Talk:Mythic humanoids

Merge
Merging this page with that one would make little sense. This page is essentialy a reference list. Making it to a list page would be understandable, or perhaps merging it with another "mythology" based page (as there are many of similar form). If this later option were adopted however it could eventually lead to "mega-list" pages since this type of page in particular has a huge source of material. All the world has a mythologies associated with it.C.Jason.B (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: merging a long list into a relatively short, more general, article, would make the combined page unbalanced towards mythical humanoids. Also, Mythic humanoids need more work. Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Classification problems
Vampires are classified as human-skinned humanoids, as well as temporary form humanoids, but mentioned as an example of a monstrous humanoid. This can be solved by rewriting a description for monstrous humanoids (which I personally don't feel equipped to do,) but perhaps the classification system should be modified. Monstrous humanoids "inspire fear and revulsion," making them indistinct from any other category. A few examples: the human skinned list includes banshees and poltergeists; giants appear on both lists; gnomes are classified as monstrous. One possible fix would be to redefine or exclude monstrous humanoids. It would be better if categories were remade to be relatively distinct, or excluded altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellville (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an awesome idea. It's hard for people like me to find a monster to put in a story and ALSO make them accurate. The way it sounds that you want it to be easier to navigate/be slightly more specific.
 * I agree, totally and completely. 157.185.66.2 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology
— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Artificial humans
I think artificial humans, as a myth, ought to make it to this list. Organic robotoids, synthetics, clones, et. al. 174.44.26.181 (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Organisation and categorisation
I initially found this list because I was looking for an overview article which lists and discusses the legendary "monstrous races" that were once rumoured to exist, typically inhabiting remote parts of the world, such as monopods, troglodytes, cynocephali, headless men, etc. (For sources, see eg., ) This is distinct from belief in anthromorphic beings like elves and fairies (in that the "monstrous races" were often viewed as unusual human beings not human-shaped non-human creatures), and stretches from antiquity through the middle ages onwards as recently as the early modern period, even influencing Carl Linnaeus' taxonomy of human subspecies.

I was surprised to see that the list appears to be an arbitrary collection of anthropomorphic folkloric creatures categorised according to an unusual fourfold scheme: human-skinned, monster-skinned, monstrous, and temporary. I suspect this is the product of original research, as the only reference given in the article does not appear to mention these categories anywhere. Additionally, these categorises are questionable on the basis of not necessarily being mutually exclusive, as noted in a previous discussion on this page.

While I can see the merit of a broader list of anthromorphic "humanoid" creatures, the current organisation is contrived and arbitrary. I'd suggest entirely reorganising it based on geographical, cultural, and historical lines, perhaps starting by roughly sorting entries by continent of origin. – Scyrme (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As a note, any entries which a found to not belong on this list might be moved to List of legendary creatures by type. – Scyrme (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the source for the organization? If we are going to categorize such things, we need to follow one or more sources that propose and use this categorization. Skyerise (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the current organisation? I don't know. The oldest revisions of this list doesn't use it; it seems to have been introduced in 2014 with . The editor who made that change did not cite a source and it was their only edit on that account.
 * For my suggestion? It seemed like the simplest and most straightforward way to reorganise the list based on more objective criteria and clear away the original research. I'm not sure sources are needed for something as basic as "list by continent"; I think it's a bit of a "you don't need to cite that the sky is blue" situation. That said, the only source listed in this article presently organises its contents page by continent. (Although that book is about myths and legends in general, not about "mythic humanoids" specifically.) – Scyrme (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that if the categorization section isn't cited, we don't know that any reliable source actually categorizes mythical beings in this way. Then since the entries in the lists aren't cited, we don't know what source put it into the said category. Might be easiest to AfD the whole mess. Skyerise (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This list regularly gets a lot of pageview and has been around for decades. I think it would be more helpful to delete the unsourced section and resort the list. – Scyrme (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got no objections to that approach. Skyerise (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done so. Feel free to amend the placement of any entries I misplaced.
 * I noticed a number of entries are actually particular characters rather than types of creature, such as Jenny Greenteeth and Caliban. Sometimes characters get genericised in popular culture (eg. "frankensteins" for any re-animated creatures assembled from dead bodies) but I don't think that's likely with most if not all of these characters. I think they should probably be deleted.
 * The "Europe" section is fairly long. Do you think any subsections are warranted? It might be fine as it is without subsections after particular characters are removed. – Scyrme (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding Puck/puck, it seems there's some confusion between the English folkloric character Puck and the creatures in Celtic folklore, púca, which can also be called pooka, pookha, puck, etc. The individual character doesn't really belong in the list so I've swapped the link for the Celtic creature which takes human form. – Scyrme (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for all your efforts on this article. It's definitely better than when we started! Skyerise (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Individual cryptids/creatures
Do cryptids usually discussed as individuals belong on this list? Unlike the individual characters I removed earlier, these seem more likely to be genericised as types of creature.

The article current lists the Mothman, Hibagon, and Yeti but does not list Bigfoot. If the former three are to be kept in, other individual cryptids like the latter might warrant inclusion.

I'm leaning towards moving them to List of cryptids instead as that would seem to be a more appropriate place for them. Most of them are already there, I think only the Hibagon isn't. – Scyrme (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)