Talk:Legendary creature/Archive 1

There's been talk at Talk:Role-playing bestiary about merging this article with monster and role-playing bestiary. Should they be merged, or remain distinct? and if so, what should the title of the merged article be? -- IHCOYC

On a similar note, some distinction should be made between genuinely mythical beasts (i.e. yeti, griffin, sea-monster) and those that were created for purposes of fiction (i.e. Orc, Dwarf, Warg). If we do that, merging the RPG menagerie into this article wouldn't be a problem. -Smack 23:35 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unsorted text
Best not to call legendary creatures "fictional." As article notes, some turn out to be real. Also, it's arguablly not NPOV - some people do believe in unicorns. Snowspinner

i have some questions related to Burma myth.


 * At Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, there's this birdy, beasty, and godly gargoyles:

http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/las_vegas/mandalayluxor.html

is this based on some Burma lore, or just some random design? if lore, who or what are they? (reference appreciated)

thanks.

Xah P0lyglut 16:40, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Shouldn't angels count as legendary creatures too?

I was thinking the same. --Eleassar777 07:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't one differentiate between (roughly) the two categories fabulous creatures and supernatural beings? A griffin or a sea serpent, as far as I can tell, was never believed to be anything but a very odd (and possibly very dangerous) animal living in strange and remote parts of the world, whereas beings such as fairies, nymphs or trolls are connected to folk belief and folk religion. Also, there are genuinely fictional creatures, such as ogres, whom no-one really believed to exist outside of the fairy tales. Salleman 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argentinian Legendary Creatures
The Argentinian Legendary Creatures were added in the wrong area with really bad grammar. I wasn't sure that they actually should have been on this page at all, but I wasn't sure what to do with them. So, I just cleaned it up the best I could. If someone else has a better idea of where they belong, feel free to put them there - thanks. Nortonew 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I put them at Legendary creatures of the Argentine Northwest region. Strange addition, I must say; but I found the works quoted, so it is verifiable and seemingly notable. --Salleman 19:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think angels are mythical creatures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistilarue (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Vandalism
"llama dragons pick their noses as they are also homosexual" was put in page. I'll take it out if nobody minds. -66.204.73.130

"Some creatures, such as the boob monster or the harry dick have their origin in traditional mythology" was put on here I'm changing it back to the article from 29 October 2008, if noone minds -jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.58.143 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just removed a reference to 'Unipolariraffe' in the lead. I'm pretty sure that was vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.82.180 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a dragon!
I've mentioned this on another page. The image of the welsh flag depicts a Griffen, not a Dragon.

Is there any way to change the caption? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tachikoma22 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I changed it now, but you can change the caption yourself by editing the article (just go to the article and click on "Edit this page") and find the correct image tag. There you can change the caption. - Wintran (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is most defiantly a Dragon. If you know anything about Wales you should know that. Check the article Flag of Wales, (etc.) if you don't believe me. --Hibernian 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template anyone?
We need one for legendary creatures. Anyone want to do it? Otherwise I'll have to try myself... Funkynusayri 09:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and/or antisemitism
I am going to remove the passage: "The Liger is another mythical creature. Worshiped by the Jews, the Liger was known for eating the limbs of Romans, hence why it was praised by people of Jewish faith." because it seems like vandalism and I can't find a legitimate source for it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.5.102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Magura-Schendel
Is there a source for the Magura-Schendel? I haven't heard of it, and a search doesnt provide much more than it says here. COuld it be vandalism? 98.109.128.158 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

'Space Aliens'
Should space aliens really be in the Modern Creatures' list of famous examples? The odds are astronomically high that aliens do not exist somewhere in the Universe. Perhaps this should say 'alien visitors' instead and link to the 'Alien Visitation' page which deals with claimed sightings rather than 'Extraterrestrial Life' which deals with the notion of alien life in general? Ƒϰɑϯє (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mythical creatures such as deities, i.e. gods & God
God 1:0 Wikipedia. Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.230.1 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the references, they clearly state that gods are considered mythical creatures. Please do not edit war. Instead, discuss changes here on the talk page. Thanks.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this editing war, but I agree that god should be LEFT OFF this page. It's offensive to many. Please, be respectful of other religions, and just leave it off. Hope this helps. jjwinder9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwinder9 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I will do an edit real quick to remove god(s) from the page. I will leave a note saying "If anyone has any opinions on this, please refer to the talk page. It has been removed due to great offense from many." jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"x is offensive" is not valid criteria for removal on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OFFENSE.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, my addition to the article stopped the war right then and there. It should be left off this thread due to great request too. Please, can we just leave it at this? My note has been left there for future discussion. Thank you. jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to request assistance from other editors on this issue to help resolve the conflict.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

added WP:ANI notice for this dispute here.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting that reddit is just inciting an edit war in the comments here to push their personal agenda. I also don't think gods are typically thought of as legendary but rather mythological creates. However that part is purely my opinion and probably bears little weight on the discussion without further research/sources. 31.19.18.43 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature is synonymous with mythological creature (see first sentence of article), and God and gods play a big role in myths, and all of this is in the cited references. I'm trying to get reddit to help contribute to the article rather than continue to just alter it without explaining their reasons for altering the article here on the talk page--JasonMacker (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the easiest ending of this dispute would be to add another section stating EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL topics, as in God(s), Angels, Demons, Allah, etc. We then delete the God(s) part from the controversial sentence, thus ending the war while leaving both sides satisfied. We can also add a disclaimer to the "Extremely Controversial" section stating something along the terms of that the creatures listed there are not CONFIRMED real, or non-existent. Nobody knows the true answer, but people are suggesting that they should be there, or taken off. It will satisfy both sides... Hopefully. I'm not too experienced in editing, but I will do my best to make this edit to the main article, and I encourage discussion about this idea, and also editing my new section cleaning it up, citing sources, clarifying, and also organizing it better. Hopefully this experiment will end the editing war, and can be used for later discussions/wars on Wikipedia.com. Thank you for your time. jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not an easy end because it is completely unacceptable. What you consider EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL is your opinion. --Onorem♠Dil 01:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Debatable maybe as the new section heading instead?? Also, can someone else create the new section because at this time, I do not have enough time to do so right now. jjwinder9
 * "creatures listed there are not CONFIRMED real, or non-existent. Nobody knows the true answer." -That is the point of the entire article. There is no reason to make God, angels, demons a special case. --Onorem♠Dil 01:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What a bunch of crap all around. When an edit is challenged or rejected either by consensus or an individual and or an edit war starts we go back to the last unchallenged version. A bunch of anonymous editors are manipulating Wikipedia policy for whatever childish reason and editors and admins are wasting time debating nonsense edits. And who cares what is being said on reddit? None of this is helpful at all. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not anonymous (well...I'm no IP and I'm not new around here...) and I don't think these are nonsense edits. --Onorem♠Dil 01:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last revert has it correct: gods would not generally be considered creatures, but creators. I cannot see any of the three references, but I seriously doubt any of the three says that gods are legendary/mythological creatures. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see definition #4, which is the definition most in line with the usage of this article. Gods and "God" (specifically, creatures such as Yahweh, Allah, Elohim, Great Spirit, Ahura Mazda, and so on) are mythological creatures in that they are anthropomorphized characters within creation myths. Please read the references, which clearly recognize that gods are legendary creatures (thus, a single god would also be considered a legendary creature).--JasonMacker (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to reinclude God along with the parentheses'd phrase that went along with it, as well as include Goddess. Both of these are general terms for legendary creatures that are attributed with creating the world as supreme beings in myths.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How about a new section that goes along with "Religious Legendary Creatures and Deities." You can include the Christian God and Jesus, Allah, Greek Mythology (Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Apollo, etc.), Buddha, and other Religious "Higher Beings". It would make this article longer, and provide more information. --jjwinder9 —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed unicorns because it is an offense against my religion to imply they don't exist. No ones even providing proof that they don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this even a discussion? The editor who began this discussion and the chief person arguing in favour of including God in the list has already linked WP:OFFENSE which is extremely clear that offensive material should only be added "if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Given that the list as it stood was perfectly suitable and the list merely claims to be an example rather than comprehensive there is no valid argument that the exclusion of any deity makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for any group to try to push their dogma as these fine folks from the atheism subreddit are attempting to do. -- Masterzora (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now at NPOVN
This is an NPOV issue so I have raised it at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to differentiate between legitimate efforts to improve this article and mass vandalism and edit warring from new IP editors who came here because the page was mentioned on the Reddit atheism subreddit. This page will be semi-protected as soon as an admin gets to the request, and in the meantime I have restored the page to the old revision, as edited by Addbot at 19:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC) -- last version before vandalism and edit warring. This would be a good version to revert to in response to further vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you removed sourced material and restored a nonsense image. I have returned to sourced information back to the article. Please be mindful of not just removed material without regard for improving the article.--JasonMacker (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Usually restoring the last stable version before the attack of the IP editors is a good idea, but looking more carefully, that version was awful. Thanks for undoing my change. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The references provided in the disputed edits (the quote, "I think it can be well argued as a matter of principle that, just as 'biography is about chaps', so mythology is about gods.") are inadequate to justify the inclusion of deities as they do not explicitly discuss deities as legendary creatures; in fact, none of them even mention the word "creature". The inclusion of deities as a form of legendary creature based on those references relies on editorial inference (in other words, original research). Multiple editors have objected to your additions to the article; in my opinion, you should establish consensus here on the talk page before adding them to the article. --Muchness (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. A creature is simply an animate being. A legendary creature is an animate mythological being. And mythology is about gods, meaning mythological beings. Check the other references, they discuss this as well. Myths are "stories about divine beings", in order words mythical creatures. This isn't original research at all, it's simply terminology. They are explicitly mentioned, because it says "mythology is about gods". "god" is the singular of "gods", so that reference is explicitly mentioning gods. The reason why so many random IPs are removing it without bothering to discuss it on the talkpage is because they find it offensive. But that is not a valid criterion for removal. This idea that some supernatural characters in myths are not legendary creatures is silly. What are they then? Is Zeus a legendary creature? How about Poseidon? Nix? Hydra? Yahweh? Allah? Ahura Mazda? Baha? Great Spirit? The correct answer is that all of these are legendary creatures. Just because some people find it offensive that their particular god is considered a legendary creature is not grounds for exclusion from an article.--JasonMacker (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, even ignoring the amounts of OR you need to justify yourself and ignoring the fact that you are using Wikipedia to push your agenda in clear violation of multiple policies and guidelines, the same WP:OFFENSE that you yourself cited tells you not only that offense is a valid criterion for removal but that it is in fact necessary to remove offensive content unless the removal of such leaves the article less informative, relevant, or accurate (which it doesn't) and there is no equally suitable alternative available (and the original list was equally or moreso suitable). Take your dogma war elsewhere. -- Masterzora (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since when were gods creatures? They are usually referred to as beings. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

the three references
I've managed to look at all of two of the references and at least part of the third. I don't see that any of the three supports the thesis that gods are legendary creatures. Bascom's oft-cited distinction between myth, legend, and folklore excludes gods from the latter two categories. The O'Flaherty quote is taken out of context, for she says further along on the same page, "Yet [the gods] are regarded by Hindus as a class of beings by definition totally different fron any other; they are symbols in a way that no human being, however 'archetypal his' life story, can ever be." I cannot read enough of the other citation to be absolutely sure of the direction it takes, but it also is largely devoted to distinguishing between myth, legend, and folklore (I presume along Bascom's lines).

The more telling problem in all of this is that the beings in this category are also often called "legendary beasts" or "mythological creatures". In legend and myth, they are non-human and non-divine; they are animals or sub-human figures. That's why they are creatures and not people or gods. The British folklore book isn't much interested in gods that I can see, and Flaherty makes a sharp distinction between gods and their creations. In Bascom's taxonomy of tales, the main issue is to split out legends from the other two categories; but one reads in vain for talk of either "beasts" or "creatures", though here and there he does talk about animals in passing. It seems to me that in his talk of gods, men, and animals, he treats this distinction as given; he does not, as far as I have read (and I'll admit not having read the whole paper systematically) address a category of legendary/mythological creatures outside the commonplace beasts.

None of these references says anything as plain as "gods are mythical/legendary creatures." there's a great deal of synthesis used to get to that point, which my reading of these references actually seems to argue against. The gods are a category unto themselves, and are not to be confused with cockatrices and trolls. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And ref 4 is to which has used content from this article "Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation." so it needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to mention for instance Greek Gods, I assume not many people will be offended by that. Those who see Gods as mythical creatures, will just see them as an example of a God, while Christians/Muslims etc. will most likely not identify their God with those mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.30.254 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it is not a question of who may or may not be offended. it is a question of the article representing the mainstream (primarily academic, but also popular) conception of "legendary creatures" and then also presenting other notable views in appropriate proportion. The question is, how to determine what those are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not working with the definition?
The article says: "A legendary creature is an animal, especially a nonhuman, whose life is accounted in nonhistorical or yet to be verified stories that sometime involve the supernatural.". God is not an animal, but many of the legendary creatures listed in the list article are not animals as well. One can easily see that the other criteria do fit. We don't need any literature to verify this. As half of the world's population believes in god(s), it must be included as an example. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly because various people have dumped every class of being they consider unscientific into the article regardless of whether they are animals. If we stick with the definition we can (and should) strip out all the spirits (e.g. angels and demons) and stick to the animals. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Manoe. Also, remember that the article never claims to be a comprehensive list of legendary creatures at any point.  Given that we can use plenty of uncontroversial examples without harming the article's accuracy, informativeness, quality, or verifiability (in fact, so far it would help verifiability) it just seems unnecessary to the point of agenda-pushing to list anything controversial. -- Masterzora (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also find Mangoe's argument plausible, but if non-animals would be included in the definition, then how could it weaken the article's accuracy, informativeness, quality or verifiability to mention the most popular mythological creature? Wouldn't it greatly improve them?
 * Furthermore, the fact that the definition of a legendary creature would fit for god if it was not required to be an animal, is not controversial, but can be easily checked: 1) god is a nonhuman 2) god's life is accounted in nonhistorical or yet to be verified stories that sometime involve the supernatural. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * until you begin supplying reliably published sources and can make a plausible argument that they represent the mainstream academic view of "legendary creatures" you are simply wasting your pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At what point did I say it would weaken accuracy, informativeness, quality, or verifiability? I said we could safely exclude "God" and "gods" without harming these things, and this is true.  Until the article claims to be a comprehensive list those entries simply do not add anything to the article except for offending some people and making others feel smug.  While offense is not inherently grounds for exclusion (and, for that matter, neither is smugness), adding offensive or controversial (which doesn't mean untrue, by the way) content should only be done if it is necessary for reasons of accuracy, informativeness, quality, or verifiability (per common sense and WP:OFFENSE).  Until this article claims to be a comprehensive list OR verifiable sources make significant discussion about God or gods as legendary creatures ("significant discussion" meaning more than "saying they are included in the category" though sources seem to be missing for even that) there is simply no good reason to add it except POV. -- Masterzora (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is only your own opinion that these additions would not harm things. You haven't shown any real evidence to support it. Also, there is the question of the use of the word "creature" to describe the monotheistic god, who is generally counted as the "creator", an extremely different philosophical matter, and one which should certainly be addressed first. There is also the point as to whether "god" exists more or less exclusively in myth. The evidence of philosophy in general clearly disagrees, so limiting "god" or "gods" to only myth would itself be not supported by the evidence. I very strongly suggest first that you read WP:POV, WP:OR (considering you haven't really establish the mythical nature of god yet), and WP:SYNTH, which is closely related to it. Second, Lastly, there seem to be several reference books extant regarding the topic of "legendary cratures" (as per here) and "mythical creatures" (as per here). I would suggest that those sources be consulted. Yeah, several of them are for younger audiences, but they can possibly still be used to meet WP:BURDEN, which I also suggest you read. I can and will try in the next few weeks to go through the reference/encyclopedic sources on this topic available to me here, but I have a rather long list of pending books already and I might not get to it in less than a few weeks or months. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that your comment may have been added at the wrong indent level? I do not understand how it applies in reference to my own.  If this was not an error, I think I may require further explanation from you but if it was an error you should rectify this (and delete this comment, since it will then be irrelevant) so as to better facilitate proper discussion. -- Masterzora (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "There is also the point as to whether "god" exists more or less exclusively in myth. The evidence of philosophy in general clearly disagrees" - Are you telling me that you have evidence for god's existence? And that philosophers in general think that god is more than a legendary creature? I would like to see (trustworthy) sources for that. By the way, there are many verifiable sources on that topic, for example Richard Dawkins. He describes the phenomenon of god with respect to reason and evidence, which should be the aim of an encyclopedia too. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a reminder this is NOT a soapbox. It is for discussing what the reliable sources say about the subject of the article and how we can accurately represent them. Any discussion that is not based on actually provided sources can and will be immediately removed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Are you telling me that you have evidence for god's existence?" I don't even see how that's relevant, anyway.  The exclusion of God or gods as an example is in no way a statement of positive existence or, for that matter, a statement of anything.  You do not require sources to not have something on the page; that would be lunacy.  Really, the end-of-the-day thing is this: excluding these examples does not make a statement; including them does make a statement.  Making said statement does not add anything to the article and not making it does not detract from the article.  No sources have been provided to back the statement.  Even if said sources were provided, nobody has put forth any explanation of what said examples add that offset the problems of including the examples. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Article scope
The previous inclusion criteria for this article -- "A legendary creature is a mythological or folkloric creature." -- was unclear. Between legend, which distinguishes legends from fables and myths by requiring the legend stories to be about a life ("Legend originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint") and creature, animal, especially a nonhuman, and reliable source common usage of the term "legendary creature", e.g., Professor Going After Legendary Creature, [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/37930736.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+9%2C+1999&author=ARIZONA+REPUBLIC%3BThomas+Ropp&pub=The+Sun&desc=In+pursuit+of+legendary+creatures%3B+Cryptozoology%3A+Researchers+devote+their+careers+to+discovering+--+or+rediscovering+--+storied+species+from+around+the+world. In pursuit of legendary creatures; Cryptozoology: Researchers devote their careers to discovering -- or rediscovering -- storied species from around the world], Americans begin expedition to find legendary creature, the following is an appropriate lead sentence for the article: "A legendary creature is an animal, especially a nonhuman, whose life is accounted in nonhistorical or yet to be verified stories that sometimes involve the supernatural and are handed down by tradition from earlier times."

-- Jreferee (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Handed down by tradition from earlier times" removal - The article on Bigfoot notes "Wildmen stories are found among the indigenous population of the Pacific Northwest" and the article on Nessie notes that it dates back to Saint Columba (6th century), so both of these are based on information handed down by tradition from earlier times. In any event, the article is about "legendary creature", not the broader "storied creature," so there needs to be some originating time element to the life story and the phrase "and are handed down by tradition from earlier times" seems reasonable. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * as a temporary measure, but what we really need to do is determine what the least WP:ASTONISHing application of the term "legendary creature" refers to and create a lead sentence that reflects the majority of academics position, and then present the other views in appropriate proportion and refer readers to other Wikipedia articles which may better meet their information needs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

the only definition that dictionary.com finds is:  noun  - a monster that is unverifiable but popularly accepted as possibly factual (WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. ) " That would significantly change the scope of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC) and here is what Roget's considers " legendary creatures" - it includes King Kong. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename article to "mythical creatures" so that we can avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR.
The article's scope right now has several problems:


 * Defining legendary creatures explicitly as being animals. This ignores the issue that many legendary creatures are NOT animals, see for example List_of_fictional_plants and Liminal being.


 * Not having sources that actually refer to "legendary creatures". Revamp entirely to include cryptids and deities, by moving the article to Mythical creature. Check out this, which explicitly states "What are mythical creatures?" and answers the question with "magical and menacing animals, monsters, spirits, and gods". This source allows us to have a completely sourced lead sentence, as such:

Mythical creatures or legendary beings are magical animals, monsters, spirits, and gods[1]... blah blah blah...

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature → Mythical creature – My reasons listed in the section above JasonMacker (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose As the source above is being misrepresented. The one line which says "magical and menacing animals, monsters, spirits, and gods". is preceded by "Human imagination has populated the world with a marvelous variety of"
 * Also, do we really think this author a good source? Given her other gems such as Atlas of Lost Cities: Legendary Cities Rediscovered Mermaid Wisdom: Enrich Your Life with Insights from the Deep but see for yourselves Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * the new name does not appear to solve the purported issue. the proposer in the section above cites the fact that "legendary plants" are not technically covered under the current name. They would also be technically excluded from the proposed name, hence, no benefit from the name change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) After extended discussion and lack of evidence that this move will help solve the issues identified,~formally noting my  oppose --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c)but I will agree that "legendary creature" does not appear to be a term that is widely used with a consistent criteria/definition in any academic or even popular published content - and that may be reflective of why the article is in such poor shape. A rename to something that has a more broadly agreed upon usage/definition could very well be helpful. I am just not convinced that Mythical creature is any more consistently defined or less problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Check out this and this, which clearly show that there is an order of magnitude more writing about "mythical creature" as opposed to "legendary creature" (as well as their plurals). I pulled the source from Google Scholar. Most of the other hits on Google Scholar are passing references, or references to specific creatures such as Dragons, Griffins, Bigfoot, and so on as being "mythical creatures" or "legendary creatures". Do you have some sources that I may have missed? As for the new name missing out on plants, that is somewhat true. However, plants can be included under monsters, considering this.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Any ideas then, about what article name we can have besides the current one and my proposal?--JasonMacker (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose with a motion to reconsider at a later date . This page is currently the target of vandalism by an external invasion pushing an agenda.  In fact, the proposer of this change is a member of said invasion who is blatantly disregarding (and even abusing) policies, rules, and guidelines in an attempt to fight a political war that does not belong on Wikipedia and without regard to article quality or accuracy.  This proposal itself is transparently an attempt to name the page in such a way to try to make it acceptable to list "God" and/or "gods" under a term that suggests, but does not mandate, fictionality.  I will not pretend that a biased source cannot propose a good change, which is why this should be reconsidered later, but if it is to be considered it should be done so absent a strong, politically-charged invasion force and it needs to be only considered in terms of article accuracy, quality, and verifiability. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is no longer being targeted for vandalism. But if you look at the article's history, it's clear that those who kept removing sourced information mentioning gods were the vandals. And I'm not a "member of said invasion", in fact I'm the one that sought assistance from WP:ANI to help stop the vandalism in the first place and instead begin the collaborative process of getting input from other users right here on the talk page. Please don't accuse me of "blatantly disregarding (and even abusing) policies, rules, and guidelines...". I'm right here, you know? It's a little rude to say such things. And I am trying to get the input of other editors so that this article can get better. This sort of personal attack where you accuse me of having ulterior motives and bad faith is really unnecessary. In any case, this idea that it should simply be reconsidered at a later date is silly. Why wait until interest in improving the article has died down before improving the article? I don't see what's wrong with striking while the iron is hot.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * it hasnt been the target of vandalism if you only consider the last 20 minutes (and I bet that time frame for being vandal free is only because of the protected status). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, perhaps it is better to say that it is no longer being targeted for vandalism on the same scale as it was yesterday. Even so, it's a good thing it's been protected.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you came here from the Reddit thread with the same agenda as those on the Reddit thread and posted in the Reddit thread with a tip on how to further that agenda. Short of an actual confession, that is as close to proof of you being part of the invading force as can exist.  Your edit to add regarding gods and its relevant "sources" were in violation of WP:NPOV, your sources did not support the edit you were trying to make, failing WP:V, and your attempts to hide behind the same sources with selective interpretation and claim people couldn't remove sourced material was, quite frankly, an abuse of WP:V that the comment you just made is continuing.  Further, you attempted to hide behind WP:OFFENSE despite that same guideline actually supporting the notion that your edit did not belong here.  You claim that I assume bad faith and am am attacking you personally but this is simply untrue.  I assumed good faith until it was evident you were in violation, which is perfectly in line with that policy and, while I will admit my presentation to be imperfect, my claims against you are not without evidence and as such do not constitute a personal attack.  Your violating edits are clearly in the main page's edit history, your other violating statements are on this page.  I have twice pointed out (and twice been ignored) that your attempted defense with WP:OFFENSE worked against you as the policy said the opposite of what you stated, others have already listed the problems with your sources, and the WP:NPOV issue is clear.  I will admit that my statement about your transparent motivations for the name change does not have any explicit evidence in its favour but with your bad faith already established I do not feel that statement to be out of line.  You are correct that, ideally, we would not have to wait to consider this change but given that the "interest for improving the article" is largely coming from and being led by an invasion force with an agenda the wait is appropriate. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't "come here" from the reddit thread. I've already been at Wikipedia for quite some time. And I don't have some "agenda" beyond wanting to improve Wikipedia articles with adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines for writing articles. In any case, all of this speculation on your part regarding my motives and intentions has nothing to do with the subject at hand. How does anything you said provide useful information for improving the article? If you have a problem with me personally then take it up to WP:AN on one of the noticeboards whose purpose is to discuss editors, not here on this article's talk page, which is intended for discussion of the article. You don't see me looking up where you come from and all the previous articles you've edited and speculating on what "agenda" you are pushing, do you? The answer is because I don't care about users, I care about content. And this is a content-dispute. Please contribute to the subject at hand.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You were already a member of Wikipedia, yes, but you came to this page from the Reddit thread. Don't hide behind semantics.  While I do care about the content, it is undeniable that your agenda is relevant to the case at hand.  You provide only two arguments in favour of the move.  First is that the new name has "an order of magnitude more hits" (which is already misleading; I get 2.8 mil for "legendary creature" and 2.4 mil for "legendary creatures" for a total of 5.2 mil and 4.8 mil for "mythical creatures" and 3 mil for "mythical creature" for a total of 7.8 mil) and the second is that you want the lead to be "Mythical creatures or legendary beings are magical animals, monsters, spirits, and gods[1]... blah blah blah..."  Per this second it is clear that your established agenda is relevant to the discussion and hence why I bring it up.  This is also interesting since the source  that you provide as an attempt to source the new lead does not support your statement.  You selectively quoted in a manner unsupported by the text and actually grepping through the source for "god" fails to show any gods being listed as mythical creatures.  You did mention the issue of the current definition involving animals but that is not an issue with the name.  In light of the lack of compelling reasons for moving the article in addition to your established agenda there is no possible response to this but to oppose.  -- Masterzora (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) it is not just a content dispute. Masterzora raised a process question about whether under conditions that are less than ideal it is appropriate to attempt to move the article to a name that would seem to be one that would benefit people who have been vandalizing the article. That seems to be a perfectly legitimate issue to raise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual proof that I came from the reddit thread? Because in fact it's the opposite. I was viewing Special:RecentChanges and I saw a lot of activity on Legendary creatures. I was also simultaneously browsing reddit and I found out about the thread that linked here. So in fact, I began here at Wikipedia and ended up at the reddit thread. And once again you mention my "agenda" without explaining that you are simply speculating on my motives rather than actually referencing something tangible or factual. As for the ghits in particular, I'm afraid that you aren't including the quotation marks in your google searches. Case in point: "Legendary creature" gives About 973,000 results and "legendary creatures" gives About 437,000 results, while Mythical creature gives About 1,400,000 results and Mythical creatures gives About 2,380,000 results. I'm sorry, but just because I disagree with you on content doesn't mean that I suddenly have an agenda. Using your definition of agenda, then it's clear that you have an agenda too. But again, none of this speculation regarding so-called agendas is relevant to improving this article.--JasonMacker (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * google hits are generally an irrelevant measure. there is no way to determine how many of them are actually using the phrase in a manner that is appropriate to the discussion at hand, it just shows two words sitting next to each other. Of those thousands of hits can you provide say 5 that all have a consistent definition and application of the phrase so that there is some evidence that there is actually something to be gained by changing? (ie we have evidence that the academic criteria for the use of "mythological creatures" is a standard that we will be able use to build a decent consistent article criteria around.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is simply that mythical creatures very obviously has more usage than legendary creatures. The argument you are using here can also be used against the current situation in the article. So what do the reliable sources say? Well, most of them use "mythical creatures" to refer to things, so that's what we should go by.--JasonMacker (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * again, the hits on a search mean nothing. I have had very specific and unusual combinations of words and phrases that resulted in hundreds of hits from google books that made me think "oh great, this will be easy" and then when I look at the actual content, none of the hits provide any actually useful encyclopedic content about the subject of the article. I am simply asking you to WP:PROVEIT that the name change will solve any of the issues. given the first two sentences from the Bascom source and the introduction to that piece, I am highly doubtful and will not be convinced by counts of google hits, you will need to provide actual sourcing examples.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's just look at this by facts. 1. You are an active user of multiple atheist subreddits.  2. Regardless of whether you came to this article from reddit or came to this article and independently went to reddit, you edited this article in line with the other vandals from the invasion and left a comment on reddit giving others a bad tip as to how to make the vandalism stick.  3. Without regard to improving the quality or accuracy of the article you changed the article in violation of WP:NPOV 4. You added "sources" that did not support your edit and claimed that they gave your edit some form of immunity from editing because of your own WP:SYNTH 5. You flagrantly violated WP:3RR in attempting to maintain your edit 6. You erroneously cited WP:OFFENSE in your defense when it actually argues against your edit 7. After your violations were pointed out you continued to violate them 8. Your proposal for name change explicitly cited the ability to include the edit you've been trying to make 9. The edit in your proposal is once again built on a source that does not support it in any fashion.  Between the circumstances of your reddit activity, your flagrant disregard of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and rules despite having a long enough history on Wikipedia to know better, and your repeated misuse of sources the only way a case of your agenda could be any more solid is with a direct confession.  As far as the ghits go, despite the fact that they are not a proper measure, your 3.8 million "mythical creature(s)" vs 1.4 million "legendary creature(s)" still does not represent an order of magnitude except in the most pedantic, though misleading, way under which basically any two numbers could represent an order of magnitude difference.  Which brings me back to the point I already made: your agenda is very relevant here not only because of the conflict of interest but also because it represents half of the arguments you made in favour of the move.  With the other half being ghits, which we've already discussed, there is no valid reason presented to move this article. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.