Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology/Archive 1

Let's get going
ccc Hello all, I just saw the Hinduism panel, looks good. I agree that Navigation should be simple. However looking at the site makes me want a wikimyth site.


 * On the content would we want source text at wikibooks and references to the from wikipedia?
 * would deity names be in their original (or oldest known occurence) language or the language of the project?
 * would the organization of subcatergories be related to the classical pantheons or by ethnic origin?
 * do the articles in wikipedia at the moment need to be cleaned-up, etc, etc before we add anymore?
 * do we add more stubs and build a framework before elaborating?
 * would anyone want to have specific tasks within the project?

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)

Godboxes
The "Symbols" block is confusing. What do you mean? Rossami 22:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not a very good heading -- ideas, animals, institutions, etc that are associated with the god (as in Zeus was the god of thunder). I can't think of anything particularly good to put there -- besides symbols, aspects was all I could think of, and that isn't any better. Do you have a suggestion? Tuf-Kat 22:37, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is basically the same idea as the patron saint of thing. Is there a word for that? Tuf-Kat 22:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Functions? Bacchiad
 * I think aspects would have made more sense to me, but I understand the problem. To me, symbols implies specific icons, pictograms or other written or drawn, well, "symbols", not things and certainly not intangibles like "love". By the way, I think both those are fundamentally different from patron god(dess) of. Patron implies an affinity and a willingness to extend protection. While most of the examples are closely correlated (god of tricksters because the god is a trickster himself), I don't believe that is an absolute rule. If you can make it fit (and that's a big if), I'd like to see a separate block for "Patron of". Rossami 19:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * associations/associated with?--Phoebus 17:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Alternatives to Godboxes
So I started coming up with alternative godboxes, but then I started thinking about why I haven't seen any.
 * There is a nice set of boxes on the constellation articles - e.g. Centaurus

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)


 * i like your proposal a lot, i think it would make navigation much simpler.--Phoebus 17:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that we should think about Topic Boxes instead of God boxes. One of the topics can be Gods. But I think that mythology is more than a glossary of gods and heroes. check out The Golden Bough (Yes I uploaded to the wrong site, I am fixing that) although the text itself is old what we can get from it is great. Ojmorales0002 13:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Related Projects

 * WikiProject Jesus

Centered box
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. 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)
 * Is this project still active? Jacoplane 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It would appear not. Salleman 06:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I have tidied up Shortpages/Mythology though. 08:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CD's Use of the Proposals
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.

.

Stubs
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)
 * It strikes me that Classical mythology should be stubbed together, although with a less culturally biases name ex: "Greco-Roman mythology". I would also recommend having East Asian (Indian, Japanese, Chinese, etc) mythology seperate from Middle Eastern mythology (Mesopotamian, NW Semitic, Jewish) because there's less overlap that way. The only problem is where do Iranian myths fit? Also, I'm assuming Hawai'ian myths fall under the Oceanic category. --Tydaj 19:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was the one who resorted the majority of the myth stubs into the new categories. I'd agree with the merging of roman and greek stubs, if only to reduce some of the strain on the euro-myth-stub tag. Splitting the asian stubs may have to wait for the category to fill out a bit more - as it is its easy enough to browse through the different areas within the tag. GeeJo 09:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: I think I'm going to leave it in the hands of you guys to keep track of new stubs appearing in myth-stub, only 70 to look through in there at the mo. GeeJo 09:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it to be named Graeco-Roman than Greco-Roman.     ( ! | ? | * ) 12:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can someone make a hindu-myth-stub?--Dangerous-Boy 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone I am new so courageous. I am close to making and moving groups into the Middle east stub (am just going through some approval process), as well as close to divide the americas-myth-stub into north, center and south. I Would like some pictures - for middle east, how about I use the 'fertile crescent' tree you came up with here.  Goldenrowley 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Religions Template
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)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the 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)

Hindu myth stub?
Can someone create a Hindu myth stub?


 * Hindu-myth-stub &rarr; Category:Hindu mythology stubs

--Dangerous-Boy 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been done I don't know who did it but its there for you now Goldenrowley 03:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Key to the Living/The Key to the Dead
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)

To do-list
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?

Requested move: Dreamtime (mythology) → Tjukurpa
There is a requested move listed at 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)

Melanesian mythology
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)

Films sub-cat
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, &hearts; Her Pegship &hearts; 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing encyclopedic articles
Greetings WikiProject Mythology! I'm part of another Wikiproject, 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)

Trojan War
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

Wizards in mythology.
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)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0
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)

Template for article talk pages
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)

Charun
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)

Membership list
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)

Greek
I created this as a template godbox (see 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.

Greek mythology
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)

Question regarding project scope and overlap
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)
 * Badbull, I personally see a discernable difference between religion and mythology. One is the beleif system or guiding theology, the other is a story about. in some cases a myth might even be independent of religion, or secular. This is my impression when writing others may also speak. For example I clearly see in my mind one article about Christianity a separate about the story of Christmas, a separate about Santa or Saint Nicholas. Goldenrowley 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with you, Goldenrowley. In fact (I think), I believe that I indicated above that I perceive the difference. And I applaud you for your recent work in updating the project. I would however ask, as the semi-official recent reviver of the WikiProject Religion, if you think that the two projects could agree upon a pair of definitions of the terms "mythology" and "religion" which would make it clear to any non-member or prospective member the specific scope of each project, to prevent the possibility of someone joining the wrong project. Personally, something like the following seem at least functional definitions:


 * Mythology - stories regarding religious entities (gods, culture heroes, etc.) and/or stories regarding history which often involve what are today perceived as possibly fantastic accounts of such history.
 * Religion - the practices, rituals, and other cultural aspects of a group of people and/or a specific culture, based on their belief in their own specific mythological stories.

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)
 * Okay yes you did note that. Here are my replies:
 * SCOPE: This group has a scope listed on their "To Do" list and a long list of categories and stubs listed on the category page to chose from.
 * DEFINITION: I beleive this group uses the following mythology definition that is posted on the top of the main Mythology article as of 12/4/06: Goldenrowley 04:10, 5 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.


 * I reviewed the religion page scope and there is very little if no overlap. At this point there is lots to do and very little cooks in the kitchen (i.e. new myth stubs keep poring in, like over 300 Celtic stubs) so would *myself* cheerfully decline to "merge" with religion. Goldenrowley 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections. However, if you could add a statement to the effect of your specific definition of the word on the project page, I will do the same on the religion project page. And, because I got the distinct impression (rightly or wrongly) that you might harbor some feelings that I was trying to "take over" or eliminate this project, I hope that you don't mind ,y (hopefully) indicating my lack of ill will by adding this project to the list of new project on the Community portal. With any luck, it might get you a few more members. And, although I can't know if this will happen, if the religion project ever gets a notice regarding a FARC or similar which seems to me to possibly be more appropriate to this group, I might copy the post to this talk page. Good luck with the project. Badbilltucker 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely I did already but I will check my work! I can't speak for everyone I am trying to cheerlead and rejuvinate this project with the new page design and updates. We are probablby a sister/brother project to religion. NO hard feelings whatsover the only reason I turned down on religion is we might have our hands full here, I cannot possibly imagine adding religion to the list of concerns to think about... maybe others are braver than I or have a doctorate in theology and will forge into religion sometimes. Goldenrowley 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

how do I join?
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! &mdash; ¡ Rand fan  !  16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the project page this weekend. To become a member you can simply do so here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mythology/Participants - and here's a user page logo for members: Goldenrowley 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Completed
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)

Word choice: Mythological vs. Mythical
"'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''"


 * Having found the above, 2 things suggested: (1) The words are being used interchangeably in many articles, cleanup when see the confusion on a case by case basis (2) I think we should have the category powers change the word mythical to mythological on the following categories. This would make them consistent and alphabatize with all other mythological subcatergories:


 * [+] Mythical objects -->proposed change to mythological objects
 * [+] Mythical peoples -->proposed change to mythological peoples
 * [+] Mythical places -->proposed change to mythological places
 * [+] Mythical substances -->proposed change to mythological medical substances

I am open to discussion? Goldenrowley 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ...Well I began the rename process at: [] Goldenrowley 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
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)

accessibility
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)
 * are you a good page design dab? I dont know about others but personally would not mind if good designing put some of the tabs together... as long as you keep the archives and the templates a separate tab as the templates could get overwhelming on page 1 if we make more of them.  Perhaps one could run the "category" list down the right hand side in a 2nd column. Goldenrowley 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion
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)
 * Ok I've could not help doing a little side work on religious topics while tidying up mythology, its not exactly accurate to say we only touch "secular" or "non denominational mythology by the way... so I'll join the religious group right now. Goldenrowley 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged as needing expert attention
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)
 * It's a good idea to call attention to that area. Also I noted your call the other day for a cross joiner at the religion project... I feel pretty spread out on four Wikiprojects right now, does anyone else have time on your hands to be on both projects, mythology and religion? Goldenrowley 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Carbuncle (mythology) is in need of sourcing
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)
 * It does not sound like a spanish word, may take some searching with a Spanish dictionary.... Goldenrowley 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in order to wrap up the conversation, I noticed someone moved the carbuncle to the article called Book of Imaginary Beings, and that seems to be the right solution. Goldenrowley 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Prometheus and Jesus
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)
 * You'd probably want to look at the Life-death-rebirth deity page. There are a number of similar deities who fall in the same general category, as indicated on that page. John Carter 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparative Mythology/Religion
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)
 * Welcome Suriel981. Your topic of interest sounds very interesting I look forward to reading, see also categories named mythemes and mythological archetypes where you will find existing comparitive articles. Which brings up a question, what is the big difference between a mytheme and an archetype? Are they more or less overlapping? If so, should we merge those two categories? Goldenrowley 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Mythology
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: Goldenrowley 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mother Nature needs help
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)

"Academic" myth
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:

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)


 * I applaud you. It is on the Myth project "to do" list to elevate myth articles from being fun/curious to sacred and symbolic. It takes pateince and work. The main mythology page has many definitions formyth some in the sacred category. All you need are references. References help to keep things from being deleted and protected. Why not do an article called academic myth with this table, and quote your sources? Goldenrowley 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support! I've very excited and glad you seem to understand what I'm trying to say. Well, "academic myth" is only a term I personally coined, I've never seen it elsewhere, so I don't want to give the false impression that an academic myth is something special or even different from myths in general. Every myth is academic and every myth is sacred. I've created User:Ephilei/Mythology as a possible revamp of the current Mythology.


 * Well I just expanded the List of mythology books, for finding some sourcing: You are somewhat bringing in the Jungian mythology concepts, but on the naming of myth types, be careful not to introduce original research (WP:NOR). I tried to figure out an "academic" meaning, the other day, and could not find it but I am sure there is one. I'd not use the word folklore against academic. Maybe some of the sources will present the names of myth types.  Goldenrowley 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to complicate matters still further, but I think I will anyway. Several people have already said ideologies are virtual equivalents to religions, and that their precepts the equivalents to mythologies. Maybe a group dealing with mythology in an academic sense in a broader sense, like maybe a new WikiProject Ideologies, which could incorporate material from other disciplines, might be the best way to go? I only say that because I think the politics project is probably no better at dealing with ideological matters than we necessarily are with "anthropological" mythology. John Carter 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Admittedly adding ideology would boggle my mind, unless it is a related category its very broad and can go into all the political and such other ideologies known in the world. Mythology is in the cosmology ideologies, but not equivalent to all ideologies. I think calling "idealogy" equivalent to religion misses the sacred element of mythology. Goldenrowley 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any luck getting a highly respectable, verified "academic" definition? Goldenrowley 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Giant animal
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)
 * Ok I there proposed to rearrange the materials as follows: "giant animal (mythology)" and "giant animal (fiction)" -- all listed on the existing disambiguation page "giants". Thanks for asking.  Goldenrowley 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category deletion debate
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)
 * Sorry Mermaid I missed this concern and now the category is deleted/gone... however for our purposes there is categories for Legendary creatures. Goldenrowley 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject King Arthur
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 WikiProject Council/Proposals. 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)
 * Think about whether or not you need a stub for king arthur articles that's been in my back mind for a while and Ijust dont know because its so inter-related with other European mythology. Goldenrowley 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon article discussion
A relevant discussion is going on at Talk:Dragon. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for some assistance
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)
 * For mythology I'd point you to look at categories and articles on eschatology for any already existing info. Goldenrowley 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Mythology would also concern the after-life Goldenrowley 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Troilus
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)

Myths but which versions?
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 am, sort of, trying to go through the "uncountable versions" of Troilus' myth. However, firstly, there are a lot fewer stories about him than about Artemis and, secondly, the development of his story is about him as a literary and symbolic figure as much as a mythological one. --Peter cohen 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the main myths should always be in and it should be clear from the article which version most writers tend to quote. If there is more than one major version, perhaps have them under different sub-headings. Any minor variants of these should probably be confined to one or two lines. Something like "However, another variant states... (reference)". That should make it clear that there are variants and editors are aware of them, but it keeps things comprehensible for the reader. If we put in too many variants in great detail we risk not only being very repetitive, but articles could also become confusing.Silverthorn 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the balance betwwn beign comprehensive and being repetitive or confusing, I'd be interested in your comments on how my work on Troilus is proceding towards good article status, bearing in mind that the re-write is only about half done. (See Talk:Troilus for areas I'm intending to add or expand.) --Peter cohen 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Troilus looks nice Peter, keep up the good work. One minor thing to keep in mind is the length of sections seem a little short, so if there are multiple misc. variants perhaps some can be grouped together by continent or era. Again keep up your good work. Goldenrowley 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. --Peter cohen 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Photon Belt
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)

New project proposal
There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals 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)

Cherokee mythology
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)
 * We're lucky if we get just 1 article per Native American group. I think 7 is pretty good. I would usually clump topics in the main article unless and until there is enough to branch out. Goldenrowley 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the thing is, Cherokee is a huge group and much has been written about their mythology. (We'd need to figure out what to do about all the contradictory statements, though...) Vultur 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wel that's a good enough of a reason to support your efforts. As for contradictions, you could note there are contradictions according to scholars, make sure to name the scholars that contradict. Goldenrowley 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical figures
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)
 * I would only note that the word "mythological" does not inherently indicate that the figures never existed. In fact, several figures whom we would consider primarly mythological, Perseus among them, are factually even known to have existed. And the word "mythology" itself does not inherently specifically refer only to "false" stories, either. It is just used to indicate that the subject in question is included in the "myth" of a given group. If a given historical figure's story is eventually included in the "mythos" of a given group, then that figure would qualify both as a true biography and as a mythological or mythic figure. Also, in many cases, these figures will have elements added to their central story over time, and many of these elements clearly are "mythological". If that content is contained in the bio of the truly extant subject, then clearly at least that inherently mythological content would merit the inclusion of the mythology term and banner. On the basis of this, I hope that the poster above realizes that the inclusion of the banner is not intended to imply that the contents are specifically untrue, but simply that they comprise at least a section, and often an extremely important section, of some mythological system or stories. John Carter 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, um, yeah, your argument is good in general, but Perseus is NOT factually known to have existed. That's ridiculous. DreamGuy 06:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both. The Trojan War might be something more in line with what you're talking about. Mycroft7 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the page doesn't seem to verify my statement. I do remember in a class I had on mythology that Perseus was the name of a Greek king (of Thrace, maybe?) who is recorded as historically driving the priestesses of Hecate out of the city, and that the legend of his killing of Medusa is said to derive from that event. The article at this point doesn't make any reference to that, though. And I agree the Trojan War would probably be a better example in any event. John Carter 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the idea if there is a scholarly work identifying the mythical personages of the bible so we don't have to prove it on talk pages. Goldenrowley 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish mythology
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)

Christian mythology
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)

New thing
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 boundaries between "Myth" and "Religion"
The discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion 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)
 * My own personal preferences, which could well be biased (just letting everyone know, I am a Christian - Roman Catholic, to be precise) I think that stories relating to the primary figures of specific religions, where there is some doubt as to whether the content of those stories is completely historically accurate, should be counted as religious, as they are of significant importance to that religion. Questioned stories relating to lesser figures, and here I would include stories relating to Christians saints which are seen as historically dubious and similar stories regarding "lesser characters" in various religions, could perhaps be placed in a category which is itself a subcat of both religion and mythology. Regarding belief systems where there are comparatively few extant articles, and such breakdown of content is more difficult, is a harder question. I suppose, if there is sufficient content to such articles, an immediate breakdown of that content might be called for; otherwise, I guess categorization as both religion and mythology might be the best, if not completely satisfying, alternative. John Carter 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If we use "Myth" to mean dubious stories that means we're going with the mainstream thinking the word means things that are not "really" true. I agree with John that "categorization as both religion and mythology might be the best, if not completely satisfying. HOWEVER it might rankle the people who do not like the word "Myth" at all and we use so much energy explaining the word. What to do? One idea is to design an info box and put the definition of Academic Myth on every single Myth article in this project to head off the discussion and conflict.  Goldenrowley 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be practical to create a subcat of "(X) legends" (which is I think a less charged word) which could be made a dual subcat? John Carter 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't understand the proposal. Are you proposing to switch entire project to "legends" instead of "myths?" Goldenrowley 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe changing the phrasing of the banner template (the thing people most often see of the project) and perhaps the stated scope of the project to specifically state that it deals with "myths and legends". I do think that the ambiguity of using both words instead of just the "mythology" word alone would possibly be enough so that people who would object to having something called "mythology" might think that what those stories that they personally believe are being called "legends". Also, I think that the standard phrasing in academia for this subject is "myths and legends of...", so that might better conform to outside usage as well. John Carter 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, depending on how technical we want to get with our definitions (and it isn't necessarily a good thing to get too technical, especially on Wikipedia), "legend" might not be a good choice at all. "Legend" may sound less demeaning than myth in terms of popular usage, but I think it's actually more demeaning in terms of its academic usage. To professional folklorists, traditional stories fall into three main categories: myth, legend, and fairy tale. Myths are defined as sacred stories having to do with a primordial age. Legends are defined as stories that take place in a more recent past, and that may or may not be sacred. (More info here) By these definitions, it would be less demeaning toward religious stories to call them "myths"; it would be more demeaning to call them "legends". And, aside from PC concerns about offending people, I'd also point out that simply switching our terms from "myth" to "legend" might create academic confusion for the average reader: he could get the impression that the words "myth" and "legend" are interchangeable in scholarly usage--which they most definitely aren't. --Phatius McBluff 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that the word "myth", properly speaking, refers to stories. 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 getting 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 ritual and theology aren't stories, so they can't be "myths" in any scholarly sense whatsoever. --Phatius McBluff 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the proposal I made above was not to use the word "legends" exclusively, but in the phrase "myths and legends". By using the two together, as is often done in academia, I think we might be able to avoid the problem we might face by offending people on the basis of "demeaning" their beliefs. John Carter 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. It's an interesting idea. However, I'm not sure it can help. As far as I know, in popular usage, the word "legend" is bound up with falsehood just as much as the word "myth". To stick the two words together would just compound the problem, as far as I can tell. There's a further reason to avoid using the combination "myth and legend". Due, in part, to some Wikipedians' valiant efforts to introduce others to the scholarly meanings of the word "myth", people are becoming slightly less hostile toward it. I remember reading a discussion on the talk page for Religion and mythology where one (presumably Christian) user said that he "knew what we meant" when we called Christian doctrines "mythology", but that he still objected to our choice on the basis of the word's popular meaning. Religious folks of all backgrounds are starting to realize that scholars don't mean to insult religion by calling its stories "myths". But the word "legend" smacks of falsehood, even in some more scholarly settings. While discussing the story of Christ, which he freely called a "myth", C.S. Lewis stated that it either really happened or it was a "legend". (Sorry; I don't have the exact quote.) Here "legend" clearly implies falsehood, while "myth" is in fact more neutral. Now, I'm not saying that all religious believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.) use the word "legend" in this sense. However, the phrase "myth and legend" seems to imply fantasy or falsehood more than the simple word "myth". That's just my feeling; the majority of others may certainy feel differently. But anyway, it's an interesting idea, John Carter, and I'd like to see what other users have to say about it. --Phatius McBluff 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to the legend page, I do not think "versimilitude" issue may cause us more problems. Changing the project name and category would take a quorum. I hesitate for the reasons given by phatius to add legend, plus itmight bring watered down legends. I am glad at least one person says we've made valiant efforts to introduce others to scholarly myth definitions. Personally I feel I would love to just write about mythical creatures and "myths" and some of the creative is divereted from writing to talking on talk pages. I would again propose we think about have an "Info box" slogan (but find the existing slogan on the category page not quite sensitive enough).Goldenrowley 00:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "info box slogan". John Carter 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like this (rough draft). We could turn into a template then put on articles so we dont have to explain over and over: Goldenrowley 02:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like exactly the sort of thing we need. Good idea. The only problem is that "traditional narrative" is not the only scholarly definition of myth: most scholars would probably restrict the term "myth" to a specific category of traditional narratives. For a discussion of the problem, check out the "term" section of the Mythology article. In the end, though, we could probably just choose the broadest of these definitions (which does indeed appear to be "traditional narrative") and then discuss specifics in the body of the article. But, again, this "info box" looks like exactly the right sort of thing to add. I'd only add a sentence like this: "This definition, as used by scholars, does not imply that myths are false." Or this: "By this definition, the term 'myth', when applied to religious narratives, does not imply that these narratives are false." --Phatius McBluff 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about something like this:

--Phatius McBluff 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Corrected a little problem:

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)


 * Very helpful and thought out, thanks Phatius! Two things (1) We could use the dragon icon. (2) I would not even mention the popular definition, or if so, say it last not 1st. Telling people what not to think, just makes them think it more (and since its the popular misconception, they should know it already (there's no need to say it). I think a slogan should enlighten people (in a respectful manner) with an academic view. (3) Would a quote from Carl Jung be cool? He's commonly accepted and "modern"?


 * Goldenrowley 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I guess you're right about leaving out the popular definition. However, some articles use a much more restrictive definition than "traditional story" (for instance, see legend): therefore, we should include the parenthetical remark "More restrictive scholarly definitions of 'myth', if relevant, will be discussed within the body of the article", or we should at least replace "The word 'myth' in its broadest academic sense..." with "Unless otherwise noted, this article uses the word 'myth' in its broadest academic sense...". I'd also be slightly wary of defining myths as "sacred" in the info box. As the Mythology article notes, not all scholars agree on restricting the word "myth" to sacred stories. I mean, is Oedipus a myth? Most people (besides folklorists, who use the most restrictive definition of all) would say so. But the supernatural certainly isn't the focus of Oedipus, and it's certainly not usefully labelled a "sacred" or religious story. In my personal opinion, we should simply define myths as "traditional stories" in the info box, and leave a discussion of religion for the Religion and mythology article.
 * As for Jung ... I have no problem with him, but I'd have to see the quote you're thinking of before voicing my approval. Jung has come under fire from some of the more skeptical scholars; and, as a psychologist (not a folklorist or classicist or anthropologist), Jung isn't exactly representative of the academic study of myth (as if anyone could be). --Phatius McBluff 18:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay maybe not Jung. I am open to that suggestion maybe 2 one short one long for editors to chose from as it applies. What do others think? Shirahadasha and JohnCarter are we addressing your concerns?Goldenrowley 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the 2 quotes idea sounds good. Maybe you could post tentative quote selections here and let people discuss them. --Phatius McBluff 00:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this: 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)


 * Yes I like the last one very much indeed. We could turn it into a standard template (unless anyone objects). Goldenrowley 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Option B: Truemyth template
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)
 * Most scholars other than Joseph Campbell do not define a "myth" as a story "that strongly communicates universal truth". Such a definition would imply that all religious myths are true. Scholars don't want to be accused of calling religion true any more than they want to be accused of calling religion false.
 * If we use "myth" to mean "true story", and then apply the term to ancient Greek stories, then we're calling ancient Greek stories true. This would be an obvious (not to mention absurd) violation of the NPOV policy.
 * Calling myth "true story" and claiming that myths express "universal truths" would probably annoy secularists just as much as calling myth "false" upsets believers.

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)
 * Okay. The truemyth template maker is someone named Tephilie (spelling??) and I'll let them know we're talking about their idea.Goldenrowley 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm glad you found my template helpful! Sorry to have disappeared from the wiki scene, but becoming employed has taken my time away. I definitely like the dragon! My only real criticism of the other templates are they feel too long. Could they be made more brief? In my template, when I used "true" I didn't mean literal truth, but I can see that would be confusing. It might be helpful to create a list of quotes of the definition of the term "myth" from various authors to create some kind of consensus for use in these conversations. --Ephilei 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that some of the other templates look too long. However, I think the last template I designed


 * doesn't look very long.


 * I understand that you didn't mean literal truth, but that's not really my point. "Universal" truth, "symbolic" truth, "metaphorical" truth -- these sorts of truth may very well exist in myths, even when literal truth doesn't. However, I'm strongly opposed to us claiming that myths contain any sort of "truth" at all. Leave such claims to professional scholars and clergy. Our job is only to define myths as what they clearly are -- traditional (perhaps sacred) stories -- and let readers decide for themselves whether these stories contain any truth or are simply nonsense.


 * Does this sound too narrow and restrained? Well, perhaps. But it's better to be as reserved as possible now (and remember, this is just a generic info box we're discussing here), thus avoiding later deadlocks with other users.

--Phatius McBluff 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd only like it narrow in a literal sense, so that it fits on the right side of the page. I am starting to make (hopefully) a final generic and CS Lewis version for Christian articles (CS lewis may really help he's highly respected by Christians). Expect me to show my work in 1 hour.Goldenrowley 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Here you go. Phatius I thought the last sentence spent a lot of words. "the article" was repeated 3 times. I got it down to 1 time and I still think sacred is a general requirement of mythology and it should be mentioned once.
 * Myth box




 * Myth box Christianity
 * to use these templates add the words or  in an article. Maybe we need to do a little more tweaking. On the last version here. I hope the Christian box sounds neutral enough, maybe we sould show it to the Christian wikiproject. Goldenrowley 05:43, 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)


 * I made the text smaller. Point taken although without CS lewis I dont know how we're going to convince Christians. perhaps we can merely link them over to read religion and mythology which is getting better and better.... Goldenrowley 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your latest versions, Goldenrowley (although I'm not sure what you mean by "value judgments" on historical truth; don't you just mean "with no implication of falsehood"?)


 * Dreamguy, I understand your opposition to the C.S. Lewis quote idea. I can't say I'm terribly enthusiastic about it myself. But sometimes you have to go for the lesser of two evils. A quote from Lewis certainly won't rankle any Christian feathers, and if non-Christians feel irritated by the mere presence of a Lewis quote in an info box (despite the fact that the box is not itself endorsing the quote), then I'm tempted to say "That's too bad." After all, we're already forcing Christians to put up with having their stories called "myths" (albeit with a disclaimer); non-Christians should return the favor and put up with a Lewis quote. --Phatius McBluff 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, shouldn't we add "with no value judgment on historical truth" (or, better, "with no implication of falsehood") to the generic box as well? That's the whole point of the box, isn't it? I don't think that would "waste" too much more space. --Phatius McBluff 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I like "with no implication of falsehood" and will switch the wording....doing so they're almost identical but with 2 people not feeling enthusiastic with CS Lewis and I'll leave him off...I was not totally enthused either...I just couldnt think of a better idea. Goldenrowley 01:24, 14 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)
 * Go ahead. I agree that that grey box is pretty ugly. (It isn't as economically worded, either.) Reword the info boxes to say "with no implication of falsehood", and I'm 100% behind the idea of posting them all over the place. --Phatius McBluff 04:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally ended up with below. I thought final phrase from the old grey myth box's ending "implication...is itself either true or fale" seemed a little smoother and more neutral than saying "implication of falsehood". This is currently the shared template html table, but I thought I should leave a "record" here: Goldenrowley 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To use the template, put or  on a pageGoldenrowley 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Some significant additions
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 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)
 * I created an article on Mythopoeic thought
 * I almost rewrote Ishtar, Hina, and Myth and ritual
 * I added a section on "the structuralist approach to myth" to the article on Claude Levi-Strauss
 * I added these to Wikipedia Project and did an assessment last night. It is very nice to have your assistance and knowledge of several sources. Goldenrowley 15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC). By the way this is always just my humble opinion and others could also help assess articles. Goldenrowley 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-narrative elements of religion are not "myth
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, 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)
 * I don't think the team would disagree with you. The problem seems to be we haven't read all the articles out there yet. Good editting is appreciated when you see things like this. I am continually finding more articles related to mythology to add to the project. Goldenrowley 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a myth is always a narrative. I've never seen a writer dispute that. --Ephilei 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Appearances in popular culture"
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/w/index.php?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)


 * You're certainly right with that one. And well done for spotting the over-enthusiastic deletion. I suspect that the illustration is also a copyright violation.


 * Harpy is another one which I see the trivia hunters have labelled. A list might help a bit there. Indicating that harpies were well enough known for people like Dante and Shakespeare to use them is useful. Even saying that they are iconic enough to be included in games X, Y and Z is fine. The problem with the sort of attempt at integrating the references to these games into the article is that there's a danger of running up against WP:NOR. --Peter cohen 21:05, 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)


 * What I meant by over-entusiastic was that the categories and links to articles in other languages got pruned together with the cruft. I found myself in Troilus adding a reference to Doctor Who because I wanted to make sure that it fitted into the logic of the article rather than be inserted independently.


 * I beleive the "good faith" rule applies here, that is let's assume good faith the anime enthusiast is trying to help and gently show them the way to make (anime) lists or gently remove (non-notable) verbiage. Goldenrowley 02:07, 12 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)
 * I checked and there happens to be articles for this purpose you could move thse things to Norse mythology in popular culture, Egyptian mythology in popular culture, and maybe others. Some pages could be formatted as lists (dependent on rules). Goldenrowley 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn...I just got an idea of how big a job this will be. Andy Christ 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The new mythology info box
Goldenrowley has designed an "info box" to be posted on mythology articles:

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)
 * On one hand, we could simply rewrite articles so they all use the word "myth" in its very broadest sense of "sacred or traditional narrative". However, we might lose too much information that way. (For instance, the Legend article explicitly discusses the distinction some scholars have drawn between "legend" and "myth" -- a distinction which wouldn't exist if everyone applied the word "myth" to just any sacred or traditional story.)
 * On the other hand, the info box does say, "unless otherwise noted"; so we could simply go through the mythology articles and, whenever we came to a section that used "myth" in a more specific sense, add a short sentence noting that fact. I'm personally in favor of this choice.
 * I was thinking to place infoboxes sparingly on articles, maybe near the first sentence that mentions "mythology" but only if they are "not the main topic" of articles and if an editor makes sure it "blends" with the wordings of the article, before using it to explain something. On topics where mythology is the main topic I tried it but to me it looked redundant overkill near the top, and seemed more like a "see also" Goldenrowley 06:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well ... OK. I get your point. I do think we should consider putting the info boxes at the very top of the articles that are especially likely to spark a "myth vs religion" debate (e.g., Islamic mythology). --Phatius McBluff 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes with some discretion. Goldenrowley 01:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Question of scope...
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)
 * If JGreb you're thinking of mythopoeia yes there's a category for that. Otherwise fiction generally doesnt qualify because it isnt beleived in or held sacred. Goldenrowley 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not quite what I was thinking of, though it fits in a way, in a broad sense. The articles I'm dealing with mostly take elements from standing mythologies use them as plot elements. In some case the elements are misused or misapplied, in others the writers involved seem to go to some length to use them in the proper context, or a reasonable extension of the source. - J Greb 05:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at "mythology in popular culture" IDK it could be useful at other times more trivia and watered down and inaccurate? Goldenrowley 07:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I know what J Greb's talking about. (Correct me if I'm wrong, J Greb.) Look at the article on the novel Lord of Light. This novel is essentially a recreation of South Asian mythology in a sci-fi context. If anything at all besides "real" mythology deserves to be in the mythology project, this does. I'm almost in favor of including such pop culture in the project: the study of mythology logically includes the study of references to mythology. However, I don't think we should, for instance, include the existing Lord of Light article in the project; that would be pointless. Rather, we should encourage the creation of new articles (and new sections of existing articles) that specifically focus on the topic of mythological references in pop culture. That's my view. --Phatius McBluff 03:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Norse mythology in popular culture
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? CaveatLectorTalk 11:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...sorry but not sure I follow the idea, what does it mean to "tag" them ? why would I petition to delete them? Goldenrowley 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my fault. I meant to tage them with the category tag 'Norse mythology in popular culture'.  That way, relevant articles are in that category rather than being mentioned in articles like Loki in popular culture  CaveatLectorTalk 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I support but not have much time for popular culture. If and when you can find things that should be in the categories mythology in popular culture by all means add the category to their pages. (or as you say 'tag it'). Goldenrowley 08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request: Cretan mythology
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: Articles for deletion/Cretan mythology CaveatLectorTalk 09:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request: Asgard in popular culture
Members of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Asgard in popular culture. CaveatLectorTalk 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Islamic mythology?
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)


 * The usefulness of the article (at present time) is as a placeholder for something much better and I at least see a point in writing one. People will find it in category lists so yes they may be looking for it. However, I personally do not have enough knowledge of Islam to help much on this one. Goldenrowley 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm not an expert on Islam, but I did what I could to expand the article. Hopefully this will draw attention to the article so that someone who knows more about Islam will improve it. --Phatius McBluff 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin belief
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)
 * Hi Ornis it sounds very applicable to definition of mythology. I personally would support it. Goldenrowley 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, is there anything else I should do to add it to the project? A list or something I should append it to?. ornis ( t ) 11:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the talk page of the article, type that adds it to project mythology, it's that simple. If you want and have time, you can grade it as well on the talk page (see "assessment") tab above for instructions. Goldenrowley 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll leave the assessment till I have more time to read the instructions, though it's a bit of mess, I'd guess maybe, start class, importance mid to high. ornis ( t )</b> 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Icarus and Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music, etc
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 WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome) CaveatLectorTalk 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I leave popular culture articles and trivia lists, I don't mind them and neither do I read them. To me one person's indiscriminate facts are a nother person's research and/or treasure. Goldenrowley 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Mythology
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)
 * First, Biblical exegesis (commentary) may qualify as mythology, if it both (1) takes the form of a story and (2) is considered traditional. However, the most obvious case of "Jewish mythology" (that is, traditional Jewish narratives) is not Biblical exegesis but, rather, the Bible itself! Redirecting Jewish mythology to Aggadah puts the emphasis in precisely the wrong place: if anything, Jewish mythology should be redirected to Hebrew Bible.
 * Second, just as not everything in the Bible is "mythology", not everything in Biblical commentary is "mythology". Remember, a myth is a traditional story. Non-narrative portions of Biblical commentary are not myths. (From what I can gather, the Aggadah does contain some non-narrative elements: e.g., moral exhortations. If these non-narrative elements form part of a story, then they may qualify as mythology, but not if they stand alone.)
 * And, preferably, someone who knows about Judaism who hasn't already taken a rather unsupportable POV position on the talk page. I think the primary question right now is whether we let the anon's actions stand. Personally, I have, shall we say, reservations that the anon might not actually be an anon, but maybe a banned user or someone hoping to avoid a fight by editing anonymously. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to restore the content, and maybe contact the Judaism project for a non-POV editor in that project to look it over. Opinions? John Carter 22:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the redirect has actually been in place for a while. I remember searching for "Jewish mythology" over a month ago and getting redirected to Aggadah. However, I think merely redirecting a whole page on Jewish mythology (thus erasing all the hard work that went into said article) is unacceptable. I strongly support restoring the Jewish mythology page and then contacting the Judaism project for help expanding it. (Plus, I have the impression that most Jews won't find the word "mythology" nearly as taboo as it is to certain Christians.) --Phatius McBluff 22:49, 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. CaveatLectorTalk 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Caveat taking this bold stand, mostly because there was no consensus to erase the page and because it is a valid topic. Goldenrowley 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish folklore?
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)

Ho-oh
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)
 * . . . okay, I'm going to step out of this dispute. Folks, the article is Ho-Oh and she's talking about Fenghuang. That's all I have left to say. -WarthogDemon 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems Ho-Oh, as a pokemon is a fiction. It seems to be a fictional Fenghuang. Goldenrowley 02:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade
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)

Is this table useful?
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 Peter, I suggested table because it is one of the things a "good article" requires. I can't speak for everyone but find this table quite useful. I think it can be smaller and much skinnier to take less room, i.e this is small text . You can also merge the heading columns to go across three columns. Goldenrowley 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Goldenrowley. I have managed to shrink things somewhat, but I am having trouble in getting rid of the white space above and below the text in each row. If I can reduce row height by a third, I should be able to get the whole table on one page. I've asked at the help desk, but if anyone here can help, I'll be grateful.
 * I only have basic training in HTML but looked at your programming and you dont have cell padding or cell margin so you may be stuck with it. I suggest you try to change the number in "style="height:15px" try 12, 13, 14, or removing it altogether. Keep in mind each browser will show things differently so what may appear in your browser large can appear smaller in others. Designers usually just aim for a middle ground. Goldenrowley 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I've now found a way to reduce things somewhat and have incorporated into the main article near the discussion of most of the literary sources. --Peter cohen 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy editor wanted
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)

Epiphany (& Epiphanes)
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)


 * I am going on vacation so started the stub on my sandbox here if that helps:. It might be okay to merge with "Epiphanes (Christian)" but it's pagan and needs substantiation work, first. Note our hotlist requests a myth article on Epiphanes Goldenrowley 07:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotation in two languages
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)

Hermaphrodite resources
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)
 * It's good enough for a stub, however make sure you aren't duplicqating the existing article Hermaphroditus. I suggest you can combine your work with what's already there. Goldenrowley 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
I've been looking through and tidying up infobox proposals (aka removing inactive/depresciated proposals), and came across List of infoboxes/Proposed, is this still being worked upon, or is there already a suitably active infobox template ? David Ruben Talk 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you reviewed if its attached to any live articles at "what links here"? I don't know about that one. Our active myth boxes are on this page: WikiProject_Mythology/Templates. Goldenrowley 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It wont be linked to anything - its a proposed infobox, giving a mockup of how it would appear. David Ruben Talk 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks a lot like the one in our own archives at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mythology/Archives -- I suggest to keep as people use them for ideas or program methods but delete any duplicates. 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenrowley (talk • contribs)

Dea Tacita / Larunda / Muta
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? <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with assuming based on similar names only always always have sources to name deities with. Also I think I speak for the majority that we can gather a few mythic beings on one page if its from one culture -- see for example Miwok mythology -- but we're trying to keep the cultures separate (as mythology is often explained by culture). You can always put a merge flag on the pages your proposing and note sources at the time you put the merge flag on. Goldenrowley 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys!
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)
 * Hi! Sorry, but your link led to a 404 error. You may want to fix that so we can see what you want to show. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who has the copyright to these images? Wikipedia can't use them unless the artist releases them under an appropriate license. <font color="#00F">&mdash;dgies tc 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They're under FDL. Nothing to worry about. --Gp75motorsports 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vega cultural influences
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. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Underworld
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)
 * Support you. There are probably some positive aspects of underworld. Goldenrowley —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Asrai Fairy / Asari
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)


 * Yes, they're listed in some British and Celtic folklore books. The web sources I looked at seem basically ok (except on is on geocities). I know nothing of how they've been used in RPG's, though, and I've never heard or seen them called "Asari". I think that's a typo. I'm going to move it to simply Asrai, and move the band at that location to Asrai (band). - <font face="comic sans ms"> Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut?
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)
 * Done. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The article Prayer
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)
 * I have taken this question up with WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies here and have proposed a couple of attested prayers from Germanic paganism there here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Germanic_studies bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Góntia

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Moonstone
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)
 * Any editor is welcomed to start writing about "moonstone mythology", my only comment is its a pretty narrow topic, so you might look around to see if it should be included in a broader article on moon (mythology) or gemstone mythology. Goldenrowley (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aita (mythology)
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)

Request for eyes, source hunting - Toadstone
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)

Request for help at Neptune (mythology)
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)
 * Well I respect your wish for pertinence and purity, but ancient artifacts help prove that myths were really beleived in at a certain time and place, they're solid proof someone in that locaton knew of Neptune. A realy cool recent discovery helps make it interesting. Hence I tend to think that this discovery should remain in the article. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By way of rejoinder, suffice it to say, that the article Neptune (mythology) is bare, and is just starting to be expanded. And the treasure trove discovery was a landmark contribution to this mythology and more knowledge about Neptune. Researchers and scientists / scholars can benefit in reading this statue discovery. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statue is relevant to the article. If there are other statues of Neptune, it would also be good to discuss them. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It is the archeology (and commentary) that helps bolster non-in-universe material. The article is tiny and could be much bigger. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you all actually looked at the edit. There is no context given. Nothing about who might have made the statue or why. There is no indication that it contributes to knowledge about Neptune or Neptune worship or worshippers. It is just a news item about the guy who found a statue, surely he isn't pertinent. What about wp:undue? I agree that the Neptune article could use a little bit more text, but a list of statues???maxsch (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history, it will be obvious that I looked at the edit since I modified it. Please don't insult us by accusing us of not looking at it. We simply disagree with you. More information about the discovery and its significance would of course help. However, some information is better than none. The fact that a large statue of Neptune was created indicates that he was probably important to someone! <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting. I am surprised at the consensus, that's all. My impression was that more information about the discovery would not help at all. What I think the article could use is more information about Neptune. Even if there is something to be gleaned from this discovery about the physical and historical distribution of Neptune worship, or its character (and it isn't clear that there is) that would be (it seems to me) the only content we should keep, not the exciting (but irrelevant) story of Michel L'Hour and his team of Subaquatic Archaeologists. (Unless they have their own page!) And do you really think that a series of discussions about the various statues of Neptune around the world is of any use to this article? I simply do not understand. maxsch (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct to think a mythology article should not revolve around statues, and their discovery and discovers, and correct that a great majority of the article remains undeveloped. To me it just seems a matter of balance and focus... i.e the article should focus on the mythology and show how an ancient piece of art either proves or disproves or illustrates the myth. I may also use art just to have pictures. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in here, I would like to point out that we actively work to build sections like this Thor in articles relating to Germanic paganism - they can be extremely informative as they are, themselves, attestations. bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Re-evaluation of Tuisto
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)
 * Hi Varoon, I ugraded it from stub to start, the only reason I did not give a B is I think you need an image. If you get an image I will be happy to review it again. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the re-evaluation. Unfortunately, I don't think there is going to be an image for this article, given the topic. Of course, some loosly related images could be found (like this one), but I simply haven't been able to locate anything specifically related to Tuisto. But, I will keep looking... — Aryaman (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's going to be tough finding a depiction of Tuisto. I am beginning to wonder if we just shouldn't put a map of Germania from Tacticus' time there instead just to have something? This could be a potential solution to the problem with finding images from other subjects from Germania like Mannus as well. bloodofox: (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I put one up. — Aryaman (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Christian mythology
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)

Zeus
I would really like to bring this article to good article standards, is anyone else interested? Meldshal42  (talk)  14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It does sound a worthwhile suggestion. I'm not going to have much time in the next week. I might be able to do a little bit of work the folowing one, but then I'm away for a weekend and have my main room with the network controller being redecorated. Of the source texts mentioned in the current version I have Burkett and Graves. I also have Gantz whoprbably should gt a listing. I'll try to at least form an opinion in the next week and a half on what would need to be done to have a good chance of GA. I have problems with fatigue, so I woul rather mke aeries of smal commitments one after the other than a large one--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote Comparative mythology
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)

Wikiproject limits? A question of scope
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)
 * Personal opinion here, and I freely acknowledge that others may disagree and that I've been accused of doing the same thing myself. I haven't myself reviewed the actions in question, but it often is the case that projects seek to maintain some degree of control over the categories which are subcategories of their main category, if for no other reason than to seek to ensure that the articles in question get placed in the most exact existing relevant category. In all honesty, although it is not the case that this necessarily gets done by each of the projects, I have to say that it is a good idea to a degree. In time, it may well be that the projects will create additional categories in which to place this content, sometimes even categories which are not subcats of their own "parent" category. Yes, this can and does lead to accusations that articles get tagged with too many banners, and those can be valid concerns as well. I've tried to myself adjust some banners in such a way that the banner displays the most directly or broadest directly related scope banner first, and then some of the other, related, projects, in a "drop-down" format in that banner. Perhaps, in time, that sort of thing might become somewhat standard.
 * Also, and this may not be a particularly convincing argument either, many projects have related portals. I can say from experience that some of these portals need more content than they necessarily have, and that inclusion of marginally related content sometimes is indicated. Inclusion in such portals should at least draw more attention to the selected articles, and it has been the case at least occasionally that that attention is sometimes a valuable factor in the improvement of the article.
 * My personal preferred response to this situation would be to contact the editor in question, ask him or her directly what his/her reasoning was, and perhaps indicate that their actions may be somewhat excessive. Also, using one of the banner shell templates can be useful if there are too many banners on a given article. It can and sometimes has been done that only the marginally related project's banners are included in that shell.
 * Don't know if any of that helps, but at least it's sort of an answer. I'd welcome any other input from others as well. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are that since so few help tag and assess mythology articles I appreciate the new editor who is attempting to tag them and you for trying to make some order for it. My understanding is to tag them with a subset i.e. Greek mythology tag, when subsets exists because in the list it will always appear as a fork or branch. If a subset doesnt exist then tag them with the main mythology flag.Goldenrowley (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your question on specific examples, I would discourage tagging any fictional characters morphed from real mythic characters as mythology. I would keep a line and leave out any fictional characters. Goldenrowley (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
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.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

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)

Comparative mythology needs new quality rating
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)

Created Origin myth
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)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 2141 articles are assigned to this project, of which 510, or 23.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) 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)

Naflgar
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)
 * I agree. The right place to come to a consensus is on the talk page so I've also entered agreement there. Goldenrowley (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hermes versus Mercury
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)

Opinions on merger of Origins of vampire beliefs back into vampire requested
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)

Aegis needs your help
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 articles have been selected for Mythology
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 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 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)

Merging Lycanthrope and werewolf?
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. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Germanic mythology
As part of 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)

Mass removal of categories
If you look at the edits in 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)
 * I don't know, I think that the edits removed some superfluous categories. It would be better to re add some of them rather than reverting all of the edits. Erik the Red  2    20:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cfd is the way to get rid of those. And it would be useful to restore the changes so that we can actually see to what extent the various cats are used.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus, I can manually rollback his edits, many are the most recent reversion. Erik the Red  2    21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark all over again
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, --P LUMBAGO 09:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)