Estvyk
Since: Apr, 2011
Nov 25th 2022 at 8:33:27 PM
•••
Yeah it is unclear. For me, the phrasing "referenced by" feels like it should be more "nod" or "Shout-Out" than "adaptation". For instance, calling a super baseball bat "Excalibat" has happened in various media. But then Excalibur has its own page where that wouldn't fit. What to do?
Edited by Estvyk
Estvyk
Since: Apr, 2011
Sep 6th 2022 at 4:41:53 PM
•••
How or where do you draw the line between modern stuff that appears in the main Myth namespace vs the ones that appear in this Referenced By section? If it were up to me I guess stuff where Arthurian characters are major characters, or the major part of the plot if not all of it is Arthurian-based, could go in main. Stuff where the Arthurian stuff is more of in the background or part of the world-building could maybe go in Referenced By.
I understand the logic of placing the other appearances not in the 'canon' in a Referenced By page - the Main page was getting way too clunky and bloated, I'll cop to that. But imo the division between 'Media where Arthur/Excalibur/Merlin directly appears' and 'Media where Arthurian elements are only referenced' is unclear to begin with, and in the current system is unclear in its implementation - media where Arthur directly shows up is in the Referenced By section, and the same media is often listed in both categories. I'd suggest moving all of the modern-day Arthurian media to the Referenced By page, or else clearly define what counts as a work featuring the Main trope and what is simply a reference.
Hide / Show Replies