The atlas connects traditions, texts and works without flattening the differences between documents, testimony and interpretation. Each claim is accompanied by its available reliability level.
An original document consulted directly: a text, record, script or film print.
Avoid“The source proves that the legend is true.”
Prefer“The original document records this wording; it documents the source, not the truth of the account.”
Corroborated by multiple reliable and independent sources.
Avoid“It is certain because it appears in an article.”
Prefer“The information is confirmed by several reliable, independent sources.”
A statement by an author, director or production: reliable as testimony, not as proof.
Avoid“The director proved that the story was authentic.”
Prefer“In an interview, the director said that the story had inspired the film.”
A reasoned connection proposed by scholars or critics, but not confirmed by the creators.
Avoid“The film definitely derives from that text.”
Prefer“A critical reading proposes a link to that text, without direct confirmation from the authors.”
An apparent affinity without evidence of direct derivation.
Avoid“The motif was copied from a specific tradition.”
Prefer“The two versions share some features, but no direct derivation is documented.”
A belief or etymology on which sources disagree.
Avoid“This is the only possible origin of the belief.”
Prefer“The sources offer different accounts; the origin remains disputed.”
A story circulated by publicity or the press without independent corroboration.
Avoid“This film is based on a terrifying legend that really happened.”
Prefer“The film’s publicity attributed the story to a local legend, but no accounts predating its release have been identified.”
A widely circulated claim contradicted by the available sources.
Avoid“The rumour is presented as an established fact.”
Prefer“The available documentation contradicts this claim, which was later repeated in the press.”
Partial information, or information awaiting verification against primary sources.
Avoid“The date and place are definitive.”
Prefer“A secondary source gives the date; the primary document has not been verified.”
An editorial reading, identified explicitly as interpretation.
Avoid“The scene necessarily means this.”
Prefer“The editors read the scene as an allusion to the motif, distinguishing this interpretation from production facts.”
A primary source proves that a statement was made; it does not automatically prove that its content is true. Similarities are not evidence of influence.
Every claim must be traceable to a source, identifiable testimony or an interpretation clearly identified as such.
We prefer precise, measured wording to promotional superlatives or accounts presented as fact without supporting evidence.
When sources disagree, we record the disagreement rather than turning a hypothesis into a single conclusion.
Entries may be updated when new sources, editions or verifiable errors come to light. Substantive revisions are recorded in the entry: what changed, why and on what documentary basis. Incomplete information remains explicitly marked as such pending verification.
A correction does not erase the editorial history of the content: it updates the wording and preserves the context needed to reconstruct the decision.
Films, sources, creatures, motifs, people and places are distinct nodes. Relations state the kind of link—such as adaptation, attribution or resemblance—and have their own reliability level. A relation in the graph is not automatically evidence of influence.
When a relation points to an entry that is not yet published, the graph shows an entry in preparation node. The link remains visible to document the planned structure, but it does not replace a verified entry.