From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

archives missing[edit]

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 Most topics should be archived once no longer current; or they can stay on the current talk page, unless the talk page gets too large, and then they can be archived.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)

scholarly corroboration of folklore[edit]

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.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC) omg is that me or — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC) If you erase this, you are against Wikipedia: WIKIPEDIA IS AWESOME!!!!!! (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Trolls Article - Consensus and Contributors needed[edit]

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)

No discussion of African folklore?[edit]

I noticed that this article contains no information at all about African folklore - this is a very surprising omission. Jarble (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Modern folkore[edit]

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)

WorldCat Genres[edit]

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 [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation and re-organization needed for the topic Folklore[edit]

I think it would be best to combine the 2 articles "Folklore" and "Folk culture" under the single topic "Folklore". To that end I will consolidate the contents into a single article and re-post sometime this week, when I get it done. Once that is completed, someone will need to remove the page on "Folk Culture" and re-direct that topic to the "Folklore" page. I do not know how to do this; it needs to be done by someone above my pay grade.

The next major issue is to consolidate a list of all the wiki pages on the folklore of different regions and cultural groups on a separate page, perhaps a Category page or a Disambiguation page. This topic of "Folklore" should be limited to defining what folklore is, both as a subject matter and as a field of study (i.e. Folkloristics). It could then reference the list of pages on regional folklore.

This page does need a re-org and re-write, but I think to start with the 2 points above would be a good beginning. Comments and other thoughts are most welcome Smithriedel 18:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)smithriedelSmithriedel 18:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithriedel (talkcontribs)

Afrikaans folklore[edit]

Good day. I am new to being a "creator" on Wikipedia and thus I am still struggling to juggle the commenta regards my article that I recently loaded, i.e. which is based on research that I did on Afrikaans folklore.

I have already changed my article in that I have tried to omit the fact that I tried to argument - thus being reflective. I have also added hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles.
I was not aware of the article on folklore (, my research has not included Wikipedia articles, as it is (was) not considered to be scientific literature for publication in accredited scientifi journals ...
Now I feel very unscientific for not being aware of this other article on Wikipedia.
Yet, I am glad to see that Nick Levinson asked about the ommission of African folklore in the above mentioned article (5 November 2012). This makes a strong point for the existence and validity of my article, as Afrikaans is considered to be African.
What I will do is to look more closely for the overlaps and try to omit it in my article - rather just make links to this - which I will call the main article about folklore.
I gladly will receive comments.
Estelleke13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estelleke13 (talkcontribs) 12:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The drawback of "The English culture"[edit]

I here write down my comment. The Dutch language and others know the word "sage". It is not known in the English language. This appears to be a very influential "black hole". Enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I know now that in English the word "saga" is used. Alright. I'll learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)