Before I go much farther, shouldn't we just import Religious figures into this category? Not every mythological character is a religion, but every religion can be called myth. – AT2Howell 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I'm not even sure that every religion can be called myth (Scientology, for example), but certainly not every religious figure is "mythical." Benjamin Sisko isn't a myth (in Trek), and in the real world, no one denies that Jesus Christ existed. --TimPendragon 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
How do we define 'myth'? Do we limit it to ancient stories passed down that may or may not be true? The Emissary was a myth long before Benjamin Sisko came along. The Prophets were myth until the wormhole was discovered, and mythological tales are still told about them on Bajor. Scientology is a modern religion created by a science fiction novelist, and strangely enough is all about aliens. But those people accept this mythos as real stories from long ago. Do we call these beliefs myth? Where is the line drawn? – AT2Howell 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Do we limit it to ancient stories passed down that may or may not be true", sounds about right to me. If a character is a clear figure in a religion, such as Jesus Christ, we should keep it just in religion figures, if they are from a more ambiguous myth or folk tale then they go here. Incidentally the Prophets certainly don’t belong here as the page does not refer to any specific character but a whole a race, a race which may have had a mythology or religion (depending on the point of view) built around them, but one we know are an actual people. --8of5 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Myth comes from the Greek mythos. The most famous myths being Greek and Roman. The Beings exist, yet they are the most famous mythological characters. Where do they go? – AT2Howell 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For the beings I would say they have a strong presence in myth as well as known reality so should be both in the mythological characters section and somewhere under the non-fiction characters too. --8of5 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Kahless the Unforgettable? The man was real, the Klingon's based their culture on him. That book came out a few years ago that explained most of what the Klingon's believe to have been done by Kahless was just myth or misunderstanding. Myth, religious figure, or man? – AT2Howell 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll strike a compromise. The Prophets and Benjamin Sisko are real, the Emissary of the Prophets was a subject of mythology. Does this work for everyone? – AT2Howell 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl was real. He existed as a real thing and as an Aztec myth for a few thousand years. He then was discoved to be real. Myth, God, or man? – AT2Howell 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I really think you're overthinking this issue. Quetzalcoatl belongs in both the mythology category and whatever alien category he would fall into, same for the Greek gods/Beings. Jesus Christ and Benjamin Sisko belong in religious figures. Khaless belongs in myth, religious figures, Klingons, and clones (if there is one). Emissary of the Prophets was the subject of religious prophecy, and AFAIK there were never any "myths or legends" associated with the title because there was no Emissary before The Sisko. Unless some novel or story indicates there was a "labors of the Emissary" kind of myth (or something like that), it should fall into the religion category.
But ultimately, use your common sense, and the answers should apparent. --TimPendragon 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.