Talk:Thwaitgold dragonfly statuette

references

• it's sneaky Pete's dragonfly statuette. I'd say that was enough of a reference. Why else a dragon at all? --Evilkolbot (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why else a dragon at all? Lots of the thwaitgold statues have less of a reason for their choice of animal than "the animal is cool like Pete." It's as simple and straightforward as the maggot and Goliath beetle, while making a lot more sense than the firefly and butterfly. That's why a dragon at all.

I'm not going to start a reversion war over this, but I've seen "no reference" references like this reverted for exactly this reason in the past. If a wiki moderator like you disagrees, then I'm done reverting. Go add the reference without concern about me. --Bale (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• All references should err on the side of doubt. I won't argue strongly against Pete's Dragon, if others want it there, fine, but it seems weak---it requires the reader infer the meaning on their own, as opposed to most references that are directly played with in the text. Absent of other evidence I think of it is as a minor coincidence. Either way, and as always of course, we can defer to TPTB's ruling, assuming of course anyone cares to ask them. --Fig bucket (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• I've put a question in the radio wossname. That will settle this. --Wertperch (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• It wouldn't be the first reference to Pete's dragon in this path since when you name your motorcycle it says don't be draggin' be pete. --Chunky_boo (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• It may be an unconscious reference. From the podcast:

Jick: Its wasn't...I guess it must have been
Mr S: It was more just 'what is a cool bug' and dragonflies are kind of cool...the Pete's Dragon reference is not at all subtle...
--Wertperch (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't "unconscious reference" the same thing as "not a reference"?Eran of Arcadia (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all. Does a reference have to be 'concsious' in order to be a reference? If someone uses a line from Shakespeare or the Bible without knowing the source, isn't that still a reference if it's understood by other people? I'd argue the case in favour, bearing in mind that there's another reference, however indirect, to dragons, as Chunky Boo pointed out. And how are we to interpret Jick's statement that "it must have been", in this instance? --Wertperch (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The reference is indirect and while TPTB can see it, they seem surprised by it. That's not a reference -- it's a coincidence. --Bale (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay. I acknowledge defeat! --Wertperch (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)