Talk:Cupid (holiday character)

I started this article because I felt that it was needed as "Cupid" used in the sence of a holiday character--which I think is probably the most common modern usage-- is quite different from the cupid of mythology, even though of course it is derived from that source.

I am still fairly new to this process and am learning (there seems so much to learn!) as I go, so I would like to appologize for any errors, mistakes and things I just plain forget to do. (On hindsite I see that I never did site any references for which I appologize).

I do believe that this is an important article (not "important" on the level of world affairs or anything, but certainly worthwile) and i have every faith and confidence that the team of excellent editors here will be able to improve where I have been flawed. As i said, I am learning... mostly from my mistakes... but I do hope that I am making a postive contribution here. amyanda 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000


 * No problem. We all learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia by doing. Be bold, as it said. The purpose of my template addition was to point out possible issues with the article. In addition to adding references like the template suggests, you could perhaps try to coordinate this article with the main Cupid article, to avoid contradictions and overlap, and possibly draw more editors to work on this article. The main Cupid article doesn't attribute any statements either, so there is work to be done there, too. Dancter 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Illustration
If anyone has an illustration that they could put up, that would be great. I think something iconic, w/ pink and red hearts in the background would be best... a "traditional" depiction. thanks. amyanda 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000


 * I definitely think there should be something other than the image up now.  It's a quite different interpretation, and seems to take for granted the reader knows what cupid typically looks like (which isn't really encyclopedia appropriate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.217.93 (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Merger
oppose- I think that cupid as a holiday character is a different article. It is in a category with holdiday characters (an article about a mythical god would not belong there). I think that this Cupid is quite different from the other Cupid and deserves his own page, not just a mention at the bottom of a mythology article.

I forgot to sign my comment. Also want to add that Saint Nicholas is it's own article and is not merged with Santa Claus. I think this is a similer example.

amyanda 06:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000


 * Also opposed. While they both need cleaning up, I think these two articles need to remain seperate for the very reason that they are so different. Certainly what the above user said about comparing the two articles to avoid overlap is also key. I am removing the merger tag. - 14.52, 4 April 2007 (GMT)

i also oppose.. although it may be of the same name and similar appearance and purpose, the mythical Cupid is a god while the holiday Cupid is a cahracter/accessory.

i added the information from this page to the cupid page. i think they should be together, with a heading for the cupid (holiday character) section, as i made it.