Talk:The Grinch

Rename and potential split

I would like to voice my support of the renaming of this article from Grinch to The Grinch. According to the page, the character was referred to as The Grinch. This forms the lead and so The Grinch is boldened. It makes sense to me that the name of the article should follow suit. Moreover, the character is referred to as The Grinch in non-DWU stories, such as How The Grinch Stole Christmas!. However, the second reference is Krampus being referred to as a "regular Grinch". To me, this feels like Grinch wasn't being used in the sense of the character but rather as a concept. I feel that there should be both a page on the character of The Grinch and a page on the concept of being a grinch. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 19:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That capital letter makes all the difference, though. Is Krampus "a regular grinch", as one might say "a regular grump", or is Krampus "a regular Grinch" as one might say "a regular Scrooge"? If the former, then yes, the split makes sense, but otherwise, it's kind of a wash. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's quoted in the article with a capital letter but I do not own this comic to check. Bongo50 (aka Bongolium500) ☎ 07:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't mind me bumping this discussion a whole 16 months late, to make a case for not splitting this page, I'd like to share this excerpt from Wikipedia's page on the character:

The grumpy, anti-holiday spirit of the character has led to the everyday term "Grinch" coming to refer to a person opposed to Christmas time celebrations or to someone with a coarse, greedy attitude.Grinch, Wikipedia

tl;dr version: Dr. Suess affectively coined the term with the character. And since Wikipedia itself doesn't seem to distinguish between the character and the term… WaltK ☎ 20:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems a good argument not to split to me. Bongo50 ☎ 20:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)