Talk:Lists of legendary creatures

Why is this all mixed up?

The overall list includes deities, animal symbols which were never believed to be real things, cryptids, angels, demons, spirits, undead, a real natural and mundane bird, and a city whose page is a stub containing nothing more than a statement that it is a city with a map showing its location. Almost nothing on the list would be a "creature" by my understanding. (In particular, I don't think undead would count at all- they're dead. Creature implies it is a living animal. Spirits, ghosts, zombies, and the like, probably shouldn't be on this list.) Also, many of the deific beings listed are currently worshiped to this day, they are part of rich, complex, and CURRENT religious communities! I think their inclusion here as "creatures" would be mildly offensive to anyone from one of these faiths. Furthermore, including religious entities like Zeus as being equivalent to "gold-digging ants", which are easily summarized as an ancient translation error which got repeated for too long, is pretty disrespectful to our own history. You could change the name to "lists of supernatural entities, mythological beings, cryptids, fairytales, and animal-like symbols" but I don't think that would be an especially useful list to anyone. (Which, by the way, is why I have a problem with what the list currently contains). 68.179.88.89 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, many of the entries are alternate names for the same thing and redirect to the same page. Many entries direct the user to a collective page about a given mythology which contains lists of creatures; and some of these do not have the creature under its listed name on them. This is less than helpful, especially as some of those lists then link you to a dedicated page just for that entity! If the entity has its own page, why are we directing users to a general page about the thing's surrounding mythology? 68.179.88.89 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The list also seems to conflate mythical beings and legendary beings as being the same. This would be highly offensive to some people, as legendary implies a thing is blatantly a work of fiction, while mythic implies that it was something people actually believed in. Some people would be offended by you calling their beliefs myths as well, because they can't tolerate their ideas being called anything other than "fact", but that's besides the point. There is an objective difference between a legend and a myth. 68.179.88.89 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up

In the introduction where it says "Creatures of modern invention are not included." I think, should be changed to clarify what is considered modern and in being so are not included on this list. Maybe just "Creatures invented after 1900 (or the 17th century or 11th Century, whatever is accurate) are considered of modern invention and not included. Or, "This list only includes creatures imagined before the 13th century. Something like that. Yes I know I have weird grammar but I don't think I technically made any mistakes. Besides in relation to style.

Also, on the list for 'B', ba is on there. That should probably go under spirits or something like that, since the Egyptians believed that the ba was part of the soul, like the ka (i think) and there were others too, that are probably also on here and should be removed and put elsewhere.

Species or Individual?

I'm noticing a lot of individuals from mythology (such as Aethon and Zeus) in this list. Is it meant to list just legendary species, or both species and individuals? For my part, I think it should just list species, otherwise it can grow out of hand too quickly. Pfhreak 03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cancer

How the hell is Cancer(the disease) a legendary creature?! The link in this article directly links to the article on the disease. Question2 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Feeling stupid. Further research shows nisser to be plural for nisse which is another name for a tomte. I added a listing for nisse with a an indication to see Tomte--Carapowers 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dorson in "A Theory for American Folklore" in American Folklore and the Historian, University of Chicago Press, 1971, makes reference to the Norwegian demonic being the Nisser. Perhaps this creature should be added to the list. --Carapowers 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed Gigantopithecus because I don't think a prehistoric animal belongs on this list. Perhaps Giant Ape or another article would be better for a legendary creature. -- Triple07 2:51 19 Nov 2006.

"List of fictional species" sounds like all the Star Trek races belong here, too? :) -- Timwi 09:40 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes :) Nikola 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't actually being serious about that. I don't think we should combine lists of Star Trek species with things like dragons, werewolves, gryphons or the like. I vote we create a List of Star Trek races (I'm surprised it doesn't already exist) and link to it from here. -- Timwi 13:26 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This content duplicates (in very small part) mythical beast. I think this page should be deleted, but I won't list it on VfD til we hear from the author... --Dante Alighieri 09:50 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, what I wanted is to make a list of all fictional species, mythical or not, of beasts aliens or plants, it's just that mythical ones first came to my mind. As the list gets larger, it would be separated by groups of species. Nikola 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll drop in a few non-mythical ones now to get the ball rolling. --Dante Alighieri 19:21 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Since list of aliens in fiction and list of species in fantasy fiction are already seperate lists, this page's title is now quite misleading. I think list of species in folklore and mythology would be a better title, following the lead of list of giants in folklore and mythology. -Sean 05:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are there any legendary creatures that were proven to exist? I mean were there any that were thought to be mythical but now there officialy exist?

I removed hominids, which are patently not "legendary" creatures.

I’m looking for a mythical creature ... please help :)))

Sorry, but it’s my first time and I wasn’t sure where to post my question so bare with me.

I’m looking for a mythical creature that when killed will reborn stronger and more dangerous thank before. Because of his special ability there wasn’t any creature that can take him and eventually he dies from old age. Thank you,

AdSSonic 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesent the pheonix revive stronger???

Nahual

Should´nt the nahual be on this list????

I think you meant Nahuelito, the argentinian version of Nessie. I added it, by the way. --Apeder 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think they mean the nagual (or however it's spelled), a shapeshifting animal/sorcerer from Mexican folklore. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.

Lizardman

Reptilian Humanoid or lizardman should be on the list. I'll add it now --LizardPariah 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does that show up in actual myth or folklore? The closest thing I can think of is the Draconians, who show up starting in the 1980 -something book Dragons Of Autumn Twilight by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, first book of the Dragonlance chronicles series. Just asking, because I LOVE mythology and folklore, yet I haven't any mentions of a reptilian humanoid or lizardman anywhere besides the above example, which is not myth or folklore, so draconians are not legendary creatures. 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

Legendary Animals, but not Fictional, please

I was annoyed to find 'Orc' on the list. The list is meant to be about Mythological animals, Cryptozoology. Not things in stories. Werewolves are acceptable because people have reported sitings, but nobody believes in orcs.

• "Mythological" creatures are from stories, just not modern stories. When selecting articles for inclusion in the list, I've tried sticking with the definition from the legendary creature article: "A legendary creature is a mythological or folkloric creature (often known as 'fabulous creatures' in historical literature)." Cryptids have been excluded, except in cases where the given cryptid is simply a legendary creature that is still believed in. (This was done partially because cryptids already have their own, rather extensive list, which also includes known hoaxes like the jackalope.) Species from modern fiction, like orcs, are definitely out. Pfhreak (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orc is a word for Goblin in one of the ancient elf languages created by JRR Tolkien. Therefore, it is a modern word of fictional origin which was originally intended (maybe) only to represent the author's intepretation of a real legendary creature. However, through possible misunderstanding or maybe because the word is just really catchy, it infiltrated fantasy-themed games like Runescape and turned itself into a real word. This in modern vocabulary the sord orc can be taken to refer to either Tolkein's Goblin or the real Goblin. Granted, most people think of an Orc as portrayed in said games or literature whenever the topic of conversation concerns Orcs, instead of the actual Goblin which usually does not carry axes as far as I know. I will return with a citation of this etymology as soon as I can find the book I read it in. My point is, just because Orcs are modern doesn't mean they haven't ret-conned themselves into legend in the minds of the less-educated-about-orcs. DR. Tourny (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

God?

God is a legendary creature? Isn't that offensive??

It's also inaccurate... deities have their own list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.53.11 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ringwraiths?

Fictional, not mythical/legendary. I'm deleting this entry because it's ridiculous and just links to the Tolkien writings and what not. Stupid.

• For similar reasons, I'm removing the Acromantula item. A general cleanup to remove fictional (vs legendary) creatures might be in order. Pfhreak 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dabah, Gog and Magog

Gog and Magog and Dabah are (Islamic?) legendary creatures but they are not in the list. Mussav (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Gog and Magog have been added in their usage as giants that protect London. Their original usage in the scriptures of the Abrahmic religions are as tribes, not creatures. Dabah doesn't have an article, so it shouldn't be included at this time. (The list is long enough as it is, without including creatures that don't even have an article to link to.) Pfhreak (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannibal

Cannibal means that they eat their own kind. Someone seems to be using that term to mean that it eats humans, which is incorrect unless the eater is human. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• My mistake. All the incorrect uses of "cannibal" should be fixed now. Pfhreak (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orc, lich, and other modern fantasy archetypes

From the Orc article: "Orc (OR'k) is a word used to refer to various tough and warlike humanoid creatures in various fantasy settings, appearing originally in the stories of Middle-earth written by J. R. R. Tolkien and derivative fictions." The green skin is an even more recent innovation. Ork, on the other hand, is from the legends of Tyrol. Pfhreak (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The lich, another fantasy archetype, is from an archaic word for "corpse", and is also not present in legends. Its use as an undead sorcerer appears to begin with D&D. Pfhreak (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the old legends of Beowulf (film and game was made on them) there are "ylfe" (elves) and "orcneas" (ORCS). And one more thing. Why there are no gnolls on the list? <<Zu-Ben>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.89.208 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Probably because gnolls are FICTIONAL, created for the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. I don't know the exact origination of the term "gnoll", but I'm guessing it's a combination of "gnome" and "troll". Fictional does not equal mythical; fictional creatures have known creators and are used solely for entertainment purposes, while mythical/legendary creatures have no one certain person as their creator because they have been built up by word-of-mouth tales through more than one generation and mythical creatures embody moral/personal/spiritual lessons or teach why the world is the way it exists today. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.

• Elfs are on the list because there are legends about them. OE "orcnéas" has nothing to do with the post-Tolkien usage in fantasy fiction (race of savage — usually green-skinned — humanoids) — and Tolkien himself claimed he picked the word because it sounded right, not for any etymological reasons. Gnolls are a D&D invention, based on "gnoles", themselves created for Lord Dunsany's fiction. There's a perfectly useful List of species in fantasy fiction for these races, they don't need to be added to the List of legendary creatures when they're not legendary. Pfhreak (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• A gnoll, just so you know, as of Forgotten Realms (DnD) and World Of Warcraft is basically a hyena-like humanoid creature (like a tabaxi- kind of) that is also normally evil. Definitely should not be on a list of mythical/legendary/etc creatures.75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

Pegasus as Progenitor?

I have an issue with excluding Pegasus on the basis that he is a "progenitor". Pegasus is a unique, one-of-a-kind creature from Greco-Roman mythology. He is not the father of any other winged horses, except perhaps in modern pop culture. There are, however, two distinct winged horses also from Greco-Roman mythology: Arion, the winged stallion who can speak the human language and was born to Poseidon and Demeter; and the Pegasi, a race of winged and horned horses discussed by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History. You can look up all three of these creatures on theoi.com, which gives English translations of the exact Greco-Roman texts that mention them. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.

     Same thing here... Just joined wikipedia because of this list.  Even if pegasus was the progenitor (which I doubt), he/it should get a listing.  Why should it be any different that looking Pegasus or pterippus on a normal wiki page?  One is an example of the the other.  Thirdly, on the Pegasus page, it even points out that pteripus is less often used than pterippi.  And BTW, the pterippi comment does not even link here.  First wikipedia post, sorry if I don't get the format right. Also, can someone explain to me why me text isn't wrapping?  Thanks.BandyRat (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Your text isn't wrapping because of the leading spaces, you can replace it with an asterisk to indent. Listing Pegasus alone amongst all winged horses would set a precedence for listing (amongst many, many others) Chiron of the centaurs, or Sutr of the fire giants. The list has gotten enormous (almost 1,240 items) even with a lot of effort to keep the size down. Including non-unique individuals would make it quickly balloon to unmanageable proportions. "Pteripus" is less common than "pterippi" because it's the singular, and most authors use the term to refer to winged horses in the plural. Pfhreak (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry for the confusion, I realize looking at the introduction that I wasn't clear on that point. Pegasus isn't excluded for being the progenitor, he's excluded for not being unique. The Pegasus article at one time made reference to a race of winged horses sired by Pegasus, which is why I excluded him. The article has since been changed, perhaps because of the concerns you raise about the idea of a Pegasus-sired race being the product of pop culture rather than mythology. It does, however, now list two offspring: Celeris and Melanippe, albeit with no information if they were winged as well or continued the lineage. The Arion article doesn't mention anything about wings, just extreme swiftness, speech, and a green mane, which I do think qualifies Arion for this list on his own. I also did a text search for "wing" on the Theoi article for Arion and got nothing. The Pegasus article on the same mentions other winged horses, with no mention of them being descended from Pegasus, so I'll remove the "progenitor" part (especially since it's unnecessary and confusing), but he still seems to just be an especially famous member of a species or class of beings. The Ethiopian Pegasi (winged and horned horses) article on Theoi is interesting, and I'll try to create a corresponding Wikipedia article in the next few days. (If nobody else beats me to it, which I wouldn't mind.) Pfhreak (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Capricorn

So is Capricorn a mythological creature? The seagoat that you commonly seen in the Horscope. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. He is a symbol for the babylonian god Ea, but he is mentioned under "Aigikampoi", goat-fish. As I've been told, Capricorn is never a goat nor a buck, but instead a goat-fish. He have been refered to as Oannes, but I deem it incorrect. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would assume, that if Capricorn was on this list for any reason, it should be marked as a subgroup for something like the hippocampus and not as a separate entity. 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

Faberjacks and Frulubians

Just in case I'm being an idiot (always possible): I recently did some anti-vandal clean up including removing references to Faberjacks and Frulubians from this List of legendary creatures. I want to make sure there really are no such creatures (my brief searching came up pretty dry). If they really exist I'll fix up everything and apologize. -- Quartermaster (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jack-In-Irons.jpg

The image Image:Jack-In-Irons.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page size 110kb

It would be good if someone with a passion for this topic would be able to look to splitting this page up in to several parts. It is way big. Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

113 kb. It won't be hard. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I splat (imaginary strong form preterite for "split") it according to WP:SPLIT and be-bold, because of >113 kb. It took a little while. I'm trying to find some suitable template to mark this page that look exactly as before. Slow-connection surfers might wish to browse the splots (imaginary strong-form substantivation of "split"). ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spirits and Deities

It seems odd that there are spirits and "Deities" in this list. Shouldn't this list be confined to "creature"---i.e., things that were or are supposed by those who believe or believed in them to have physical bodies. Corbmobile (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Jesus had been changed back to "son of Christian god" (or something similar). Don't worry, I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenrules (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, deities definitely go on a different list- not sure if there's one for spirits more specifically or not though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Related Lists

So, I understand the need to nit-pick when it comes to what makes the list and what gets deleted from it, as well as not putting things like people's religion on here so that people don't complain, but after reading through this talk page and learning that cryptids have their own list (I had been under the impression that Cryptids were included because I came across what appeared to be one, the Agogwe), I think it would be nice if links to other related lists. Seeing the links to the list of cryptids and list of deities would definitely clue me in that cryptids and deities weren't supposed to be on the currently viewed list. DR. Tourny (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You were going to make me wait until I'd read the whole list before telling me about the related ones. While this is embarassing to a degree because on a computer you can probably see the whole page without scrolling, I primarily use this page on my iPod. Now the dilemma is whether to break the fundamental laws of wikipedia by making the See Also section not the penultimate section on the page, or find a way to make a mini see also at the top so that innocent smart alecs like myself don't get suckled into stupid talk page posts. DR. Tourny (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Grendel

Should Grendel be added to the "G" list? I guess the question is does the creature have to appear in multiple stories/legends/myths, or just one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthreri (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Best to ask on Talk:List_of_legendary_creatures_(G). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This Is Not a List of Legendary Creatures

This is a list of the letters of the alphabet in order from A to Z.

It does happen to have 26 links to separate pages that list legendary creatures grouped by starting letter, which I suppose shows a good faith effort on the part of some Wikipedians to not make the information the page purports to have completely inaccessible, just frustratingly scattered and time-consuming to access. But really, this is a pretty damn useless page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.26.108 (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SPLIT. But we could rename the page "Lists of Legendary Creatures" EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we might just have to rename the page List of Lists of Legendary Creatures, because that's what it is. 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

"Gravity Falls" is NOT Mythical

This list should be kept as cultural and historical mythical creatures from real places. "United States of North America" is not an official place under contemporary geo-political definition. I deleted "Bill Cypher" and "Demon Caterpillars" because they linked to Gravity Falls references. Go read a copy of Thomas Bulfinch's Mythology, for cryin' out loud.

I'm also dubious of the term "Riva - a wild-eyed creature of the future, sometimes bird". Never heard of this, and I can't find any references to it anywhere else. This should be verified or deleted.Teridactyl (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Teridactyl: I don't see Gravity Falls mentioned on this page at all... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I do see someone added a few things to other subpages, but they've been removed from I can tell. I am adding a few myself, like the hidebehind because they are real folklore critters. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

Lo que sigue es una lista de listas de criaturas legendarias de varios cuentos históricos, folklore, y sagas. Las entradas consisten en criaturas legendarias y únicas, no de individuos particularmente singulares de una especie comúnmente conocida. 186.30.145.36 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)  Not done not English. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

merge

You might want to look at this [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And yet again the same suggestion is being made Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5#Merger_proposal.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: List of cryptids

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose redirecting List of cryptids to Lists of legendary creatures and merging any relevant content onto the alphabetical pages linked off of this one. The discussion at List of cryptids has, to this date, failed to provide a reliably sourced definition that separates the subjects of the list from other legendary creatures other than the non-notable criteria of one "cryptozoologist". Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• oppose Not all Cryptids are Mythological (in the sense of being from a myth cycle, rather then fictional), and not all Mythological creatures are Cryptids.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Then please provide a reliably sourced definition of cryptid that shows how the creatures in that list page are distinct from legendary creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a discussion for this page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

And how many of the sources for this list call the creatures legendary?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the absence of a reliably sourced definition of cryptid is central to this discussion. In contrast, there are many reliably sourced definitions of legendary creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually it should be the other way around since List of cryptids was created first. And we do have dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of cryptids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. "Legendary" and "mythological" are not at all equivalent. Carlstak (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No? Legendary creature.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Carlstak: your opinion seems ambiguous. Could you clarify? We are discussing a merger of "legendary creatures" and "cryptids", not "mythological creatures". Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was replying to Slatersteven with that comment, but I can see that it looks like a non sequitur. I agree with Simonm223's statement on the "List of cryptids" talk page that that article is useless and superfluous. As he said there, it's "a POV content fork of legendary creatures, for those particular legendary creatures which may be of interest to one subculture mostly residing in the United States." That sums up my position on the merger very well. Carlstak (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually the legendary creatures article may have been the content fork since it was created long after the List of cryptids article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Being created first does not set precedence or priority to a page; Wikipedia is a living document and a new page may very well supersede a later page if it's a better fit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No but WP:CFORK says "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. ", in other words the second article is the content fork, not the article it forks from.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

"The following is a list of lists of legendary creatures, beings and entities from the folklore record.", not all Crytptids are form the folk lore record.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Care to provide an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Alien big cats, there is no real folk lore antecedent.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There is most certainly a folk lore antecedent for giant otherworldly cats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In Scotland, not England. Want another, mothman, of course it all depends on what you mean by folk lore. So do you have a definitive definition?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC).

How is it at all relevant that Cat Sith is from Scottish folklore rather than English folklore? I mean I've heard of that particular fairy myth and I live in Canada, so I'm sure it's in the general British popular consciousness, even if you weren't aware of it. The point is that there is a folkloric antecedent for alien giant cats. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed quite common to encounter folklore about panthers or other cats said to be outside of their range (many readers will have encountered this—discussion about phantom big cats said to be in a location where they shouldn't be—themselves at some point in their lives). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We has this in Connecticut. Finally, a mountain lion got run over on the highway. [2] Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Because it is not a traditional English folk tale. Because using this argument Hobbits are a folk tale because some culture somewhere has folk tales of short people (and thus should be in these lists). And again I ask for a definition of folk tale.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Cryptids either derive from traditional legends or "modern" urban legends. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Cryptids are creatures from (per Dimadick) traditional or "urban" legends that some people have convinced themselves, without verifiable evidence, are real. - Donald Albury 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per arguments made above. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this was tried at an rfc earlier in the year and those people not discussing should be informed of another rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought it had been tried before with in the last 12 months.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Although no consensus emerged at that discussion, it's pretty clear in the intervening time that those people who opposed the merge have failed to make their argument - that there is any functional difference between cryptids and legendary creatures - despite having seven months in which to do so. If you can't provide a single reliable source distinguishing this group of legendary creatures from other legendary creatures in over half a year it's pretty clear that your argument they were different is not based in anything Wikipedia can use but rather on a fondness for the subject material. WP:ILIKEIT applies. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

So, they should still be pinged.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support based on the arguments made above. Seems pretty clear to me that this should have happened a while ago. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As per previous attempts to merge this with the myth/legendary list, seem way too pointless as there is a clear difference between the two. Merging this with the other is just wishful thinking... Don't even know why there are still attempts to do this. The past 20 or so times that this failed, users clearly decided not to merge it all the time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Could you please spell out what the clear difference is? What is the criteria to decide which list an item belongs to? Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of meat puppetry and response - off topic - please discuss elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Readers might want to note this user's off-site posts on drawing more cryptozoologists into this topic, such as this one.) :bloodofox: (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Paleface, this was unacceptable. Canvasing is against the rules. And bloodfox, this comes a bit too close to outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Steven, thank you for your concern. It's not outing if a user has the same handle on this site and another site. As for the canvassing, Paleface was asking for people to help improve articles. As long as they are not asking people to come vote, it's more or less ok. Wikipedia welcomes all new editors who come here to improve articles. We even welcome people who come here (like me) with other ideas. My first edit was to add link spam, was reverted and I got a warning. I eventually become a constructive editor. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC) You neglect to mention that Paleface Jack was actively soliciting cryptid fans at that site to edit "cryptozoology-related" articles on WP to counter changes to those articles made by an editor here. I quote: "We recently had an editor with biased leanings go in and damage the validity of a lot of articles by removing them from Cryptozoology-related categories and reworded them so that they fit with their own opinion on the subject." It's a safe bet that he was was referring to bloodofox, but that's immaterial. Paleface Jack is a crptid enthusiast with a WP account who was recruiting other enthusiasts off-WP to edit these articles. Carlstak (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia's mission is to educate people, to make the world's knowledge available for free. We welcome everybody, especially those who would benefit from what they could learn here. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Yes, that's true, but it's beside the point. Paleface Jack was recruiting Meatpuppets. See Meatpuppetry, which says: " While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Carlstak (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Accusing me of "soliciting cryptid fans" is unacceptable and completely uncalled for. There was a legitimate reasoning behind this and if you look at the discussion I posted, I stated people on the site could help improve such articles. Not "take over them" as some people have claimed. I also clearly stated that in order to work on those articles, they would have to find legitimate and reliable sources that are accepted by Wikipiedia. Make such UNDUE/NAME CALLING accusations is NOT helping anyone. I have been trying to be patient and have ended up defending myself for my actions for a while now and its now starting to to feel like a "ganging up" so to speak (Especially from BloodofFox). As for the "Canvasing" charges against me I have no idea what that is nor do I know that I was doing it. Explaining myself as to why the merge shouldn't happen, I will say this. The BIG difference between legendary, mythological, and cryptozoology is this: Legend and Mythology have no ties to the real world nor do they have any claims of being true (especially mythological figures). Cryptozoology is defined by the purported existence of its subjects (I say the word PURPORTED as they still aren't proven or disproven beyond reasonable doubt). Cryptids tied to urban legends (Melon Heads, Pope Lick Monster, etc.) are clear examples of LEGENDARY (Urban Legend) classification rather than cryptozoological classification as there are no purported sightings. Nessie, Sasquatch, and Yeti are tricky as they appear and ALL categories and thus are more difficult to deal with. My thoughts and suggestions have been this for a while but have never been talked about in great detail by anyone else. Why don't we include thee cryptid/myth/legendary into ALL classifications? The ones that are purported to exist and are also part of mythology should be a part of both WikiProjects (after all, the real animals such as Coyotes, Crows, and Foxes have all been a part of legend/mythology). Putting ONLY the Legendary classification sort of detracts from all the other parts of the article. Now I'm not calling for any sort of legitimization on the Cryptid articles, just for an inclusion from all related articles since most of them are a part of multiple classifications. Hopefully this clarifies my views and standing (I will NOT take any UNDUE accusations nor ANY NAME CALLING from anyone so please don't use this as a platform for slamming other users or POV PUSHING, after all this is an info database).--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support After thinking for a while, I agree that cryptids are "legendary". The only notable difference is that the people who spread the legends are alive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Mythical Legendary and cryptid are not the same. This would be like merging health stories in myths legends with pseudoscientific medicine. They are different things, behave differently, and achieve different effects. Socio-epistemologically, cryptids are somewhat in the middle between myths legends and science. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That isn't at all relevant as this merger addresses lists of legendary creatures rather than list of mythical creatures. As has been mentioned repeatedly, legendary and mythical are not identical. In addition the idea that cryptids are somewhat in the middle between myth and science is patently false, and doing away with this erroneous view is one advantage of this merge. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I meant legendary then. We would still be doing away with the pseudoscientific component of cryptozoology and patently ignoring semantical differences. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Socio-epistemologically, cryptids are somewhat in the middle between legends and science" is not correct. Cryptozoologists draw from legend, and there's nothing scientific about their approach, despite their claims. Folklore studies is the academic discipline that handles folklore, including legend. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that "Socio-epistemologically, cryptids are somewhat in the middle between legends and science" is correct. Legends are symbolic stories and the communities of those who study them (folklorists) do not have an epistemic goal to prove them true. Cryptozoologists, on the other hand, do have a community with claimed epistemic aspirations, and unless they believe in true self-contradictions and in-principle reject any and all empirical evidence, there is something scientific about it, as there is something scientific about knowing what train stations are near your home. Just not enough to make it a science. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We're still in legend territory here, just dressed up in pseudoscientific garb and aggressively anti-academic. Dressing up like Indiana Jones to go chat with a reporter, taking checks from some Young Earth creationist groups, and penning false taxonomies, none of these things divorces any of this from legend. In comparison, legend tripping—which is really what some of these trips to the Congo to hunt for dinosaurs boil down to—is far more common, and is ultimately just as scientific as cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Precisely my point. The pseudoscientific garb and aggressive anti-academic attacks make cryptozoology different from both legend and academic folklorology. Pseudoscience is not just non-science or falsehood, it has its own sphere. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I will start the ball, this is in the order the posted and is not meant to be complete, I should not have to do this.

@Paleface Jack: @Dimadick: @Johnbod: @SilverTiger12: @Galobtter: @Tronvillain: @Hob Gadling: @Rhododendrites:

Not sure if that is all. I got a couple of cut and pastes wrong, so it started to lose order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify past merge discussion participants; if you are going to notify though you had best notify all participants lest it look like canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have notified the ones I could see. If I have missed any it is an accidental oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I double-checked. Looks like you pinged all the participants who hadn't already weighed in here so all good. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It might have been nice for you to have done that before issuing a warning. (not matter how mild).Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please let minor offenses slide. You both seem to be good faith editors. Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A question to those who support this merge, why are there creatures on t he list of Cryptids that do not appear to be in the lists of legendary animals?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the list is incomplete? That is the point for most mergers. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on for a long time (and all that effort), and no one has even bothered to make the two lists the same. So no I do not think "its not complete" is an adequate explanation. If the two lists are merged all those entries will have to be added to the lists.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• If there is a merger, I recommend that any article on List of cryptids be added to Category:Cryptozoology for ease of tracking. Any article that mentions cryptozoology should probably be in this category. Proper categorization should be done before merging! Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is why I think this is a bad idea, people may well want to look up Cryptids.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If the list is merged, I recommend doing two things: 1. Add all of the articles mentioning cryptozoology to the category so they can be tracked and found. 2. Move some of the content to Cryptozoology, especially a summary of each of the most notable cryptids, the top five or six. At some point in the future, if a well-referenced, well-formatted list is constructed within the article, consensus might change and it could be spun off to a make a stand-alone list. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem with this is a huge effort has been made to remove any reference to cryptozoology form many of these articles as its not "real folklore" or some such. Someone reading this [[3]] might well think "I want to know more" and no be able to find out about many of these "cryptids" because we do not discus this aspect of these creatures. Either in the article about them, or a list of them. So what doers the reader do, searches for "Kraken + cryptid" in google and get this [[4]]. His head is filled with half baked nonsense, because we do not give any view (*let alone a balanced one). We must acknowledge that the media is how people find out what to look for, and we must reflect what they are looking for, and inform them about the fact. But that means covering the subject, not pretending it does not exist in the hope it goes away.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the blanket statement, "we must reflect what they are looking for", just as I would disagree with the assertion that a respectable encyclopedia should list every known animé character. The subject is covered under the article "Crytozoology"; an exhaustive list of all such non-existent creatures called "cryptids" is not required for an encyclopedia, especially for such a frivolous reason as appeasing fans of the subject who think it's "fun" to read about them. Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Which was not the reason I gave.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to Fyunck's remarks: "...the topic is fun and able to be sourced", "...Some powerful people don't want you to have the fun of seeing them anymore" and "...there is a different standard being applied here with the fun some of those other article lists give our readers" on the talk page of List of Cryptids. Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Then you should really have replied to him. But (if I may make an assumption about what he means) I do not think he is saying that he wants to appease fans (and more then the list of elves appeases fans), rather that many people may find this fun to read about who may not be fans. This is ancillary to what I said about informing people who have seen this stuff in the media and want to read more. I will add that many people who do not believe in all kinds of things (and may even think they are stupid beyond belief) enjoy reading about other peoples stupidity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not an article is "fun" to read for anyone, regardless of whether or not they're a fan or what they "enjoy reading", should have no bearing whatever on whether or not an article should be part of Wikipedia. It shouldn't even be necessary to say so. Carlstak (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

And yet, time after time here at wikipedia, we do just that with lists and articles. This is just another example of one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is done on WP doesn't mean it should be. Providing "fun" isn't part of the purpose of any credible encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Eh - I would be inclined to support if this seemed less of yet another attempt at deletion by other means, "merging" into an article about which the sourcing matter is more "settled". The last time this was proposed, it was articulated quite explicitly that the cryptids list is all pseudoscience and that "the pseudoscience would not be merged". So I would ask this: could those supporting this provide concrete examples of entries that would be merged into the lists of legendary creatures that would not otherwise be included in the lists of legendary creatures? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- legendary creatures and cryptids may overlap, but are not the same. Legendary creatures is a term that covers a wide variety of imaginary animals; cryptids are animals that are proposed to exist, but have no evidence to support their existence. In addition, cryptids draw enough popular interest to qualify as different. That being said, this list could use significant clean-up.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you a cryptozoologist? "Animals that are proposed to exist, but have no evidence to support their existence" is what cryptozoologists typically present "cryptid" to mean, but the reality is, as academic after academic makes clear, in fact 'any creature that a cryptozoologist decides is a cryptid'. Essentially all extend from legend, except maybe pet stuff like globsters. A legendary creature is, quite plainly, any creature from the folklore genre of legend. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. A "cryptid" is a creature investigated by cryptozoologists, who search for these animals and seek to establish their present-day existence. "Legendary creature", by contrast, is a broad category encompassing fictitious, mythical, and imaginary beings appearing in folklore or literature throughout history. Many cryptids are legendary creatures, but not all legendary creatures are cryptids. Examples of legendary creatures that are not cryptids:
  • Ratatoskr, squirrel that runs up and down the World Tree in Norse mythology
  • Talos, giant bronze automaton said to have patrolled the shores of Crete
  • The Easter Bunny

Tim Smith (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because some legendary creatures are not cryptids it does not follow that some cryptids are not legendary creatures. There's a reason that the proposal is to merge the sub-category into the parent list rather than the other way around. And the Easter Bunny is just as real as Nessie. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but your original argument as nominator was that cryptids couldn't be separated from legendary creatures, due to lack of a reliably sourced definition. But "cryptid" has a reliably sourced definition, namely:

An animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist. — "cryptid, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2018.

Thus, as I said, a "cryptid" is a creature investigated by cryptozoologists, who search for these animals and seek to establish their present-day existence, whereas "legendary creature" is a broad concept encompassing fictitious, mythical, and imaginary beings appearing in folklore or literature throughout history. The examples I gave above make clear that that these two sets are not equal. At most, cryptids are a distinct subset of legendary creatures. But then nothing prevents them from having their own page. Indeed, "legendary creature" is such a broad concept that it already has numerous overlapping subpages, as can be seen at Category:Lists of legendary creatures.

Moreover, based on Google results, "cryptid" (8,000,000 hits) is actually a more notable term than "legendary creature" (4,460,000 hits). Thus, I see no problem in having this as a separate page. Tim Smith (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

By that reasoning, some random guy (like me) can, by calling himself a cryptozoologist, by investigating the Easter Bunny and by seeking to establish its present-day existence, transmogrify it from a legandary creature into a cryptid and thus move it from one Wikipedia list into another. If cryptozoology were are valid field of scholarship routinely accepted at universities, like imaginary-friend-in-the-sky-ology, you would have a point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Hob. Saadly, that is the case. A useful analogy is "alternative" "medicine": "unicorn" horns, something said to come from an animal that in reality only exists in legend, are sold for healing purposes. This automatically turns something from legend into an "alternative" pseudomedicine. What is key to understand is that something, like cryptozoology or "alternative" "medicine" can be pseudoscientific, and still be different from legend, because pseudoscience has its own sphere. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Its been a month now, I think this can be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And we have now hit the two month mark.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A cryptid is not the same as a legendary creature. For instance, if sightings of giant sharks have been alleged throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and such sightings have come under investigation, and information about it published in scientific literature (Does Megalodon Still Live? Alleged Megalodon Sightings That Will Make You Want to Believe Megalodon: Hunting the Hunter Megalodon: Fact Or Fiction? Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters Sasquatch Chupacabras And Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature) then it is a scientific matter, unlike for the dragon. The latter, unlike the shark, is a legendary creature for which no strong scientific evidence exists, isn't it? Leo1pard (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC); edited 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we now close this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Cryptids and legendary creatures are not necessarily equivalent terms. If multiple, independent reliable sources describe a supposed creature as a "cryptid", then I think we should consider it as such. –Matthew - (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.