Talk:Mermaid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Mermaid.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
the fish portal Mermaid appears on The Fish Portal as the "Selected article of the month" for June 2007.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mermaid article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] The Merman's Tailfin

I do not know if anybody asked about this yet, but how is the tailfin of a merman or mermaid alligned? If you were to view a merman from the front, if the tailfin is alligned sideways parallel to the shoulders, it is similar to that of a dolphin. If, however, the tailfin is alligned at right angles with the shoulders, then it is similar to that of a fish. Are there any legends that specify which way the tailfin is alligned?

DaDoc540 04:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen any depiction that shows the fin vertical like a fish, which suggests the dugong/seal origin for the story. KarlM 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In most art the tail is flexible like an EEL and not like a FISH...

[edit] "Completely Safe"

I reverted the last edit. The edit added the following external link at the top of the list:

* Mermaidsthe "Rotten Library's" article covering the symbolism and origins of the mermaid legend - completely safe

I object to the description of it as "completely safe." I would define "completely safe" as being something I wouldn't hesitate to send a young child to. I would not expect such a page to include material like this

"She's naked and continually wet, with long hair and bare breasts, but she lacks the vagina that (perhaps) dominates the dreams of the sex-starved sailors who encounter her..."
    \

mermaids have the bodies of men and the legs and other parts of FISH!!!

"Actual mermaid stories are fascinating for precisely the opposite reason: they're the most complicated form of male sex fantasy. Mermaids are sex objects on prima facie grounds, but they're missing some salient parts below the waist."
"In The Little Mermaid, she trades her tongue for a vagina, but is forced to endure terrible stabbing pains. She also bleeds from her feet when she walks, adding a layer of the ever-popular menstrual theme to an already overcrowded set of symbols."
"dugong, a sea lion species whose females have hooter-like mammary glands ... If the mind-blowingly ugly dugong somehow stimulates your libido ..."

Now, there's nothing wrong with the content. Wikipedia is not "safe," and its links do not need to be safe. But there's something wrong about misrepresentation. If a link says "completely safe," it should resemble that description.

I could have just removed the "completely safe." But I thought the misrepresentation should be noted (in case it becomes a pattern) and others brought in to discuss its re-inclusion. I also object to a mediocre cryptozoological article at the top of the external links, but this is a much lower-order objection. In fact, I wouldn't have changed it just for that; I figure, good references will bubble up and bad ones bubble down over time.

Lectiodifficilior 03:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • I would understand removing the image if you WOULD NOT LIKE or would think that it does not fit there. to avoid "editors war"; If you think that me placing it there is a problem I can email some of my friend and they will place it there(hence it will NOT be listed y the artist; in fact the person who writes from this account and Nick Gabrichidze as physical persona re not necessarily a same person.

The copyright can be changed for "fair use" if it is more convenient. If you feel like IMAGE does not fit there then tell me and I will forget about this page(I am not a this page creator after all and I respect the hard work of people who did create it). Otherwise I will change a copyright status and will place image back there(or someone to do it for me if that bothers you) within a few days OK? Please remember that ADDING content to wikipedia is better then removing staff. May be this on-line encyclopedia seems like full pot for some but believe me some parts of it( and especially visual information) is like desert yet.

Anyway I will do as I wrote; if you have an objection please get back to me, otherwise I will assume that "science is sign of agreement" if it's OK with you

Cheers   
Gabrichidze 1:54, 18 June 2005 (UTC

[edit] Gabrichidze's Mermaids

Image:Murmades.jpg
"Murmades"(Mermaids) the contemporary painting of Nick Gabrichidze

For the umpteenth time I am reverting Nick Gabrichidze's "Mermaids" image (seen to the right); others have done so too. I think the arguments against it are strong, and there are clearly others who feel the same way. I think this imposes a duty on the poster (whom I believe to be the artist) to explain and justify the post. Others should agree or disagree with his reasoning, and some sort of rough consensus be reached.

My arguments against are:

  • I have concerns about self-promotion. It doesn't help that the page Nick Gabrichidze was removed for self-promotion.
  • I have concerns about the image's copyright status, and whether the artist is in fact willing to give up all the rights that GFLD requires.
  • Not just any mermaid image will do. The Gabrichidze image is not famous, universally esteemed, historically interesting or representative. (The current image, with the swimmer is historical and also funny, but I don't think it's necessarily the best image either.)
  • In concert the swimmer and the Gabrichidze image take up a lot of room and move the text around in a very awkward way.

What do other people think? -- User:Lectiodifficilior

For the purposes of use in a Wikipedia article, the issue of copyright status trumps all other points. The artist may if they wish release the jpg scan uploaded here under GFDL or copyright-free-use and still retain copyright to the original and higher resolution versions. However if not, it is inappropriate to an article that already has PD or GFDL images. Non-free images are only reluctantly and conditionally tolerated on Wikipedia when no free image can be located, and may be subject to deletion in the future, especially if there is a free alternative. -- Infrogmation 04:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding my sig; apologies for forgetting. "Trumps" seems a bit strong, but I get your point. In any case, if that issue were to go away I still don't think it deserves to be in the article, let alone at the top. Mermaids on the Web has over 1,300 images, many of them PD and I'd bet half of the others would gladly make their work PD in order to get the promotion that Mermaid offers. Lectiodifficilior

This has never been enforced seriously against a user, but technically he already did license them under the GFDL. By uploading an image that you own, you automatically license it under the GFDL. It says it right there on the upload page. Rhobite 07:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The digital image is released into GFDL

  • The owner of the account is not the creator of the image, thus he cannot release it into GFDL. He claims to be a friend of the painter, and claims that the painter wouldn't mind its inclusion in Wikipedia. While that's very nice, it falls somewhat short of our legal requirements. The image is presently listed on WP:CP for investigation. Radiant_>|< 10:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Following the harsh discussion at [[caucasophobia] and Nick Gabrichidze VfD pages group of our oponents including Radiant began to remove and re-edit all wikipedia content regarding NckGabrichidze,including the images submited for featured picture category and pages they had previusely shown nointerest for. most content is either removed or taged with absolutely inapropriate tags(see caucasophobia decoration or absolutely unacceptable tags of copyright violation) The vandalism in progress will be filed this eve I guess. Gabrichize

You were told to read the wikipedia copyright rules. Obviously you didn't. mikka (t) 8 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

Here I didn't even realize there was a past history with the image here, but I removed it almost immediately when it showed up today, as it frankly looked amateurish to me, isn't famous, didn't really illustrate anything in the article, and had no information about copyright status, etc. It seemed to me someone was trying to put up a painting his or her high school student child had done for class or something. DreamGuy 13:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Is there any information about the origin of the word "Mermaid" ? Is it possible it has a French origin ("Mer" means "Sea" in French) ? It is funny because it looks like the opposite in French : "mermaid" is "sirène" and its pronunciation looks like "sea-rène" (literally like "sea queen", but I don't know if "rène" is a variation of "reine" (queen), this is only a supposition anyway).

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the origin is from Middle English, "mere" for "sea or lake", plus "maid". "Mere", in turn, comes from an Old English word for a small lake, pond, or marsh, from the Proto-Indo-European "mori-". So it's native Anglo-Saxon, not from French, though the appendix of Indo-European roots indicates that the same distantly ancestral root also led to the Latin "mare" from which the French word for "sea" derives, so they are distantly related. As for the French word "sirène", it, like the Spanish "sirena", derives from the Greek word "siren", for a mythical creature whose song is enticing. *Dan* 18:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the origin of the term be on the article page somewhere? Val42 03:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Meermaid" is German for "mermaid". Even though the exact and common used German word for "mermaid" is "Meerjungfrau", one could also say "Meermaid" ("Meer" = sea or ocean ; "Maid" = older German word for girl or woman, still used in Bavaria I think, hehe).

[edit] Production and costumes

A Wikipedia reader sent the following message to the help desk.

I created a section called Productions and Costumes, thinking this was pertinent information that a lot of people look for. If things about Ariel and Madison and the Starbucks Mermaid who are not legendary Mythical characters either can be mentioned on it, why is it that the section on productions (such as people who perform mermaids for the enjoyment of others) and costuming (people who create mermaids for the enjoyment of others) was deleted? The section was open for other productions to be added as well and included one of the top photomanipulation creators of Merfolk.

Please let me know why my information addition to your mermaid related information page was deleted.

I am posting it on his or her behalf.

Capitalistroadster 06:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how no one seems to want to answer this and explaine why my post was taken off, I have decided to join and post on my own behalf.

Could someone explain to me why it is that my section that speaks about costumes and production companies and people who do photomanipulation of mermaids for others got deleted but yet the "Tail Man" can have his own whole page doing nothing but talking about his company and his product that he sells?

I would appreciate a reply. Garnette

[edit] Merfolk Redirect

Why does "merfolk" redirect to this page? Shouldn't Mermaid redirect to the less-specific "Merfolk", where information from both Mermaid and Merman would be merged? Turly-burly 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Performing searches on Google returns the following numbers of results:
  • Mermaid: 5,420,000
  • Merman: 842,000
  • Merfolk: 101,000
I think that most people would be searching for the term "mermaid". Val42 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Reproduction

Can anyone provide clarification in the article on how Mermaids and Mermen sexually reproduce and create off-spring? Do they engage in sexual intercourse similar to humans? or do they spawn like fish? Can a Mermaids only become impregnanted by a merman or can they mate with other species (i.e. humans) and become pregnant? This is a serious question and I would appreciate a serious answer. 68.160.109.172 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the legend. In the one that I've heard, mermaids must seduce a man (human) while she is in human form. This is how little mermaids are made. I haven't heard of anything involving mermen. Val42 07:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mermaid eggs become fish Mermaids bear mermaids as live young

This is just my own opinion... and assumption, as well as logic. Merpeople are like in stories told to be half woman, half dugong or whatever. Then, in certain paintings, they have been known to be like the conjoined leg people. Except the end of the leg where our toes and ankles would be, is actually a fish fin. Therefore they look like they have connected legs until the end of the ankle.

As for sexual reproduction, through this assumption I think it would be that they reproduce as men and women do. Thecutnut (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Or someone's committing bestiality... Thecutnut 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Aquatic Ape"

I removed the section discussing the aquatic ape hypothesis because, well, it was incredibly stupid. No one who took that theory seriously ever thought that it had resulted in merfolk-like characteristics in prehumans. KarlM 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What if somone did take it seriously there are some messed up people out there. By the way I think that mermaids are a bunch of bull crap. 69.214.26.195 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the Aquatic Ape story, but (ask any real anthropologist) HUMANS differ from apes with a reversed pelvis (allows Missionary) bouyant breasts (unlike apes) and hairlessness, PLUS we can swim (Apes can't, they're too dense)

Humans at some point, probably at the same point that African proto-humans feasted on fish and grew HUGE brains, lived in and around the water.

Evolution and creationism aren't exclusive, so keep an open mind, ALL of you.

[edit] Proposed Merges

Mermaid Music is merely more info about mermaids; long, but also messy. Could easily be distilled down to a para here.

Mermaid problem is the same, insofar as it is not a joke. Goldfritha 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be ok with me. (re: Mermaid Music article submitted by me, Robert Mui I will pare it down and place it here if you'd like. Please let me know. I've done what you had suggested. Thanks.

It should be fine, but must be more seriously written, I think... --Neigel von Teighen 10:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think it needs work, but I suggest a section in the mermaid article on mermaid reproduction, and the other article as the main article (as "Popular references on mermaid reproduction" or something like that).Pro bug catcher 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there really enough on "mermaid reproduction" to justify a separate article? Goldfritha 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Note the suggestion I made was an article on "Popular references on [of] mermaid reproduction". For popular references I think so yes. For mermaid reproduction only, either way works for me. It's just that a merge would leave the Mermaid article with too much on reproduction and too much on popular references (all that IMO). Pro bug catcher 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging mermaid music now. Will do mermaid problem when I can hack out the dead wood. 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood

Are Mermaids cold blooded or warm blooded? 151.198.131.83 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what legend you listen to. The only one that I know of that even dealt with this issue is the Charmed episode "A Witch's Tail (Part 1)" that said that mermaids are cold-blooded which is why they can't love. Someone will probably come up with some other examples. Val42 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A question I never thought about! Andersen's tale does not say anything related to that nor the classical legends. In Conrado Nalé Roxlo's drama La cola de la sirena ("The mermaid's tail"), a physician says mermaids would be a teratological deformation of women such that the tale covers a pair of atrophied legs, so, maybe he thought them as being human and, thus, warm-blooded. --Neigel von Teighen 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waterhouse vs. 1921 Cartoon

Which image should be placed at the top of this article: Waterhouse's A mermaid or the 1921 Cartoon? I restored the "original" order (Waterhouse at the top & Cartoon below), but there have been people that seems to like it inverted... What should be done? --Neigel von Teighen 07:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to have both? I am personally a huge fan of the 1921 cartoon and was disapointed to find it missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YesdniL (talk • contribs)

Oh, yes. Let's see: the situation has changed a bit with the new images included... we must see where to put it, maybe delete/move/else another image and presto! Any idea where? But, please, keep Waterhouse where it is... (unless you have a better place to put it... if so, great!) --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No vandalism"

They have erased my paranormal infobox, I made the mistake on 1860 B.C. but I got that from a site that said that(or close to it) but then there is this site named "American Monsters" that said they had been heard from since 5000 B.C. So I was going to make a change, but it was deleted. So I made it again with some changes.

Ender_Wiiggin 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Any box that has an entry "Last Sighted" is clearly unsuitable for an article on an imaginary creature. Goldfritha 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is also under cryptozoology and other groups and is classified as undiscovered animal, due to that other users in wikipedia, are in the cryptozoology group, it says the goal is too provide complete coverage on subjects related to cryptids, by expanding articles on cryptids, and stories about them. This creature is also listed in Cryptid. Ender_Wiiggin 4:15,10 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

OK, but now Waterhouse's painting is gone and the 1921 Cartoon looks pretty bad there. Solutions? --Neigel von Teighen 14:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets just keep the picture there I'll put the waterhouse picture back on the article.

Ender_Wiiggin 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now it looks pretty good! --Neigel von Teighen 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation?

"If mermaids exist it would be hard to catch one due to their intelligence, for science has never managed to get a dead body despite the fact that mermaids are supposed to love hanging about near shore, where capture should be easy and their dead bodies would probably wash onto the beach. If they did exist they would be attacked constantly against underwater predators like sharks, and would probably be living inside sunken ships,if the sunken ship is explored then they would have hidden in the ships closets. Their mates(merman) probably abandon them after mating,like acouple of animals after reproduction."

Considering no one's seen one, and many people don't seriously think mermaids exist, it seems silly to speculate on habitat, predation, mating, and family life. No one reads an article on dragons to find out how they care for their young. I'm going to delete this.-70.21.216.114 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems someone beat me to it. Well I second the removal of the fluff.70.21.216.114 02:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It was good deleted, see WP:OR --Neigel von Teighen 15:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The paranormal info box probably ought to go, too. Under WP:NPOV#Undue weight if nothing else. Goldfritha 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I would go back to this: Waterhouse's painting to the top, 1921 Cartoon either to the bottom or just let it out from the article and, of course, no paranormal infobox. This means, to return the article as it used to be. Anyone has a feeling against it? Or a better idea? --Neigel von Teighen 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the notion. Goldfritha 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I do it, then. --Neigel von Teighen 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, I am supposed to put info boxes on cryptid animals, and this is a cryptid animal.Ender_Wiiggin 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- what evidence do you have that mermaids are widely regarded as cryptids rather than legends? Goldfritha 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, mermaids were never considered as "animals", but rather "rational" beings with a mortal soul. "Cryptids" would be Nessie or Chupacabras. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of Mermaid(cryptozoology) into Mermaid

The other talkpage is here. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mermaid pool painting in movie?

I am trying to identify a movie or tv show I saw when I was very little (Early 80's). Their was a mermaid painted on the bottom of a pool. The pool may have been at a motel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.245.75 (talk • contribs) 14:29, April 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft list

This article is now on the cruft lists started by DreamGuy. See diff. Should we think about splitting off Mermaids in popular culture or some similar article? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. If I understood it well, this guy thinks mermaids are non-fiction??? (why is this topic lastly so plagued with these ideas?). --Neigel von Teighen 10:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To all appearances, yes. Goldfritha 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate having to explain this all the time, but here it goes again:

Folklore, mythology, etc. are nonfiction topics discussing what people actually believed.

Mermaids in movies, stories made up for movies, TV, etc. are fiction and everyone with any sense knows is not true.

Mermaids as folklore is a nonfiction topic. List of fictional mermaids and Mermaids in popular culture are fiction topics. Bunch of trivial mentions of the word mermaid on some videogame, or some RPG that has a mermaid "monster" (gee, wouldn;t that be just about ALL of them? so why need to list them separately?), or some Pokemon or Magic the Gathering card with a mermaid is subtrivial fictioncruft that not only shouldn't even belong in an article specifically about fiction but defnitely should not be on an article about a real nonfcition topic of the history of the legends and folklores and archaic science and etc. of mermaids.

I am discouraged by how many people seem to think that mythology and legends are the same thing as movies and one off TV references and equally deserving of info (or, in fact, less deserving of coverage in the article from the looks of just how much fiction cruft got crammed in here). DreamGuy 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Snort. Writing about fiction is as much non-fiction as writing about folklore, and everyone with any sense knows that.
If you want to assert that folklore is more important than modern fiction, go ahead. But make your case on grounds of noteworthiness or the like, not on this distinction Goldfritha 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't "snort" at me. Writing about nonfiction on an article about a nonfiction topic that happens to show up in some modern fiction is way more encyclopedic than just detailing every single mention in fiction as some list instead of trying to write an actual encyclopedic overview of a fiction topic. See WP:ENC, WP:Listcruft, NP:NOT and pretty all the policies for how this place runs. Not to mention WP:CIVIL for your little snort. 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. What you are talking about is "mythology" as the "science that studies myths", not "mythology" as "collection of myths". It's an old controversy. Of course, the science of myths is non-fiction... is a rather serious and intersting topic. Maybe, we should reword the template to clarify it better, don't you think? --Neigel von Teighen 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A collection of myths is still not fiction, as myths are believed by the culture who holds them and fiction is just something someone created for entertainment purposes that meets completely different needs. But as far as the wording goes, I would welcome any wording on the template that doesn't confuse people, but keep in mind that the template goes on a wide variety of pages and not just mythology articles, so any wording would need to reflect that. DreamGuy 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with saying that something is nonfictional or fictional based on the beliefs of those who tell the tale is that it requires mind-reading. Goldfritha 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Goldfritha, I've changed the {{fictionlist}} template. I think the issue has been solved. --Neigel von Teighen 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed? How?
Put it this way: if you stuck that tag on every article for a novel in Wikipedia, how would anyone argue that it should come off? Those articles are entirely fictional references, and this template declares fictional references are improper to an encylopaedic and academic approach. Goldfritha 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Goldfritha: it also says "An article about a nonfiction topic should only contain fictional references of historic importance so as to not overshadow the main topic. Interesting but not historically significant details should be moved to a separate article (possibly article in fiction or article in popular culture). Mere references unimportant to the overall plot of a work of fiction or trivia, as well as minor examples when more significant ones have already been mentioned, should be deleted."
I think the template is useful: you can't base a non-fictional work as an encylopaedia using fictional references. Mermaids are a non fictional object of study: mythologists study legends about mermaids and references to it should remain as non-fictional as possible. I think these lists must be shortened.
Of course, maybe the template could also be improved and, also, I may be wrong too. I'll think about this a bit more. --Neigel von Teighen 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Neigel, after you've thought about it, you could address the issues that have been raised. Quoting the template doesn't address those issues.
Furthermore, this is not about the abstract usefulness of this template in general. This is about the fittingness of it for this topic. Arguments about the abstract usefulness are inappropirate.
So what that mythologists study some stories about mermaids? Literary critics study other stories about mermaids. Both get filed under non-fiction in any library.
If you want to shorten the lists, you must give a valid reason for it. Goldfritha 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Those arguments are simply false. Fiction is not folklore. Fiction is fiction. Folklore is nonfiction. They are not filed the same by libraries, and even if they were that argument has NOTHING to do with getting this article fixed. Have you ever looked at other articles here about, say Werewolf and Vampire and Medusa and etc. etc.? Once the fiction coverage got to long it was split off into a side topic. Same thing with topics like Jack the Ripper and plenty of others. In most cases looking at the fiction created about any of these encyclopedic topics is COMPLETELY UNRELATED except in the most minor way to what the main article is meant for. If you want all the fiction about mermaids to be on this article and nowhere else, then you need to cut it down by about 98% so it only covers those items notable in an encyclopedic sense to the overall historical topic of mermaids. If you want to be in depth on the fiction it needs to be split off into a new article. That's just how things are done here, and you;d know this if you looked around and listened when people try to explain them to you. DreamGuy 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
After having thought about it, I recognize that you're right. I'll remove the template. (Everything can be solved with a bit of patience, isn't it?). --Neigel von Teighen 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, patience here was getting in the way of solving it, because it just let someone who doesn;t know how Wikipedia works whine and complain until you caved in for no good reason. DreamGuy 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, template removed. Now, I'd like to review the lists with you; there are surely entries we can shorten or delete or whatever... My concern (and DreamGuy's) is that the list is too long. Do you agree? --Neigel von Teighen 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The template is not going to be removed until the problem is fixed. The article is still amazingly filled with god awful fictioncruft. It's horribly bad. That's what the tag was made for. DreamGuy 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck with it, I just split the fiction off into an article myself since waiting around for it to happen wasn;t going anywhere because of a very obstinate editor. Look, even Siren has a Sirens in popular culture article, it's just how things are done. If you want to talk about fictional mermaids you can now go see Mermaids in popular culture and leave this article to the overall topic. If you have a problem with this, please go read WP:ENC and WP:Listcruft before reverting... and if you still feel like reverting, don't bother, because there's absolutely no justification for it and you will never ever prevail under the argument that this article has to be unlike every other article on similar topics just because some editor refuses to appreciate the difference between fiction and nonfiction and an encyclopedia and an indiscriminate listing of trivia. DreamGuy 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article addition

I made an addition that got deleted in the article Mermaid under Artwork. It went something like this:

From a particular point of view, mermaids can also be seen as muses who "sing" to the artist. This can be appreciated in the work of Merrmaidmaker, who uses computers to design fractal mermaids. If you zoom to the image, each part of the whole expresses a different and unique feeling, which when seen completely as a whole mermaid, adds to that mysterious characteristic which defines them.

i added a little more. I made the article because i think the work i do adds to the whole mermaid imagery, and its a good representation of our age, computers, fractals, etc.

I didn't know how else to show the images but to create an entry Merrmaidmaker and in there put the external link to the images, which i have placed on a blog at wordpress.com Then include a link to Merrmaidmaker in the addition i made to the article Mermaid under Artwork.

I want this images to be public domain, but im still learning how that works and making up my mind. for now ive decided to do it like this, which was the recommended option at wikimedia:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

My only intention is to release the images and the new concept of how a mermaid can be understood and depicted in our contemporary society. yes, i am the artist but i don't think that should be a problem. how else could i do it?

I need help on this because i think people will like it.

Thanks in advance.

R (merrmaidmaker)

Merrmaidmaker 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This i put on the user:merrmaidmaker page {{hangon}} this is my first try at wikipedia and im having some problems. the redirect from article Merrmaidmaker to user:merrmaidmaker is appearing by itself, and i think i myself created the user:mermmaidmaker page by mistake when trying to make the merrmaidmaaker article. The reason for the merrmaidmaker article is because i have created an entry in merrmaids/artwork/ and i don't know how to make a link to the images, which i have in a blog but are intended for public domain (im also new with that. i uploaded an image to the commons and labeled it

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

but im not even sure if thats why i intended, i think so, because i want it to be public domain but to retain some rights, at least for people to Know that the original were made by Merrmaidmaker.

Thanks a lot in advance. MM

Merrmaidmaker 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

From your comments, it appears that the problem is WP:OR. You can not put your own thoughts, speculations, or even discoveries on Wikipedia. Goldfritha 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the main problem was WP:SPAM for this "mermaidmaker" thing. DreamGuy 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The split was a grossly improper attempt to shortcut a consensus going against the editor who made it. Goldfritha 01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See last entry in "cruft list" on this page if you have any doubts about the motivation. Goldfritha 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. There's no justification for a merge at all. Give it a rest and stop opposing Wikipedia policy.DreamGuy 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we all three, let's calm down and find for a real solution. Splittings are very common specially on those kind of articles where the risk of listcruft is high. But... is it necessary here? Or should we shorten the list, instead? The {{fictionlist}} template is still bad and offers no solution too... although I like it.
Maybe, we need some external opinions, don't you think? I would list this article at Requests for comment so people can enter the discussion and help us. --Neigel von Teighen 10:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
We already found a real solution, as used by all other articles on this encyclopedia: Splitting the page off, just like you said. Godlfritha for whatever reason is opposed to it, but that's fine, he can't overrule all the policies of this site on a whim. DreamGuy 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

An editor tagged a section of "Mermaids" as having "too many fictional references for a non-fiction topic." When other editors objected to the phrasing, and the discussion was still going on, the editor split off that section without consensus. 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

There are a great many things that could be said about the lists that were included here, but that they were fictional, when mermaids are a non-fictional topic was not a valid reason. (Folklorists write about mermaids, and that's non-fiction; but literary critics write about mermaids, too, and that's non-fiction, too.)

Furthermore, as shown here, (in the second change), [1], DreamGuy's avowed purpose in splitting off the topic was to short-circuit the discussion.

The proper solution is to restore the data, remove the new page, and continue the discussion with valid reasons for what ought to be done with the lists. Goldfritha 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the "In popular culture" section and how to deal with it. DreamGuy wants a separate article to avoid list cruft. Goldfritha wants things back.
I agree with DreamGuy that something must be done with that overlengthy list. I propose to restore data into the article, but shortening the list; if no shortening is possible, a new article "Mermaids in popular media" should be created to avoid having an ever growing list that finally takes the whole article up. --Neigel von Teighen 10:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Neigel, don't try to distract from the problem.
I am perfectly willing to discuss the lists. I said so before DreamGuy's stunt. However, DreamGuy's complaint with the list was specious, and the split was carried out to enforce his complaint. First we merge; then we go on to other issues. But DreamGuy is not entitled to short-circuit a discussion and enforce a specious complaint because the section he complained about has other problems. Goldfritha 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
By "don't try to distract from the problem" you mean "don't confuse me with what I don't want to hear." The complaint was not specious, it is freaking Wikipedia policy. Go read WP:TRIVIA, WP:LISTCRUFT, or WP:ENC sometime, and then take a look at how other articles are handled. What you are arguing here goes completely against everything the whole rest of this website does, not to mention common sense, and now you are wikilawyering to try to ignore all that so you can try to get your way for reasons of personal ego. This is an encyclopedia, not Goldfritha's personal website, so you need to go by the encyclopeia's rules. DreamGuy 12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's merge the lists and discuss it... I don't want to distract, and if I did, please apologize me. --Neigel von Teighen 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the proper solution is NOT to restore the data and remove the new page, as that would be going against all established protocol for how to handle these kinds of pages. They always split the popular culture sections off when they get too large. Any attempt to do so without gong through the proper channels will simply get reverted, so don't bother. If Goldfritha wants to overrule standard procedure on these matters he should take it up with some policy page dealing with these situations and not try to fight it on an a single article level. After all, whatever local consensus he can try to get together cannot overrule the broad consensus already established to make the long line of "__ in fiction" and "___ in popular culture" articles. DreamGuy 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, sadly, there's no guideline that states a "standard" procedure to deal with this, though the one you propose is the most extended. My idea is that we need to save this article from being absorbed by the list and this can be done in two ways: 1) shortening of the list (and that would imply to remerger) or 2) split the article. The problem is that nobody else has responded the RfC and there are no neutral opinions... --Neigel von Teighen 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments Keep seperate. All these vile "in popular culture" articles are just meaningless unencyclopedic lists anyway and the mermaid one is no exception. Tullimonstrum 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South African Belief in Mermaids

South African belief in mermaids did not arrive with the white settlers,the Amapondo [a xhosa tribal branch of the eastern cape] have a strong belief in water spirits,mami wata type figures.Xhosa people like coloureds have some san/khoisan ancestry and may have adopted it from them.So the rock figures may have some deeper symbolism than mere hallucinations suggested by western/academic anthropologists/archaeologists.I'm cape coloured and also of anglo-irish/pondo ancestry - my great grandfather immigrated to pondoland from Ireland in 1912,my father grew up among the AmaPondo.