Template talk:Mythology

Editor repeatedly removing Proto-Indo-European mythology from the template and format

Recently an editor has repeatedly removed Proto-Indo-European mythology from this template, comparing it to works of fiction ([1]). This article could use more eyes and further modification—should this template be reformatted, maybe with a focus on relation? I'm thinking a lot more could be done with this. Pinging various users active in this area: @Alcaios:, @Berig:, @Ermenrich:, @Haukurth:, @Katolophyromai:, @Krakkos:, @Yngvadottir:. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question is CaptainKaptain, and I'm not quite sure I understand their argument in the most recent revert: Proto-IE mythology "wasn't contemporary" to what? And what are the template criteria that we are breaking by including Proto-IE? I looked (including for a hidden message) and failed to find them. The template appears to me to include at least one other reconstruction, Cantabrian mythology (I suspect many others, including Hindu mythology, involve a fair bit of theorizing and of disagreement), and as to the examples in a prior edit summary of "Proto-Uralic, Proto-Mesoamerican or Proto-Mesopotamian", I believe the criterion actually is that we don't have articles for the proto versions. So I'm going to re-revert after I post this, but if the editor can explain, I might even be persuaded. In terms of re-working the template, I have no useful ideas and suspect it's best left alone: the boundaries between religion and mythology are porous and in many cases contentious, and different corners of the field differ in how they express things in scholarship, plus there are cases in which relationships are complex and/or the subject of debate. The one thing I notice in my areas of particular interest is that we have at least one little article that we aren't including, Continental Germanic mythology, but I think it's actually about religion. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir The point about "contemporary" mythologies was that all the other mythological groups referred to in the template were, at some point or even up to today, historically-attested mythologies common to certain historical peoples - we can say for sure that there is a Guarani mythology, common to the tribes of these peoples and historically recorded by others as such, to the point where a Guarani tribesman can say this is our Guarani mythology - this is unlike Proto-Indo-European mythology, which is an academic reconstruction attempt, it was never actually referred to as the mythology of an actual group (whom do they refer to? The Bell-Beakers? The Sintasha culture? The Yamna? The peoples that preceded these cultures? Other peoples? We don't know for sure), nobody ever said this is our Proto-Indo-European mythology, no tribesmen would ever recognize and say "oh yeah this is our Proto-Indo-European mythology", because, again, nobody referred to himself as a Proto-Indo-European. The point being: Proto-Indo-European is a Proto-group, unlike all others in the template which are actually recorded mythological groups. Proto-groups are reconstructions, they refer to times before historical attestations, trying to find a common root for the descendants of these peoples.

So, to refer solely to one Proto-group, to make a single exception to the others in the template in order to include the Proto-Indo-European mythology, breaks the criteria for the template, and creates either a double-standard or a vacuum, where other Proto-mythologies (as I mentioned, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Mesopotamian, Proto-Aborigine and many other such cases) can be included on the template at will - the lack of criteria even makes it possible to include even fabricated mythologies such as "Tolkienist" or "Lovecraftian" since "they are mythologies" and nobody knows for sure what can or can not be included in the article. So, yeah, that leaves a lot of possibilities open.

The thing about Cantabrian or Hindu mythologies is that, even if their classification revolves around some academic work and generalizations, they can be attested as historically believed mythologies from these peoples. A Cantabrian can say "this is our Cantabrian lore", and an Indian can say "yes, this is our Hindu heritage". But a Proto-Indo-European tribesman (whoever that might be as no one ever called himself and his people as "Proto-Indo-European") would not be able to say oh this is our Proto-Indo-European heritage, because, again, that is solely a reconstruction.

I will not revert the article, but I will raise these questions for others who would like do to further editing and ellaboration to the template. Answering them might give a paramater for building a more accurate template or a broader reaching one (perhaps include a sub-category for Proto-Mythologies such as PIE, Pre-Biblical Hebrew influences & so forth?). User:CaptainKaptain 22:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that this account, which popped up in February, has spent a notable amount of its brief edit history casting doubt on Indo-European studies and making bizarre, pseudoscientific claims about the topic and the genre of myth more broadly (cf. [2]). Dealing with tomfoolery like this makes for a fine example of the negative side of the project. Of course, in reality, the topic of PIE myth has yielded an extraordinary amount of discussion from scholars and much of it is today quite secure, much like any other well-established and well-evidenced scientific observation. (What's next, scare wording around the comparative method?) Despite the above garbled rant about non-existent criteria, this user's eagerness to compare PIE studies to fiction is ultimately comparable to, say, flat earther claims. It's not something we should have to put up with here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@bloodofox - " It appears that this account, which popped up in February, has spent a notable amount of its brief edit history casting doubt on Indo-European studies and making bizarre, pseudoscientific claims about the topic and the genre of myth more broadly" - This is called having an interest. Your eagerness to defend these Indo-European studies and to label any other view that isn't in accordance - not with mainstream scholarship or reliable sources and evidences , but with the letter of the Indo-European studies genre itself - calling them 'tomfoolery' and the 'equivalent of flat earth claims' (Straw man fallacy) shows more for your partiality towards the theme than mine.

You also go on to analyze my entire editing history and berate me as 'an user which recently popped up out of nowhere', as if you were any better or entitled to be closer to the truth due to being an editor for a longer time. This is insulting, and pretentious. You didn't mention anything of value about the template's criteria discussion, instead calling it a 'rant', nor did you post anything positive in this talk section about the building of the article/template, only vague personal attacks against another user. I ask you not to do that, or I will have to reply to you in kind, something which I don't see the point for (flinging).

Lastly, you misrepresent what I stated in the edit summary by saying I compared PIE studies to fiction ("which is just soooo untolerable"). Again, what I stated in that summary was that since there was no defined criteria as to what kind of mythological groups should be added to the template (and about what constitutes a mythological group) and if proto-groups such as PIE are to be included, (with PIE standing as an only exception to the other groups who weren't proto-mythologies) then what is to say fictional groups aren't to be added to the article? They are "mythologies" too, and since we don't have a defined criteria, due to the PIE exception, what is to say one couldn't hypothetically make such absurd changes. It was a metaphor, an hyperbole, a purposefully-absurd proposition. Chill down and analyze its merits, don't act triggered as if some 'holy cow' had been touched. I will quote the passage you linked below, as by reading it, you can clearly see what I mean above:

Edit summary: Proto-Indo-European mythology doesn't exist. It was never a historically attested mythological set of beliefs of any groups. It's an academic reconstruction attempt, aimed at finding the common Proto-Indo-European roots of myths, not the beliefs of any groups at any given time. Should 'Tolkienish' or 'Lovecraftian' mythology be added to the list, since we are not dealing with historical ones? User:CaptainKaptain 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A work of fiction lol? So the Big Bang is also a "work of fiction" made by astrophysicists because it is reconstructed from contemporary evidence like gravitational waves? I invite editors to look at the amount of linguistic evidence we have for some of the PIE deities, most notably Dyēus. Alcaios (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alcaios I didn't state that the PIE mythology is something entirely fictional or baseless, just that the category is a reconstruction (unlike other mythological groups mentioned in the template which were historically-attested to belong to an actual group, who held them to be 'their' beliefs). What I did was compare the lack of the criteria on the template that allowed (exceptionally) for a proto-group such as the PIE reconstruction to be included among historically-attested ones to something which would allow even fictional mythologies such as those of Tolkien or Lovecraft's works to be included in the template because "they are mythologies". (See reply to Yngvadottir above) User:CaptainKaptain 22:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you compared PIE studies to fiction. No one made any comments about adding works of fiction to this template but yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't. You are misinterpreting what I said (look my most recent reply above) and for some reason you appear to have a clouded judgment about the matter, as if something strictly forbidden, some terrible insult or a blasphemy was carried by that comparison (which again, never happened, it only exists in your mind as a result of misreading). User:CaptainKaptain 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded by the argument. Appeal is made to the existence of tribal people who would claim the mythology as their own, but several mythologies included in the template constitute reconstructions of the former bases of now eroded or subsumed belief systems, and the people concerned would probably differ in how they responded to a question about whether those myths are their myths. Indo-European studies also rest on records of the cultures of very real peoples. CaptainKaptain should probably write the missing proto-mythology articles they mention so that they can be included, or find an article section to which to direct a link in the template as they have done in their most recent edit, rather than seeking to remove things based on non-obtaining criteria. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir "several mythologies included in the template constitute reconstructions of the former bases of now eroded or subsumed belief systems" / " Indo-European studies also rest on records of the cultures of very real peoples" - Well, the ancient Arabian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies could be said to fit into that category, but the others refer to extant peoples who have their mythologies even today. What, I think, distinguishes the Proto-Indo-European mythology from the ancient Arabian, Egyptian & Mesopotamian ones is that, unlike the others, the PIE mythology is a proto-group, we don't know of a specific culture that have held these beliefs (again, were they the Bell-Beakers? Sintasha? Yamna or other people?), it is a reconstruction, while the Egyptians, Mesopotamians & so forth refer to an actual people, to traceable cultures and we have extensive records of the mythological themes and religious practices from, say, Ancient Egypt and these other groups. Our record and the sources from the Ancient Egyptian religion and mythology are not reconstructions but the actual mythology of an actual people, what is left to be analyzed is finding its actual meaning, but that isn't an academic field & not the point of this template. User:CaptainKaptain 08:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said initially, I'm thinking more of Cantabrian mythology and to a certain extent of Hindu mythology than of mythologies of which we have extensive records, such as Egyptian, but the comparisons you make point up the problem of distinguishing mythology from religion when arguing from the criterion of identifiable people/culture. Which is one of the reasons I think your concern with identifiable peoples/cultures is misplaced. Seeking to identify, compare, and trace change in the foundational stories and concepts of a culture is a different thing from seeking to identify what religious dogma and practice are or were; myths can spread, evolve, and be shared by more than one culture, and studying them, always involves some degree of reconstruction. And whether we can determine what those with whom they have been associated once called themselves, or what archaeologists have called them, may not be a major focus of study. Certainly many of these cultures have been greatly changed, and some have died out. I fail to see either the uniqueness of Proto-Indo-European mythology that you assert or the crucial importance of pinning down who the people were; my suspicion is that you are really thinking more of religion. But again, if you know of enough scholarly work on other mythologies that you regard as comparably reconstructed, please start pages for them. That would enable the template to better reflect the situation in scholarship. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want to find other articles on reconstructed (or partly reconstructed) sets of beliefs, look at Uralic mythology or Ancient Semitic religion. Maybe we could separate the recontructed mythologies from the attested ones in the template. The issue is that, in many cases, you cannot really draw a clear line between those situations. For instance, the article Slavic paganism has an entire section dedicated to the 'common features'. Alcaios (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir The thing with the Cantabrians is that there is a living mythology and folk culture there, it definitely fits any criteria for a mythology or a mythological group. The Hindu or Vedic mythology is also vastly attested, much like the Ancient Egyptian Mythology, only the Hindu myths are still "alive" & part of a living culture. Other mythologies such as the Georgian or different Indonesian ones are also part of living cultures. There are mythologies in the template that aren't a part of a living culture any more, such as the ancient Egyptian, Arabian, Aztec, etc. but they were a part of a living culture at some point; they were all well-attested (we know what the core of their myths were, without having to speculate and reconstruct) and were attached to a determined, known people/culture at a certain point of history. And this is unlike the Proto-Indo-European Mythology, which not only is a reconstruction attempt (all the myths and motifs attributed to that category are speculative and do not derive from any primary contemporary source) but is also not sufficiently attached to any specifical historical people - there is a debate on who the Proto-Indo-Europeans were - if they were the Bell-Beakers, the Yamna culture, The Sintasha peoples; if they stem from the Pontic Steppe, from Anatolia, Central Asia, etc. This makes the PIE mythology vague and imprecise, making the attachment of these proposed myths to a people nearly impossible and breaking (as an only exception contained in the template) such criteria for defining what sort of mythologies should be shown in there. User:CaptainKaptain 03:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alcaios I can think of the Paleo-Balkan mythology and Proto-Indo-Iranian mythology as examples of other such things but I still feel the addition of them in the article would be improper. They are also branches of the same Proto-Indo-European exception. That is why I believe it would be easier to remove the Proto-Indo-European mythology from the template. I made a few additions to the article, but I will leave it to other users to finish it and maybe remove the PIE mythology or maybe expand on the topic and other such mythologies more - do a general remodeling of the template, if they so wish. User:CaptainKaptain 03:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your main issue is that there must be an identifiable culture, ideally a surviving one. I disagree, partly because I don't see that it matters to the field and partly because I suspect at root you are confusing the study of mythology with the study of religion (as in the case of Hinduism and Vedic religion); but as I mentioned before, there are many descendent cultures, some with extensive records. Indo-European mythology is not a purely theoretical construct and there were very real people whose myths Indo-Europeanists seek to reconstruct (not invent). I'm afraid you haven't raised any arguments that appear valid to me, which is why I'd much rather see you balance our coverage than apply criteria that appear to me to be irrelevant or rest on some misapprehension. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the confusion of the study of mythology with that of religion. Indeed the proposed Indo-European mythology is not a purely theoretical construct, it is reconstructed based on certain evidence criteria - but it is reconstructed and I think that is a main point because it is, at its core, unlike the others mentioned in the template (and an only exception while at that). I think in the end that the criteria of adding historically-attested mythologies in the template, to the exclusion of reconstructions, is indeed relevant because such reconstructions do not (and can not satisfactorily) attach themselves to a historically-attested people (such as the PIE mythology, which can refer to a multitude of peoples - the Yamnaya, the Andronovo, the Bell-Beakers - those who moved to Europe, those who moved to Asia & so forth) and it might be so that these reconstructions turn up to not refer to any actual group people in the end, such as what is proposed as the PIE mythology being found to just be a regular branch of the general contemporary common religion and mythological motifs of Europe, practiced by the European peoples living in the Pontic Steppe, who later moved to other regions, and not a distinctive group in itself. To sum it: I think the problem with reconstructed mythologies is that they can not satisfactorily attach themselves to a historically-attested people (surviving or not). These reconstructed groups might just be erroneous specifications of broader, historically-attested groups & their mythologies. For instance, a hypothetical "Trojan" mythology might just be an undue specialization of local Greek or Anatolian cultures (reconstructed and theorized by interested parties, but with little actual distinction from attested groups with hard evidence), made worse by the fact that there is no conclusive ethnical identification on who the Trojan people were, for instance, or even if there was, in fact, a Trojan people. Again, I might "tripping" and exaggeratedly developing on this subject, which might not even be that relevant for the template in the end, but I hope that people can make some sense of my point here. User:CaptainKaptain 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean by "living culture". If we can reconstruct a proto-language and some deities along with inherited formulae that were associated with them, it necessarily implies that a group of speakers using this language and worshipping those deities existed at some point in the past. To follow up on my analogy, it would be like saying that the Big Bang theory is less "valid" than the general theory of relativity because it is not directly observable since it happened some 14 billion years ago. If you have a theory that can elegantly explain an attested phenomenon based on hard evidence, your theory is as valid as any other one that follows scientific principles. Alcaios (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that the reconstruction is invalid, just that in the face of historically-attested cultures with hard evidence about their mythologies, the reconstructions are more theoretical and hard to pinpoint to a specific people (who do the PIE mythology refer to? Who were the Proto-Indo-Europeans? There is a debate on who they were even up to today, not to mention that since they are largely theorized to be a people, such specifications, like "PIE mythology", might not even hold ground and be sufficiently attested as belonging to a separate group in itself - it might just be that what is attributed as a separate PIE mythology was just a general branch of the common European religion and mythological motifs of the period, held by the European peoples who lived in the Pontic Steppe, or Anatolia, Central Asia or wherever one assumes the PIE to have lived in). The reconstructed groups, not being sufficiently attached to a people and to hard evidence pertaining to their myths, might turn out to belong to other people (and a historically-attested people) or to be undue specializations of broader mythological groups. There is no definitive evidence linking them to a certain people, even if the theory can elegantly make sense and trace parallels (which is not hard considering the lack of evidence on general ancient religions of uncivilized and illiterate peoples), it still leaves a large amount of uncertainty, which is why, even if I'm overextending myself here, I think the criteria (of excluding reconstructions from the template) is of slight relevance. User:CaptainKaptain 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Judging by your comments here, you've got a lot to learn about this topic. However, you're going to need to pursue that on your on time: On Wikipedia, we use what Wikipedia considers reliable sources (WP:RS). As you're a new user, you'll save yourself (and others) a lot of trouble by becoming familiar with this guideline. If reliable sources report on Indo-European studies, we report on it here. A tremendous amount of scholarship surrounds this topic from some of the very highest quality possible sources out there. It's as simple as that. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, but the fact such particular topic has a lot of scholarship surrounding it doesn't alter the criteria for reconstructed and proto-mythologies being included or not on the template.

And while yes, there is a lot of the highest-quality and very-detailed scholarship upon this specific theme, there is also a lot of quantity of scholarship and a myriad of speculations and romanticism surrounding it, which means that not all of the material produced is of relevance (a lot quackery was produced in the name of Indo-European, Aryan and Indogermanische themes over the ages). After all, Indo-European is a language-group, spoken by people of several different backgrounds and on different parts of the world, so trying to find common roots and generalizations for all these different peoples can be misleading sometimes and the fact that the theme is heavily studied (with many Indo-European studies centers in universities and such places, to the detriment of other themes) can lead to excessive speculation and unnecessary over-elaboration on the particularities of the referred topic. To just give a rubber-stamp to any and all Indo-European studies because of the all scholarship surrounding it ("Indo-European studies? Very scholarly! Put it forward"), and disregarding pertinence and over-reach of the theme can be something very naïve. Developing a zealous attitude towards it for the above mentioned reasons is also quite dangerous and possibly blinding. I hope people can make better sense out of it, and analyze things according to their cases, not on the broader validity of Indo-European studies in general. User:CaptainKaptain 08:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainKaptain: I'm afraid you're starting to dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Scholarship is not a zero sum game; Indo-Europeanists are in no way preventing you or anyone else from studying other cultures, of any degree of reconstructedness. That something has been the subject of scholarly study is our primary criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and it follows that inclusion in templates such as this one is a useful aid to reader navigation. That is the basis for a mythology being in this template, not some criteria of being a living culture or not being the only reconstruction you find overly theoretical, such as you appear frankly to be inventing. I'm afraid I too find your conflation of religion and mythology disquieting in this context. And your mention above of "uncivilized and illiterate peoples" undercuts the motivation of inclusivity and avoidance of cultural bias that I had at first thought was a motivation behind your objections. Please, as I previously suggested, consider adding to the encyclopedia on inadequately covered subjects in which you have expertise, rather than seeking to excise those you don't like. There are several indigenous and folk religions on which our coverage is poor; the reason you don't see me editing them is that I am all too aware of my lack of knowledge. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:And I'm not saying they are preventing anyone from studying other cultures, only that universities are overly-stacked with such study-centers, meaning that the fact that there is a lot of scholarship surrounding the theme might not mean it is of any quality - they can be repetitive and overly-elaborated (creating unnecessary theorems & supposed motifs, etc.), and that that is something to be aware of when dealing with IE studies, rather than just rubber-stamping any sort of theories coming out of them because they are "scholarly". One still needs, as always, to verify the merit of what is being proposed (and most of the time the scholarship is of merit, I'm just point at exceptions, which do exist).

And, finally, someone clarified a criteria for inclusion of groups in the template (that the group has been the subject of scholarly study), something which I can finally understand, if not agree with - again, pointing at the hyperbole of fictional mythologies, as the works of Tolkien, for instance, have been the subject of scholarly study, which would make that criteria alone clearly insufficient. The defined criteria should be then something in the lines of: a mythological group that existed/exists or proposedly-existed/exists, in the real-world, and that has been the subject of sufficient scholarly research. I apologize if things like this might sound rather obvious to more experience editors who know the Wikipedia criteria, but it was clearly not so for me (I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines & read very little about it) and it was confusing for to see things like Proto-Indo-European mythology as an exception to the other, non-reconstructed, mythologies in the template. I still think the reconstructed PIE shouldn't be grouped with the others, but I feel like adding a new category for similar proposed mythologies would be a better move than outright removing it from the template.

I still don't understand what you mean by conflation of religion with mythology though, or why would you think the mention of peoples as uncivilized or illiterate to be something pejorative ("civilization" and "literacy" are not good/bad dual things per se). Lastly the editing of this template doesn't really require knowledge on the specific mythological groups added, only a criteria for organizing the template, that was the point of the discussion from the beginning. I might add something about Proto-mythologies now that the precedent is open, maybe create some articles & develop on the theme, but that, well, takes time… User:CaptainKaptain 00:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with bloodofox, Yngvadottir and Alcaios that Proto-Indo-European mythology should be included in this template. Krakkos (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

All scientific fields contain both well-accepted theories and speculations. If you read the article PIE mythology, you'll see that some deities and myths are securely dated to PIE times, while other propositions are debated by scholars. There are clearly separated in the article, with different sections corresponding to each situation. You seem to imply that reconstructions are solely based on loose comparisons of similar items found in the various IE traditions, whereas they are founded on a generalized system of inherited names and formulae (linguistic evidence) associated with similar motifs (thematic evidence) and attested in geographically and temporally distant cultures, thus ruling out the possibility of chance similarities and borrowings. See the article comparative method for further information. Alcaios (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The thing though and what I'm saying (rather than saying they are based only on loose comparisons) is that the issue of some deities and myths being securely dated to PIE times is that they didn't pop out of nowhere, they have an origin before the PIE, so to categorize and classify them as being an Indo-European heritage, something that began with the Proto-Indo-Europeans some five thousand years ago might be to ignore its broader history - the issue being: group identification. A lot of the things identified with Proto-Indo-Europeans might be just older common pagan motifs that weren't necessarily transmitted with the spread of Indo-European languages. But, that is a topic of discussion that isn't related to this specific page, being more pertinent in discussions about the Indo-Europeans and the reconstructed PIE mythology at broad. User:CaptainKaptain 00:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: you also seem to conflate contemporary scholarship with the romanticist and essentialist visions of 19th-century scholars. Time has passed since then. Read Martin L. West (2007): If there was an Indo-European language, it follows that there was a people who spoke it: not a people in the sense of a nation, for they may never have formed a political unity, and not a people in any racial sense, for they may have been as genetically mixed as any modern population defined by language. If our language is a descendant of theirs, that does not make them ‘our ancestors’, any more than the ancient Romans are the ancestors of the French, the Romanians, and the Brazilians. The Indo-Europeans were a people in the sense of a linguistic community. We should probably think of them as a loose network of clans and tribes, inhabiting a coherent territory of limited size. (...) A language embodies certain concepts and values, and a common language implies some degree of common intellectual heritage. Alcaios (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good definition, unlike most of the rather-archaic visions stemming from 19th-century romanticism & the likes. Unfortunately (and I'm not saying this for editors of Wikipedia in particular), a lot of people still seem to, conciously or not and to different degrees, subscribe to themes and motifs from that period and the early scholarship, which did a lot to cloud public perception of the theme & confuse an actual understanding of it. Thanks for bringing that definition. That should finish the discussion here as it's going way off-topic. User:CaptainKaptain 00:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Continental Germanic mythology and Frankish mythology articles

I noticed that we still have a Frankish mythology article, which would logically be a subarticle of Continental Germanic mythology. Unfortunately, the latter article is a mess and our Frankish mythology article is terrible. Almost all of there currently is stuff from the corpus about early Germanic folklore, including early Germanic mythology (and primarily from Germania). Should we just redirect the latter from the former for now? We've got the Proto-Germanic folklore article coming up and having good Early Germanic mythology and Continental Germanic mythology articles to accompany it would be great. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)