| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Folklore article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
This article links to one or more _target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Requesting wider attention
editI felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.
Posting message here too for neutrality sake
Thanks and greetings
Redundant
editAll too much of this article mirrors content in Folklore studies and seems to be less about the subject of Folklore itself than what folklorists think about it and its importance, starting with the "Overview". Some of this should be cut and the article focused more on the subject than those who study it. Manannan67 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Manannan67: I tend to agree. On the whole, the article is far too long-winded and non-encyclopedic in style. I also object to the overuse of bold to pick out specific keywords, which is certainly not recommended – MOS:NOBOLD clearly states that italics are the preferred option. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Massive recent change
editRegine April B. Lausan made a sweeping-change edit [1], with an edit summary stating "I have added some customary lores, added some on the history of folk, added references for further reading and lastly paraphrased some." But this added no new sources at all, just two "External links" entries (one an organization homepage, the other a reading list; neither them are usable in the article as sources of any kind); removed a lot of sources and material cited to them; removed numerous citations while curiously leaving material reliant upon them alone otherwise; added a large number of claims and new lists (misformatted as blocks of one-line paragraphs) based on those claims, without any sources for any of it; and drastically changed the nature of several sections. The only kinda-constructive thing I can see in any of that was removing the unnecessarily detailed paragraph about Ireland in particular, which really doesn't belong in this article. Many of the new claims do not appear to be wrong on a cursory examination, but this is an encyclopedia, not someone's blog, and they don't get to just write what's on their mind without backing it up, much less also get to do violence to well-cited material already present.
If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'm of a mind to revert this completely, unless someone has good reasons not to (e.g. evidence that the removed sources were faulty) and is prepared to properly source everything added in the new version, and defend (one by one) the sourced statements that were deleted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Since no explanation or defense of these changes has been forthcoming I have reverted them [2]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Who is Aladdin
editFully details 117.53.41.26 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikiproject
editWould anyone be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)