Talk:Core narrative
From NovaRoma
(Difference between revisions)
(About the title.) |
(answer COrdus) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I think 'mythology' might be a more user-friendly title than 'core narrative'. It's more likely to be the sort of thing people type into the search box, and when people see it they're more likely to understand immediately what it is. The fact that some of the stories may be partly or wholly true should, I suggest, not deter us from calling them myths, since that point is already dealt with in the text of the article. Also the use of 'narrative' in the singular implies an internally consistent story, whereas some Roman traditional stories are mutually contradictory (especially where several different stories exist to explain the origin of the same thing, or where essentially the same story is told about several different characters). - [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus|Cordus]] 14:45, 4 September 2007 (CEST) | I think 'mythology' might be a more user-friendly title than 'core narrative'. It's more likely to be the sort of thing people type into the search box, and when people see it they're more likely to understand immediately what it is. The fact that some of the stories may be partly or wholly true should, I suggest, not deter us from calling them myths, since that point is already dealt with in the text of the article. Also the use of 'narrative' in the singular implies an internally consistent story, whereas some Roman traditional stories are mutually contradictory (especially where several different stories exist to explain the origin of the same thing, or where essentially the same story is told about several different characters). - [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus|Cordus]] 14:45, 4 September 2007 (CEST) | ||
| + | :I puzzled over the title long and hard. I'm using a technical term, from which we should not shy, but to which I am not wedded. The singular is a wiki thing, though, (for ease of linking) and should not imply exclusion of "core narrative'''s'''". "Myths" is a loaded term for some, having had in part rather pejorative meaning in the past. (Implication: "stories not true".) Also, there are many things that one might wish to put under "mythology", (as some would put all of the ''cultus deorum'', perhaps). This article should be restricted to narratives that tend to define who Romans were: tales that were well known then and held up as exemplars. True, they differ in detail, but that simply helps us triangulate in on the main points. Horatius at the bridge may have drowned or not, depending on whom one reads. He always defended the bridge, though. The variation lets us focus on the common elements and argue that those are the important ones, by consensus, so to speak, of the ancients. So what would be included might be subject to debate. I hope so, actually. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :But you are right to think about the search box issue. Redirects are possible, of course. I think I would oppose "Stories that inspired many generations of Romans", not because it fails to be descriptive, but because it is not likely to be a useful link. <G> [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 04:53, 5 September 2007 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 02:54, 5 September 2007
Title
I think 'mythology' might be a more user-friendly title than 'core narrative'. It's more likely to be the sort of thing people type into the search box, and when people see it they're more likely to understand immediately what it is. The fact that some of the stories may be partly or wholly true should, I suggest, not deter us from calling them myths, since that point is already dealt with in the text of the article. Also the use of 'narrative' in the singular implies an internally consistent story, whereas some Roman traditional stories are mutually contradictory (especially where several different stories exist to explain the origin of the same thing, or where essentially the same story is told about several different characters). - Cordus 14:45, 4 September 2007 (CEST)
- I puzzled over the title long and hard. I'm using a technical term, from which we should not shy, but to which I am not wedded. The singular is a wiki thing, though, (for ease of linking) and should not imply exclusion of "core narratives". "Myths" is a loaded term for some, having had in part rather pejorative meaning in the past. (Implication: "stories not true".) Also, there are many things that one might wish to put under "mythology", (as some would put all of the cultus deorum, perhaps). This article should be restricted to narratives that tend to define who Romans were: tales that were well known then and held up as exemplars. True, they differ in detail, but that simply helps us triangulate in on the main points. Horatius at the bridge may have drowned or not, depending on whom one reads. He always defended the bridge, though. The variation lets us focus on the common elements and argue that those are the important ones, by consensus, so to speak, of the ancients. So what would be included might be subject to debate. I hope so, actually.
- But you are right to think about the search box issue. Redirects are possible, of course. I think I would oppose "Stories that inspired many generations of Romans", not because it fails to be descriptive, but because it is not likely to be a useful link. <G> Agricola 04:53, 5 September 2007 (CEST)
