Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Folklore: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Highgate Vampire: new section
Line 96: Line 96:


There has been a lot of new material added to these articles by [[User:Smithriedel]], who over recent years has done most of [[Folklore]] ([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Folklore currently 88% of the text], [[Family folklore]], [[Folklore studies]] and perhaps others. I have been discussing these with him, currently mainly on [[Talk:Folk art]]. I see many of the same issues I have were raised [[Talk:Folklore_studies#Article_Converted_to_Personal_Essay|before on Talk:Folklore studies]]. I come at this from an art history perspective myself, but other views and comments would be welcome. My main concern is to keep the relatively highly-viewed main article at [[Folk art]] neutral, coherent and a readable introduction - it was short and pretty poor before Smithriedel came along, but still has a long way to go, imo. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been a lot of new material added to these articles by [[User:Smithriedel]], who over recent years has done most of [[Folklore]] ([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Folklore currently 88% of the text], [[Family folklore]], [[Folklore studies]] and perhaps others. I have been discussing these with him, currently mainly on [[Talk:Folk art]]. I see many of the same issues I have were raised [[Talk:Folklore_studies#Article_Converted_to_Personal_Essay|before on Talk:Folklore studies]]. I come at this from an art history perspective myself, but other views and comments would be welcome. My main concern is to keep the relatively highly-viewed main article at [[Folk art]] neutral, coherent and a readable introduction - it was short and pretty poor before Smithriedel came along, but still has a long way to go, imo. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Johnbod}}—Sorry, I'm only just now seeing this. Yikes. I'll bump up slating these articles for a total rewrite. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


== Highgate Vampire ==
== Highgate Vampire ==

Revision as of 23:42, 10 April 2019

WikiProject iconFolklore Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WP:Folklore members will find this discussion interesting. Additionally, there's a discussion to be had here about how we're dividing up out articles like lake monster, sea monster, and river monster. What do you think we should do? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Man listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Slender Man to be moved to Slenderman. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Portal:Folklore

I've just discovered that Portal:Folklore exists. While I'm not sure if the ultimate fate of portals has been decided yet (there was some discussion about deleting them all recently), the portal is of historical interest given Wikipedia's spotty handling of folklore as a topic to date. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muhuru for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muhuru is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhuru (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring

I've attempted to add a monitoring section, but we'll see if the bot actually fills in the page tomorrow, and there are a few other elements to tweak/add. --tronvillain (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started adapting a Navbox, at WP:WikiProject_Folklore/Nav --tronvillain (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox folk song

Template:Infobox folk song has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tamtam90 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed April 20, 2018 (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 17#Template:Infobox folk song). A second attempt was closed July 2, 2018 (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 2#Template:Infobox folk song. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Navbox. Some of the pages still need to be created, or the links possibly removed from the Navbox depending on whether we think they're worth it. The Cleanup link should be available after Tuesday. --tronvillain (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European folklore

It may be out of scope for an Americano-centric WikiProject, but could someone take a look at Category:European folklore? It seems to be somewhat underpopulated and excludes Category:European mythology. Dimadick (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it "attention=yes", since I've managed to work out how to make that work. --tronvillain (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi, an ip has questioned whether the above should be included in the Mother Goose article, i would welcome some input there, thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion: Goatman: Flesh or Folklore?

I've just submitted this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goatman: Flesh or Folklore?. Comments welcome. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Mythology > Myth

Just a heads up that I've proposed that we merge mythology into myth. Please feel free to comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 76 Release and Traffic Increase

Just as a heads up, the November 14 release of Fallout 76 is likely to produce a significant increase in traffic for West Virginia folklore-related articles, such as Mothman and Flatwoods monster (For example). During this time, we might want to be extra vigilant about drive-by edits. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion- List of Cryptids to Lists of Legendary Creatures

This may be of note to members [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of new material added to these articles by User:Smithriedel, who over recent years has done most of Folklore (currently 88% of the text, Family folklore, Folklore studies and perhaps others. I have been discussing these with him, currently mainly on Talk:Folk art. I see many of the same issues I have were raised before on Talk:Folklore studies. I come at this from an art history perspective myself, but other views and comments would be welcome. My main concern is to keep the relatively highly-viewed main article at Folk art neutral, coherent and a readable introduction - it was short and pretty poor before Smithriedel came along, but still has a long way to go, imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:—Sorry, I'm only just now seeing this. Yikes. I'll bump up slating these articles for a total rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Highgate Vampire

Highgate Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article recently survived an assault by one of the principals involved in the drama. Upon review, it leans toward the WP:SENSATIONAL. It could use a revamp by someone who has access to quality academic sources and folklorists. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]