Category talk:Oberon's Children

I almost hate to bring this up because it would require a lot of picky re-formatting. But I'm not sure this category belongs in the Real World Characters category. Naught is apparently made up by Greg W., and Crom-Cruach is clearly pushing it. I'm not sure about Grandmother, though I think she's real. Perhaps we should move the individual characters (except Naught and Crom-Cruach) to the Real World Characters category instead? -- Vaevictis Asmadi 23:26, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Hmm... yes, I agree, if only because Naught complicates things. I don't know what to do with Cromm-Cruach, though. We could go either way with that one. -- Supermorff 11:04, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Agreed, though I've noticed that "real world" here sometimes takes on a different meaning. For example, Avalon is categorized as a "Real World" place by virtue of it's showing up in literature, even though it doesn't fit what most people think of as a real world place. Maybe we should mention on the category pages what we mean by "real world." --Moeen 12:13, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Here, here! Or else call "Real World" something else. Or better still, divide them into TWO categories. "Real World" and some equivalent of "From Literature". -- gdw

It is already specified on the Real World category page, and on Category: Real World Characters.

My feeling about Crom-Cruach is that besides being named after a god, it doesn't have much in common with any real-world legend. But this is only judging by what it says in the Real World Background about the origin of the name. I could be wrong. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 14:27, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

The two category idea is tempting. Although it would really be an equivalent of "From literature, myth or folklore", I guess. Uh... King Arthur? Is he counted as both? Or are we taking a stance on this and saying he's purely folkloric? And when considering beings from "active" religions, not including them in "real world characters" might be considered offensive (although the only such being that I can think of that might count is Coyote). We could split the real world characters category into "Historical characters" (for those that have been verified by record or evidence) and "Characters from blah blah whatever". To be honest, I'm not sure it's worth it, but I'm willing to be overruled. -- Supermorff 09:54, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Historians disagree about King Arthur, and I don't think any of us have the expertise to offer an informed official wiki opinion. I know for certain that Coyote, Raven, and Odin (and other Norse gods) all have people who believe in and worship them -- some Native American nations still have their old religions, and some Pagans specifically worship the Aesir and Vanir. I'm pretty sure the Celtic gods still have worshipers as well, and I've heard rumors that there are even a few surviving Pagan communities who worship the Greek gods. There's also the Holy Grail which I'm sure many Christians believe in. I think that dividing the Real World category would invite too many problems. We can rename it something else, but the main point of it is to gather all the things that the Gargoyles production team didn't invent themselves. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 10:47, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

"Based on Independent Sources" maybe? I realize the name is bound to be awkward, but I always thought Real World Characters was fairly misleading. Grouping Douglas Bader with Oberon and providing no distinction, just seems odd to me.

How about just renaming the category "Historical and Folkloric"? "Historical" would cover anything that existed at some point in time, and "folkloric" would cover whatever is derived from folklore, and we can still include gray areas like "King Arthur" where scholars aren't sure if he was an actual historical figure or an invention of folklore. I think that includes just about everything in the "real world" category. The word "folkloric" is also probably a good alternative to "mythical", since it is broader. Some people might also find the use of thee word "mythical" offensive since modern parlance tends to identify the word "myth" with "falsehood", even though the technical definition of myth doesn't imply that. But that's another story. Anyway, what do you think? --Moeen 12:13, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I'll admit that "Real world characters" is a bit confusing, but I'm not really convinced that any of our alternatives are better. "Characters based on independent sources" is okay, but to me that suggests that characters originated in folklore or literature, but not in history. If we still wanted to split the category, it would be a great name for one of the two, but we're still left with the problem of the dividing line. I think it's the same problem, just from the other end of the spectrum.

"Historical and folkloric characters" solves this problem (and I agree that the word "folkloric" is a decent catch-all term in its connotations at least) but it adds new problems instead. It could mean "Characters from the history or folklore of the Gargoyles universe" rather than "from the history or folklore of the real world". We could go ahead with the change, make the distinction clear in an introductory paragraph, and hope that we don't someday find Prince Malcolm has been added to the category. But if we're doing that then why not keep the slightly confusing name we've got now?

We could make the distinction clear in the name, but that gives us a horribly clunky name: "Real world historical and folkloric characters" or "Real world history and folklore characters". Then would we have to rename "Cat:Real world" to "Cat:Real world history and folklore" as well? And the associated places category?

Then again, maybe it's worth it. What do you think? -- Supermorff 10:11, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I forgot one thing: what about things that exist in the real world now? Are buildings that are still standing considered historical? -- Supermorff 10:18, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

"Folklore" has the same problem as "myth;" the common usage of the word implies that religious figures are objectively fictional. As I said, some of the figures used as Children of Oberon have worshipers in the real world who wouldn't appreciate that. I still much prefer renaming the category instead of trying to set in stone the fuzzy line between objective history and the beliefs of living religions. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 14:29, 10 September 2007 (CDT)