Celts NA‑class | |||||||
|
So far this template is organized very much by text (or textual cycle), which makes sense as mythology has to do with the written word. Other users may want to include sections on individual characters, places, gods, and creatures; but I didn't want to get into that, because for me, brevity is essential for this kind of template. On the other hand, Nantonos will probably reproach me for having over-extended the term 'mythology' into other fields of religion (priesthood, lists of gods, etc). Of course, we can always rename this template if need be. Quartier Latin1968 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
== Name of template ==,
Ermm, Satanael has just changed the theme of the template to 'Celtic religion' rather than 'Celtic mythology'. It may not be a bad idea, but the template was really written with a mythological focus – the main preoccupation is not with gods, fanums, totems, sacred sites, or sacrificial rites, but on mythological texts. If this is to be a Celtic religion template, other sections should be added to reflect this broader scope. Quartier Latin1968 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the massive table down under gum fdghdffbsdrgytfuiweshuiodhf89wgye89gsf78uh3we89yfhio"See also" in the Celtic mythology article was a template but it's not. Might be too overwhelming to turn into a template, yet it does cover a lot. The Celtic Mythology article needs help, too. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see a user has made some bizarre changes in the template. The editor has added
Breton mythology to the
Welsh mythology section, see here
[1]. From my reading of Welsh mythology, it is not the same as Breton Mythology, and should not be grouped in the same section. I tried to undo the erroneous changes but my efforts were scuttled by several editors. All very bizarre.
Also the same editor has added
Scottish mythology into the
Irish mythology section, see here
[2], another very bizarre edit. Scottish mythology never included Irish mythology, until recently that is, in Wikipedia. Yes there were a few pieces from Irish mythology, but only a small section. The
James MacPherson's deceit, about his supposed discovery of
Ossian, uncovered by
Dr. Samuel Johnson, well that's about the one major similarity. A totally misconceived edit.
Manopingo 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The Scottish heading article is not what I am talking about. If you use Scottish mythology as a heading then the assumption is that ALL the sub-topics are about Scottish mythology but as I stated before they are not and don't say anything about it. Likewise the Breton, but, yes you are correct that the Scottish mythology article itself does refer to Irish and Gaelic topics. BUT you are using the Scottish mythology as a heading so all sub-topics listed SHOULD have some connection with the heading and they don't. Do you see my point? As it is, the "Scottish mythology" and Breton mythology should either be independent headings with no sub-topics or be articles listed in their own right not under another heading that does not apply to it. On the otherhand a solution would be to create a "Scottish mythology" heading and break out the different topic in that article into separate that would correctly be listed as sub-topics of the Scottish heading in the template. ww2censor 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Whois is dictating this template? Is it Calgasus? Well, it just wont do, you POV pusher! Manopingo 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can Manopingo please express clearly and concisely exactly what he feels is wrong with the template as it currently stands [3] before this revert war / article war continues any longer. Before the template gets hard-protected by an admin. I'll admit to not being au fait with mythology and ethnicity to the extent that some of the editors on here are. So please ... dialogue first and can the other editors hear the guy out and comment accordingly - Alison ☺ 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous IP who keeps changing this template from a neutral overview of Celtic mythology topics to a pagan religious one, please stop it. You are pushing a POV. Mythology does not belong exclusively to pagans. -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 15:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't there a section for Gauls, Celtiberians, Lusitanians etc.? JanderVK ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Celts NA‑class | |||||||
|
So far this template is organized very much by text (or textual cycle), which makes sense as mythology has to do with the written word. Other users may want to include sections on individual characters, places, gods, and creatures; but I didn't want to get into that, because for me, brevity is essential for this kind of template. On the other hand, Nantonos will probably reproach me for having over-extended the term 'mythology' into other fields of religion (priesthood, lists of gods, etc). Of course, we can always rename this template if need be. Quartier Latin1968 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
== Name of template ==,
Ermm, Satanael has just changed the theme of the template to 'Celtic religion' rather than 'Celtic mythology'. It may not be a bad idea, but the template was really written with a mythological focus – the main preoccupation is not with gods, fanums, totems, sacred sites, or sacrificial rites, but on mythological texts. If this is to be a Celtic religion template, other sections should be added to reflect this broader scope. Quartier Latin1968 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the massive table down under gum fdghdffbsdrgytfuiweshuiodhf89wgye89gsf78uh3we89yfhio"See also" in the Celtic mythology article was a template but it's not. Might be too overwhelming to turn into a template, yet it does cover a lot. The Celtic Mythology article needs help, too. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see a user has made some bizarre changes in the template. The editor has added
Breton mythology to the
Welsh mythology section, see here
[1]. From my reading of Welsh mythology, it is not the same as Breton Mythology, and should not be grouped in the same section. I tried to undo the erroneous changes but my efforts were scuttled by several editors. All very bizarre.
Also the same editor has added
Scottish mythology into the
Irish mythology section, see here
[2], another very bizarre edit. Scottish mythology never included Irish mythology, until recently that is, in Wikipedia. Yes there were a few pieces from Irish mythology, but only a small section. The
James MacPherson's deceit, about his supposed discovery of
Ossian, uncovered by
Dr. Samuel Johnson, well that's about the one major similarity. A totally misconceived edit.
Manopingo 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The Scottish heading article is not what I am talking about. If you use Scottish mythology as a heading then the assumption is that ALL the sub-topics are about Scottish mythology but as I stated before they are not and don't say anything about it. Likewise the Breton, but, yes you are correct that the Scottish mythology article itself does refer to Irish and Gaelic topics. BUT you are using the Scottish mythology as a heading so all sub-topics listed SHOULD have some connection with the heading and they don't. Do you see my point? As it is, the "Scottish mythology" and Breton mythology should either be independent headings with no sub-topics or be articles listed in their own right not under another heading that does not apply to it. On the otherhand a solution would be to create a "Scottish mythology" heading and break out the different topic in that article into separate that would correctly be listed as sub-topics of the Scottish heading in the template. ww2censor 21:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Whois is dictating this template? Is it Calgasus? Well, it just wont do, you POV pusher! Manopingo 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Can Manopingo please express clearly and concisely exactly what he feels is wrong with the template as it currently stands [3] before this revert war / article war continues any longer. Before the template gets hard-protected by an admin. I'll admit to not being au fait with mythology and ethnicity to the extent that some of the editors on here are. So please ... dialogue first and can the other editors hear the guy out and comment accordingly - Alison ☺ 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To the anonymous IP who keeps changing this template from a neutral overview of Celtic mythology topics to a pagan religious one, please stop it. You are pushing a POV. Mythology does not belong exclusively to pagans. -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 15:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Why isn't there a section for Gauls, Celtiberians, Lusitanians etc.? JanderVK ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)