthink it. There's usually not many of these things (none here), so just put it in a separate section and nobody's going to be confused, or notice or care unless they're pedantic). Herostratus (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe something like Cultural depictions of Robin Hood (which redirects here), in line with articles such as Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln Rafts of Calm (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mnhm... well, there's no artistic work that isn't in cultural, so that word's redundant. And people don't talk like that outside of Wikipedia, much (or write either, according to the google ngram). It's just a bad habit we've gotten into. And there are at least a few "in literature and the art" articles. Let's make more. But just "Depictions of Robin Hood", full stop. would be OK. Herostratus (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Literature has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cultural depictions of Robin Hood. I don't really see the problem with the current title (Robin Hood was current in the older-version of popular culture, that's fine) but maybe just avoiding "popular" avoids any confusion. SnowFire (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cultural depictions of Robin Hood. I think SnowFire's proposal elegantly threads the needle on the various concerns raised previously, and there's certainly plenty of precedent for this title format (e.g. Elvis Presley, Winston Churchill, Joan of Arc), so we'd have a case under WP:CONSISTENT too. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.