Talk:Companions of Saint Nicholas: Difference between revisions

Holidays: Christmas Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Christmas task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Christianity: Christmas / Saints Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Christmas task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Companions of Saint Nicholas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Knecht Ruprecht, a figure in Germanic folklore, is often depicted as traveling with Santa Claus? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/April.

Is it real or a vanity defacing? Spandox (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poorly written piece that conflates a lot of similar traditions into a single overgenralization. Krampus is not the same as Knecht Ruprecht, who is not the same thing as Zwarte Piet. I have done research in this area, and unless there's an objection, I will be rewriting this article, and probably be renaming it as well ("The Companions of St. Nicholas" probably).

--Writer@Large 17:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated the move. Anyone who wishes to help with the redirects, please feel free! There's a few of them (mostly the various names of companions).

--Writer@Large 14:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis on blackface is misleading. That isn't Knecht Ruprecht, those are Zwarte Piets, or Krampusse, his blackamoor slaves. This article should be focused on Knecht Ruprecht, w images like those found @ Paganism_in_the_Eastern_Alps.

Sam Spade 05:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The details and controversy regarding Zwarte Piet's appearance are discussed in the entry for Zwarte Piet and do not need to be detailed here.

I have added a small paragraph in the "traditions" section, it's all the information i have managed to gather about Krampus while i have been in croatia, though i have been there a while ago, i have only written the information i clearly remember, and have omited the parts that are blurry or i am uncertain of.

MRcool2035 14:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this uncited section from the article to this Talk page because it appears to incorrectly conflate Heiliger Abend (Christmas Eve) with Heiliger Nikolaus (evening before Saint Nikolaus's saint's day), which occur on different dates and have different traditions - changing to Heiliger Nikolaus, if cited, might fit in the article:

Christmas Eve (Heiliger Abend, "Holy Evening") thus became known as the time when children were best behaved, and the tales of Ruprecht gave a balance to the winter festivals which might seem disquieting to some, but which were not especially grim or atypical of customs of times past. The story is still popular throughout the German-speaking world.

-Wikianon 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The poem "Farmhand Ruprecht" in the references section is quite poorly translated, and I believe that it subtracts from the overall quality of the article. A half-hearted effort to find a better translation failed to turn anything up. Would anybody object to this being removed? Or does someone have a translation available that isn't such a crime against English? Or do gems like "I spoke: 'the rod, it is here; / but for the children, only the bad'" actually add something to the article that I'm missing? MattGif 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a better translation of this poem some weeks ago. Thanks! Wtroopwept (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old picture is so dark that one can not see anything. There is no point in keeping it, when better pictures are available.

Warrington (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from and I mentioned this in the edit summary. I said I have no problem and I'm sure many oither s dont care either if you find a new picture. But will you please find one similar to the current one. With a close up, that shows the face clearly. Thanks! --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you can not see absolutely anything on thet picture. it is all black. there is really no point in having it. So I do not know what you are talking about. Similar to what?

Warrington (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been approached for a third opinion to assist with achieving consensus on the primary picture used to illustrate this article. I have to concur with Warrington that the current image is too dark, and the article is better illustrated by the use of the image at [[Image:Krampus2.jpg]]. The article doesn't need to be specifically illustrated by a close up/full frontal image: it's my opinion that the alternative, brighter, image is actually more effective since it shows a Krampus in a 'real', rather than artificial or posed, setting. Coldmachine^Talk 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I removed the added pictures because I don't think its necesary to have every character's picture squeezed onto the page. We can debate that if need be. But You two got what I'm saying wrong. I'm not saying this picture is good, and I agree that there are better ones. All I'm saying is I like the idea behind the current picture. The first one added Was from sort of far away. And the second picture was of Krampu's profile. If you disagree we can debate it, but I like the front view close-up... Is there anyway we can find one like this thats lighter. I'll look. and see what I can do. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you guys like the following ones I found through an quick google image search... This is what I mean... (http://davidbyrne.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/12_21_04_c_krampus2.jpg) and (http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/greal/NewAYA/salzburg_info/subpages/images/krampus.jpg) are two examples. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second photograph of those two is good; the first is clipped so not ideal. I understand what you're saying about having a front-facing full view picture, but you oughtn't to remove things on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Coldmachine^Talk 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter if it is from front or half profile, until you can see Something.

And we need free images. Are your images free to use?

And further, there is place for two more pictures, about Père Fouettard and Zwarte Piet, Krampus is not the only companion. Why are you removing those too??

Warrington (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is the situation over at Pre-Christian_Alpine_traditions; too many images leads to an ugly article (see WP:IUP) particularly where the amount of text is small. This applies here; only one image is really needed to illustrate the article content (that's the purpose of adding an image, after all). Coldmachine^Talk 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Nicholas has 3 regionally different companions. they look different and behave different too. Either way, the one picture used is still very black Warrington (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than 3. If you actually read the article you will see there is much more than 3. The Belsnickel is a good example. And if they look different its irrelevant. Too many pictures turns the page into an ugly one. Now lets forget about that, because thats not going to happen. Anyway, Warrington, as for your Krampus picture question, I suppose its not a huge dea if you switch it. so I'll back off. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As EveryDayJoe45 says, a single pertinent example is sufficient. It doesn't necessarily matter that there are different companions: you can always provide a link to a Commons category which illustrates them all. Coldmachine^Talk 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, than is more than 3 companions. But it is not irrelevant that they look different. Not at all! People want to read this article to find out the differences. Why else? That is what the article is about! Just talking about the subject do not explain everything. And pictures do not turn articles uggly. This is some kind of misunderstanding. Articles should be illustrated when possible, that is a Wikipesia policy. A visual presentation of the subject is of high importance.There are plenty of articles of this size with 2 or 3 pictures, and they are perfectly fine. I think that pictures are an important part of the article, wich, if you remove the pictures, will consist of a large amount of text without any visual documentation.To many pictures, like 5 or 7 might make a shorter article like this uggly, when text is sandwiched between two pictures, left and right.

But the biggest issue right now is that the only one picture in the article is of so bad quality that it is a shame for Wikipedia and all of us who works with it.

Warrington (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until better pictures are available, people need to see something, instead of a big darkness.

Warrington (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to add this one. File:Krampus Salzburg 5.jpg

Warrington (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't we add father time? --71.56.227.238 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The characters Father Time/The Old Year and Baby New Year appear in popular culture soon after Santa Claus, but I don't know that they've ever been thought of/depicted as companions of Santa Claus? Шизомби (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]