Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Article alerts[edit]

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

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

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

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

GA Reassessment of Leprechaun[edit]

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

Request for comment on Biographies of living people[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

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

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

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

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

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

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth[edit]

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk)

Request for input in discussion forum[edit]

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

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

"Homunculus"[edit]

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

"Patasola"[edit]

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

POV push on mythology against religion[edit]

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

Searches

  • Here are the Ngram results for: "Aztec religion": 17143 and "Aztec Mythology": 478. There is far more searching done in regard to Aztec religion in comparison to Aztec mythology.
Ratio 36:1

books

1.58:1

Article content

Ratio 2.35:1

links to the pages

Ratio 1:1.48

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

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

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

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

Google statistics may show "relgion" is used more, but this is easily explainable. A major topic is human sacrifice ritual, which you wouldn't discuss in terms of practicing "Aztec mythology". It would be in terms of "religion". So that kind of thing tips the scale.
In another words, "religion" covers a broad range encompassing ritual practice and theology/mythology. Whereas, writers would prefer the choice of using the more exacting term "mythology" when they are covering the more narrow range of theology (cosmogony and pantheon).
So it's not as if POV editors are systematically replacing the pejorative "Aztec mythology" over "Aztec religion" just to be condescending. The fact is, the terms are not interchangeable.
Currently the Aztec religion is a summary-style parent page, with a "mythology" section and sub-article. This is exactly the "article spinout" structure prescribed under WP:CFORK. Of course there are significant overlaps (and some maintenance may be required), but there is no need for a WP:MERGE into either religion or mythology as per the WP:CFORK "spinout" guideline I just invoked. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion and mythology[edit]

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