Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology

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: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)

Remove "____ equivalent" fields from Template:Infobox deity?

What do editors think of the idea of removing the "____ equivalent" fields (eg. "Greek_equivalent", "Norse_equivalent", "Hinduism_equivalent", etc.) from Template:Infobox deity? Input at Template talk:Infobox deity would be appreciated. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Khandoba

Khandoba 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) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zagreus § Source for "In popular culture" section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zagreus § Source for "In popular culture" section. This is a follow up to the 2021 RfC which established sources used in the subsection & is focused on if these sources should be replaced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this removal justified? Not sure it needs sources

[2].. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, I'd say. Some parts could do with sources (eg. the "Hinduism" section), and some could probably use shortening (eg. the "Neopaganism" section), but I don't really see what's to be profited from removing, for instance, the entire "Pre-Columbian America" section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)