Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:27, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Leprechaun has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitehorse1 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 July 2009‎ (UTC)

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk)

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Please feel free to make any comments you might wish at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity regarding possible more closely coordinated activity between the various religion, philosophy, and mythology WikiProjects. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• See the counter-proposal there at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a big problem with this headword. Please see Talk:Protogenoi#Needed move. — cardiff | chestnut — 04:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with this headword. The move, if it's decided one be made, will require some juggling. Please see Talk:Phineas#Phineas > Phineus. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on the Lilith article, specifically on the lead paragraph. See the discussion on the talk page Talk:Lilith. Thank you. USchick (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you guys!

I don't know if this group be inactive, but since it hasn't been posted in since late last month. Anyway, if anyone is still hanging around, I was wondering if anyone was interested in punching up my first article, Sharur (mythological weapon). I have a handful of sources but I am concerned for grammar and spelling issues as well as obviously more in-depth details and anything else my fellow editors can contribute!! DrPhen (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If there were to be an Irish Mythology Task Force or Irish Mythology work group, would anyone else join? Does anyone else think that it would be a good idea? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 16:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Template talk:Religion topics#RfC on what articles to be included in this template. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Mythology!

I have been working on clearing articles out of the Wikipedia backlog and noticed that since August 2007, Latvian mythology has been tagged as factually disputed and in need of an expert's attention. I have left messages on the user pages of a number of the editors involved in the discussion and have come to this WikiProject to appeal to you for input into the discussion. I'm not knowledgable enough on the topic of Latvian mythology to make any substantial edits to the article, but you might be able to help. There is a discussion of the issue at Talk:Latvian_mythology#Inaccurate_information. The most important task is to add sources to Latvian mythology. The article is currently entirely unsourced, so the factual disputes are practically impossible to resolve until some reliable sources are added. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Matt (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As a personal opinion, I tend to think that WikiProjects can reasonably claim articles which have directly relevant articles in the best academic reference sources on the subject as being within their scope. At User:John Carter/Religion articles#The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Myths & Legends by Arthur Cotterell I have listed the various articles in that source. I acknowledge it is a rather slim volume, and it probably isn't the most highly regarded reference source in the field, but I also think that it might serve as a good indicator of what is important to this project - basically, that the articles here which have comparable articles there are probably of "Top" or "High" importance to this project, and more likely Top than High. But there is the question regarding whether that source is the one we should be using as a baseline for these assessments. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Newsletter for religion/philosophy/mythology?. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I noticed that the category of "Category:Aztec mythology" was changed to "Category:Aztec mythology and religion" as well others Category:Mesoamerican mythologyies but why?, I'd like to ask why these categories were changed and not others like Category:Greek mythology or another Category:European mythology. --Giggette (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that is largely because these "national" categories are small.

So we have Category:Breton mythology and folklore (which does not have a mythology or folklore subcat) but no such thing for Irish or Welsh. The Breton category is in both Celtic mythology and Celtic folklore while each Irish or Welsh cat is in the expected Celtic cat.

Is that reasonable? It has not been executed consistently even in this geographical neighborhood (Celtic, British, and French categories).

The relation of mythology and folklore is inconsistent within the categories, probably also between categories and articles/redirects. I guess the same is true of mythology and religion. --P64 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. I put in a RM to restore local spelling on 3x articles on the Father and Mother and 100 eggs of the Vietnamese creation myth, but 1 of the 3, Talk:Lac Long Quan was missing the WPtemplate, so it didn't show up here. Not that this is a mythology that seems to get much traffic here.... the articles could really do with better sourcing as well as restoring the spelling... If anyone has any better sources. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The talk page for Pandora's Box has a long history of people asking and speculating about the meaning of the story, and, especially, what it means that hope was left in the box, yet the article is still silent on this important matter. Obviously no one in a position to actually improve the article in this respect has happened by that page, so I thought I would ask here to see if anyone could help. I expect there may be various explanations, and ultimately maybe no one knows for sure, but the article should explain the main theories. 86.130.66.0 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move. -- 203.171.196.112 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a discussion is taking place here about moving the Baʿal article to Baal. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The last two days in boredom, I revised and expanded this article. I should be finished with it in a few hours--but if you stop by now you can see what I'm still trying to clean up and get the idea of where it will go. I aim to seek GA status and then, perhaps Peer Review and FA. I'd like a few comments from other members of this project on things to be improved other content that I should look to add (that I may have missed), and for a person or two to give it a copy-edit with a fresh set of eyes. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Arthurian Legend}} has been requested to be renamed, see template talk:Arthurian Legend -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a major re-write and restructuring of Greek mythology in popular culture and would be interested in feedback and being pointed to resources to beef up some of the areas that are currently still pretty lame. I built it based on some random google books searches, which did provide me with some unique and interesting aspects that I would not have ev thought about, but generally the topic is so big and there are so many possible search terms that I have been wading through a lot of non useful material and have been missing some major content.

There should also be some kind of discussion bout how the article and its contents should be integrated and aligned with Greek mythology in western art and literature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have spent the last few weeks revising and expanding the article on Philomela. I have proposed my work for Good Article status. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, take a look at WP:GAN. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_28#Speedy_rename_plant_genera where the usage of mythological names is being debated (Phoebe, Iris, Narcissus, etc), if they should be used as the names of plant categories. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples has been proposed to be split, see talk:Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Moonriddengirl#User Mondigomo and massive copyvio - some of the articles where copyvio has been added by this editor will be of interest to editors here. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mondigomo if anyone has the time to do a bit. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm unsure if this is the right place to discuss, I think the following articles are quite unimportant and should be deleted:

• Pherusa
• Panopea
• Tales from Ovid; could be merged into Metamorphoses or into Ted Hughes

Michael! (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! I have created a set index space for Greek mythological figures. This should be used for any page which contains multiple names of figures from Greek mythology, but for which one or more of those figures does not have an article. This can be done by adding {{Greek myth index}} to the bottom of the page (above categories). The template automatically adds the "Greek mythology" category to the page, so the category need not be separately listed. The population of this group can be seen at Category:Set indices on Greek mythology. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Great call. This articles are too often misunderstood as disambiguation pages.  ^davidiad_.:τ 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For your information, there is a new proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis creation narrative#New proposal. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I think I've spotted a mistake in Igaluk. There is written that he is lunar deity, then that he became sun. But in Malina article it is written that he became moon. So, what's the truth? Greets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.195.33 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I just tagged Talk:Gilgamesh flood myth with this projects banner, as I noticed there was an extensive article with no banners at all. I tentatively assessed it as C-Class, but it could be a B; could someone from this group take a look at Gilgamesh flood myth and reassess the article, and also assess the importance? Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been attempting to refine improper linking to Pygmalion (play) and Pygmalion (mythology), and I could use some assistance cleaning up {{Pygmalion}}, {{Pygmalion navbox}}, and {{My Fair Lady}} (the latter two which I have recently created). I have posted some particular issues at Talk:Pygmalion (play)#Template:Pygmalion. Please feel free to jump in and edit the templates or leave comments there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a suggested name change and expert opinions on what terms are more commonly used/accepted in the academic field and implications of subtle differences between the proposed options would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see the proposal I made on Talk:Mythography. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Mythology
Mythologies Albanian Arabian Armenian Aboriginal Australian Berber Baltic (Latvian - Lithuanian - Prussian) Basque Bantu Brazilian Buddhist Catalan Cantabrian Celtic Breton Cornish Irish Scottish Welsh Chinese Efik Egyptian English Estonian Etruscan Finnish French Georgian Germanic Frankish Continental Germanic Norse Anglo-Saxon Gothic Greek Guanche Hindu Hittite Hungarian Indonesian Italian Japanese Kongo Korean Lugbara Lusitanian Maasai Malagasy Māori Mbuti Meitei Melanesian Mesopotamian Micronesian Mongol Native American Algonquian Abenaki Blackfoot Lenape Aztec Californian Miwok Ohlone Chaná Chilote Choctaw Creek Guarani Haida Inca Inuit Iroquois Maya Muisca Pacific Northwest Kwakwakaʼwakw Plains Indians Ho-Chunk Lakota Pawnee Puebloan Hopi Zuni Selk'nam Talamancan Ossetian Papuan Persian Philippine Polynesian Proto-Indo-European Proto-Uralic Roman Romanian Sámi Slavic Somali Talysh Tai Thai Tibetan Turkic Vietnamese West African Yoruba
Types Creation Flood National Origin
Lists Creations Creatures Deities Feral children Floods Heroes Culture Folk Objects Pairs Places Sources
Related concepts Deity Legendary creature Type Legendary progenitor Twins Culture hero Folk hero
See also Comparative mythology Comparative religion Euhemerism Folklore Epics Lower mythology Pseudo-mythology Religion and mythology Symbolism Theology
v t e

Is this template (see right) supposed to be about mythology or theology? It says "List of mythologies" at the bottom, but it says "Theology" at the top. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no stand alone "mythology" vertical template, it is a subsection of the overall "Theology" template. Whether or not that is still appropriate is something that could be discussed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I think we should change the template. Mythology and theology are distinct categories. It makes no sense to title the box "Theology" when clicking on the "Christian" link takes one to Christian mythology instead of Christian theology. We should either (1) re-title the template "Mythology" instead of "Theology" or (2) change the links from links to mythology articles to links to theology articles. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense to have separate navboxes for Theology and Mythology, with appropriate links in each. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the proposal I have made for revising the lede of Creation myth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

IOf someone has the time could you look at Talk:Sedna (mythology)#Sedna as a Gwynned, daughter od Dahut from YS citie, and see if there is anything useful? I suspect that the OP has read some things and mixed them together. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The usage of Guðrún/Gudrun is under discussion, see talk:Guðrún -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

image:Charybdis.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sepid Div.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

These observations may help improve the portal or some articles. I am most likely to improve categories myself. To that end, comment on the lead observation is most likely to be useful.

Category Celtic folklore is in Celtic mythology, a surprise to me a couple hours ago. French mythology (main article Mythology in France) is in French folklore.

Portal:Mythology lists many "Mythology" categories plus Urban legends but no "Folklore" categories (nor religion, fiction, etc). {Urban legends} may be a mistake. Or folklore cats may commonly be down in the mythology cats, as for our Celtic pages. The portal Selected Article is now Vampire folklore by region, which only hints in favor of the latter. The portal preface conveys that myth(ology) may be considered a subset of folklore but also observes of 'myth' that "the word can refer to any traditional story". It doesn't say how readers will find Wikipedia organized in this respect.

Portal:Folklore is claimed by WP:Literature only, but its lead sentence mentions music, dance, and material culture, etc. The Related Portals include Mythology.

There is no Folklore project. Perhaps WP:MYTH has become the Folklore project by default in many respects, regardless whether people here consider mythology a subset of folklore, and prefer that category structure, as for our French pages.

Skimming this talk page including its archive, I see there may be, or may have been nearly, a consensus to limit this project to myth in a sacred sense. There has been much discussion of religion, including suggested merger with WP:Religion, and clear sense that religion is a sister subject, maybe a sister project here.

There is little about folklore here. Perhaps no more than fiction (wikipedia coverage of fictional characters is beside the point here) or fantasy (there mayt be a borderland re Wizard and Magic(ian), which are three disambiguation pages now).

A month ago I wondered aloud, not yet fruitfully, "Where do myth and folklore lie between anthropology/religion and literature/fiction?" --(Talk:Magic (paranormal)#What links here?

--P64 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Prestigiouzman made an extremely tendentious edit to Tuatha Dé Danann, adding an alleged quote from Henry Rawlinson from 1853 claiming that the "Scythian warlords of the Sidhe" founded the Sumerian civilisation, sourced from a forum. When I reverted it, he left a message on my talk page saying "Dont ever go near that page again, your censorship attempts will get you in trouble". I've reverted again, but don't want to fall foul of 3RR, so could somebody else lend a hand? Nicknack009 Nicknack009 (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've raised a couple of this editor's edits ast WP:FTN (using the abovetopsecret.com forum is a clue to where this editor comes from), and see a number of problematic edits and article creations. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are trying to maintain that Henry Rawlinson did not make that statement on the grounds of my source being abovetopsecret.com i will gladly find a more suitable source, and when i do i will undo once again another obvious censorship attempt, and by the way, nothing i have said constitutes being a threat, so get your facts strait--Prestigiouzman (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You were told that it's that it is an outdated source, and you've been told that by 3 different editors. DMacks comment at Aos Sí for instance saying " uncertain relevance, definitely not a modern piece of secondar-source scholarship (see the many later secondary ones for example)." You are also claimg that the Tuatha are ",they were commonly referred to as the Sidhe" with no source.

But the main problem is that you seem to have completely misread your source. [1] is not quoting Rawlinson but Genesis of the Grail Kings by fringe author Laurence Gardner, without a doubt a source that fails our criteria at WP:RS. It's also copyvio as you aren't quoting Gardner. There is no way this belongs in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wandering through the wiki when I stumbled across the Dullahan article and found that it was dangerously source deficient. There does not appear to be an earlier, sourced, version to revert to. Nor have I located any reliable online sources. I thought that this talk page might be a good place to ask if anyone has a book, or knows of a book which discusses the myth of the Dullahan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.117.36 (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started the above page with a list of the articles contained in one encyclopedic source on myth and legends, and also an indicator of the comparative weight they receive in that source, which might serve as a reasonable indicator of their relative importance. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Right now, this is section #123 of the talk page here. This page needs archiving. Anyone want to set it up? John Carter (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just pasted in the MiszaBot archiving template - so we'll just have to wait and see how it works... Simon Burchell (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how MiszaBot will handle the Archives box with one old archive that is already in place (select "show"). By two coincidences there is a clean break at 2008/2009 and the number of archived headings is 100 (so this section #123 is #223 in all).

I inserted some anchors that may be useful now or later. Follow either link in the line to go to the beginning of the named year.

• March 2005 - December 2008
• 1 #proposed merger of Apparitional experience to ghost
• #2010 40 #Dido and Aeneas' GAR
• #2011 64 #Age of the Gods
• #2012 76 #Egyptian mythology peer review
• #2013 102 #Help needed

All content above 40 is from 2009, and so on, except for one August 2013 reply by me at 91 #Category Aztec mythology.

--P64 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "Mulan" is under discussion, see talk:Mulan (disambiguation) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A user called User:CensoredScribe has been adding a lot of tenuous categories. The ones this project needs to be aware of are Category:Mythological rapists, Category:Mythological rape victims and Category:Mythological sword fighters. The rape-related ones are problematic because he's been including examples of the mythological motif of a woman becoming pregnant with a supernatural figure by swallowing something as "rape". I've removed the Irish examples as that's where my particular knowledge is. The sword fighters category is so broad as to be useless, as it will include any virtually character who is a warrior. I think all three categories whould be nominated for deletion, but I thought I'd solicit the opinions of this project first. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed Zeus being a rapist is not being questioned; I believe there were more mythological rapists than just Zeus and the male Olympians; Selene basically put Endymion into a coma without his consent than sired children with him which is rape. A list of nothing but Greek gods would also be racist. The raven legend specifically mentions she did not know this was raven who she was eating; it's reproduction without consent; the fictional example I added being the Xenomorph from alien which Dan O'Bannon says is a rapist. Mythological sword fighter is a strict definition designed to mirror fictional swordsmen. Those Celtic warriors all specifically had magic swords listed on the list of mythological swords. Unless a war god or hero has a well known myth or holy statue depicting them holding a sword specifically they will not be listed. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mythological rape victims partially recreates Category:Rape victims, which was intended to be historical, literary, and mythological and was deleted after this discussion. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also related is Category:Fictional swordsmen, which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 7#Category:Fictional swordsmen. LadyofShalott 05:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness is a category however there is no category for rape deaths or rape victims. Category:American people taken hostage is another similar category that already exists for victims like Patty Hearst. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There may be a case for a real-life rape victims category, but that has nothing to do with your mythological rapists and rape victims categories., primarily because your identifications of rapists and rape victims are based on your own, very much non-mainstream, interpretations, and that's Original research. You don't seem to understand the nature or purposes of these stories. You're treating myth as if it's the same thing as modern popular fiction. It's not. Myths existed to convey a religious meaning. When deities are depicted as having sex and conceiving children, that's all about how the ancients understood the relationships between the natural phenomena those deities represent. When mortals are said to have a divine parent, that's simply a way of marking them out as special, touched by the divine, heroic. The passing of the essence of a supernatural being into the womb of a woman who swallows an insect or a pine needle is simply a formulaic way of allowing a supernatural being to be born into the mortal world.

You are pushing a point of view here, rather similar to those surveys that purport to find alarming attitudes by asking ambiguous, leading questions and then interpreting the answers according to what they want to find. It's just not encyclopedic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nicknack009, your problem, it seems to me, is with the categorization of individual articles: indeed, whether X or Y is a rapist or rape victim or not can be a matter of discussion, on the talk page of that article. But whether someone is questionable has no bearing on the category as a whole. That a category has only Greek gods (it's unlikely) doesn't make it racist. Whether Danaë is a rape victim or not should be decided by what the sources say--whether "the Greeks" thought of her as a rape victim is one thing, but not the only thing: unicorns are categorized as "Legendary mammal" but that's not what Pliny thought (he may not have thought of it as a mammal, for all I know). Drmies (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The user has been warned several times to stop adding unsourced ridiculous categories to articles, not just on mythology but all across the encyclopaedia. They're fast heading for a block. Canterbury Tail talk 00:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Mythological rape victims" doesn't strike me as ridiculous. I have not looked into their other creations. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The concept is not inherently ridiculous, no. My problem is, the categories have been created and populated entirely by this one user, who is on an overcategorisation spree across various subjects, and is categorising things for bizarre reasons - the Egyptian god Set is supposedly a rapist because, and I quote his edit summary, "Horus caught the semen of set and showed it to his mother" (this has been reverted). If any of CensoredScribe's categories can be salvaged and turned into something useful, all well and good, but his/her current activities need to be calmed down. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#CensoredScribe. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear mythology experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor is virtually emptying this category calling it fringe. As this is being done without discussion and without checking reliable sources, I've taken him to Editor trying to get rid of a category by emptying it. I've reverted him at 3 where I can easily find reliable sources (which I've mentioned at ANI). He's discussing it in relationship to one article at Talk:Flood myth where he removed it. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion Lamia and Lamiai can be merged. What do you think? --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:English mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Isis as to whether the article should be a redirect to Isis (disambiguation). Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The easily available sources are sadly geriatric (there were none at all before I added these). Can anyone do better? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Ravens in Native American mythology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Before a DYK appears that states "Did you know that the Stoor worm of Orkney derives its name from Old Norse Storðar-gandr, a kenning for the Midgard Serpent..." I am advocating getting this info pulled from the article. Please leave your considered input at Talk:Stoor worm#Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback. The reliability, due weight, etc. of this info has been a matter of ongoing dispute, and I apologize for the messy talk page there.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a move request at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) that members of this project may be interested in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Stars with proper names has been nominated for deletion, as these stars appear in various cultures mythologies, you may be interested -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia has WP:SYSTEMICBIAS when there are articles that present Religion and such things as a Genesis creation narrative and then ascribes other things as being myth. A current discussion touching on these issues is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities. In general I'd propose for reference to be made to such titles relating to "ancient religion" and similar where possible as opposed to mythology related titles. GregKaye 10:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• A discussion is also opened at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: ancient religions and the myth of NPOV regarding content at WP:LABEL. Contributions are welcome. GregKaye 11:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that demon lord / list of demon lords / Lord Demon are fiction topics while Demon Lord is a singer. Do we have an article or a section of an article on real-world religious/legendary/mythical demon lords? It seems odd to me that RPG D&D should occupy "demon lord" when demon lords are common fixtures in real world religion, myths and legends. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Briefly, demons aren't demon lords.

Lord Demon is a book article whose pagename matches the book title. Demon Lord is a redirect from a person's stage name to his biography. Three pages carry hatnotes that provide cross-references among them while the List carries no hatnotes.

Presumably this is because editors don't know that 'demon lord' is a technical term in real world religion, myths and legends. Is it? (And no one expects any visitor to search for "List ..." in the nonfiction sense. Are they wrong?) --P64 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of " Homunculus " is under discussion, see Talk:Homunculus patagonicus -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Patasola is under discussion, see talk:Patasola magdalenae -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's some information to help you evaluate the some of the practice of editors here. There is a POV posh which guidelines indicates should stop:

Searches

• Here are the Ngram results for: "Aztec religion": 17143 and "Aztec Mythology": 478. There is far more searching done in regard to Aztec religion in comparison to Aztec mythology.
  

Ratio 36:1

books

• "Aztec religion" gets "About 10,200 results"
• "Aztec mythology" gets "About 6,430 results"

1.58:1

Article content

• Aztec religion 32,452 bytes;
• Aztec mythology 13,812 bytes;

Ratio 2.35:1

links to the pages

• Aztec religion ~370 links in (~550 - 181 from talk pages)
• Aztec mythology ~550 links in (~700 - 142 from talk pages)

Ratio 1:1.48

On top of this there are a great many articles with titles WP:SOAPBOXING the perspective/interpretation of mythology.

I do not particularly blame editors evenly for this. The soapbox presentation of an interpretation as Mercury (mythology) has long been prominently displayed in several places in the guidelines.

However it would be appreciated if more balance can be struck closer to realities. Content related to ancient religions should be presented in a fair context.

The content at Religion and mythology states: "Religion and mythology differ but have overlapping aspect. Both terms refer to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred. Generally, mythology is considered one component or aspect of religion. ..." However there seem to be editors who write content and designate titles as if the only issue was mythology. GregKaye 20:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Google statistics may show "relgion" is used more, but this is easily explainable. A major topic is human sacrifice ritual, which you wouldn't discuss in terms of practicing "Aztec mythology". It would be in terms of "religion". So that kind of thing tips the scale.

In another words, "religion" covers a broad range encompassing ritual practice and theology/mythology. Whereas, writers would prefer the choice of using the more exacting term "mythology" when they are covering the more narrow range of theology (cosmogony and pantheon).

So it's not as if POV editors are systematically replacing the pejorative "Aztec mythology" over "Aztec religion" just to be condescending. The fact is, the terms are not interchangeable.

Currently the Aztec religion is a summary-style parent page, with a "mythology" section and sub-article. This is exactly the "article spinout" structure prescribed under WP:CFORK. Of course there are significant overlaps (and some maintenance may be required), but there is no need for a WP:MERGE into either religion or mythology as per the WP:CFORK "spinout" guideline I just invoked. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Category for discussion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_20#Category:Religion_and_mythology. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of "Gods of Egypt" is under discussion, see talk:Gods of Egypt (film) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Serpent (Bible) to be moved to Serpents in the Bible. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of "King of Hell" is under discussion, see talk:King of Hell (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Elara is under discussion, see Talk:Ellalan (monarch) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a move request at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) that members of this project may be interested in. Yes, again. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Eris is under discussion, see talk:Eris (dwarf planet) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Boy Cried Wolf is under discussion, see talk:Boy Cried Wolf (album) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Ceres is under discussion, see talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help with this. See the edit history and talk page. The main user who is determined to fill this out is not sourcing most of the content they add, and does not appear to have a good grasp of the subject or language. Original title was "Pole worship." - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I also came here to this page with the same request. At places I do have some healthy difference of openion but in any case I am simply interested in getting article developed who writes is not very important to me some body else assists in developing the article I will focus some where else. Thanks and regards to all.

Mahitgar (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this WP still active? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There are at least a few people who watch the talk page, including me. I'm not sure how active the project itself is however. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have done my best to sort fact from fiction about the life of Goddard Oxenbridge, and the legends that grew up around him. I'm not sure if ghosts / folklore / legends really fit mythology but this was the best project I could find. Anyway, the section in this article about the Brede Giant could probably use some attention from an expert in writing about such matters. The main problem I see is that there are many variations on the theme and I'm not sure I have done the best job of understanding them and presenting them. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We've heard that Indie Custalow and Ahone are in love--courting for marriage! Do we want Indie Custalow (mortal) marrying Ahone (immortal)? Or are they a perfect couple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihelperoffriend (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The usage and naming for Hero and Heroism and Heroine is under discussion, see talk:hero -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. Keahapana (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of "Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My list of missing topics about mythology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm requesting Atana be moved to Atana (raga) because it's currently an article on music of India, when Atana as known in the West is an alternate spelling of Athena, or a ‘proto-Athena,’ and there are also two or more other languages with the word having different meanings. The main page should be a disambiguation. If any page had the main article, I'd have preferred it be Athena. I've opened a move request discussion you can join.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Chthonic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:That Poppy which affects the page Poppy, an article supported by WikiProject Mythology. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There's been no changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Greek mythology since 2015. I've marked the workgroup as historical considering that there was no participation at all and the participants list is blank. Thank you, Yashovardhan (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC) (not watching this page)

Many pages are de facto disambiguations, see eg. Amphidamas. A link to such page does not explain anything.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes - it should either have all the different examples redlinked, and changed to a disambig page, or just be changed to List class, if none of the listed examples is likely to have enough material to generate a full length article. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello: I believe that there is an issue with a duplicate mythology article on wikipedia. One relates to an amazon queen named lampetho while a different but similarly named article refers to another queen named Lampedo also an amazon. Judging by the contents of the two articles they appear to actually refer to the same individual. I propose that both articles be merged along with any links within those two articles.

Zrayz10 (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[here]. CN1 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I recently noticed a problem with proper vs common case in Category:Greek legendary creatures. It seems there's a double standard, with the Calydonian Boar, Erymanthian Boar, Cretan Bull and Crommyonian Sow on one side, opposed by the Teumessian fox, Stymphalian birds, Nemean lion and Sacred snakes of Cephalonia.

I'd say lowercase makes sense for everyone, as it does for semi-mythical animals like the Asian elephant, African wild dog or Canada goose. These aren't like The Ultimate Warrior or The Maltese Falcon, where "The" is part of the name.

What say you? Is this inconsistency fine or not? If not, what should be done? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• @InedibleHulk: I think those should all be changed to the lowercase. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it can depend according to context - if the mythological animal was supposed to be unique, then it makes sense to capitalise it; if there were more than one, then it should be lower case. In general, we should follow the sources. If reliable sources uses title case, we should too. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Maya mythology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Template:Infobox Philippine mythology has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox deity. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--HouseGecko (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Hero, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Comments are requested at Talk:Lada (goddess) regarding what should be the primary topic for the term Lada, if any. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Mythology

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 17:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey yall. I'm interested in Greek myth. Anyone else who is too, visit my talk page. ANyone want to make an article?

Galaxywing01 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Galaxywing01

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem which is of relevance to this WikiProject. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! This is an invitation to check out a new WikiProject, WP:Folklore. As myth is a folklore genre, chances are you'll find a lot to like here. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". --Bejnar (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've proposed that we merge mythology into myth. Please feel free to comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This may be of note to members [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Gulon article has no references. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Liberty (goddess) → Personification of Liberty. Comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Myths? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Medjed (god), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team