Talk:Mythic creatures/archive 1

Deletion vote

The proposal is to add each section as a section of the main article. See Centaur#Myth, Old Gods#Myth, Elune#Myth, etc. This format will lengthen articles, but it will make it easier add the information generally, and to maintain the sections already in place.

Votes

Delete

1. Delete Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC) - (Nominated)
2. Delete Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC) - (no comment)
3. Delete Bluemalkin (talk) 3:50, 4 January 2009 (EST) - (no comment)
4. Delete User:Ecozonz/Sig 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) - (no comment)
5. Delete Mordsith - (talk|contr) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) - (comment below)

Keep

1. Keep Ithilian Shadowsong (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC) - (no comment)
2. Keep Chovynz (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2009 (+11 GMT) - (It's a good resource and interesting information, even though semi-indirectly related to Warcraft.)

Comments

Unless i am mistaken, there is no other such page that would replace this. Also, it may be useful to keep people understanding what these creatures are like in real life mythology, and could help prevent mistakes concerning mythology and increase understanding, especially as some of the creatures can vary greatly from what is in our real life mythologyWarden Shadowsong (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We would move the relevant information to an inspiration or real-world section in the base articles themselves.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to vote for Keep although it looks scarce on that side. This is a good page because you don't have to clutter the individual pages with all the real world information. You can put all of that here. On the individual pages you could have a sentence then write See: Mythic_creatures_appearing_in_Warcraft. That way they can just read the warcraft info, then if they like the sentence or two about Myths they can further read on this page.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It is not all Greek Mythology.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That was the original purpose, but it's gotten rather out of hand. if we do wind up keeping it, we would need a major overhaul or five. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I say delete this page and move it to their individual pages, although shortened. g0urra[T҂C] 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't shorten all of them. But, yeah. Nobody will ever see this if it isn't moved. - Bluemalkin 3:55, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This page is very informative and a very good resource for people also interested in mythology as well as Warcraft. And if you look at the "Delete" reasoning above: "I hate Greek mythology" is clearly biased and has no place here. "I like turtles" is just random, and has no place here, either. Xavius, the Satyr Lord 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on my above statements, I vote for the two votes I mentioned to be disqualified. Xavius, the Satyr Lord 16:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that those two particular pro-deletion votes should be disqualified.
Farseer Lolotea ● contrib 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 01:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of the (partially inaccurate and first hand research, poorly formatted -- this wiki's color format makes it hard to read large blocks of text I do admit -- and not wikified) descriptions link to wikipedia Articles and mention how it appears in WoW and relate to the differences? Miryuki (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All reset, please vote as you see fit remembering the proposal.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the information would be much more useful on the individual pages. When reading Chimaera I would never know to look for a page about real world mythology unless I was already aware of the relationship. If you want to keep the articles linked together under a "real world mythology" umbrella, maybe we could make a category to that effect? Sort of like Category:Easter eggs -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk about page

Somebody has altered the base mechanics for this page! Wow. If only it were more popular. Thank you Ragestorm. Charred But Alive 11:13, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Oh, I don't know, just a few well-placed links on the right pages, we'll attract readers. --Ragestorm 11:30, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

By the way, I'm seeing creatures without referances or links. Could you please make sure that they are promptly filled and that it doesn't happen again? Charred But Alive 18:25, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

First of all, I'm getting to it, I just need the time to find some poetic references. Second, it's not like the people who read this page are going to have no idea what we're talking about- aside from the more obvious Harry Potter references, Xena was popular enough that most people are going to recognize at least some of these creatures. Third, don't behave like you own this page and are responsible for its upkeep- this is a wiki site, so in a sense every user owns it. And I technically have more responsibility here than you: this page correlates to the lore- the pages my team is responsible for. --Ragestorm 19:28, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

Ah, weel. I just want to keep things confirmed and smooth. Anyone can put a creature here if they have a referance. That's the base rule, and that is here to stay. Besides that, you could make the page pink for all I care.

Please, let's not descend into this. Charred But Alive, you must understand that you cannot be the 'owner' of a page. Of course we will respect your wishes, do not worry about that, but you can't prevent others making changes, even if they do something you feel is wrong =) I do like the idea of the page though, it'll be a very interesting read when it's all filled in! I have a suggestion regarding the links on the creature pages - rather than just saying "See Myth", it might be better to make it more long winded such as "For info on the inspiration for this race, see also Myth]", makes it a bit more intriguing :P -- Kirkburn 08:47, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Well suggested, as always. As for the not-yet filled in, I personally needed to list those while before I forgot. And of course, feel free to add something. --Ragestorm 16:21, 23 June 2006 (EDT)

Recent changes on the page are quite promising, but I raise a question mark over the need for the references to Tolkien. While his work had laid the groundwork for most modern fantasy, by citing him, it implies that his Legendarium is somehow a mythology- as the word "legendarium" implies, there is a distinct difference between his work and the actual mythologies of the world- namely that they weren't designed by a single person. The purpose of this page is to establish knowledge of how these mythological creatures influenced Warcraft, not the relation of Warcraft or mythology to Tolkien. --Ragestorm 20:52, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Basilisk

Note that the warcraft basilisk has six legs instead of being a snake. Charred But Alive 10:36, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

I saw somebody has added an origin to the basilisk, that is that it is hatched from a rooster's egg by a toad. I must point out that this is the origin of the cockatraice, not the basilisk. However, as the cockatriace evolved in herldry from the basilisk, this misunderstanding is understood. The false information will be deleted promptly. Charred But Alive 11:10, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

To be honest I've seen more interprestations of the basilisk than just a "snake" throughout the years, :p... One version was kind of like a lion with a human face, IIRC. I think it was european version from middle ages, as I recall.Baggins 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a Manticore. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gorgon

Only some individuals of the Naga race have snake hair, therfore Gorgons are only specific individuals. Charred But Alive 13:18, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

OK, you've gotta reform your way of doing this- the disclaimers (for lack of a better term) on this talk page should go in the article itself, you need more information than just the same of the species they influenced. And Gorgons influence the naga Sea Witches only- as for the rest, Naga are Naga. --Ragestorm 16:03, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Great Goddess inaccuracy

Hi, I was just looking through the Wiki and I noticed this section, and I have a few problems with it. While I agree that mythology is certainly open to interpretation, the tone of the text indicates that there was some sort of Great Goddess mega-cult that inhabited pre-Christian Eurasia, which is quite untrue. In fact, the only places you'll be seeing that are Neo-Wicca fluffy books and already debunked theories given by Robert Graves and Margaret Murray (this article here on the matter gives a good view on the inaccuracies of the subject, tho' it is a tad snarky). The theory of a Great Mother Goddess and a monotheistic cult panning across Eurasia is not a realistic one and is a relatively new concept (with very very little of it based on actual historical research) that is based mostly in Wicca, not the entirety of Paganism.

I'm not arguing that there is no Great Goddess figures, as the text gives great examples of this: Isis/Aset was one, as well as Rhea, Gaia, and Cybele. The thing is that they did exist in male-centric societies, which were based upon much older myths we have yet to understand. Not all male deities are cruel or want to inspire bloody war, either.

I don't really mean to pick a fight here, its just a slight pet peeve of mine. I just wanted to get this out there for people who edit this article (as I'm relatively new here, I don't want to screw something up!) and have something to take into consideration. Thanks for your time! :) Maice 04:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So get rid of the bias! I'm sure you can discern which is fact from opinion; take a section, edit it, and post it here. Someone will take a look, and help fix it with you. (I'll have a peak at it if you want :) --Sky (talk | con | wh) 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you will forgive my taking the liberty of doing so, I have corrected a strong bias in the section: a statement, as of fact, that goddess-worship absolutely precedes, historically, the notion of a male god. While many people believe this to be so, it is not fact certain at this time; archaelogical records are incomplete, and reputable historians continue to bicker. Tiraline (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Basilisk again...

Well just wanted to know that I have known for a few years that there are two kinds of Basilisks in the overall... the snake ones and the ones that look like cocks with snake and dinosaur and different animal parts. ;) --The Lich King 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of WoW Creatures Taken from RL Mythology

Anglo-Saxon Mythology

• Elf^w
• Goblin
• Wraith
• Wyvern
• Kraken
• Dragon

British Folklore

• Owlman

Celtic Mythology

• Banshee

Chinese Mythology

• Nian

Egyptian Mythology

• Phoenix

French Folklore

• Ogre

Germanic Mythology

• Elf^w
• Imp
• Kobold

Greek Mythology

• Centaur
• Chimera
• Dryad
• Giant^w
• Harpy
• Hydra
• Minotaur
• Satyr
• Siren

Himalayan Folklore

• Yeti

Hindu Religion

• Giant^w
• Naga

Judeo-Christian Religion

• Giant^w
• Golem

Latin American Folklore (Caribbean, Central America & South America)

• Zombie

Medieval European Beastiary and Heraldic Beasts

• Basilisk

Middle Eastern Mythology

• Ghoul
• Roc

Norse Mythology

• Elf^w
• Fenrir
• Giant^w

North American Folklore

• Gremlin
• Wendigo

Scandinavian Mythology

• Elf^w
• Giant^w
• Troll

Tolkien

• Elf^w
• Orc^w

Be careful with that "Judeo-Christian religion" thing. The Golem derives from a non-Bible legend, which Christians and many Jews do not find authoritative; therefore, it falls more appropriately under "Jewish tradition" than "Christian religion". "Giant" is also subject to debate; while Goliath and his relatives, for instance, are widely regarded as having suffered from acromegaly, "nephilim" is not clear, and Bible scholars argue endlessly about what that passage means. In short, Wikipedia is not going to be your best source on this--no offense to this site's owners. Tiraline (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't actually remember who wrote this. I can assure you that it wasn't me. If this page remains (and I think we could do without it), we will continue to sort alphabetically and will use the more appropriate (but possibly more controversial) term "Jewish mythology/legend"--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged, sir. *smile* It's probable that this page could be done away with without causing difficulty, and just confine the correlations to various real-life traditions/myths/legends/whatnot to the appropriate entries. Tiraline (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was an ambitious project to begin with, but I think it's going a bit beyond our scope here. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

I'm going to remove the blank entries in the article itself and keep a list on the talk page. ANyone who feels like researching and then adding those creatures to the articles may do so at their own leisure. Any thoughts? --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 06:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)