Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology

Jinn: RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User inputs and comments are requested at:

• Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1.

Bookku (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Memnun vs. Memnon?

There is a draft going through the AfC review process, where input from those in the know would be appreciated. The draft Draft:Memnun describes the Etruscan mythological character, as distinct from Memnon. The draft was declined on the basis that the two subjects appear to be the same, and myself and another reviewer have expressed similar concerns, but the author ( Courtesy ping: Magistracraig) feels differently. Normally AfC reviewers don't need to be subject matter experts, but on this occasion the acceptability or otherwise of the draft hinges on whether Memnun and Memnon are substantially the same or not, which feels way above my pay grade at least. Would anyone here care to chip in with their views, either here or on the draft talk page? Thanks in advance, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for the continued conversation. I will ask for some follow up as well from Classically trained folks I know. Magistracraig (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reminder to the Mythology community -there is already a Etruscan Thesan (Eos/Aurora) page distinct from Eos' wikipedia page - so it seems to me that the Etruscan mother Thesan and Etruscan son Memnun be given the amount of published space because the Etruscans were a non-Indo-European outlier in the ancient Greco-Roman world according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The Thesan (wikipedia page) displays the goddess but sadly her mixed race Eithiopian son (Memnun) is missing from the mythological tradition and this is not his first absence in the mythological canon. In addition the distinct Etruscan archaeological evidence supports the wealth of Etruscan mirrors representing the mother/son pair.

There is also a distinct list of Etruscan gods already at Wikipedia but ones that do not link to any information about Memnun (footnote 28)

List of Etruscan mythological figures

As a credentialed teacher of Latin (English) and life long student of the classics my interest is to support a Memnun page to support inclusive learning- just in time for a world premier play on the hero where the play subtitle states: "A name you won't soon forget." -not my quote and more info after the play begins at the end of August. Pax Omnibus Nobis! Magistracraig (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Infobox:Deity template: standards of use?

It has taken me considerably longer than I thought to free up enough time to start this, but here we go.

Some time ago we had a discussion regarding the use of the {{Infobox deity}} template on the Norse mythology articles, particularly Thor. This eventually had to go to DRN, where you can find it in Archive 247 if you're in need of details.

It is the feeling of some that using an infobox at all implies that a subject is simple and clear-cut, which is of course not going to be the case with any deity in a real-world religious or mythological system, past or present. If this were to be accepted as the standard then the {{Infobox deity}} template would have to be deleted altogether.

I am of the opposing opinion, as you will see if you visit the DRN archive; my supporting arguments can be found there, alongside the assertions of the opposition. But I do feel that there should be standards about the usage of the template. Speaking for myself, when I see that a page has a large infobox with many entries, it makes me feel that the subject is an important one about which much is known; when I see it has a small infobox with only a few points, it makes me feel that the subject is either comparatively minor or else poorly known.

I did promise on the DRN to come up with a proposal to standardize the {{Infobox deity}} template, but I thought I should raise the matter with the community here first, and invite discussion.

—VeryRarelyStable 08:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the use of Infoboxes as seen in the DRN discussion. Dots321 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable: I haven't read the discussion you've linked, but what standards of use are you suggesting you'd like to establish around infoboxes for deities? (Or do you propose them in that discussion?) I think that what's outlined at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE generally suffices as a guide on how infoboxes should be used. As to the specific question of when a page should have an infobox, I would think that this would be a matter decided at each individual page; there are deities (eg. Phanes) for whom an infobox would be essentially impossible, while for others (eg. Zeus) having an infobox is probably less detrimental that it is problematic (as long as it is well done, which the vast majority aren't). Also, I don't really think the logic that the longer the infobox, the more important the subject of the article, is useful at all (wouldn't the length of the page itself be a better measure of this?); WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE in fact states that The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose.

I think most editors who work on mythology articles probably find infoboxes either mildly irritating or outright frustrating, not just because they (as you've noted) oversimplify complex figures described by varying and often contradictory sources which can differ greatly in era and authorship, but also because they tend to be magnets for edits which, though often made in good faith, are either wrong or otherwise problematic. The "Fooian equivalent" fields are particularly notorious, and I seem to remember the criteria for adding such an "equivalent" to an infobox being agreed upon [1] at WT:CGR (and it being far less liberal than what you tend to see in articles). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dodola and Perperuna#Requested move 22 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dodola and Perperuna#Requested move 22 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 21:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Athena has an RfC

Athena, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The title of the RfC is RfC Athena's Lake Tritonis origin. NebY (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ancient Celtic religion#Requested move 24 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ancient Celtic religion#Requested move 24 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Invented_tradition#Merge_from_pseudo-mythology

Please say a word at Talk:Invented_tradition#Merge_from_pseudo-mythology

Proposed deletion of Pangaea (mountain)

The article Pangaea (mountain) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I think that this is entirely incorrect. I've found no sources that support this at all, reliable or otherwise; moreover Titanomachy says that the action took place on Mount Othrys and there is no suggestion that I can find that Pangaea is a synonym for Othrys. Finally, no-one else has added any references to support this statement in some 15 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Inanna

Inanna has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)