Talk:Traditional story

Literature High‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Title

Not totally happy with the title it's ambiguous and excludes several kinds of stories. Alternatives are Myth, legend, fairy tale, fable, and parable, Traditional stories, Folk stories. --Ephilei 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move it to traditional stories, as it's short and the most inclusive among those options. "Folk stories" is too suggestive of folklore only, I think. Others can revert that move or change the title later if they see fit, but I think this will work. And by the way, great idea for an article. I think we've needed something like this for a while. — coel acan — 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about traditional stories, it's about classifications of traditional stories -- and should be so titled. Goldfritha 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with last, the creators' intentions were valid. This is a set index article, a great idea but one that has never gotten far off the ground. Will fix that. JJB 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversimplified

Anything that is so oversimplified that we have to admit to that in the article doesn't belong in the article. Better nothing that something that gives wrong information by oversimplifying matters. Goldfritha 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to argue the point? Out it goes then. Goldfritha 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that was an OR table. JJB 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

more

give me more info. on traditional stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.67.20 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul as set index article

WP:SIA: A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. While the names are not identical here, the rest of the definition applies, just as in (what might be a very similarly structured article) Lie#Classification; all items listed are defined as "traditional story", or a group or study thereof. Other SIA's include [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath] and USS Enterprise. SIA's follow most of the rules of WP:LIST and WP:SUMMARY, with adjustments. I'm starting with a cold merge and then making classifications based on the leads of the summarized articles. JJB 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Redundant contents

How can Popular belief and Popular misconception be among "stories" category. Those should be removed as they do not contain any narration as a base of any story. --SparkleShark (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not for hatnotes; possibly for navbox?

Several of these articles linked back to Traditional story in a hatnote. This violates the hatnote guidelines, so I removed them. However, it may be worth making a navbox for this topic, and adding it to relevant articles. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]