This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I wanted to see if a topic had already been discussed, but apparently nothing had ever been discussed. A glance at the Talk page's History makes that doubtful. It looks like no one has ever archived past topics (or sections). Wikipedia has a page about creating archives, and that practice should be adopted for this article, too. Most topics should be archived once no longer current; or they can stay on the current talk page, unless the talk page gets too large, and then they can be archived. Then we can search and avoid being redundant. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that folklore can provide clues to history, medicine, and other areas of scholarship that can be verified, in part, through archaeology, biology, and so on, but I don't have any sources handy or for which I recall titles. If anyone does, please add a section to the article about scholarly confirmation.
We could do the same for disconfirmation, but there's plenty on that in many places, usually in the form of debunking based on a lack of scientific evidence, which is a weaker standard than positive evidence.
Trolls Article - Consensus and Contributors needed
IMHO, the Troll article could use some extra contributors to expand the article and some help on a few issues that require the consensus of more than a few people. I am one contributor, though I am still learning a lot at this point, and although I'm a great researcher and not completely new to "trolls", I don't have access to the same resources that some of you in this wikiproject might. We also have one well versed wikipedian in on the conversation, though it would be nice to have a larger consensus. Anyone up for contributing to the noble art of studying Trolls? =) --Bema Self (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the section on modern folklore since it contained only primary sources and lacked sources to support the claim that the authors are attempting to create a modern folklore or that the works constitute a modern folklore. Jojalozzo 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of folklore. It might be useful to look at  for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)