Talk:List of legendary creatures by type

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The reasoning for merging List of legendary creatures (LoLC) into List of legendary creatures by type (LoLCbT) is given by User:Dbachmann as "merge: a naked list serves no use, we have categories for that." Although I agree that a naked list serves no use, and the implication that LoLC in its current form is unhelpful, I disagree with the implication that categories are a reasonable substitute for the LoLC, or that merging LoLC into LoLCbT is the solution. The problem with categories as a substitute for alphabetical lists is that categories are naked lists, but also break the list into groups of 200, forcing readers to engage in multiple page-loads as they browse the list. On this point, it would be better to clean up the LoLC to provide clear admissions criteria and short summaries of each creature like the LoLCbT has, thereby fixing the "naked list" problem while avoiding the multiple page-load problem of categories. On the second point (merging LoLC into LoLCbT), I disagree on the grounds that LoLCbT is the least necessary of the two: a list by type is more easily replaced by categories, with the types becoming sub-categories. The two also serve different purposes: a list by type is most useful for those who are specifically browsing by type, while an alphabetical list is most useful for those just browsing. Ultimately, I think LoLC should be kept as a separate entity, but cleaned up. Pfhreak (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, that merging of the two lists would be completely counter-productive, as the two lists exist to serve two different purposes- LoLC is an easily accessible quick-reference, while LoLCbT is more categorised so that, for example, a researcher can investigate the relationship between the mythological creatures within a certain archtype in order to understand their origins. In short, if we were to merge the two then we would not be improving the accessibility of the subject at all, but find ourselves going backwards, simply making it more difficult to learn. If you want an example of how annoying it would be to have the two merged, try searching for List of Pokemon and you will jsut understand the annoying difficulties that Pfhreak is trying to point out. Simply, if you don't like using LoLC then don't, use LoLCbT and press Ctrl+F to find your chosen monster. Dantai_Amakiir

Opposed to merge for reasons stated by others. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why are Myrmidons under arthropods? The Myrmidon page linked to discusses the mythical race of humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.247.86 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information about myth origins and brief description[edit]

So that there is more information than just the creature and what it is associated with. Additionally, pointing out the criptoids from the folklore/mythology.

A lot of work, will do more later. If someone wants to take up and help, they are welcome to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatKord (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted something that should probably be edited. For importance and to make the category easier to find, humanoids should probably be moved up towards the top. Maybe after the specific animal variety things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.167.20 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018[edit]

edit Adding Draconope under the title of darkness Zair Johnson (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Zair Johnson (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: At the moment that article is still in Draft space since the AfC request was declined. If you can work to improve and resubmit the article, this can be reconsidered once the article is moved to a regular encyclopedia article. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit request on 27 December 2018[edit]

edit Please add a link to "Firebird" page in the list of creatures associated with fire. Example:

Please change this:

Fire Cherufe Dragon Ifrit

To this:

Fire Cherufe Dragon Firebird Ifrit 24.127.159.25 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Firebird is a disambiguation page, and the only other possible hits there are closely related to the phoenix, which is already listed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove article issues[edit]

There doesn't seems to be a lot of discussion about why these issues are necessary. For inline citations, it does make some sense, because this list does include a significant amount of extraneous text. I don't think the descriptions are very necessary, but if they are to be kept they should have citations by them, preferably ones that are also in the referenced article. The original research tag is more interesting; since the descriptions should all be borrowed from the articles, there should be no original research unless the articles themselves have original research. If someone could compile a list of these articles, or find an example of original research in the article itself, that would be much appreciated. Theepicosity (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021[edit]

Add Eikþyrnir under Animals, creatures associated with -> Ungulates -> Antelopes and deer. -Samu Karesma (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021[edit]

Hi, can anyone add Indus worm into the list of worms? Thanks Kerostopher (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue found[edit]

Chupacabra is listed under 'Bats' and is described as sometimes having bat-like features.

Chupacabras are most often described as a dog or wolf who tends to suck the blood of livestock (mainly goats and cows), and normally sighted in Texas, south to about Nicaragua, but mainly in Mexico. 164.83.115.244 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)vbdhi (I'm not signed in though)[reply]

Also, the Golden Hind, listed under creatures related to blood, is not related to blood. This should be under Ungulates, Antelopes and Deer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.83.115.244 (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of legendary creatures by type[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of legendary creatures by type's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "tryon":

  • From Agropelter: Tryon, Henry Harrington. Fearsome Critters. (Cornwall, NY: Idlewild Press, 1939)
  • From Dungavenhooter: Tryon, Henry (1939). Fearsome Critters. Cornwall, NY: Idlewild Press. p. 17.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iku-Turso[edit]

What about Iku-Turso (creature)? Its article says "malevolent sea monster in Finnish mythology, best known for appearing in the Kalevala." Is it not legendary? 46.132.3.220 (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_legendary_creatures_by_type&oldid=1218772739"