Talk:Cultural depictions of ravens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Overlap with competing article
There is also this article Raven (mythology) there seems to be a lot of overlap. --345Kai 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed they do overlap. I see no reason there are two articles. They should be merged in my opinion.
- / Mats Halldin (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alternatively, the mythology part of this article (i.e. most of it) could be moved to the "in mythology" article. There is an appropriate category for animals in popular culture but the category legendary birds mostly contains individual birds (such as Hugin and Munin) and I can't find any other suitable mythology-related category. I suggest merging the articles even though mythology is not really "popular culture" and the "in modern literature" section looks much like a trivia section.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - Oppose merger. It's a tough call, but I think these two articles can remain separate. The best part of these "in popular culture" articles is they keep the trivia/junk out of legitimate main articles (no offense to any watchers of this article!). I do agree, however, that there seems to be some competition between the two and relevant information should be in the correct article. --Midnightdreary 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I'd combine these two article and move to Ravens in culture, since surely mythology is also part of culture? Jimfbleak 05:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I'm not getting wiser here. Maybe I'll give it a try to relocate the mythology-related content to Raven in mythology (an article which makes sense to me). I'm not sure how many ravens there are in popular culture, but I'm sure we could live with a stub for a while. Don't keep your breath though and please don't hesitate to grab the initiative.
- / Mats Halldin (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oppose merge. 'Raven in mythology' is a very broad, deep topic that is not yet well-represented here (on Wikipedia), and should stay separate. 'Raven in popular culture', like many of its ilk, should be trimmed and incorporated into the main 'raven' article. Anchoress 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I support the merging of the two articles. The Ravens in mythology article seems to merely expand minimally some of the topics in the other article. If someone wishes to expand the Ravens in Mythology article that might work as well, but it seems very brief as it is. Happy Holidays ~Kobbe
[edit] Update
the corresponding page for lion has been renamed Cultural depictions of lions - thus it could be Cultural depictions of ravens and encompass both pop culture, folklore and mythology. What say we all? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. Jimfbleak 09:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
--DATruss 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)In my opinion the use of the word 'myth' should be maintained as it pertains to ravens.
I think its eurocentric to propose this, the impact of "big Raven" on many culture is more similar to what we have as God , elementary power, Good-versus equal. Popular depictions of raven would make no sense at all, although ravens have prehistorically been pictured in this contexts, because every story known over 'the' raven derives from an oral tradition. So yes it is about myths, but no its is not about depictions. These are no depictions of myths, but just the myths as they are. Much less they are contemporain depictions ("popular" i interprete as closer to populist how it is meant in the proposal) sorry to say, i'd guess it just some freak and we get over it soon. Just for your information, storys about ravens would also be made up, but principal legends reoccur in related shapes with different cultures structurally. This suggests actually these myths or legends were hardly used for free interpretation. Even if lions had (or have) such function in eg. african tradition, i am not aware of that and use of the symbol of lions has also in (pre)historic times been more heraldic and fairy tale like, as such it makes more sense to consider lion's "depicted". However i would guess there are a few myths about lions as well that would not warrant the merge (to old, essential, influential and/or widespread).77.251.188.67 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge I don't get what your saying, Cultural Depictions covers myths, believes, stories and faery tales, old and new, what is wrong with that? The only thing to lose in such a move would be a loss of disorganization and multiple articles saying the same thing, doesn't it make sense to have Native American stories of Ravens and Crows next Huginn and Muninn and whatever role they might of played in Baba Yaga or The Hobbit, nstead of looking across 2 or 3 articles to find them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Merge They're the same topic, and a president has already been set for title, as mentioned by Corvus. I'd personally prefer for the title to be Cultural depictions of Crows and Ravens since they're sometimes used interchangeably, but are different animals. Plcoffey 13:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

