Creation Edit

I noticed that for the Camelot article we use "Earth settlements", which does not seem like the correct category. It is very debatable that Camelot actually physically existed and it is more part of the Arthurian legends, so calling it an Earth settlement makes it look like a colony on some planet established by Terrans or something. So we need a category called Category:Earth mythology. The King Arthur article also seems awkwardly categorized as "government officials". Again, Arthur was part of the Arthurian legends and not really a government official like Bill Clinton. We need to have a more accurate category for things like that. Note that a lot of the Greek mythology articles such as Achilles (mythology), Hera, etc. could be categorized under "Earth Mythology". Currently they are categorized under "Humans" only. Add Beowulf and Beowulf (poem) to the list. – Distantlycharmed 18:58, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

SupportCleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:01, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

I am bumping this up. It's been up for a while. Distantlycharmed 22:58, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Can we create this category finally? Or can more people bud in and say what they think. The current category at which most of the above mentioned are is just inaccurate and wrong. Distantlycharmed 20:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

I dislike just starting with "Earth mythology". Let's start a level up and do "Mythology". Then we can break that down further if necessary. -- sulfur 22:20, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

How much just pure Mythology do we have? And what would be so horribly bad about Earth Mythology? Isnt it bad enough that half the categories on this site dont match up to what the article really is about? Now you have to go look under Earth Settlement for Camelot? How incompetent. Anyway then just create mythology then, which is far better than the completely inaccurate and misleading category all these things are under now. Distantlycharmed 17:03, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, let me ammend that. Since there are plenty of articles that would fall under the Earth Mythology category, there is no need ot wait to "break down further if necessary. There is no if necessary: it IS necessary. They are not going to stop being Earth Mythologies as we move on. If you find other Mythology (by alien races) then categorize them accordingly. Distantlycharmed 17:08, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that (sulfur's suggestion) is how categorization works best. If we created "Earth mythology", we'd still not have any category for "other mythology" - and if we later create that, we'd need "mythology" as a common super-category, anyway. So, to get an idea for the actual amount of mythology articles that would fall into any specific sub-category, it's best to create the super-category first. That way, we can then decide which ones are sensible and which are not. -- Cid Highwind 17:17, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


For all religious references...Emissary of the Prophets, Pah-wraith, Edo God, etc... --Alan del Beccio 18:45, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Support. -- Cid Highwind 09:04, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Afterlife locations Edit

This would be a subcategory of Category:Religious locations that would neatly sanction of almost all of the metaphysical realms from the more down to Earth articles on temples and churches, and other tangible holy places. Which given that the two groups feel very different in nature seems desirable.

The category would contain Cavern of Despair, Divine Treasury, Gloried Way After, Gre'thor, The Great Forest, Divine Treasury, Happy Hunting Grounds, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, River of Blood, Vault of Eternal Destitution, and of course Sto-vo-kor.

Two further notes: 1) Calling this "Afterlife locations" as opposed to something like simply "afterlives" allows the adding of sub-locations within a larger realm, such as the River of Blood bordering Sto-vo-kor. And 2) one imperfection I admittedly see in this idea is that still doesn't completely split verifiable "real" and visitable locations from metaphysical or mythical ones. There's some, like the Mountains of the Antelope Women or the Garden of Eden, that are not afterlives. I wish a more neat division could be made, but I don't really see a way, especially given there being locations of which we don't even really know what side they would fall on. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:23, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

"Religious locations" was for "real" locations, specifically temples and shrines, not "locations in religion". That didn't translate well to the category description though. The "mythical" ones should be removed from that cat and placed in Category:Fictional locations, eg Shangri-La. That said, if you want to create a "locations in religion" subcat for these, I'm fine with it so long as it's in fictional locations. - Archduk3 06:50, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
How about "religious landmarks" for the "real locations" such as St. Mary's Church, "religious buildings" for church, and "religious locations" remains for afterlife locations like heaven? Calling heaven fictional isn't fair to those who believe in it, like me. Wikipedia categorizes it, among other things, under "afterlife places". Or you could call it "religious realms"? --LauraCC (talk) 17:34, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
How about we be fair and remove the word "religion" entirely and move everything up a category. I don't believe in your particular and personal fairy tails any more than Worf or Quark would. Seriously though, "religion" as a category is mostly redundant since we have mythology and all the "religious" subcats. As for the pages listed here then, "mythological locations" would work for me, since that's more inclusive, and it keeps "religious locations" free for "real" locations.
That said, something as offensively ignorant as what's "fair" to you because of "your beliefs" is not a valid point. In this particular case, you, and your beliefs, are not in-universe, and therefor not relevant here. If you can't separate the subject of "religion" in-universe from your personal religious beliefs in the real world, then don't participate in these discussions. It's not going to go well for you, or anyone for that matter. - Archduk3 06:12, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Laura does illustrate a point in that people adding categories don't go by a some literal guidebook, they look around and see what fits. Some people, due to existing within religious traditions rather then having an outside view of them, just aren't going to make the leap of putting heaven in Category:Fictional locations. So regardless of any logic, a hierarchy that expects people to make a leap that a decent percentage of editors just won't see could do with improvement.
Now the more complicated question is how this system could be improved. I think Laura's proposal for complete balkanization of the category adds too much complexity for too little benefit, so I'm gonna sidestep that one nominally. One problem with putting metaphysical religious locations in fiction is that we don't technically know they don't/never existed. The existence of Sto-vo-kor was notoriously depicted as ambiguous, an undeveloped DS9 ep supposedly even established it as real. And we have no real grounds to state that for example Vorta Vor isn't based on something real, heck in an universe where the Greek gods were aliens for all we know Eden was based on some scifi event too (the devil for one is implied to be real) - from a canon (rather then real world) pov we just don't have any data to say either way.
So in conclusion, while it's a radical solution, in light of all issues raised, I think there's certainly something to be said for eliminating the religion cat and just putting it all in mythology. Heck, most stuff in mythology was once religion as well. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:49, February 26, 2018 (UTC)