Talk:Scáthach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
What is the correct pronunciation of Scathach? Bastie 03:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Depends. In Old Irish it would be "SKAH-thakh" (with "ah" being the long "a" of "father", "kh" being the "ch" in Scottish "loch", capitals representing stress); in Modern Irish it would be "SKAH-hakh". I'll leave the IPA version to someone who knows how to work it. --Nicknack009 12:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Aha, interesting. Thanks. Bastie 14:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Style question here. I had posted a "pop culture references" subsection, but somebody deleted it. I was about to repost it, but it occured to me that there might have been a good reason for its deletion. Is it inappropriate to post that kind of thing?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sociotard (talk • contribs)
- I think that falls under the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.--Cúchullain t/c 19:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
^why? most articles over mythological figures and creatures have sub-sets in them listing their apperances in fiction, music, and other media. (PS)I had also put in a reference to a fictional version which has been deleted.{The Rhuen}
-
- Because it's unencyclopedic. Other articles may have trivia sections, but I don't think they should, and the fact that they do certainly doesn't require this one to follow suit. Additionally, there's trivia and then there's sub trivia- the reference previously added was not actually about the subject of this article, it was about a different character (possibly) named for her in a video game. Other trivia additions in the past included a mention of a non-notable book about her and a mention that she appears in a trading card came (though at least these were about the Irish figure). I don't think any of this belongs in an encyclopedia article, especially when the article's so short as it is.--Cúchullain t/c 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I must disagree with this. an encylopedia's purpose is to display ALL data regarding a subject,including trivial information and use of a mythological character in popular mediums is part of the character. It shows the spread and influence of the character and alternate interpritations of said character. In other words while the main description may be short this should not reflect a lack of influence in popular media by neglecting to show said influence. Also the very fact that EVERY other article about mythological characters shows trivia and their use in other media means that wikipedia has for the most part accepted this practice and this article should follow suit by allowing the sub-set of popular media. After all obscure information is one reason for a site like this to exist at all that allows anyone to alter an article. Information that would be lacking if one were to simply look up the character at a library, by allowing this obscure information wikipedia gives its self a difference that is notable in that it causes one to look up the altered versions as well and see how others have seen the character in the article.
In short: a video-game, movie, comic book, ect.. version so long as its not a full article length and only a foot note should be part of the article. {The Rhuen}
