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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
ccc Hello all, I just saw the Hinduism panel, looks good. I agree that Navigation should be simple. However looking at the wikispecies: site makes me want a wikimyth site.
I am a fan of Myth, follore, legends, fables, fairy tales and the like and would like to see a srouce on the web about it that is worthwhile. If these questions have been asked somewhere else, please let me know. I am a little new at this.
Ojmorales0002 16:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "Symbols" block is confusing. What do you mean? Rossami 22:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
{{SampleWikiProject}}
I've added a link to the Swedish Mythology Project! It's pretty sleepy right now, but maybe there will be more contributors than just me joining in within short? / Mats 21:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So I started coming up with alternative godboxes, but then I started thinking about why I haven't seen any.
So far, the godbox effort has stalled. It seems like a lot of effort to place all that information in a table (which even under the best circumstances is a PITA to edit) when it's usually already in the article, so that's understandable. On the other hand, the Hindu project has been doing a lot with templates. These are much easier to do, since all it takes is some {{'s, and they can help navigation between pages of a topic.
Please see my proposal on the front page. Since I'm simple-minded, I chose a green color-scheme for Greek and a red one for Roman. Bacchiad 13:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A right aligned box could interfere with pictures and so on, therefore I propose a centered box at the bottom of the page like the template {{NorseMythology}}. Every mythology could then have an individual color scheme and religious symbol. The general layout of the boxes can of course be discussed. Salleman 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not really. I have tidied up Wikipedia:Shortpages/Mythology though. ~~~~ 08:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Ancient Mesopotamian religion |
---|
|
Part of a series on |
Ancient Mesopotamian religion |
---|
|
I was really impressed with the template I saw at Template:Greek myth (sea). It has two parts: the top for groups of topics, and a bottom for a list of gods. This allows the template to grow, connect all the articles together in an interlinked TOC, and has a quick list of related gods at the bottom. Some non-Classical mythologies are sub-topics within larger articles and may not have enough information to stand on their own. Thus, a right aligned box may sometimes be more appropriate, such as for the absolutely stunning box that Salleman designed!
Inspired, I designed one for myths of the Fertile Crescent since they share many of the same deities, but one box listing them all would eventually take up too much space. And each box would fill with many duplicates of the same god.
Used a desert colour scheme. A centred box at bottom would be best for stubs, but would take toomuch more work. Castanea dentata 06:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The template is vandalized a lot, but a stable link is here.
.
Hi everybody - just a short message from WP:WSS to let you know that the mythology-related stub categories have changed a bit. Incan mythology stubs was too small and specific a category on its own, whereas much larger groups of mythology stubs weren't separated out. Mythology stubs are now divided by continent, with Greek mythology separated out further since there were a large number of them. Al the new stub types are at the bottom of your project page. We hope they help editors find mythology articles to expand more easily! Grutness... wha? 13:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! -- Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on mythology? Featured articles would also be great. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!-- Shanel 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone create a Hindu myth stub?
-- Dangerous-Boy 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently on AfD and will probably be deleted unless someone can provide a reference for it so I thought I'd enquire here if anyone could help. The text of the article is in this revision. Thanks.-- Cherry blossom tree 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a to do-list for this WikiProject, to try and list a number of tasks for us to do. What do you guys think of it? And are there any things you would like to add to it?
There is a requested move listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves that proposes the move Dreamtime (mythology) → Tjukurpa. To contribute to the discussion related to this move see Talk:Dreamtime (mythology). Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 10:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for speedy deletion earlier as an empty article. I turned it into a stub but the article needs more work. If anyone could expand it, it would be great. Capitalistroadster 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Howdy all! Just thought I'd let you know there's a new sub-category for films at Category:Films based on Greco-Roman mythology, in case any of you are both mythology buffs and film buffs. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Mythology! I'm part of another Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. I'm not sure if there's been any kind of official or unofficial inter-Wikiproject cooperation between our two projects, or if there's been any contact at all in the past, but I thought I'd come here anyways and say 'hi'.
WikiProject Missing Encyclopedic Articles' essentially goal is to help Wikipedia become better than any other encyclopedia/major repository of information, by including articles on every topic in any other encyclopedia/major repository of information. A lot of the project focusses on things like the Encylopedia Brittanica, Columbia, Gutenberg authors, etc, but the section I thought might interest you guys is the Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore. It began with a list of 17,346 articles, and it's now down to 7,678 (56% done). It includes all types of mythology - Celtic, Chinese, Greek, Native American, you name it. I bet if we got some input from you guys, who actually know something about mythology, we could make a serious dent in what's left. If you're interested, check out the project page, drop me a line, or just start contributing. Thanks! -- Gpollock 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is (polite) dispute on the Trojan War article about some of the content. Some more commentary from mythology editors would be greatly appreciated. Ikokki
This isn't quite a perfect fit (I was hoping to find an appropriate History WikiProject), but hopefully someone can help out.
There's currently a dispute going on at Wizard (now moved to Wizard (fantasy), Wizard (disambiguation), and a few other places. It's only between two people, so some kind of third opinion would be helpful to avoid a 1 on 1 revert war. A brief overview:
The Wizard article was apparently in bad shape and had a cleanup tag on it. User:Jc37 reorganized some parts of it and removed the cleanup tag. I saw it and rewrote it to a degree and put the cleanup tag back on. Jc37 went on to mostly revert my changes, and has since made various major shifts. He seems determined to remove practically all references to magic in the "Wizard" article, and has in fact completely removed the section on historical wizards recently (he moved the article from Wizard to Wizard (fantasy), retaining some of the historical information at Magician). He is also a strong proponent of using "black box systems" to explain Magic, something I feel that is not appropriate for an introduction on both style (Computer Science jargon) and content grounds. Jc37 is also interested in categorizing the various mage-like articles more strictly (wizard vs. magician vs. alchemist and so on), which I am neutral on, but I do not see the sources that Jc37 is using for his categories. Additionally, I feel that the new articles are poorly written, even ignoring content issues.
Ultimately, both Jc37 and myself are amatuers at the subject, I believe. I'm trying to learn more, but both of our attempts have been unsourced so far (it's just that he's been far more aggressive at editing his writing in). If anyone here actually knows folkore and historical sociology well, that would be greatly appreciated; these articles definitely need help, and that is something that both Jc37 and myself can agree on. SnowFire 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Mythology WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This WikiProject should have a template such as this one that can be placed on article talk pages. This helps editors keep track of articles in the project. 24.126.199.129 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, is it me or Glengordon01 that is trying to support subjective opinions about the topic with shoddy (in his case no) sources? There has recently been an edit war between me and him over this figure from Etruscan mythology. He seems to think that his word is more valid than the eleven sources I've cited, on the grounds that my sources all have "subjective opinions". On the discussion page for Labrys, he's claiming that I am using the Burden of proof (logical fallacy) when it seems that all the evidence shows that he is the only one utilizing it. -- Scottandrewhutchins 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and congratulations on the quality of your work to date. One little problem. According to guidelines, a project with no listed members and no activity on its project page for three months can be tagged as inactive, and, possibly, even deleted. I see how much work is being done, but I don't see a list of active members. It might be a really good idea to add one, to ensure no one else jumps to speedy, erroneous, conclusions. Thanks. Badbilltucker 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I created this as a template godbox (see Wikipedia:Infobox). I think it works well for this example, but I'm not sure how well it will translate to other Greek deities, much less Celtic or Egyptian ones, and not even to mention Hindu deities or Christian saints or other similar topics. I may create a few more to establish a real template -- several variations will have to exist even within Greek mythology (Zeus, for example, had too many children to put them all in the box, and there needs to be an image-less template as well). I chose varying shades of blue to mean different things -- blue will be the Greek mythology color, and other colors can be chosen at will (e.g. shades of red for Celtic mythology, green for Norse, gray for Aztec, etc). There will, however, be overlap, as there are only so many colors.
Lovers | Offspring |
---|---|
No father | Pontus, Uranus |
Uranus | Hecatonchires, Cyclopes, Titans, Erinyes (sources vary) |
Pontus | Ceto, Eurybia, Phorcys, Nereus, Thaumas |
Oceanus | Creusa, Spercheus |
Elara | Tityas |
Tartarus | Echidna, Typhon |
Unknown | Mimas, Ourea, Pheme, Python |
Gaia (land or earth in Greek) | Earth Mother of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Fertility Earth Life
Bees | |||
Attributes | |||
Cornucopia Fruit Breasts | |||
Epithets and Titles | |||
Mater Pantôn Kourotrophe | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Primordial deity |
Magna Mater or
Tellus (
Roman) Cybele ( Anatolian) Rhea or Potnia Theron ( Cretan) Also Demeter and Persephone |
Delphi Athens |
Parentage | Chaos or Aether and Hemera |
Lovers | Uranus (husband), see others below | ||
Offspring | Titans, Hecatonchires, Cyclopes (more, see others below) | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
Theogony | Gaia hypothesis |
Perséphonê (perhaps She who destroys the light in Greek; also Kore (maiden)) | Life-Death-Rebirth Goddess of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Virginity Death Fertility Underworld | |||
Attributes | |||
Torches Crown Grain Sceptre | |||
Epithets and Titles | |||
Azesia Daeira Daiphron Despoina Hagne Herykyna | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Queen of Hades |
Proserpina (
Roman) Despoina ( Arcadian) |
Eleusis (see Eleusinian Mysteries) | Parentage | Zeus and Demeter |
Lovers | Hades (husband), also Zeus and Adonis | ||
Offspring | None (possibly Iacchus) | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
The Return of Persephone Persephone Proserpine Rape of Persephone |
Persephone, Falling Persephone Underground Hymn to Demeter |
Supplicant Persephone Persephone, Pomegranates & Promises Persephone |
??? |
Artemis | Moon Goddess of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Virginity Moon Hunting Animals | |||
Attributes | |||
Bows and
arrows Moon (especially crescent) Sceptre | |||
Epithets | |||
Agrotora Potnia Theron Kourotrophos Locheia Cynthia Phoebe | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Olympian |
Diana (
Roman) Artume ( Etruscan), also Selene, Aphaea, Hecate, Cybele, Caryatis |
Aricia, Mount Tifata, Latium, Asia Minor | Parentage | Zeus and Leto |
Lovers | None | ||
Offspring | None | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
??? | ??? | Temple of Artemis | ??? |
Zeus ( Greek Zευς) or Dias (Greek: Διας) | Sky Father of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Thunder Lightning Masculinity Sky
| |||
Attributes | |||
Thunderbolt Eagle Sceptre | |||
Epithets | |||
Ceneus Lycaeus Panhellenios | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Olympian King of the Gods |
Jupiter (
Roman) Tinia ( Etruscan) Sabazios ( Phrygian) Ammon ( Egyptian) Lycaon in Aegina |
Mycenae (probable origin), Cape Canaeum, Olympia, Dodona, Pergamon | Parentage | Cronus and Rhea |
Wife | Hera (many other lovers, see below) | ||
Offspring | Ares, Dionysus, Persephone, Hermes, Apollo, Artemis (many more, see below) | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
Jupiter and Io Leda with the Swan |
??? | Statue at Olympia | ??? |
Greek mythology - Titans | cadetblue |
---|---|
Greek mythology - Olympians | lightskyblue |
Greek mythology - Primordial gods | paleturquoise |
Greek mythology - Other Gods | cornflowerblue |
Greek mythology - Nymphs, Oceanids and Dryads | royalblue |
Greek mythology - Demigods | steelblue |
Greek mythology - Humans | dodgerblue |
Greek mythology - Monsters | cyan |
Family | |||
---|---|---|---|
Lovers | Offspring | Lovers | Offspring |
Hera | Ares, Eileithyia, Hephaestus, Hebe | Aegina | Aeacus |
Demeter | Dionysus, Persephone (sources vary) | Electra | Dardania, Harmonia, Iasion |
Metis | Athena | Eurynome | Charites |
Mnemosyne | Muses | Himalia | Cronius |
Dione | Aphrodite (sources vary) | Iodame | Thebe |
Leto | Apollo, Artemis | Plouto | Tantalus |
Maia | Hermes | Taygete | Lacedaemon |
Ananke | Adrasteia, Moirae (sources vary) | Podarge | Balius, Xanthus |
Eos | Ersa | Europa | Minos, Sarpedon, Rhadamanthys |
Eris | Ate, Litae | Callisto | Arcas |
Selene | Nemean Lion, Pandia (sources vary) | Antiope | Amphion, Zethus |
Themis | Astraea, Dike, Horae, Moirae (sources vary) | Olympias | Alexander the Great |
Thalassa | Aphrodite (sources vary) | Carme | Britomartis |
Danae | Perseus | Io | Epaphus |
Laodamia | Sarpedon | Leda | Helen, Polydeuces |
Maera | Proetus | Niobe | Argos, Pelasgus |
Semele | Dionysus | Elara | Tityas |
Thalia | Palici | Alcmene | Heracles |
Unknown | Nemesis, Tyche |
Greek mythology is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy ( Talk) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope that no one reacts negatively to this question. However, I believe that right now the title of this project may, to a small degree, be somewhat self-defeating. To the best of my understanding, the word "mythology" is functionally used, in everyday conversation, to describe almost exclusively those stories related to belief systems which are currently discredited. This is somewhat off-putting to those who might still abide by these belief systems. I know that
Greek mythology is generally one of the most discredited of the old belief systems. Having said that, I remember having heard on the BBC's "Reporting Religion" show that there are still worshippers of the old Greek gods active in Athens. Some of the current practicioners of
Wicca also hold to some of the stories of old Greek mythology. To change the definition of "mythology" to include myths of all religions would be similarly complicated. I think we all can imagine the uproar if anyone were to describe the
Nativity of Jesus as "mythology", although, by the standard popular definition of "unproven story regarding divine and/or semi-divine beings", it qualifies as such.
I wonder if it might be possible to try to fuse this project with the equally small
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Both deal with the same basic subject area, although one emphasizes the stories of a religion while the other does not. However, both deal pretty much with the same articles. Also, it would eliminate the potential conflict which could arise if there were a dispute regarding, for instance, some stories from Greek mythology and Neopaganism WikiProject or Religion WikiProject. I wonder what the members of this project think of the idea. I think either a new project could be created with a new name, or somehow possibly both projects agree to using one of the existing names. In any event, I would welcome all responses, positive or negative.
Badbilltucker
14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I ask this, again, so that the two projects can effectively try to deal with matters within their own scope, with some certainty that there will not arise "turf wars" about specific articles. I do acknowledge that there is a very real likelihood that both projects, at least in some instances, will deal with the same specific article, although hopefully different parts of the article, unless, of course, members of one group simply have more or better information than the other. In such instances, of course, I would hope that arrangements could be worked out. I want to make it clear that I do not specifically envision such a possibility necessarily arising, but simply want to have a framework in place in the unfortunate and regrettable event that it arises anyway. Badbilltucker 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The word mythology (Greek: μυθολογία, from μυθος mythos, a story or legend, and λογος logos, an account or speech) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, mythology is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths. In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe to be based on fact but which is not true. However, the field of mythology does not use this definition.
Just as the title says, how do I join? I woul like to help, but I have no idea how to get any of the templates or find the participants page... Reponding on my talk page would be nice too. Thanks and cheers! — ¡ Rand fan ! 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This user is a participant in WikiProject Mythology. |
I cleaned up the project page this weekend, hopefully to everyone's liking, it was #1 on the "to do" list on both the project page and this talk page. I notice that we do NOT need 2 "to do" lists, the one on the main page should be sufficient.So the duplicate on this page can be removed top of this page. Goldenrowley 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"mythical or mythological: In its general sense, mythical relates to anything imaginary, while both mythical and mythological refer to mythology, and especially to the myths of classical times: What happened to that mythical fortune of his? Her favourite mythological character in Greek legend was Ganymede. © From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia. Helicon Publishing LTD 2006. All rights reserved'"
I am open to discussion? Goldenrowley 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ...Well I began the rename process at: [ [1]] Goldenrowley 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
couldn't the contents of the four tabs be on a single page? It's not all that much material, and I find it annoying to be forced to navigate between fragmented tidbits. A simple ToC makes things readily avaiable too. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Several articles have been tagged as requiring expert attention from Mythology experts. These articles are contained in the Category:Pages needing expert attention from Mythology experts. Any such attention in improving these pages would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The article mentioned above was tagged for deletion on the basis of being nonverifiable. I have removed the tag, as the article does agree with a lot of general legends I do know, even though I don't know of this particular legend. Any help in providing a source for this article would be greatly appreciated. Badbilltucker 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read of comparisons between the myth of Prometheus and Jesus, but the article on Prometheus doesn't mention any such similarity. Both are said to have "brought the divine light" to the people and both were punished harshly for this. If anyone is familiar with comparative religion or mythology and has some references to indicate this, can you please help out? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
New member here, hello to all. Will be looking in future at the possibility of bringing comparisons/contrasts between different mythological/religious characters/events. Not sure yet how this will work within the confines of an encyclopaedic entry but could be interesting. I am however currently somewhat preoccupied with contributing articles/cleanups to the Wrestling Media Wikiproject. Suriel1981 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposed category merge was suggested: "artificial mythology" proposed merge into "mythopoeia" as covering the very same topic. Here is the proposal if anyone wants to cast a vote: [2] Goldenrowley 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, it looks like the article on Mother Nature could use some work, if anyone is interested. I just put a cleanup tag on it for a variety of reasons; please see the talk page for details. Mother Nature, in all of her names and forms, is a pretty important and central figure in mythology all over the world. I'm surprised that her article is so lacking... but hopefully there are some people willing to take the time to work on it! Thanks, romarin talk ] 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've edited WP a while and have always wanted to do mythology but I've been extremely intimidated. If you read all this, you'll find why and why I would be so committed. In all my experience, it seems the world of mythological study can be divided into two areas which have nothing but my imaginary names: folk mythology and academic myth. So far WP almost exclusively talks about folk mythology which is this: an old, non-historic story with supernatural characters and events that often explain the origins of parts of nature. However, an "academic" myth is this: a story that may or may not be historical that communicates profound, universal truths via the experience of listening/seeing. Or, as Campbell put it, "Myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human manifestation." The myths themselves are basically the same, but the way they're studied is totally different. Maybe this would help:
Folk | Academic |
---|---|
Particulars | Generalities |
Names, locations | Archetypes |
Plot | Teachings |
Literal | Figurative |
Groups myths according to religion/culture | Groups myths according teaching across religions |
From ancient writers | Created in all times |
Entertaining | Profound |
Understood by all | Understood by academics & the religious |
WP has a lot of the first and very little of the second. As I've read thru myth articles, I've noticed several places where the academic perspective has come out, only to be misunderstood by others and thus divided, given multiple names, or attempts of deletion: Religion and mythology, Myth and ritual, Mythopoeic literature, Mythopoiesis, Mytheme and Mythos.
Here's why I've explained all that. I want to introduce the concepts which academic mythology studies so that someone can find them if they're looking. Namely, to give a single, concise definition of the word "myth" (oddly there is none at the moment) and comprehensive organization to the individual articles. But instead of just barging in, I wanted to find what the consensus of others is and has been past. So if there's something major anyone objects to that I should know, please tell me. -- Ephilei 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a merge that I felt was concluded too hastily and for the wrong reasons, so I undid the redirect. Now they want to open a discussion, and I feel that this is of interest to the mythology community since most of the content that can't be added to Megafauna (the article it had gotten redirected to) from Giant animal was cryptozoology-related or mytholology-related. Thanks, and I hope to see your input. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The category under consideration for deletion is Category:Giant animals, which should be of interest to people in this WikiProject. I'm refraining since I created the category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Due to the breadth of this subject, and the work needing to be done on it, a proposal for a WikiProject King Arthur has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#King Arthur. Feel free to join or add comments. We need at least 5-10 people to justify starting the project. Wrad 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A relevant discussion is going on at Talk:Dragon#External_links. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We need more information on the mythological aspects of death in the article. Anybody with knowledge on this area would be a tremendous aid to the article. We're looking to expand the section on death in culture and break it out into a full article, and more is needed on many aspects such as death in the arts, religion and in myths and legends. Hopefully someone involved with this project can lend us a hand. Richard001 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is to let people know that I'm in the middle of expanding the Troilus article. I've left a brief introductory summary and have split the article into greek, Roman/Latin, medieval/renaissance sections. I am working through in vaguely chronological order giving the versions of the myth. -- Peter cohen 23:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In watching over the page Artemis, I've noticed that people are constantly fiddling with the details of myths about her. Obviously there are uncountable variations on every myth, and it would be impractical to relate each and every one.
Is there some sort of wiki policy for this issue, and if not, what would people suggest? It seems like this is likely to be pretty important for any page related to this wikiproject. -- Starwed 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. - Eep² 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that there are not many articles on Cherokee mythology. We have the main article, but the category has only 7 articles. I'm trying to write more, but can someone help? Can someone help with the article Nun'Yunu'Wi that I just started? Vultur 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to raise the issue of adding Biblical figures to this project. It is rather controversial, especially to the billions of people who believe they truly existed (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Bahai). -- Avi 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Over the years there has been heated debate about the usage of the term " Jewish mythology" and the article is a total mess and reflects very little about what Judaism has truly believed in or teaches or still has to say about this complex topic. See the heated discussion/s going back some time at Talk:Jewish mythology and especially at Category talk:Jewish mythology. Since then, Category:Judaism has grown, with sub-categories such as Category:Jewish mysticism and Category:Jewish texts and Category:Rabbinic literature that obviate the need to rely on the spurious Category:Jewish mythology. IZAK 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
IZAK I feel your "concern" , Christian mythology talk page has heated discussions, and currently the article has a bias wARNING flag on it ...despite attempts to use scholars to say mythology is universal to all religions. I think the Bible is unique in trying to be an actual witness of accounts of God. Myth was originally more of an oral tradition, without a written record. I cannot quite tell if you are for or against the idea of Biblical figures as mythology. Goldenrowley 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I've been categorizing expert requests, found several dozen mythology related to add, if anyone wants to tackle there are jucy and big topics where experts were already requested: Category:Mythology articles needing expert attention.... thank you in advance. Goldenrowley 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#List of articles where mythology cats are potentially problematic is likely of interest.
The discussion raises a basic issue which perhaps might better be addressed in a more general forum: Whether to characterize beliefs of living religons as "mythology". This is a complex question which is, in practice, answered rather inconsistently across the encyclopedia. In general, core religious doctrines of Western religions (e.g. Resurrection of Jesus) do not have mythology categories associated with them, while arguably peripheral doctrines (such as Noah's Ark) do. Similarly, some nonwestern religions are categorized as relgion and some as mythology. (See e.g. the discussion at Yoruba religion). The use of the term "mythology" consistently seems to annoy religious believers because, regardless of its academic use, one of the dictionary definitions of "myth" is a false belief, and it is argued that because of this definition, use of the term "mythology" connotes a point of view violating WP:NPOV. A hodgepodge of different approaches where the term "myth" is sometimes applied and sometimes not depending on who participated in a particular discussion seems to be a receipe for ongoing conflict. Perhaps we can arrive at a solution. Best, -- Shirahadasha 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In this context, the subject matter is academically considered to be a "traditional narrative" that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people" (--source?). Myths are considered sacred and foundational to the people.(--source?) |
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In popular usage, the words "myth" and "mythology" often mean "falsehood" or "fantasy". However, here the word "myth" will be used in its broadest scholarly sense, to mean "traditional story" (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). (More restrictive scholarly definitions of "myth", if relevant, will be discussed within the body of the article.) By applying the term "mythology" to the sacred stories of _______, this article is not labeling these stories as false. |
-- Phatius McBluff 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In popular usage, the words "myth" and "mythology" often mean "falsehood". However, unless otherwise noted, this article uses the word "myth" in its broadest scholarly sense, to mean "traditional story", whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). (More restrictive scholarly definitions of "myth", if relevant, will be discussed within the body of the article.) |
Reworded this way, I don't think the box needs that last disclaimer about "not labeling these stories as false". -- Phatius McBluff 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. The word "myth" in its broadest academic sense means a sacred and "traditional story", whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). Mythographers see mythology as one component of religion, as they are are considered sacred and foundational to the people. |
How about this:
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" does not imply falsehood; it simply means a traditional story, whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). Unless otherwise noted, the article uses the word "myth" in this sense. |
Goldenrowley-- I know you want the religion discussion in the box; we can haggle over that. But do you think this clears up the issue of mentioning the popular usage of the word "myth"? -- Phatius McBluff 00:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Look what I found..someone had the idea already, although its not in use yet. All it needs is the dragon and the citation
{{ myth box}}
AND For a Christian version...how about part of the CS Lewis quote just added on religion and mythology? Goldenrowley 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding part of the C. S. Lewis quote to the info box for Christian mythology article(s). (Again, of course, I'll have to see a draft before I voice my personal approval.) I'd like to hear other users' opinions on this matter.
I have several problems with the "Truemyth" template:
Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted that someone else realized that we need something like this. However, I stand by that last draft that I made and that you (Goldenrowley) said you liked. -- Phatius McBluff 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do you know who made that template? We should congratulate him/her on his/her foresight and ask him/her to participate in this discussion. -- Phatius McBluff 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" does not imply falsehood; it simply means a traditional story, whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). Unless otherwise noted, the article uses the word "myth" in this sense. |
-- Phatius McBluff 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the concept here, but any infobox that is used should be very small or incorporated with another box. I hate the profliferation of boxes everywhere for no purpose, especially large ones or ones that reflow text oddly. And the whole "true myth" quote is completely pointless. CS Lewis' opinions should not be present in a freaking infobox.
DreamGuy
18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well.. sice silence implies acceptance and such, I may put this slogan on the mythology category page first and foremost, I think its way better than the grey box that is there. Goldenrowley 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles about Mythology: |
---|
In its broadest academic sense, the word " myth" simply means a traditional story, whether true or false. (— OED, Princeton Wordnet) Unless otherwise noted, the words "mythology" and "myth" are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false. |
To use the template, put {{myth box}} or {{myth box Christianity}} on a page Goldenrowley 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've recently made some large-scale mythology-related additions to Wikipedia. However, I've gotten very little feedback on them, even after mentioning some of them on Wikipedia:Requests for Feedback. If you have time, please take a look at them:
All these article probably still need editing and expansion. Thanks for any help you can give! -- Phatius McBluff 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There's very little scholarly consensus about the proper definition of the word "myth". (See the discussion of the issue in the "Term" section of the Mythology article.) However, in all the scholarly definitions I've found so far, "myth" has always been defined as some kind of story. I think we can all at least agree to limit the term "myth" to stories. Yet there seems to be some confusion on this point: check out a section of the Religion and mythology article's discussion page ( here) where someone called the Trinity doctrine a "myth". Regardless of whether you believe in the Trinity, the Trinity itself is not a myth: it's a theological concept. Stories about the Trinity (e.g., Christ's disciples receiving the Holy Spirit) may be categorized as myths, insofar as we define myths as "sacred stories". But the Trinity itself isn't a story; therefore, it isn't a myth. I've seen far too many cases on Wikipedia where people categorize all parts of religion as "mythology". Scripture is myth, at least if you define myths as sacred stories; but non-narrative elements of religion such as ritual and theology aren't stories, so they can't be "myths" in any scholarly sense. -- Phatius McBluff 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, note this former version of the Religion and mythology article [4], which lists baptism and ritual meals as similarities between different religious mythologies. I removed the references to baptism, etc. from the article, because baptism is a ritual, not a myth. What's even more confusing is that the article already defined myth specifically as "sacred narrative": why, then, would it list non-narrative elements as mythology? I'm confused. -- Phatius McBluff 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
These sections exist in a lot of mythology articles. In many they've grown far longer than the actual descriptive part of the article. (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gram_%28mythology%29&oldid=133775532 )
Now, sometimes, with particularly influential or important mythological figures whose appearances may not be obvious, but which have a significant effect on the stories in which they appear, I think these sections actually do serve some purpose.
But every mention of every time a monster in an RPG vaguely resembles is just pointless. It'll usually SAY the name right there in the game, do we need to have every reference ever added to the article on the subject? Most of the time it just comes off as an excuse for anime and video game fans to write something about their favorite titles.
I've got less of a problem with instances where there's an extensive list in a separate article. (I still think it's essentially pointless trivia, but it doesn't get in the way if you just have a "see also" in the main article) But I'm kind of torn on what to do where they've started taking over actual meaningful articles. Andy Christ 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually think it was over-enthusiastic. I think there might be a case to be made for the existence of these lists, particularly as separate pages, but it seems almost every time you have one in an article, it ends up expanding and expanding every time an anime nerd stumbles upon the page. Leaving them there just encourages this. I'm leaning towards just deleting all of them. Andy Christ 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe one big "mythology references in anime and video games" would be a good idea. Just one single clearinghouse for these things, and link this article, or a "mythological references in popular culture" category from every mythology article that has a significant number of them. This would provide an outlet for anime circle-jerking, without letting it dilute mythology articles themselves. Andy Christ 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Goldenrowley has designed an "info box" to be posted on mythology articles:
{{
Myth box}}
We're hoping that this notice will help us avoid arguments with religious adherents who feel that we're calling their beliefs false by labeling them as "myths". I've been working with Goldenrowley on the box's design, and I'm 100% behind this endeavor. However, I think there are now 2 points that need discussing pronto:
First: Some articles don't actually use the word "myth" in its "broadest academic sense". For instance, the Christian mythology article states that "miraculous events in scripture" might be categorized as myths, but only if one is "more skeptical". Here "myth" clearly is being used to imply falsehood. (Hence the furor among some Christians over the very existence of an article entitled "Christian mythology".) Therefore, we need a (hopefully sizeable) number of people who are willing to look through some of the mythology-related articles and reword them so they don't contradict the info box. The question is, How? There are 2 possibilities:
Second: Goldenrowley, I see you're posting the info boxes in the articles' "See Also" sections. Most people don't look at the "See Also" section first, so putting the info box there seems to defeat its purpose. We designed the box to clarify how we would use the term "myth" in the article. So don't we want people to read the info box before reading the article? Shouldn't the box be at the top of the article? I realize, however, that some people aren't happy with the proliferation of info boxes cluttering the top of articles. I personally don't think this is a problem at all, but please weigh in if you disagree. -- Phatius McBluff 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just passing through to ask a question... Is it within this project's scope to include articles that deal with the aspects of mythology in works of fiction not coming from the same culture/period as the myth?
Thanks
- J Greb 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this project should include articles that explore the mythological references and themes in later literature, films, etc. (for instance, to take a cliche example, the supposed "hero's journey" structure in Star Wars). However, I think this project should not necessarily include articles on direct adaptations of myths. (Everyone knows that the movie Troy is based on mythology. To include its article in the Mythology project seems somewhat pointless.) -- Phatius McBluff 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This category is in terrible need of reorganization, and I'd like to ask the mythology wikiproject for some help, as I think it would be impossible without an organized group doing this. As it stands, this category contains only articles that are actually lists (terribly done lists, I might add) of popular culture references to certain elements of Norse mythology (for example, the article Loki in popular culture. Here is my plan for improving this category. Like I said, it will be a lot of work: go through each of the 'popular culture' articles in this category and individually tag each of the relevant articles with the Norse mythology in popular culture category. Then we can petition for deletion of the original 'popular culture' articles themselves. I also thought, alternatively, we could organize the relevant articles into sub categories, but I almost feel that would not work logistically. Anybody up for working on this? CaveatLector Talk 11:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I messed up the tag in this area. There is an article listed for deletion that might be of interest to the members of this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cretan mythology CaveatLector Talk 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgard in popular culture. CaveatLector Talk 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the Islamic mythology article needs to be expanded, reworded, or deleted. Right now, it's serving no useful function I can see: it's just a directory for articles that fall within the category of Islamic mythology. Its purpose as a directory would be useful only if an average person would normally think of searching for "Islamic mythology" on Wikipedia: I don't know any such people; do you?
Worse, the article seems to equate "mythology" with polytheistic religion: it says that the "mythology" in Islam consists of elements derived from pre-Islamic paganism. As the articles on mythology and religion and mythology clearly state, a "myth" is a traditional story: to equate "mythology" with polytheistic religion is both too broad (since religion contains a lot of elements, such as ritual, that aren't traditional stories) and too narrow (since traditional stories exist in monotheism as well as in polytheism).
I've been thinking of rewriting the Islamic mythology article to be more like the Christian mythology article. However, I still hesitate. Is it really worth the effort of a complete re-write? If I'm just going to be re-writing the Christian mythology article, replacing the word "Christian" with "Muslim", then what's the point?
Does anyone know if there's a particular category of Muslim scriptures that's specifically considered to be the body of "Muslim myths"? Such bodies of scripture exist in other religions: consider the Hindu Puranas, or the Jewish Aggadah. (In fact, a search for Jewish mythology redirects to Aggadah.) -- Phatius McBluff 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article clearly falls into the domain of this project, would anyone object if I was to add the hint box to its talk page? ornis ( t) 07:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Icarus article, as well as articles such as Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music need to either be scrapped or completely rewritten into a well sourced article rather than a simple list of indiscriminate facts. Anybody up for coming together for this task? (Cross posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) CaveatLector Talk 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Page blanking Alert: Something Phatius said made me go look at the jewish mythology page because it was a regular article, now its a redirect. The person who redirected it did so quite recently based on "talk page" consensus. I read the consensus and I can't find one... Are they speaking of the idea to redirect back on 29 August 2006? it looks more like a toss out than a merge of articles. I don't know for sure I suspect the redirect was not a consensus. Should this project bring it back? Goldenrowley 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Aggadah again. It definitely doesn't correspond to "Jewish mythology", if by that term we mean something analogous to what's described in the Christian mythology and Islamic mythology articles. According to the article's header, the Aggadah are "exegetical texts in classical rabbinic literature" and take the form of "folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and business and medical advice". There are two problems here:
We really need someone who knows a bit about Judaism to help with this. -- Phatius McBluff 22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I boldy rolled back the edit. Such a redirection borders on vandalism. Those with knowledge in the subject can now work on this important article. CaveatLector Talk 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Category:Jewish folklore for merging to Category:Jewish mythology. Please have a look at the discussion and have a say. -- Eliyak T· C 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The folks over at the pokeproject seem to think they WP:OWN the page Ho-Oh, and refuse to redirect or even disambig to the discussion at Fenghuang. Someone please try to talk some sense into them. Kappa 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a new section to the Mircea Eliade article, dealing with Eliade's philosophy of religion. (Eliade was a historian of religion.) So far, I haven't gotten much feedback. I suspect this is because Eliade isn't a major topic for most people. However, any feedback on the article's talk page would be appreciated.
I realize this request belongs on the religion project's page more than on this one. (I put a request there too.) However, Eliade is a big name in comparative mythology, and I thought some people here might be able to help. Thanks. -- Phatius McBluff 07:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder whether anyone could spare a moment to express an opinion on a possible addition to Troilus. I'm fairly close to completing fixing issues from the previous Good Article nomination and hope to resubmit within the next month or so.
A couple of months back Goldenrowley suggested I included a table but I was unsure where one would be of value. I have now compiled a table covering ancient literary sources at User:Peter cohen/sandbox that are used in my article and I believe it is effectively complete. This was triggered by comments about how readers would not be familiar with many of the sources. Do people think tabulating them in this way would be useful? If so where should it fit in the article? Above the discussion of what the sources provide or at the end of the article above the modern academic references?
If people do think it is of value, how might it be improved? I've not bothered to put in line references but can compile those from the article. I would also expect to compile tables of medieval and modern references. Thanks-- Peter cohen 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I shall soon be renominating Troilus as a good article. When the previous nomination failed, it was suggested that a good copy editor be involved before the article is renominated. The file is nearly 100K including pictures, notes, references etc. The preferred spelling is British English. I shall be cross-posting this request to a number of suitable places, so I suggest any volunteer announces their presence at Talk:Troilus. -- Peter cohen 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. How about an article on the (pre-Christian) festival of Epiphany and/or the lunar god Epiphanes (deity) for whom it is named. See Epiphanes (gnostic) for several sources. Goldenrowley 06:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add to some articles of the Norse Mythology some quotations in two languages, as i previously did on italian wikipedia (cfr here, with the it:Template:Quote). Now everything is done with tables, like here, i would like to create a template like {{ 2Quot}} or maybe {{ DoubleQuote}}. What do you think? Helios 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading a book on hermaphrodites in pan-cultural mythology and would love to create Hermaphrodites (mythology) with the info gleaned. But before I take a lot of effort, I wanted to verify this would be a good idea. I'm cautious because the book, Hermaphrodeities isn't very scholarly (I like it because it's the only aggregate of hermaphrodite myths) and the first draft of this article would be referenced almost entirely from this book. Obviously this situation isn't ideal, but I want to know if you think it's good enough to start. That is, would someone delete the content as soon as I write it? -- Ephilei 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through and tidying up infobox proposals (aka removing inactive/depresciated proposals), and came across Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed#Mythical characters, is this still being worked upon, or is there already a suitably active infobox template ? David Ruben Talk 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I was about to start an article on Muta when I noticed there was an existing one on Larunda and that they seem to be the same character, so I merged them and left a redirect. Then later I notice Dea Tacita which seems to be similar but refers to "Larenta". I think these articles should be merged, but I have no idea what is the "best" name for them to be merged under. I decided to ask here because these are not exactly high-traffic articles so the talk pages would probably be ignored. If we merge them, should we merge the page histories? —dgies t c 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Gp75motorsports. I'm a rookie contributor here. Anyway, I thought these 3D renderings would be useful. After all, 3D allows you to check out more of the dragon's features.
Then just click on the 3d link.
From here you can check out many different images of many different species of dragon and learn where most of them hang out. Best, --
Gp75motorsports
01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
They're under FDL. Nothing to worry about. -- Gp75motorsports 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
I've recently been trying to get the science article on the star Vega up to A-class. Near the end is a section called cultural significance, part of which concerns the mythology of Vega. I've added a few more entries to that section, but I'm sure there must be more. Do you know if there any other notable mythological influences of Vega that should be also mentioned? Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Folks, An anon has been editing underworld to make it just the negative hell like places and removing the positive heaven like places. I don't know much about Mythology so some expert input could be helpful. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
On 1 December 2007 User:Rsweeney created stub Asrai Fairy, also spelled Asari within the article. Do these Asrai/Asari have their origin in some real-world folklore? Created for a fantasy role-playing game? -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be too much to suggest that something like WP:Myth or WP:MYTH links to the project page? The latter links to a WP policy page of all things. Getting the full name right is a bit of a pilaver.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
According to a recent peer review, the article Prayer is in need of information regarding the practice of prayer in animist and ancient pagan religions (that is, Roman, Greek, Norse, etc.). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Góntia (via WP:PROD on 4 January 2008)
Hi, I'm not a member of this project, but I thought I'd point out that Moonstone has a considerable place in legend and mythology, but there is not an article about Moonstone's mythological significance on Wikipedia. -- M e r ond e 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi y'all, I just added Aita (mythology) to your WP. The article is in bad shape. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm gearing up on gathering sourcing for Toadstone, to expand it out. I have a workspace set up for reference collection at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Toadstone, and a structural draft at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Toadstone/draft. If anyone is interested in joining in, please say hi on my talk page there, the talks of one of those, or just leap in! I'm wanting to expand it out like I did on my previous FA, Storm botnet, and my current FAC, Bezhin Meadow. Thanks! Lawrence § t/ e 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor added news of the recent discovery in the Rhone River of a statue of Neptune from 300 AD. I removed it from the Neptune (mythology) article because it seemed to me that even really cool discoveries of artifacts, unless they actually reveal some hitherto unknown aspect of worship, or of a myth, are not pertinent to the figure himself/herself. The editor who added it was outraged and put it back in. Then I reverted, then he reverted. And now per WP:3RR I can't change it back. If some other kind editors would take a look and do what they think is right, I'd appreciate it. maxsch ( talk) 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Contributing editors have recently done a good deal of work on the article Tuisto, which is listed as an article in the scope of this WikiProject. We feel that the article is now at B-Class or higher. After some fine-tuning, we will be submitting it for external GA-review. WikiProject Mythology still has it listed as a Stub-Class article. Could someone from this project please take a look and reassess the article according to this WikiProject's standards? Thanks. — Aryaman (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a proposal for changes to Christian mythology on its talk page. If you're interested, please provide feedback. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I would really like to bring this article to good article standards, is anyone else interested? ~~ Meldshal42 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The comparative mythology article had been sitting around for a long time covered with "citation needed" notices. I did my best to add properly referenced information to the article, and I removed unsourced statements. However, in the process, I pretty much rewrote the entire article. So feel free to check whether you like the article as it currently stands. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently dropped a note on the talkpage of User:Dimadick, a very hardworking and diligent editor with regards to tagging article talkpages with Wikiproject templates, about the lack of discrimination I felt he was exercising in the articles he was tagging, and it got me to wondering, are there a set of standards to apply when choosing whether or not an article ought to be tagged for the project? Ought articles like Lao Ma be tagged for WP:Classical Greece and Rome (because she was a minor character on Xena, a television series based on classical mythology)? Or World's Finest Team be tagged for WP:Greece (presumably because Wonder Woman's in it, and she has ties to Greek mythology)? Or Namorita be tagged for WP:Mythology because she's from Marvel Comics' version of Atlantis?
Was I needlessly heckling this guy? Are these things the project actually has an interest in supporting? My instinct says no, that articles should only be tagged if they have a reasonable connection with the Wikiprojects for which they are tagged, but maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?
I've cross posted this to several other interested projects. Ford MF ( talk) 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently made large-scale changes to Comparative mythology. I'd say the content is more than 50% different from what it was beforehand. The article needs a new quality assessment. No necessarily because I think it's now of higher quality. But it now seems to be at least on the path to becoming a genuinely good article, and I need input about what it still needs (e.g. pictures?) to reach high quality. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I created a separate article for Origin myth (which originally redirected to Creation myth); see the article for an explanation. I also added a wikiproject mythology box to the talk page for Origin myth. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 2141 articles are assigned to this project, of which 510, or 23.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was wondering if maybe anyone of you could take a look at this article: Naflgar. I'm almost certain it's a misspelling of Naglfar (a rather funny sounding one), buy maybe someone here will be able to controll this. I apologize if I'm writing this in the wrong place. -- 83.178.246.60 ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a good illustrating image with clearly visible of his iconography. But is he Mercury or Hermes? And what does the winged wheel means? -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, the subarticle Origins of vampire beliefs was split out over size concerns when vampire was at FAC. Dreamguy has proposed remerging it back here which I have concerns about but is feasibly possible (just) under size constraints. Three of us have an opinion currently but more would be helpful. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody knowledgeable please take a look at Aegis? It makes a number of assertions, and contains a number of cites, but I suspect that the cites don't all support the assertions. Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in hte discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
As part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links I had started on disambiguating Germanic mythology. After plodding through some of this, all I can say is that it is very much a hotch-potch of circular links. I would encourage this project to have a look at these pages, and to have a plan to getting a reasonable order and flow to the pages. -- billinghurst ( talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the edits in [7] you'll see that User:Borg2008 has been removing many categories from some of our articles. Has this been agreed? If not, does anyone have a bot that can reverse all the edits?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. This is a RfC in relation to an ongoing dispute over at Noah's Ark. The dispute is about whether the article topic can be described as myth given certain negative connotations of the word "myth". Discussion has become fairly entrenched, so fresh voices would be appreciated. I note that the article is one of this project's FAs (at least formerly). Best regards, -- PLUMBAGO 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This page 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 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
ccc Hello all, I just saw the Hinduism panel, looks good. I agree that Navigation should be simple. However looking at the wikispecies: site makes me want a wikimyth site.
I am a fan of Myth, follore, legends, fables, fairy tales and the like and would like to see a srouce on the web about it that is worthwhile. If these questions have been asked somewhere else, please let me know. I am a little new at this.
Ojmorales0002 16:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "Symbols" block is confusing. What do you mean? Rossami 22:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
{{SampleWikiProject}}
I've added a link to the Swedish Mythology Project! It's pretty sleepy right now, but maybe there will be more contributors than just me joining in within short? / Mats 21:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So I started coming up with alternative godboxes, but then I started thinking about why I haven't seen any.
So far, the godbox effort has stalled. It seems like a lot of effort to place all that information in a table (which even under the best circumstances is a PITA to edit) when it's usually already in the article, so that's understandable. On the other hand, the Hindu project has been doing a lot with templates. These are much easier to do, since all it takes is some {{'s, and they can help navigation between pages of a topic.
Please see my proposal on the front page. Since I'm simple-minded, I chose a green color-scheme for Greek and a red one for Roman. Bacchiad 13:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A right aligned box could interfere with pictures and so on, therefore I propose a centered box at the bottom of the page like the template {{NorseMythology}}. Every mythology could then have an individual color scheme and religious symbol. The general layout of the boxes can of course be discussed. Salleman 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not really. I have tidied up Wikipedia:Shortpages/Mythology though. ~~~~ 08:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Ancient Mesopotamian religion |
---|
|
Part of a series on |
Ancient Mesopotamian religion |
---|
|
I was really impressed with the template I saw at Template:Greek myth (sea). It has two parts: the top for groups of topics, and a bottom for a list of gods. This allows the template to grow, connect all the articles together in an interlinked TOC, and has a quick list of related gods at the bottom. Some non-Classical mythologies are sub-topics within larger articles and may not have enough information to stand on their own. Thus, a right aligned box may sometimes be more appropriate, such as for the absolutely stunning box that Salleman designed!
Inspired, I designed one for myths of the Fertile Crescent since they share many of the same deities, but one box listing them all would eventually take up too much space. And each box would fill with many duplicates of the same god.
Used a desert colour scheme. A centred box at bottom would be best for stubs, but would take toomuch more work. Castanea dentata 06:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The template is vandalized a lot, but a stable link is here.
.
Hi everybody - just a short message from WP:WSS to let you know that the mythology-related stub categories have changed a bit. Incan mythology stubs was too small and specific a category on its own, whereas much larger groups of mythology stubs weren't separated out. Mythology stubs are now divided by continent, with Greek mythology separated out further since there were a large number of them. Al the new stub types are at the bottom of your project page. We hope they help editors find mythology articles to expand more easily! Grutness... wha? 13:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Please visit this template I'm working on to go at the bottom of all of the major religious pages as a way to facilitate comparative religion research. Leave your comments on its talk page. Thanks! -- Mareino 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on mythology? Featured articles would also be great. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!-- Shanel 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone create a Hindu myth stub?
-- Dangerous-Boy 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently on AfD and will probably be deleted unless someone can provide a reference for it so I thought I'd enquire here if anyone could help. The text of the article is in this revision. Thanks.-- Cherry blossom tree 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a to do-list for this WikiProject, to try and list a number of tasks for us to do. What do you guys think of it? And are there any things you would like to add to it?
There is a requested move listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves that proposes the move Dreamtime (mythology) → Tjukurpa. To contribute to the discussion related to this move see Talk:Dreamtime (mythology). Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 10:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This article was nominated for speedy deletion earlier as an empty article. I turned it into a stub but the article needs more work. If anyone could expand it, it would be great. Capitalistroadster 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Howdy all! Just thought I'd let you know there's a new sub-category for films at Category:Films based on Greco-Roman mythology, in case any of you are both mythology buffs and film buffs. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Mythology! I'm part of another Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. I'm not sure if there's been any kind of official or unofficial inter-Wikiproject cooperation between our two projects, or if there's been any contact at all in the past, but I thought I'd come here anyways and say 'hi'.
WikiProject Missing Encyclopedic Articles' essentially goal is to help Wikipedia become better than any other encyclopedia/major repository of information, by including articles on every topic in any other encyclopedia/major repository of information. A lot of the project focusses on things like the Encylopedia Brittanica, Columbia, Gutenberg authors, etc, but the section I thought might interest you guys is the Hotlist of Mythology & Folklore. It began with a list of 17,346 articles, and it's now down to 7,678 (56% done). It includes all types of mythology - Celtic, Chinese, Greek, Native American, you name it. I bet if we got some input from you guys, who actually know something about mythology, we could make a serious dent in what's left. If you're interested, check out the project page, drop me a line, or just start contributing. Thanks! -- Gpollock 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is (polite) dispute on the Trojan War article about some of the content. Some more commentary from mythology editors would be greatly appreciated. Ikokki
This isn't quite a perfect fit (I was hoping to find an appropriate History WikiProject), but hopefully someone can help out.
There's currently a dispute going on at Wizard (now moved to Wizard (fantasy), Wizard (disambiguation), and a few other places. It's only between two people, so some kind of third opinion would be helpful to avoid a 1 on 1 revert war. A brief overview:
The Wizard article was apparently in bad shape and had a cleanup tag on it. User:Jc37 reorganized some parts of it and removed the cleanup tag. I saw it and rewrote it to a degree and put the cleanup tag back on. Jc37 went on to mostly revert my changes, and has since made various major shifts. He seems determined to remove practically all references to magic in the "Wizard" article, and has in fact completely removed the section on historical wizards recently (he moved the article from Wizard to Wizard (fantasy), retaining some of the historical information at Magician). He is also a strong proponent of using "black box systems" to explain Magic, something I feel that is not appropriate for an introduction on both style (Computer Science jargon) and content grounds. Jc37 is also interested in categorizing the various mage-like articles more strictly (wizard vs. magician vs. alchemist and so on), which I am neutral on, but I do not see the sources that Jc37 is using for his categories. Additionally, I feel that the new articles are poorly written, even ignoring content issues.
Ultimately, both Jc37 and myself are amatuers at the subject, I believe. I'm trying to learn more, but both of our attempts have been unsourced so far (it's just that he's been far more aggressive at editing his writing in). If anyone here actually knows folkore and historical sociology well, that would be greatly appreciated; these articles definitely need help, and that is something that both Jc37 and myself can agree on. SnowFire 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the " key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to the Mythology WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one (new) for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist like this one automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This WikiProject should have a template such as this one that can be placed on article talk pages. This helps editors keep track of articles in the project. 24.126.199.129 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, is it me or Glengordon01 that is trying to support subjective opinions about the topic with shoddy (in his case no) sources? There has recently been an edit war between me and him over this figure from Etruscan mythology. He seems to think that his word is more valid than the eleven sources I've cited, on the grounds that my sources all have "subjective opinions". On the discussion page for Labrys, he's claiming that I am using the Burden of proof (logical fallacy) when it seems that all the evidence shows that he is the only one utilizing it. -- Scottandrewhutchins 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, and congratulations on the quality of your work to date. One little problem. According to guidelines, a project with no listed members and no activity on its project page for three months can be tagged as inactive, and, possibly, even deleted. I see how much work is being done, but I don't see a list of active members. It might be a really good idea to add one, to ensure no one else jumps to speedy, erroneous, conclusions. Thanks. Badbilltucker 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I created this as a template godbox (see Wikipedia:Infobox). I think it works well for this example, but I'm not sure how well it will translate to other Greek deities, much less Celtic or Egyptian ones, and not even to mention Hindu deities or Christian saints or other similar topics. I may create a few more to establish a real template -- several variations will have to exist even within Greek mythology (Zeus, for example, had too many children to put them all in the box, and there needs to be an image-less template as well). I chose varying shades of blue to mean different things -- blue will be the Greek mythology color, and other colors can be chosen at will (e.g. shades of red for Celtic mythology, green for Norse, gray for Aztec, etc). There will, however, be overlap, as there are only so many colors.
Lovers | Offspring |
---|---|
No father | Pontus, Uranus |
Uranus | Hecatonchires, Cyclopes, Titans, Erinyes (sources vary) |
Pontus | Ceto, Eurybia, Phorcys, Nereus, Thaumas |
Oceanus | Creusa, Spercheus |
Elara | Tityas |
Tartarus | Echidna, Typhon |
Unknown | Mimas, Ourea, Pheme, Python |
Gaia (land or earth in Greek) | Earth Mother of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Fertility Earth Life
Bees | |||
Attributes | |||
Cornucopia Fruit Breasts | |||
Epithets and Titles | |||
Mater Pantôn Kourotrophe | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Primordial deity |
Magna Mater or
Tellus (
Roman) Cybele ( Anatolian) Rhea or Potnia Theron ( Cretan) Also Demeter and Persephone |
Delphi Athens |
Parentage | Chaos or Aether and Hemera |
Lovers | Uranus (husband), see others below | ||
Offspring | Titans, Hecatonchires, Cyclopes (more, see others below) | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
Theogony | Gaia hypothesis |
Perséphonê (perhaps She who destroys the light in Greek; also Kore (maiden)) | Life-Death-Rebirth Goddess of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Virginity Death Fertility Underworld | |||
Attributes | |||
Torches Crown Grain Sceptre | |||
Epithets and Titles | |||
Azesia Daeira Daiphron Despoina Hagne Herykyna | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Queen of Hades |
Proserpina (
Roman) Despoina ( Arcadian) |
Eleusis (see Eleusinian Mysteries) | Parentage | Zeus and Demeter |
Lovers | Hades (husband), also Zeus and Adonis | ||
Offspring | None (possibly Iacchus) | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
The Return of Persephone Persephone Proserpine Rape of Persephone |
Persephone, Falling Persephone Underground Hymn to Demeter |
Supplicant Persephone Persephone, Pomegranates & Promises Persephone |
??? |
Artemis | Moon Goddess of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Virginity Moon Hunting Animals | |||
Attributes | |||
Bows and
arrows Moon (especially crescent) Sceptre | |||
Epithets | |||
Agrotora Potnia Theron Kourotrophos Locheia Cynthia Phoebe | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Olympian |
Diana (
Roman) Artume ( Etruscan), also Selene, Aphaea, Hecate, Cybele, Caryatis |
Aricia, Mount Tifata, Latium, Asia Minor | Parentage | Zeus and Leto |
Lovers | None | ||
Offspring | None | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
??? | ??? | Temple of Artemis | ??? |
Zeus ( Greek Zευς) or Dias (Greek: Διας) | Sky Father of the Greeks | ||
---|---|---|---|
Symbols | |||
Thunder Lightning Masculinity Sky
| |||
Attributes | |||
Thunderbolt Eagle Sceptre | |||
Epithets | |||
Ceneus Lycaeus Panhellenios | |||
Identified with | Centers of worship | Status | Olympian King of the Gods |
Jupiter (
Roman) Tinia ( Etruscan) Sabazios ( Phrygian) Ammon ( Egyptian) Lycaon in Aegina |
Mycenae (probable origin), Cape Canaeum, Olympia, Dodona, Pergamon | Parentage | Cronus and Rhea |
Wife | Hera (many other lovers, see below) | ||
Offspring | Ares, Dionysus, Persephone, Hermes, Apollo, Artemis (many more, see below) | ||
Artwork | |||
Paintings | Literature | Sculptures and statues | Modern interpretations |
Jupiter and Io Leda with the Swan |
??? | Statue at Olympia | ??? |
Greek mythology - Titans | cadetblue |
---|---|
Greek mythology - Olympians | lightskyblue |
Greek mythology - Primordial gods | paleturquoise |
Greek mythology - Other Gods | cornflowerblue |
Greek mythology - Nymphs, Oceanids and Dryads | royalblue |
Greek mythology - Demigods | steelblue |
Greek mythology - Humans | dodgerblue |
Greek mythology - Monsters | cyan |
Family | |||
---|---|---|---|
Lovers | Offspring | Lovers | Offspring |
Hera | Ares, Eileithyia, Hephaestus, Hebe | Aegina | Aeacus |
Demeter | Dionysus, Persephone (sources vary) | Electra | Dardania, Harmonia, Iasion |
Metis | Athena | Eurynome | Charites |
Mnemosyne | Muses | Himalia | Cronius |
Dione | Aphrodite (sources vary) | Iodame | Thebe |
Leto | Apollo, Artemis | Plouto | Tantalus |
Maia | Hermes | Taygete | Lacedaemon |
Ananke | Adrasteia, Moirae (sources vary) | Podarge | Balius, Xanthus |
Eos | Ersa | Europa | Minos, Sarpedon, Rhadamanthys |
Eris | Ate, Litae | Callisto | Arcas |
Selene | Nemean Lion, Pandia (sources vary) | Antiope | Amphion, Zethus |
Themis | Astraea, Dike, Horae, Moirae (sources vary) | Olympias | Alexander the Great |
Thalassa | Aphrodite (sources vary) | Carme | Britomartis |
Danae | Perseus | Io | Epaphus |
Laodamia | Sarpedon | Leda | Helen, Polydeuces |
Maera | Proetus | Niobe | Argos, Pelasgus |
Semele | Dionysus | Elara | Tityas |
Thalia | Palici | Alcmene | Heracles |
Unknown | Nemesis, Tyche |
Greek mythology is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy ( Talk) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope that no one reacts negatively to this question. However, I believe that right now the title of this project may, to a small degree, be somewhat self-defeating. To the best of my understanding, the word "mythology" is functionally used, in everyday conversation, to describe almost exclusively those stories related to belief systems which are currently discredited. This is somewhat off-putting to those who might still abide by these belief systems. I know that
Greek mythology is generally one of the most discredited of the old belief systems. Having said that, I remember having heard on the BBC's "Reporting Religion" show that there are still worshippers of the old Greek gods active in Athens. Some of the current practicioners of
Wicca also hold to some of the stories of old Greek mythology. To change the definition of "mythology" to include myths of all religions would be similarly complicated. I think we all can imagine the uproar if anyone were to describe the
Nativity of Jesus as "mythology", although, by the standard popular definition of "unproven story regarding divine and/or semi-divine beings", it qualifies as such.
I wonder if it might be possible to try to fuse this project with the equally small
Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Both deal with the same basic subject area, although one emphasizes the stories of a religion while the other does not. However, both deal pretty much with the same articles. Also, it would eliminate the potential conflict which could arise if there were a dispute regarding, for instance, some stories from Greek mythology and Neopaganism WikiProject or Religion WikiProject. I wonder what the members of this project think of the idea. I think either a new project could be created with a new name, or somehow possibly both projects agree to using one of the existing names. In any event, I would welcome all responses, positive or negative.
Badbilltucker
14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I ask this, again, so that the two projects can effectively try to deal with matters within their own scope, with some certainty that there will not arise "turf wars" about specific articles. I do acknowledge that there is a very real likelihood that both projects, at least in some instances, will deal with the same specific article, although hopefully different parts of the article, unless, of course, members of one group simply have more or better information than the other. In such instances, of course, I would hope that arrangements could be worked out. I want to make it clear that I do not specifically envision such a possibility necessarily arising, but simply want to have a framework in place in the unfortunate and regrettable event that it arises anyway. Badbilltucker 21:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The word mythology (Greek: μυθολογία, from μυθος mythos, a story or legend, and λογος logos, an account or speech) literally means the (oral) retelling of myths – stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In modern usage, mythology is either the body of myths from a particular culture or religion (as in Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology) or the branch of knowledge dealing with the collection, study and interpretation of myths. In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe to be based on fact but which is not true. However, the field of mythology does not use this definition.
Just as the title says, how do I join? I woul like to help, but I have no idea how to get any of the templates or find the participants page... Reponding on my talk page would be nice too. Thanks and cheers! — ¡ Rand fan ! 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This user is a participant in WikiProject Mythology. |
I cleaned up the project page this weekend, hopefully to everyone's liking, it was #1 on the "to do" list on both the project page and this talk page. I notice that we do NOT need 2 "to do" lists, the one on the main page should be sufficient.So the duplicate on this page can be removed top of this page. Goldenrowley 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"mythical or mythological: In its general sense, mythical relates to anything imaginary, while both mythical and mythological refer to mythology, and especially to the myths of classical times: What happened to that mythical fortune of his? Her favourite mythological character in Greek legend was Ganymede. © From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia. Helicon Publishing LTD 2006. All rights reserved'"
I am open to discussion? Goldenrowley 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ...Well I began the rename process at: [ [1]] Goldenrowley 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
couldn't the contents of the four tabs be on a single page? It's not all that much material, and I find it annoying to be forced to navigate between fragmented tidbits. A simple ToC makes things readily avaiable too. dab (𒁳) 10:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Several articles have been tagged as requiring expert attention from Mythology experts. These articles are contained in the Category:Pages needing expert attention from Mythology experts. Any such attention in improving these pages would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The article mentioned above was tagged for deletion on the basis of being nonverifiable. I have removed the tag, as the article does agree with a lot of general legends I do know, even though I don't know of this particular legend. Any help in providing a source for this article would be greatly appreciated. Badbilltucker 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read of comparisons between the myth of Prometheus and Jesus, but the article on Prometheus doesn't mention any such similarity. Both are said to have "brought the divine light" to the people and both were punished harshly for this. If anyone is familiar with comparative religion or mythology and has some references to indicate this, can you please help out? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
New member here, hello to all. Will be looking in future at the possibility of bringing comparisons/contrasts between different mythological/religious characters/events. Not sure yet how this will work within the confines of an encyclopaedic entry but could be interesting. I am however currently somewhat preoccupied with contributing articles/cleanups to the Wrestling Media Wikiproject. Suriel1981 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposed category merge was suggested: "artificial mythology" proposed merge into "mythopoeia" as covering the very same topic. Here is the proposal if anyone wants to cast a vote: [2] Goldenrowley 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, it looks like the article on Mother Nature could use some work, if anyone is interested. I just put a cleanup tag on it for a variety of reasons; please see the talk page for details. Mother Nature, in all of her names and forms, is a pretty important and central figure in mythology all over the world. I'm surprised that her article is so lacking... but hopefully there are some people willing to take the time to work on it! Thanks, romarin talk ] 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've edited WP a while and have always wanted to do mythology but I've been extremely intimidated. If you read all this, you'll find why and why I would be so committed. In all my experience, it seems the world of mythological study can be divided into two areas which have nothing but my imaginary names: folk mythology and academic myth. So far WP almost exclusively talks about folk mythology which is this: an old, non-historic story with supernatural characters and events that often explain the origins of parts of nature. However, an "academic" myth is this: a story that may or may not be historical that communicates profound, universal truths via the experience of listening/seeing. Or, as Campbell put it, "Myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human manifestation." The myths themselves are basically the same, but the way they're studied is totally different. Maybe this would help:
Folk | Academic |
---|---|
Particulars | Generalities |
Names, locations | Archetypes |
Plot | Teachings |
Literal | Figurative |
Groups myths according to religion/culture | Groups myths according teaching across religions |
From ancient writers | Created in all times |
Entertaining | Profound |
Understood by all | Understood by academics & the religious |
WP has a lot of the first and very little of the second. As I've read thru myth articles, I've noticed several places where the academic perspective has come out, only to be misunderstood by others and thus divided, given multiple names, or attempts of deletion: Religion and mythology, Myth and ritual, Mythopoeic literature, Mythopoiesis, Mytheme and Mythos.
Here's why I've explained all that. I want to introduce the concepts which academic mythology studies so that someone can find them if they're looking. Namely, to give a single, concise definition of the word "myth" (oddly there is none at the moment) and comprehensive organization to the individual articles. But instead of just barging in, I wanted to find what the consensus of others is and has been past. So if there's something major anyone objects to that I should know, please tell me. -- Ephilei 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a merge that I felt was concluded too hastily and for the wrong reasons, so I undid the redirect. Now they want to open a discussion, and I feel that this is of interest to the mythology community since most of the content that can't be added to Megafauna (the article it had gotten redirected to) from Giant animal was cryptozoology-related or mytholology-related. Thanks, and I hope to see your input. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The category under consideration for deletion is Category:Giant animals, which should be of interest to people in this WikiProject. I'm refraining since I created the category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Due to the breadth of this subject, and the work needing to be done on it, a proposal for a WikiProject King Arthur has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#King Arthur. Feel free to join or add comments. We need at least 5-10 people to justify starting the project. Wrad 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A relevant discussion is going on at Talk:Dragon#External_links. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We need more information on the mythological aspects of death in the article. Anybody with knowledge on this area would be a tremendous aid to the article. We're looking to expand the section on death in culture and break it out into a full article, and more is needed on many aspects such as death in the arts, religion and in myths and legends. Hopefully someone involved with this project can lend us a hand. Richard001 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is to let people know that I'm in the middle of expanding the Troilus article. I've left a brief introductory summary and have split the article into greek, Roman/Latin, medieval/renaissance sections. I am working through in vaguely chronological order giving the versions of the myth. -- Peter cohen 23:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In watching over the page Artemis, I've noticed that people are constantly fiddling with the details of myths about her. Obviously there are uncountable variations on every myth, and it would be impractical to relate each and every one.
Is there some sort of wiki policy for this issue, and if not, what would people suggest? It seems like this is likely to be pretty important for any page related to this wikiproject. -- Starwed 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. - Eep² 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that there are not many articles on Cherokee mythology. We have the main article, but the category has only 7 articles. I'm trying to write more, but can someone help? Can someone help with the article Nun'Yunu'Wi that I just started? Vultur 13:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to raise the issue of adding Biblical figures to this project. It is rather controversial, especially to the billions of people who believe they truly existed (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Bahai). -- Avi 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Over the years there has been heated debate about the usage of the term " Jewish mythology" and the article is a total mess and reflects very little about what Judaism has truly believed in or teaches or still has to say about this complex topic. See the heated discussion/s going back some time at Talk:Jewish mythology and especially at Category talk:Jewish mythology. Since then, Category:Judaism has grown, with sub-categories such as Category:Jewish mysticism and Category:Jewish texts and Category:Rabbinic literature that obviate the need to rely on the spurious Category:Jewish mythology. IZAK 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
IZAK I feel your "concern" , Christian mythology talk page has heated discussions, and currently the article has a bias wARNING flag on it ...despite attempts to use scholars to say mythology is universal to all religions. I think the Bible is unique in trying to be an actual witness of accounts of God. Myth was originally more of an oral tradition, without a written record. I cannot quite tell if you are for or against the idea of Biblical figures as mythology. Goldenrowley 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. I just wanted you to know I've been categorizing expert requests, found several dozen mythology related to add, if anyone wants to tackle there are jucy and big topics where experts were already requested: Category:Mythology articles needing expert attention.... thank you in advance. Goldenrowley 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#List of articles where mythology cats are potentially problematic is likely of interest.
The discussion raises a basic issue which perhaps might better be addressed in a more general forum: Whether to characterize beliefs of living religons as "mythology". This is a complex question which is, in practice, answered rather inconsistently across the encyclopedia. In general, core religious doctrines of Western religions (e.g. Resurrection of Jesus) do not have mythology categories associated with them, while arguably peripheral doctrines (such as Noah's Ark) do. Similarly, some nonwestern religions are categorized as relgion and some as mythology. (See e.g. the discussion at Yoruba religion). The use of the term "mythology" consistently seems to annoy religious believers because, regardless of its academic use, one of the dictionary definitions of "myth" is a false belief, and it is argued that because of this definition, use of the term "mythology" connotes a point of view violating WP:NPOV. A hodgepodge of different approaches where the term "myth" is sometimes applied and sometimes not depending on who participated in a particular discussion seems to be a receipe for ongoing conflict. Perhaps we can arrive at a solution. Best, -- Shirahadasha 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In this context, the subject matter is academically considered to be a "traditional narrative" that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people" (--source?). Myths are considered sacred and foundational to the people.(--source?) |
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In popular usage, the words "myth" and "mythology" often mean "falsehood" or "fantasy". However, here the word "myth" will be used in its broadest scholarly sense, to mean "traditional story" (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). (More restrictive scholarly definitions of "myth", if relevant, will be discussed within the body of the article.) By applying the term "mythology" to the sacred stories of _______, this article is not labeling these stories as false. |
-- Phatius McBluff 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In popular usage, the words "myth" and "mythology" often mean "falsehood". However, unless otherwise noted, this article uses the word "myth" in its broadest scholarly sense, to mean "traditional story", whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). (More restrictive scholarly definitions of "myth", if relevant, will be discussed within the body of the article.) |
Reworded this way, I don't think the box needs that last disclaimer about "not labeling these stories as false". -- Phatius McBluff 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. The word "myth" in its broadest academic sense means a sacred and "traditional story", whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). Mythographers see mythology as one component of religion, as they are are considered sacred and foundational to the people. |
How about this:
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" does not imply falsehood; it simply means a traditional story, whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). Unless otherwise noted, the article uses the word "myth" in this sense. |
Goldenrowley-- I know you want the religion discussion in the box; we can haggle over that. But do you think this clears up the issue of mentioning the popular usage of the word "myth"? -- Phatius McBluff 00:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Look what I found..someone had the idea already, although its not in use yet. All it needs is the dragon and the citation
{{ myth box}}
AND For a Christian version...how about part of the CS Lewis quote just added on religion and mythology? Goldenrowley 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding part of the C. S. Lewis quote to the info box for Christian mythology article(s). (Again, of course, I'll have to see a draft before I voice my personal approval.) I'd like to hear other users' opinions on this matter.
I have several problems with the "Truemyth" template:
Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted that someone else realized that we need something like this. However, I stand by that last draft that I made and that you (Goldenrowley) said you liked. -- Phatius McBluff 17:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do you know who made that template? We should congratulate him/her on his/her foresight and ask him/her to participate in this discussion. -- Phatius McBluff 17:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles related to mythology |
---|
This article discusses or mentions mythology. In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" does not imply falsehood; it simply means a traditional story, whether true or false (— OED, Princeton Wordnet). Unless otherwise noted, the article uses the word "myth" in this sense. |
-- Phatius McBluff 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the concept here, but any infobox that is used should be very small or incorporated with another box. I hate the profliferation of boxes everywhere for no purpose, especially large ones or ones that reflow text oddly. And the whole "true myth" quote is completely pointless. CS Lewis' opinions should not be present in a freaking infobox.
DreamGuy
18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well.. sice silence implies acceptance and such, I may put this slogan on the mythology category page first and foremost, I think its way better than the grey box that is there. Goldenrowley 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Articles about Mythology: |
---|
In its broadest academic sense, the word " myth" simply means a traditional story, whether true or false. (— OED, Princeton Wordnet) Unless otherwise noted, the words "mythology" and "myth" are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false. |
To use the template, put {{myth box}} or {{myth box Christianity}} on a page Goldenrowley 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've recently made some large-scale mythology-related additions to Wikipedia. However, I've gotten very little feedback on them, even after mentioning some of them on Wikipedia:Requests for Feedback. If you have time, please take a look at them:
All these article probably still need editing and expansion. Thanks for any help you can give! -- Phatius McBluff 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There's very little scholarly consensus about the proper definition of the word "myth". (See the discussion of the issue in the "Term" section of the Mythology article.) However, in all the scholarly definitions I've found so far, "myth" has always been defined as some kind of story. I think we can all at least agree to limit the term "myth" to stories. Yet there seems to be some confusion on this point: check out a section of the Religion and mythology article's discussion page ( here) where someone called the Trinity doctrine a "myth". Regardless of whether you believe in the Trinity, the Trinity itself is not a myth: it's a theological concept. Stories about the Trinity (e.g., Christ's disciples receiving the Holy Spirit) may be categorized as myths, insofar as we define myths as "sacred stories". But the Trinity itself isn't a story; therefore, it isn't a myth. I've seen far too many cases on Wikipedia where people categorize all parts of religion as "mythology". Scripture is myth, at least if you define myths as sacred stories; but non-narrative elements of religion such as ritual and theology aren't stories, so they can't be "myths" in any scholarly sense. -- Phatius McBluff 07:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, note this former version of the Religion and mythology article [4], which lists baptism and ritual meals as similarities between different religious mythologies. I removed the references to baptism, etc. from the article, because baptism is a ritual, not a myth. What's even more confusing is that the article already defined myth specifically as "sacred narrative": why, then, would it list non-narrative elements as mythology? I'm confused. -- Phatius McBluff 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
These sections exist in a lot of mythology articles. In many they've grown far longer than the actual descriptive part of the article. (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gram_%28mythology%29&oldid=133775532 )
Now, sometimes, with particularly influential or important mythological figures whose appearances may not be obvious, but which have a significant effect on the stories in which they appear, I think these sections actually do serve some purpose.
But every mention of every time a monster in an RPG vaguely resembles is just pointless. It'll usually SAY the name right there in the game, do we need to have every reference ever added to the article on the subject? Most of the time it just comes off as an excuse for anime and video game fans to write something about their favorite titles.
I've got less of a problem with instances where there's an extensive list in a separate article. (I still think it's essentially pointless trivia, but it doesn't get in the way if you just have a "see also" in the main article) But I'm kind of torn on what to do where they've started taking over actual meaningful articles. Andy Christ 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually think it was over-enthusiastic. I think there might be a case to be made for the existence of these lists, particularly as separate pages, but it seems almost every time you have one in an article, it ends up expanding and expanding every time an anime nerd stumbles upon the page. Leaving them there just encourages this. I'm leaning towards just deleting all of them. Andy Christ 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe one big "mythology references in anime and video games" would be a good idea. Just one single clearinghouse for these things, and link this article, or a "mythological references in popular culture" category from every mythology article that has a significant number of them. This would provide an outlet for anime circle-jerking, without letting it dilute mythology articles themselves. Andy Christ 02:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Goldenrowley has designed an "info box" to be posted on mythology articles:
{{
Myth box}}
We're hoping that this notice will help us avoid arguments with religious adherents who feel that we're calling their beliefs false by labeling them as "myths". I've been working with Goldenrowley on the box's design, and I'm 100% behind this endeavor. However, I think there are now 2 points that need discussing pronto:
First: Some articles don't actually use the word "myth" in its "broadest academic sense". For instance, the Christian mythology article states that "miraculous events in scripture" might be categorized as myths, but only if one is "more skeptical". Here "myth" clearly is being used to imply falsehood. (Hence the furor among some Christians over the very existence of an article entitled "Christian mythology".) Therefore, we need a (hopefully sizeable) number of people who are willing to look through some of the mythology-related articles and reword them so they don't contradict the info box. The question is, How? There are 2 possibilities:
Second: Goldenrowley, I see you're posting the info boxes in the articles' "See Also" sections. Most people don't look at the "See Also" section first, so putting the info box there seems to defeat its purpose. We designed the box to clarify how we would use the term "myth" in the article. So don't we want people to read the info box before reading the article? Shouldn't the box be at the top of the article? I realize, however, that some people aren't happy with the proliferation of info boxes cluttering the top of articles. I personally don't think this is a problem at all, but please weigh in if you disagree. -- Phatius McBluff 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just passing through to ask a question... Is it within this project's scope to include articles that deal with the aspects of mythology in works of fiction not coming from the same culture/period as the myth?
Thanks
- J Greb 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this project should include articles that explore the mythological references and themes in later literature, films, etc. (for instance, to take a cliche example, the supposed "hero's journey" structure in Star Wars). However, I think this project should not necessarily include articles on direct adaptations of myths. (Everyone knows that the movie Troy is based on mythology. To include its article in the Mythology project seems somewhat pointless.) -- Phatius McBluff 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This category is in terrible need of reorganization, and I'd like to ask the mythology wikiproject for some help, as I think it would be impossible without an organized group doing this. As it stands, this category contains only articles that are actually lists (terribly done lists, I might add) of popular culture references to certain elements of Norse mythology (for example, the article Loki in popular culture. Here is my plan for improving this category. Like I said, it will be a lot of work: go through each of the 'popular culture' articles in this category and individually tag each of the relevant articles with the Norse mythology in popular culture category. Then we can petition for deletion of the original 'popular culture' articles themselves. I also thought, alternatively, we could organize the relevant articles into sub categories, but I almost feel that would not work logistically. Anybody up for working on this? CaveatLector Talk 11:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I messed up the tag in this area. There is an article listed for deletion that might be of interest to the members of this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cretan mythology CaveatLector Talk 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgard in popular culture. CaveatLector Talk 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the Islamic mythology article needs to be expanded, reworded, or deleted. Right now, it's serving no useful function I can see: it's just a directory for articles that fall within the category of Islamic mythology. Its purpose as a directory would be useful only if an average person would normally think of searching for "Islamic mythology" on Wikipedia: I don't know any such people; do you?
Worse, the article seems to equate "mythology" with polytheistic religion: it says that the "mythology" in Islam consists of elements derived from pre-Islamic paganism. As the articles on mythology and religion and mythology clearly state, a "myth" is a traditional story: to equate "mythology" with polytheistic religion is both too broad (since religion contains a lot of elements, such as ritual, that aren't traditional stories) and too narrow (since traditional stories exist in monotheism as well as in polytheism).
I've been thinking of rewriting the Islamic mythology article to be more like the Christian mythology article. However, I still hesitate. Is it really worth the effort of a complete re-write? If I'm just going to be re-writing the Christian mythology article, replacing the word "Christian" with "Muslim", then what's the point?
Does anyone know if there's a particular category of Muslim scriptures that's specifically considered to be the body of "Muslim myths"? Such bodies of scripture exist in other religions: consider the Hindu Puranas, or the Jewish Aggadah. (In fact, a search for Jewish mythology redirects to Aggadah.) -- Phatius McBluff 23:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article clearly falls into the domain of this project, would anyone object if I was to add the hint box to its talk page? ornis ( t) 07:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Icarus article, as well as articles such as Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music need to either be scrapped or completely rewritten into a well sourced article rather than a simple list of indiscriminate facts. Anybody up for coming together for this task? (Cross posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) CaveatLector Talk 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Page blanking Alert: Something Phatius said made me go look at the jewish mythology page because it was a regular article, now its a redirect. The person who redirected it did so quite recently based on "talk page" consensus. I read the consensus and I can't find one... Are they speaking of the idea to redirect back on 29 August 2006? it looks more like a toss out than a merge of articles. I don't know for sure I suspect the redirect was not a consensus. Should this project bring it back? Goldenrowley 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Aggadah again. It definitely doesn't correspond to "Jewish mythology", if by that term we mean something analogous to what's described in the Christian mythology and Islamic mythology articles. According to the article's header, the Aggadah are "exegetical texts in classical rabbinic literature" and take the form of "folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and business and medical advice". There are two problems here:
We really need someone who knows a bit about Judaism to help with this. -- Phatius McBluff 22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I boldy rolled back the edit. Such a redirection borders on vandalism. Those with knowledge in the subject can now work on this important article. CaveatLector Talk 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Category:Jewish folklore for merging to Category:Jewish mythology. Please have a look at the discussion and have a say. -- Eliyak T· C 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The folks over at the pokeproject seem to think they WP:OWN the page Ho-Oh, and refuse to redirect or even disambig to the discussion at Fenghuang. Someone please try to talk some sense into them. Kappa 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a new section to the Mircea Eliade article, dealing with Eliade's philosophy of religion. (Eliade was a historian of religion.) So far, I haven't gotten much feedback. I suspect this is because Eliade isn't a major topic for most people. However, any feedback on the article's talk page would be appreciated.
I realize this request belongs on the religion project's page more than on this one. (I put a request there too.) However, Eliade is a big name in comparative mythology, and I thought some people here might be able to help. Thanks. -- Phatius McBluff 07:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder whether anyone could spare a moment to express an opinion on a possible addition to Troilus. I'm fairly close to completing fixing issues from the previous Good Article nomination and hope to resubmit within the next month or so.
A couple of months back Goldenrowley suggested I included a table but I was unsure where one would be of value. I have now compiled a table covering ancient literary sources at User:Peter cohen/sandbox that are used in my article and I believe it is effectively complete. This was triggered by comments about how readers would not be familiar with many of the sources. Do people think tabulating them in this way would be useful? If so where should it fit in the article? Above the discussion of what the sources provide or at the end of the article above the modern academic references?
If people do think it is of value, how might it be improved? I've not bothered to put in line references but can compile those from the article. I would also expect to compile tables of medieval and modern references. Thanks-- Peter cohen 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I shall soon be renominating Troilus as a good article. When the previous nomination failed, it was suggested that a good copy editor be involved before the article is renominated. The file is nearly 100K including pictures, notes, references etc. The preferred spelling is British English. I shall be cross-posting this request to a number of suitable places, so I suggest any volunteer announces their presence at Talk:Troilus. -- Peter cohen 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. How about an article on the (pre-Christian) festival of Epiphany and/or the lunar god Epiphanes (deity) for whom it is named. See Epiphanes (gnostic) for several sources. Goldenrowley 06:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add to some articles of the Norse Mythology some quotations in two languages, as i previously did on italian wikipedia (cfr here, with the it:Template:Quote). Now everything is done with tables, like here, i would like to create a template like {{ 2Quot}} or maybe {{ DoubleQuote}}. What do you think? Helios 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading a book on hermaphrodites in pan-cultural mythology and would love to create Hermaphrodites (mythology) with the info gleaned. But before I take a lot of effort, I wanted to verify this would be a good idea. I'm cautious because the book, Hermaphrodeities isn't very scholarly (I like it because it's the only aggregate of hermaphrodite myths) and the first draft of this article would be referenced almost entirely from this book. Obviously this situation isn't ideal, but I want to know if you think it's good enough to start. That is, would someone delete the content as soon as I write it? -- Ephilei 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through and tidying up infobox proposals (aka removing inactive/depresciated proposals), and came across Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed#Mythical characters, is this still being worked upon, or is there already a suitably active infobox template ? David Ruben Talk 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I was about to start an article on Muta when I noticed there was an existing one on Larunda and that they seem to be the same character, so I merged them and left a redirect. Then later I notice Dea Tacita which seems to be similar but refers to "Larenta". I think these articles should be merged, but I have no idea what is the "best" name for them to be merged under. I decided to ask here because these are not exactly high-traffic articles so the talk pages would probably be ignored. If we merge them, should we merge the page histories? —dgies t c 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Gp75motorsports. I'm a rookie contributor here. Anyway, I thought these 3D renderings would be useful. After all, 3D allows you to check out more of the dragon's features.
Then just click on the 3d link.
From here you can check out many different images of many different species of dragon and learn where most of them hang out. Best, --
Gp75motorsports
01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
They're under FDL. Nothing to worry about. -- Gp75motorsports 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
I've recently been trying to get the science article on the star Vega up to A-class. Near the end is a section called cultural significance, part of which concerns the mythology of Vega. I've added a few more entries to that section, but I'm sure there must be more. Do you know if there any other notable mythological influences of Vega that should be also mentioned? Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Folks, An anon has been editing underworld to make it just the negative hell like places and removing the positive heaven like places. I don't know much about Mythology so some expert input could be helpful. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
On 1 December 2007 User:Rsweeney created stub Asrai Fairy, also spelled Asari within the article. Do these Asrai/Asari have their origin in some real-world folklore? Created for a fantasy role-playing game? -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be too much to suggest that something like WP:Myth or WP:MYTH links to the project page? The latter links to a WP policy page of all things. Getting the full name right is a bit of a pilaver.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
According to a recent peer review, the article Prayer is in need of information regarding the practice of prayer in animist and ancient pagan religions (that is, Roman, Greek, Norse, etc.). Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Góntia (via WP:PROD on 4 January 2008)
Hi, I'm not a member of this project, but I thought I'd point out that Moonstone has a considerable place in legend and mythology, but there is not an article about Moonstone's mythological significance on Wikipedia. -- M e r ond e 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi y'all, I just added Aita (mythology) to your WP. The article is in bad shape. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm gearing up on gathering sourcing for Toadstone, to expand it out. I have a workspace set up for reference collection at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Toadstone, and a structural draft at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Toadstone/draft. If anyone is interested in joining in, please say hi on my talk page there, the talks of one of those, or just leap in! I'm wanting to expand it out like I did on my previous FA, Storm botnet, and my current FAC, Bezhin Meadow. Thanks! Lawrence § t/ e 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
An editor added news of the recent discovery in the Rhone River of a statue of Neptune from 300 AD. I removed it from the Neptune (mythology) article because it seemed to me that even really cool discoveries of artifacts, unless they actually reveal some hitherto unknown aspect of worship, or of a myth, are not pertinent to the figure himself/herself. The editor who added it was outraged and put it back in. Then I reverted, then he reverted. And now per WP:3RR I can't change it back. If some other kind editors would take a look and do what they think is right, I'd appreciate it. maxsch ( talk) 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Contributing editors have recently done a good deal of work on the article Tuisto, which is listed as an article in the scope of this WikiProject. We feel that the article is now at B-Class or higher. After some fine-tuning, we will be submitting it for external GA-review. WikiProject Mythology still has it listed as a Stub-Class article. Could someone from this project please take a look and reassess the article according to this WikiProject's standards? Thanks. — Aryaman (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a proposal for changes to Christian mythology on its talk page. If you're interested, please provide feedback. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I would really like to bring this article to good article standards, is anyone else interested? ~~ Meldshal42 (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The comparative mythology article had been sitting around for a long time covered with "citation needed" notices. I did my best to add properly referenced information to the article, and I removed unsourced statements. However, in the process, I pretty much rewrote the entire article. So feel free to check whether you like the article as it currently stands. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I recently dropped a note on the talkpage of User:Dimadick, a very hardworking and diligent editor with regards to tagging article talkpages with Wikiproject templates, about the lack of discrimination I felt he was exercising in the articles he was tagging, and it got me to wondering, are there a set of standards to apply when choosing whether or not an article ought to be tagged for the project? Ought articles like Lao Ma be tagged for WP:Classical Greece and Rome (because she was a minor character on Xena, a television series based on classical mythology)? Or World's Finest Team be tagged for WP:Greece (presumably because Wonder Woman's in it, and she has ties to Greek mythology)? Or Namorita be tagged for WP:Mythology because she's from Marvel Comics' version of Atlantis?
Was I needlessly heckling this guy? Are these things the project actually has an interest in supporting? My instinct says no, that articles should only be tagged if they have a reasonable connection with the Wikiprojects for which they are tagged, but maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?
I've cross posted this to several other interested projects. Ford MF ( talk) 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently made large-scale changes to Comparative mythology. I'd say the content is more than 50% different from what it was beforehand. The article needs a new quality assessment. No necessarily because I think it's now of higher quality. But it now seems to be at least on the path to becoming a genuinely good article, and I need input about what it still needs (e.g. pictures?) to reach high quality. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I created a separate article for Origin myth (which originally redirected to Creation myth); see the article for an explanation. I also added a wikiproject mythology box to the talk page for Origin myth. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 2141 articles are assigned to this project, of which 510, or 23.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was wondering if maybe anyone of you could take a look at this article: Naflgar. I'm almost certain it's a misspelling of Naglfar (a rather funny sounding one), buy maybe someone here will be able to controll this. I apologize if I'm writing this in the wrong place. -- 83.178.246.60 ( talk) 02:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a good illustrating image with clearly visible of his iconography. But is he Mercury or Hermes? And what does the winged wheel means? -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, the subarticle Origins of vampire beliefs was split out over size concerns when vampire was at FAC. Dreamguy has proposed remerging it back here which I have concerns about but is feasibly possible (just) under size constraints. Three of us have an opinion currently but more would be helpful. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody knowledgeable please take a look at Aegis? It makes a number of assertions, and contains a number of cites, but I suspect that the cites don't all support the assertions. Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in hte discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
As part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links I had started on disambiguating Germanic mythology. After plodding through some of this, all I can say is that it is very much a hotch-potch of circular links. I would encourage this project to have a look at these pages, and to have a plan to getting a reasonable order and flow to the pages. -- billinghurst ( talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the edits in [7] you'll see that User:Borg2008 has been removing many categories from some of our articles. Has this been agreed? If not, does anyone have a bot that can reverse all the edits?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. This is a RfC in relation to an ongoing dispute over at Noah's Ark. The dispute is about whether the article topic can be described as myth given certain negative connotations of the word "myth". Discussion has become fairly entrenched, so fresh voices would be appreciated. I note that the article is one of this project's FAs (at least formerly). Best regards, -- PLUMBAGO 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |