• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Myth characters with no canon

And what about verses like the SCP foundation where random writers create articles that have little consistent canon? Why is that allowed but urban legends shouldn't be allowed?

Or even Greek mythology. There's the Greek and the Orphic versions and even stories combining the two like the Dionysica. Some gods, like Rhea, are combined with foreign gods and even have different origins depending on the source.

And kramer has a point. Different tribes and culture will usually not have a consistent canon for the same thing. Like the rainbow snake in Dreamtime mythology. the rainbow serpent could be male or female, a giant magical snake or the creator of the universe.
 
SCP has some degree of consistency. It has a website with subdivided canons you can read. For Greek Mythology you can pick up the old texts. For a lot of these there is NO stories.
 
Doesn't some of these profiles have some degree of consistency? When thinking of big foot, I'm assuming you, people in this thread, and many other people including some big foot enthusiasts have an image of a very tall, large, brownish, bipedal ape-like creature that lives in the woods in the U.S. and Canada. People will typically have a common depiction of a creature, monster, spirit, or god within a culture/religion.

And for Greek mythology, a lot of these stories can different greatly from author-to-author, just like the Dionysica, the Argonautica, hymns, and even genealogies. Also, a lot of mythology starts off as oral tradition before they are written down, just like Paul Bunyan. Just because an author wrote down the mythology or the folklore (Which would probably be THEIR version of the mythology or folklore) doesn't necessarily mean it's the go-to canon for the entire mythology.

And I do agree that the older works would be more reliable than newer ones.
 
I am leaning towards agreeing with Votron for now.
 
I should note that simple stories are still stories, so Story Book Fairy Tale characters like the Gingerbread man IMO are fine. I'm also leaning towards Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythology being fine as well. I'm personally neutral for the rest though. Loch Ness Monster for example is actually based on Norse Mythology, so that one looks fine too, but things like Bigfoot is where I'm somewhat iffy.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I should note that simple stories are still stories, so Story Book Fairy Tale characters like the Gingerbread man IMO are fine. I'm also leaning towards Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythology being fine as well. I'm personally neutral for the rest though. Loch Ness Monster for example is actually based on Norse Mythology, so that one looks fine too, but things like Bigfoot is where I'm somewhat iffy.
Click to expand...
yeah been wondering if I could ever have someone restore that profile...
 
It seems like the others are not particularly interested in this topic.
 
Okay. If we would not allow mythology pages without a definable canon, which profiles would have to be removed?
 
 
That is a lot.

I personally do not think that they seem to cause any harm.
 
I would like to know how this effects adding profiles like urban legends, creepypasta, cryptids, ghosts like Annabelle (Based on "real life accounts"), etc.
 
Well, it depends on whether or not the rest of the staff accepts them.
 
Because the SCP foundation has quality control and a group of staff overseeing the pages.
 
I am very uncertain if it is a good idea to start deleting all mythology pages that lack official sources. Wouldn't that include most of them, as they were transmitted via oral tradition, and likely changed a lot along the way?
 
Well, lots of other mythology pages don't, and it seems like a shame to wipe them all out.
 
But even Greek and Nordic have variations depending on the written source. As for wiping them all out, probably should be explained which are ok and which are not. Maybe a page explaining it. Again, if it ends up that the "Mythology" page ends up just having Greek and Nordic then why even have a Mythology page? Wouldn't it be better to simply have two pages so the verses/pantheons can be more explained along with their terminology?
 
Well, I personally think that the mythology pages seem mostly harmless, but other staff members disagree.
 
I don't know. It seems like the mythology pages can remain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top