Talk:Querquetulanae

RFV discussion: June–July 2021
In governing the inclusion of "mythological creatures" and such, WT:CFI stipulates that "Names of fictional people and places are subject to the WT:CFI section of this page." Thus, for this English entry to be included, the name must be "used out of context in an attributive sense". However, most of the hits on Google Books, excluding those that mention the fiction universe of Roman mythology, are in Latin or, for those that are in English, use this name within a Latin phrase like Nymphae Querquetulanae or Festus sub Querquetulanae. If this does pass, it would be instructive to understand how. DAVilla 02:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret the use of “fictional universe” in that criterion as being a universe created in a work of fiction, such as a novel, film, or video game. Ovid’s ' and Virgil’s ' are works of fiction, but I do not consider a mythology as a whole a “work of fiction”. Otherwise, would be next, or perhaps only after ,  and .  --Lambiam 11:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have misstated that Roman mythology as a whole is a work of fiction. You are correct, it is not a single work, much as fan fiction is neither considered the same work of fiction as the original. But the fictional universes criteria apply so strictly that none of the fan fiction can be used as citation. The same rules applied to Ovid or Virgil would imply that any similar works or discussion are references to it. That's why I assumed citations would have to be independent of Roman mythology altogether. If I'm wrong about that, then this is clearly widespread enough to pass. More importantly, I would want to know how it is I'm wrong, so that we can correctly apply the rules to fan fiction.
 * Even independent of any other references to mythology, Zeus can be cited very easily. I would consider it disruptive behavior to nominate it, but in my opinion the rules should apply. It would raise much more of a quarrel to try to insist that a religious deity is fictional, and my purpose here is not to start a controversy like that. Regardless, I believe that under such rules, the terms you list would pass fairly easily as well, don't you agree?
 * If at the end of the day we're going to decide that the rules apply to terms we don't like and not to terms we do, then we haven't really done a good job of discerning in any objective way what should or shouldn't be included. DAVilla 03:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As an example, take the term Murtlap. In the beginning, there was a void. Then created the, and the fandom saw it was good. And ג'ן said, “Let there be Murtlaps, from which Hermione can prepare Murtlap Essence to soothe Harry’s wound”, and behold!, Murtlaps sprang into being and could be found crawling all over the Potterverse. All uses of the term murtlap are references that can be traced back to an imaginary universe created in a work of fiction – not fiction in the mind of a sceptic, but fiction in the mind of its creator, and recognized as such by the fans.  --Lambiam 11:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The foolishness never ends. DAVilla 23:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lambiam, (older) religons/mythologies are not what the "fictional universe" criterion is about. New "mythologies", especially ones that originate in works of fiction (e.g. by L. Ron H.), may be different (although we do have entries on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn). We show this kind of distinction in other cases, too, e.g. we have Iliad and not Knitting for Dummies; we have Ecclesiastes and Quran and we deleted Talk:Pearl of Great Price and Talk:Liber AL vel Legis. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)