Ravenloft

Cantabrian folklore

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A ver, si eres asturianu no me hables en inglés, por favor. Aunque la verdad es que lo dudo leyendo lo que leo, pq para ser vecino desconoces bastante Cantabria y personalmente me resulta una gran ofensa, por ser suave, que llames a la mitología cántabra "influencias de la mitología asturiana en el folclore de Cantabria". Como veo que lo desconoces, Cantabria tiene sus propios mitos, lo que pasa es que al ser zonas limítrofes comparten su origen celta-romano-cristiano y algunos como son el nuberu, el culebre, los ventolines o el trasgu y me he servido de las entradas ya creadas para Asturias para incluirlas y comenzar a editar por ahí. Porque si me dices que la osa d'Andara, el ojáncanu, el trenti, el trastolillu, la ijana d'Aras, el hombre pez, el cuegle, l'arquetu, los cuínes, el sol de los muertos, los mengues, la sirenuca de Castru, etc son mitos asturianos... Así que te pediría amablemente que retirases tal petición de borrado, que dejes de lado esa visión subordinada de mi cultura respecto a la tuya, que al fin y al cabo son una transición de la misma, y que procures informarte y conocer antes de ver mala fe en los actos de los demás. (Otra opción es dejar la categoría mitología de Cantabria, y hacer referencia a las "influencias de la mitología cántabra en el folclore asturiano", pero no creo que te agrade :D). Un saludo --Uhanu 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Uhanu. First of all, my apologies for talking in english, this is the english Wikipedia and I like to express myself in the appropiate language so everybody, visitors, users and admins, can understand what I'm saying. (If you have any problem with it, just say it and I'll translate the following to spanish or asturian with pleasure)

Secondly, I suggest you to not get offendend at a personal level by this kind of bureucratic stuff that happens all the time around here. Please, don't get my acts wrong, I feel a lot of sympathy and respect for Cantabria, and for the remains of the pagan-christian Astur and Cantabrian mythology in modern folklore, even more when both share so many common roots. In fact I am a little expert in Cantabrian mithology as much in Asturian. I have no personal problem with Cantabrian folklore but just the opposite, I love it. That said, the problem is a bureucratic one: you can't create a new category in wikipedia that only features articles of another category, it's a simple rule and an easy one to understand. And it's a fact the articles you firstly listed as part of that new category weren't talking about ojáncanos, or ijanas d'Aras, they were Asturian mythology articles about asturian myths that did have a huge impact on Cantabrian folklore, and that's a fact. You should not consider yourself to be offended because of it.

Understand that: If someone would have created an Asturian mythology category featuring only already existing articles about "mengues" or "sirenuques de castru", articles that already belonged to the Cantabrian mythology category, I would propose that new Asturian mythology category to be deleted, and I think it's quite easy to understand why. I think you would also agree to do so.

To create a bunch of new stubs and a main article for the category the day after the category was proposed to be deleted, just to justify its existence, is not a good move in this kind of things, it can be seen by admins as a kind of POV pushing. But anyway, I strongly encourage you to improve and create new articles on the Cantabrian mythology matter, I think wikipedia needs them, as much as the Asturian folklore ones, and it's great that someone decides to end with the existing poor presence of that kind of information on this encyclopedia. If trentis and trastolillos can be considered the base of a whole isolated mythology and have nothing to do with asturian trasgos or trastiellos is a different issue, which I have not discussed yet. -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·}11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jo macho, es que me da una pereza escribir en inglés, pero vale, tienes razón, dejemos que todos entiendan.

I can understand your actitude when firstly listed articles in the new category are common to Asturian Mithology. That don´t justify the petition over all if you know about Cantabrian mythology and recognise that myths are common to both. If someone would create a category for Basque or Castilian mythology and we have a myth in common, I have no problem to accept it even having just Cantabrian articles. I would supose that cathegory would be expand in the future, and even if don't I would have to accept the independence of the cathegory.

Admins and you can see what you want, but the creation of the main article and the new links are part of my previous plan to begin and expand the category, as you can see in my spanish user page, and I told you. I don´t need to justify its existence coz the category don´t need justification. My mistake was begin with the common myths to Asturias, I repit "common myths", not "asturian myths that did have a huge impact on Cantabrian folklore". As I said, please don´t foresee bad faith in my actions.

As you say we have not discussed yet about if trentis and trastolillos can be considered the base of a whole isolated mythology. I can tell you now: no. In fact I support a common article for trastiellos and trastolillos, just as culebre and cuélebre, nuberu, trasgu, ventolines. The main problem is sometimes the common name don´t mean a common article due to wides diferences in the legends and descriptions like in busgosu-musgosu, anjana-xana, guaxa-guajona. I´ll try to respect special features and I accept claims but never menaces of deletion in truthful information.

Jeje, también has hecho un stub sin consultar. Si es que al final todos somos unos ilegales... :). Venga un saludo.--Uhanu 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I see a category that claims to be independent, but it only features two articles of another category, it's just the normal procedure to propose it for deletion. I don't have to think in the creator's inner wishes, I don't have to know what kind of user is the creator and I don't have to know if the creator is going to work on it or if it's going to stay that way forever. I don't have to expect the creator to create specific articles for that category in the future, or to expect it not. The fact is that, in the moment the category was proposed to be deleted, those specific articles didn't exist. It only included the Cuélebre and Nuberu ones. I repeat, as a nominator, I'm not supposed to infer the future behaviours of users. At that moment, the user who created the category didn't include in it any specific article who could justify its existence, and that's just what I pointed out.

Anyway, my point in that moment was that there was no need to delete that kind of information when deleting the category, so if someone wanted to talk about the influence of the Nuberu and Cuélebre myths (both then in the Asturian mythology category) in Cantabrian folklore, it could still have been done after deleting the category by improving the articles with the appropiate references to that influence in Cantabrian myths. Understand that I was in fact defending to make that kind of information stay in the encyclopedia. Instead of it, you seem to have taken that sentence as some kind of attack to Cantabrian folklore from the first, attributing some kind of imaginary Asturian cultural etnocentrism to my proposal, and even more, as if I was questioning trentis or ijanas. Clearly, a projection of your actions, since it's a fact that you started to create a whole independent category from two previously existing Asturian mythology articles (that are not independently Cantabrian), and not from Cantabrian myths, and since you wanted to create a completely separated cathegory and not one that could include those myths as part of a mythical astur-cantabrian continuum. Please, think again. Don't get me wrong. I'm very positive towards having that kind of information, and I highly encourage you to do it. It just has to be done properly.

Another point is that the category is not correclty named. There are too many geographical posibilities, it could be referring to different Iberian penninsula cantabrians (this Cantabrian, this Cantabrian, Cantabrian) or to this other ones: Cantabrian, and Cantabrian. Maybe Mythology of Cantabria could have been a better choice.

But anyway, if the deletion proposal is not approved, no problem man. If the category is finally deleted, my advice is to build a good base of Cantabrian folklore related articles, and then to create a proper category for them, a category that could also incorporate the common and related Asturian figures without this kind of frictions.

By the way, en realidad sí había consultado sobre el stub un día antes (stub que por cierto, no propone ser uno nuevo más, sino ser uno genérico que pueda submerger unos cuantos más demasiado específicos para una región de un millón de habitantes y con tan pocos artículos de momento), pero este administrador no había caído en la cuenta, lo cual no viene mal para mi propuesta puesto que él es favorable ;D. Un saludo. -- · Ravenloft · ^{· (talk) ·} 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply