Talk:Artificial mythology

message: What defines the division between "artificial mythology" and "fantasy world"? I understand instinctively that this term applies to Middle Earth and the Cthulhu Mythos, because those are both presented by their authors as alternate mythologies or the real world, and since so much is written about the expanded Star Wars universe and since it took place "a long long time ago" I could see that fitting in too, but what about "future mythologies" like Dune, or the expanded fantasy world of something like Harry Potter, or Wheel of Time, or any of the literally thousands of fantasy worlds that various authors have created? Luvcraft 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused... 

message: Makes sense to me. There's nothing in Mythopoeic literature or Legendarium to set them apart from artificial mythology -- they're just different, more esoteric terms for the same thing -- and both invented (or at least popularized) by the same man. Merging them into this article would enrich it with info that people are not likely to find where it's filed now. --Ben Applegate 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, I don't see a need for an encyclopedia article on "Legendarium." If "legendarium" simply = a mythology that's written down, why not just call it "written mythology?" And if there are examples of "legendariums" that are not artificial, then we should just merge it with mythology. --Ben Applegate 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article on legendarium would probably be sufficient as a Wiktionary entry, since eveything relevant in the way of content is dealt with at Mythopoeic literature or at mythology. But as long as the division of information was clear, I do not think that it would be helpful to merge Mythopoeic literature (which is really a subgenre of modern Fantasy literature) with Artificial mythology, which covers a much broader spectrum from Blake to Ossian, and less directly literary figures such as Wagner. I think "Invented mythology" would be a better name for that article, though. Myopic Bookworm 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: From the definition provided for "legendarium," it seems like it could be just as accurately applied to a real mythology (clearly defined on the mythology page) as a fictional one. As such, it would be very inappropriate to merge it with artificial mythology. Mutant Despot 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, I don't see a need for an encyclopedia article on "Legendarium." If "legendarium" simply = a mythology that's written down, why not just call it "written mythology?" And if there are examples of "legendariums" that are not artificial, then we should just merge it with mythology. --Ben Applegate 13:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article on legendarium would probably be sufficient as a Wiktionary entry, since eveything relevant in the way of content is dealt with at Mythopoeic literature or at mythology. But as long as the division of information was clear, I do not think that it would be helpful to merge Mythopoeic literature (which is really a subgenre of modern Fantasy literature) with Artificial mythology, which covers a much broader spectrum from Blake to Ossian, and less directly literary figures such as Wagner. I think "Invented mythology" would be a better name for that article, though. Myopic Bookworm 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope