Talk:List of giant animals in mythology

I removed the following from the article: The following is inaccurate and needs to be revised. Evolution doesn't work that way. The development of giant animals has nothing to do with global temperature., this is a discussion of the article rather than suitable information, I guess... Kaarel 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Gigantism

Gigantism is linked in the "See also" section; it should probably be noted that gigantism isn't really related to giant species. ~ Booyabazooka 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I've put an {{unsourced}} tag on this article because none of the sizes and claims is sourced. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's been removed without providing sources. I will re-add it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Category

Shouldn't there be a category for these animals instead of or in addition to this article? David McCabe 07:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional animals

Most of the animals in this section should be removed, as they are far below the one-ton threshold stated at the beginning of the article. Does the section really even belong here at all? PenguinJockey 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Should this entry be combined with Megafauna? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.244.155 (talk • contribs) 4:44, 26 July (UTC). 2006

Most of this information is already on Megafauna. The only ones that aren't, I'm checking now (And adding if applicable). Once that's done, I think this article should be out and out deleted. IT's unscientific (Primarily in that it is arbitrary and fails to follow it's own arbitrary guidelines) and Megafauna serves the purpose well enough. --Scorpios 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing left that Megafauna should have but doesn't. I'll put it up for AFD. On second though, how about a redirect? --Scorpios 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, redirect is the way to go. The only thing this article has that Megafauna lacks is the little blurb about exactly how big each animal is, but I don't trust the accuracy of all of the included info. - Atarr 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unmerged

It appears this has been unmerged (Without discussion). I propose two things. First, revert to the discussed merger followed by a discussion about reverting the decision. Second, MErmaid makes a valid point. However we already have plans to add some cryptozoological information to the megafauna page (Check the Talk page), thus begets the second proposal. We need to get on that cryptozoology information to the Megafauna stat. Thoughts? --Scorpios 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put notices on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology asking for more input, since most of the material that will likely be lost from Giant animal resides in those two categories. Hopefully, we can get more people involved and whatever we decide on will be more like a true concensus rather than a hasty merge, like it had seemed to me when I undid the redirect. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, that information could is fairly useless, in this article. Some of the more reputable cryptids, i.e. the ones which are not simply obvious falsehoods, should belong on Megafauna, alongside other species rumored, but not confirmed by a reliable source (Certain jellyfish, octopi, ect.). As for the others, I see them having no purpose here, or, better phrased, this article having no purpose here (On Wikipedia). This article is a poorly organized list of big things. It provides no useful information which cannot already be found on pages for cryptozoolgy, individual crytipds, lore and megafauna. I'm sorry my thoughts are poorly gathered and even worse in explication. I'm tired, I need sleep, and after I hit submit, I'll do just that. Long story short, this article has outlived it's purpose, if there even was one in the first place (The Megafauna article does predate it by over two years). --Scorpios 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mermaid may have a point this belongs with the mythology of giants rather than with scientist, but mythology should not be deleted and redirected to scientific articles... rather it might be part of giant legends and archetypes. I can see giant insects not being heavy enough for megafauna Goldenrowley 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC). However, it does overlap a bit on science. I suggest move the scientific list to megafauna, delete the restruction of weight, then beef up the mythology and ficiontional elements. That way no overlap. Goldenrowley 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If we want a specific article for giant insects, or giant cryptids, or giant fictional animals, fine. Let's add the relevent information from this article to those places. But this article, as currently written, does not serve any effective purpose. - Atarr 04:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would personally vote for moving nearly all of the information about known biological animals to Megafauna and keeping this article for the cryptids, mythical and fictional creatures. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with keeping the folklore and myth until the myth people have a chance to review what's left. I think the page could be renamed in the folklore and myth categories, once the science is removed. Goldenrowley 06:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The folklore and myth stuff should not be the primary focus of an article titled "Giant Animal". Make a new article, move the stuff there. This should be a redirect to megafauna. You can always pull the information out of the archive to make a new article; it's not as if making this a redirect permanently destroys the information. - Atarr 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the same thing as a page rename (page move). Review giant it is a disambiguation page. Any redirecting should direct there for people to chose their topic. Goldenrowley 20:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with axeing all the scientific info on this page, re-naming it "Giant mythological species" or somesuch, making "Giant Animal" redirect to the Giant disambiguation page, and adding links to "Megafauna" and "Giant mythological species" on that page. Thoughts? - Atarr 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can agree.I also think the mythology should be split from the fiction. I propose: "Giant animals (mythology)" and "Giant animals (fiction)". Goldenrowley 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. The cryptozoology material basically counts as mythology as long as it remains unproven, so that title works for me. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If we have a consensus I can assist.Goldenrowley 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally managed to escape from the rigors of academic life only to see that it seems to be all worked out. With the renaming of the article and repurposing to mythology, I offer up my support. --Scorpios 01:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I followed the agreed on steps above, this is now a mythology article, the other article I made from the former text is giant animal (fiction). If you need the former scientific list I placed it on the talk page of megafauna: I would suggest megafauna use the sizes and latin names. Goldenrowley 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. - Atarr 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful job. *Pat on the back*. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)