Talk:Mythography

This is the Mythography redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Mythology Mid‑importance Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I'd like to merge

]

Suggestbot served a link to this article. Don't know if every of the names in the list is tagged with Category:Folklorists. Also, the literature list might be useful? Otherwise merge (and redirect Folkloristics), it's just a few lines. User:Yy-bo 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but mythology is a category of folklore. Folkloristics is the study of folklore, and this would include mythology. To merge the two (folkloristics and mythography) would deny the importance of Folklore as a field of study and place it subordinate to that of "mythography." I don't know of any accredited schools that teach "mythography." I vote no on the merge.

I also vote no on the merge for similiar reasons. Mythography is a different discipline, of limited scope. Just because the article is bad now doesn't make it redundant. It needs expansion not removal. Remove the merge thing and expand the folkloristics article.leontes 04:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two should NOT be merged, because folklorists study legends occuring in historic time as well as myths that occurred in mythic time.(unsigned)

No. The field of folkloristics covers more then myths. Many of the folklorists also studied riddles, folk speech, and games. The merge would belittle the field of folkloristics.(unsigned)

Strong no. Folkloristics is a distinct field. A glance at the mythography page shows that not only the subject matter but the approach are completely different. (Also, the mythography page blurs the distinction between mythographers and mythologists.) Myth is a subset of folklore, but there have been those who studied myths without paying attention to their place in folklore. Bruxism 01:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge, as they are not the same thing. Instead, the folkloristics article should be added to the Folklore Portal.

Mythographers/mythologists rarely work with the more ethnographic approaches used by most folklorists. Another strong "no" vote here

• It looks like people are opposed to the idea. Isn't mythography a subcategory of folkoristics? So shouldn't the move be the other way around? Sofeil 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythography does not have anywhere near the academic saliency of Folkloristics, which is a very developed field, recognized widely as connected to the academic fields of

]

• Strong no. I'd support a merger going the otherway. Mythography which sounds like a neologism eeasily falls within the scope of folkloristics whereas it doesn't go the other way round. Maunus 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolute NO. I'm a folklorist and "mythography" is not the dominant discipline between folkloristics.

Also strong no. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only "mythographer" that I know of is Dennis Tedlock, who also comfortably wears a folklorist's hat. Folklore is clearly the larger discipline, with folkloristics a particular take on disambiguating folklore as a subject and folkloristics as the study of that subject. The best work in print on the subject of folkloristics is probably Alan Dundes, "International Folkloristics: Classic Contributions by the Founders of Folklore." 74.130.21.14 03:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)drseuss288[reply]

Awfully glad this merge was stopped. Folklore may have a different scope or possibly is more popular in some circles, but it is certainly not the same thing as mythography. There's a distinction drawn in Wagner and Lundeen's "Deep Space and Sacred Time," - legend happens "in historical time and concerns human or quasi-human heroes” (and can be believed to be true), myth is “a form of traditional (usually oral) narrative that is set in a primordial time, that concerns the actions of supernatural beings, and that is reversed within its cultural setting as sacred truth," and folklore involves "fantastic beings" but is recognized as fiction. --Nathanaelbassett (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second section, what appears to me to be phonetic script is used to the exclusion of regular script. I find this unacceptable as I don't know how to read phonetic script and there is no way for me to to gather any clue from that section itself how to read or decipher those "words". __

]

I can't see any phonetic characters in the second section, but the second sentence includes in the Greek script the Greek words from which Mythography comes. Boaby (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an article about the study of myths. The article

]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it's a redirect. The nomination by newly-joined editor User:Curc looks like a misconception.

Charles Matthews (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews: This was actually not a misconception. Mythography and mythology are not the same things. Thus, a redirect of mythography to mythology is not exactly suitable as long as there is no discussion of the term mythography there. Since this is not the case until now, I decided to nominate this as a bad redirect for speedy deletion.--Curc (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I agree on that point. I was one of the authors of

, the original page, having started it in 2004. But deleting the redirect would lose all that history, and the chance that there is now to revive the page (and reference it).

The correct forum would have been Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Speedy deletion is not appropriate for this kind of case. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]