Because this is the Mythology SE, we need to make sure we have a clear definition of mythology. We talked about this a bit on the Area 51 proposal, but we need to make clear guidelines for mythology.
Here are a few (related) questions that we need to answer:
Okay, I'm going to take a stab at this.
To me, folklore is more localized to one geographic area or span of time, whereas mythology tends to be more encompassing. In addition, mythologies tend to have an overall structure, whereas folklore tends to be mostly composed of independent stories. I don't see a particularly good reason to exclude folklore from the scope of this site, however, because their natures are rather similar. That is, they have a similar "feel", so to speak. The "feel" of being fantastical. So, it's like a particular culture's folklore is a vague mythology that is...less grandiose and overarching than the "traditional" mythologies we think of.
For this, I think it would be useful and good to have a rule of thumb based on notability or similar concept. Skeptics.SE requires that a claim be notable - that is, there is proof the claim was made and that it wasn't just some random guy on the internet. Christianity.SE has something somewhat similar in that questions about denominations or beliefs with little or no external evidence are discouraged. I would say that folklore should be on-topic and in-scope, but that producing a good question should be a little harder and take more work. Questions need to be interesting and at least somewhat objectively answerable.
This aspect of this site's scope is definitely something I can see evolving over time. Also, very relevant Wikipedia page.
Examples:
Okay, I am a moderator on Christianity.SE and I believe that most events spoken of in the Bible actually happened, yet I still believe that Christianity has a mythology. C.S. Lewis calls Christianity a true myth, so I do not believe that mythology has to be considered false, inaccurate, or incorrect. Hence, in my view, all religions have an associated mythology.
My proposal in this regard is that if a question is specifically about a mythological aspect of a religion, then it is in scope for this site. A question about Creationism (especially Young Earth Creationism) would be out of scope for this site, unless it deals specifically with the origin myth aspect of it. I'm not sure how such a question would be worded though.
Also in scope would be comparing, say, the resurrection myth of Jesus Christ with the resurrection myth of Horus. I personally believe the former is true and the latter is false, but I'm still perfectly fine with calling both of them "myths". I think a useful rule of thumb might be if it's in-scope at <Religion>.SE, it's off-topic here.
We should definitely avoid questions of validity. Avoid them like the plague!
Examples:
One big distinction between these is that fiction is considered by few to be true, whereas mythologies typically have adherents that whole-heartedly believe in the stories. If someone's belief system is at least partially not science- or fact-based and they are genuinely and sincerely willing to die for it, there's a pretty good chance that belief system is a religion and/or a mythology. There might be a few such people who would genuinely stake their life on Star Wars being true and factual - of which I am not one (Lord help my unbelief) - but they are few in number and generally not considered to be sane and intelligent. A minor point: there is definitely a Star Wars mythology (feel free to swap in your favorite fictional universe), but it is universally (ha) considered only in an in-universe context, so questions dealing with the Star Wars mythos would go on SciFi.SE and similar StackExchange sites.
In contrast, people lived and died in the context of great mythologies such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Norsemen, to name a few big examples. This is also true of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all sorts of other religions, which adds support to my stance that the mythological aspects of religions should be on-topic for this site.
Meta-questions about fictional mythologies, however, might be on-topic if phrased appropriately. Questions asking about some mythological characteristic of some fictional story, for instance.
Examples:
Should Loch Ness, Bigfoot, and UFOs be considered myths? I would say no. Myths tend to be stories with characters, as far as I can tell. These examples are simply fantastical creatures/entities that are believed to exist by some. Not much more than that. An okay question might be one like: Does <myth> mention what we would now call UFOs? I think it'd be hard to successfully pose a question like that. On top of that, such things tend to be more current, whereas mythologies tend to be more historical/ancient.
Examples:
Addendum: Luna contributed a very good comment:
Re: the last distinction about Nessie, UFOs etc. - it may be worth stating that while folklore is on-topic, cryptozoology is not. So, questions about the legend, story or mythos of Bigfoot might be relevant (I believe there are stories about this creature and similar ones that predate the sightings/discovery obsession), but questions about his existence or sightings would certainly not be.
Folklore = on-topic. Cryptozoology = off-topic.
In summary, the following are on-topic (including but not limited to, and subject to change):
and the following are off-topic (including but not limited to, and subject to change):
As always, please discuss this and your opinions in the comments.
We should definitely avoid questions of validity. Avoid them like the plague! - Exactly. I think that will be the key to success, particularly in those cases where what one group calls "myth" another calls "truth". the last thing we want is a bunch of comments debating whether something is true on a given question or answer.
Apr 29, 2015 at 2:28