From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.


I'd like some explanation of how to properly pronounce chimera.

the 'ch' is a 'k' sound, the 'i' is a long 'i' as in 'bike', and the 'a' at the end is a short sound like the 'a' in 'stella' or 'bella'. the 2nd syllable is stressed. so it's 'ky-mee-ra'.
you can also use a short 'i', making it sound more like 'kim-ee-ra' GhostGirl 03:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The pronunciation would be more obvious if the word was given in its original orthography Chimaera - I'd like to suggest a page move to that spelling - MPF 12:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize this was how you pronounce it, I figured it was "ky-mer-a"...which is quite a big difference from the true pronunciation. I'd like to suggest adding the pronunciation into the top of the article. --smileyborg 06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? I've always heard it pronounced "shi-me-ra" (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've heard people pronounce it with an sh, but I've found no Internet source that suggests it's correct. Can you provide one? TharosTheDragon (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

It was suggested that this article should be renamed Chimera (disambiguation). The vote is shown below:

  • I'm sure that easily 90% of everyone typing in "chimera" in the search field are looking for the creature in Greek mythology; and all the alternative uses of the term are derived from the mythical chimera. --Salleman 11:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • First point is doubtful: the biological chimera is much in the news both in relation to GM and to cloning. I'm not sure the second point has any weight. Septentrionalis 21:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - there's far too many meanings of this word to put one of them at the primary location. And I don't agree that the Greek mythology meaning is so well known that it dominates all the others. sjorford →•← 08:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 08:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

c-town skate team is better then str8 sk8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article being blindly reverted[edit]

For the Lycian Chimaera, see here. Dreamguy's other deletions are merely unjustified. If he wants to fiddle with capitalization, format, and so forth, he should perhaps follow guidelines, and do them in a separate edit from the material he knows to be controversial. Septentrionalis 22:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't keep just reverting the article and claiming that things were "unjustified" without discussion as if that somehow justifies you completely undoing all the edits and changes involved. I explained my edits in the edit comments, which you can see by history, but here's a start:
The alleged "real" Chimera the myth was based upon has been moved to Chimera (creature) by another editor after my suggestion, here it is being discussed there.
Titles should have italics on them. You don;t just randomly capitalize things because you want to. Your claim that I am not following policies on that is absolute nonsense.
I removed a mention of a nonnotable web comic. I removed mention of an artist whose own article was up for deletion on grounds of nonnotability, so mention of a minor work of art on an obscure artist is completely nonnotable here.
Your attitude here stinks... You can't just blind revert the entire thing without reason or comment just because you want to be stubborn. Pay attention to the edits. Discuss parts you want restored if you think they should be. But simply wiping everything out to go back to an old version that reintroduces errors that have been repeatedly fixed is not how things are done here. DreamGuy 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This is personal abuse; your reversions remain unwarranted. Septentrionalis 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, then you need to come up with a REASON you think that, instead of just reverting all the changes to screw up the formatting (words cited as words go into italics, not quotes marks as you put them), readd duplicate wiki links, restore nonsense nonnotable references and the like. I have explained the reasons for these edits and yuo just keep putting them back without any rationale offered other than your claims that they are unwarranted. Your actions are a complete abuse of the process here. DreamGuy 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy has only cited one justification for his removals: that Lena Hades was on AfD - if so, she has survived. If you feel any further twitches of capitalization or italics are needed, please make them – as a separate edit; but mass deletion approaches vandalism. Septentrionalis 00:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Anybody reading the above or looking at the page history to see the edit comments can see that your claim above is just plain false. I have offered excessive amounts of explanation on why all the changes were made, and the only thing you got out of that was the claim that Lena Hades should go because the article was up for deletion?? And that's not my argument at all by the way... she's an obscure artist, one who may or may not deserve an article of her own, but certainly not one who should be listed here solely for some completely nonnotable piece of artwork that happened to use the title of a mythological character. If we were to list on the disambiguation page of mythological characters any and all works of art by any artist, regardless of how notable it is, it'd drag this whole place down. Similarly, webcomics by their nature are a lot less notable than other references. Totally pointless mentions should be cleared out like the dead weight they are, titles should be italicized, things are not randomly capitalized for no reason, some geographical landmark not even named Chimera but that somebody claims is the origin of the creature (which is not this article, by the way) should not be listed here, and so forth and so on. And all of this was explained in edit comments and elsewhere over and over. Stop blindly reverting everything and falsely claiming no justification was given for it. And learn the definition of vandalism before you accuse people of it. And you should also go read the no personal attacks policiy too while you are at it. I've seen people make bullheaded actions here many times, but your actions on this article are the least justified of any I have seen, as these are simple and obvious edits. DreamGuy 09:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I see that Dreamguy is drawn to repeat his assertion that the flaming holes in the ground near Olympos in Turkey are "not even named" Chimaera. I have ben there, took the picture, and can assure you they ARE known as Chimaera, as well as the Turkish equivalent Yanartas (the final 's' has a cedilla which usually doesn't display correctly, BTW). It is quite possible for a place to have two names in different languages, you know!
I'd like to state my opinion that whilst I can see that Dreamguy is basically well-intentioned, I think is is also acting a trifle high-handedly. For instance he simply deleted the "In geography" section, which I replaced in the "Chimaera (creature)" article, because he "couldn't make sense of it". I think it would have been more reasonable to raise a query, rather than delete it out of hand.
I am with those contributors who think that the geographical/geological phenomenon, which led to the mythical creature, is the core meaning of this word, and should not be relegated to a subsidiary article. If anything, it is the more modern scientific meanings, which are derived by analogy from the ancient meaning, that should be in the subsidiary article.
Thanks finally to the person who added the classical references.TobyJ 18:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
the geographical/geological phenomenon, which led to the mythical creature, is the core meaning of this word This is not a proven fact, this is blatant speculation and should not be presented as anything other than that. The feature may NOW be called Chimaera by people trying to attract tourists, but it's not the name of the features and thus does not belong on a disambiguation page about the word Chimera. It certainly can be mentioned as one theory on the Chimera (creature) page, but it is not proven fact and your POV on the matter isn;t helpful. You should go read the NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies to understand why you can;t just say that that geopgraphical feature created the myths.
Furthermore, from your comments that the scientific meanings should go to a secondary page, it is clear that you do not understand what the concept of a disambiguation page is. This is the page where people looking for info on the word Chimera can see the different way that word is used and click on a link to read an article about it. Thus putting something called "Yanartas" on this page makes no sense at all and advocating the removal of the scientific uses of the term, which are some of the most important ones these days, is completely ridiculous. 00:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. I think I'm beginning to see why we are coming at it from such different angles. The way I see it, the fact that there is a place in Lycia that is known as Chimaera is a fact, and a very verifiable one, in itself. I've been there so I know. This is not a point of view, it is a description of a geographical fact, and has every right to be in an encyclopaedia. (Whether or not the name has been conjured up latterly to attract tourists I don't know, but against this hypothesis would go the facts that (a) no one tries to charge you to visit it; and (b) there is a credible reference from an ancient author.)
I do know what a disambiguation page is, but I confess I didn't know the 'Chimera' page was meant to be just a disambiguation page.
Finally, I would appreciate your moderating your tone and not bandying about words like 'ridiculous', let alone 'completely' so. The preceding unsigned comment was added by TobyJ (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 November 2005.
May I suggest that everyone assume good faith, be kind and civil to one another and try to reach a consensus? I would hate to see this referred to RfC. For what its worth, it seems to me that this should be turned into a proper disambiguation page. Thank you, all. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

There is no reason for this page being protected. User:Pmanderson (going by the name of Septentrionalis above) simply blind reverts good and justified changes (they have been justified here and also quite extensively in the edit comments, contrary to his claims) to get things back to the way he had it while tossing out personal insults and false accusations in the process. Page protection is supposed to facilitate discussion. The only real discuss to have here is why Pmanderson is being so abusive on this article and when he is going to stop. DreamGuy 09:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help. It's important not to perform wholesale reverts on a a major edit, where some of the changes may be acceptable. Let's go through all of the changes DreamGuy made, and talk about them:
  1. First, easiest, he italicized "chimera" and "chimeric," and a couple of movie titles, following the MoS. I think these should stand, and were likely just collateral damage of the revert.
  2. Adds Image: OtterChimera_7828.jpg, this is also likely collateral damage, as I don't see a problem with the picture.
  3. Delinks "magnolia," which goes to the wrong article, and "video game" which is a repeat, both okay.
  4. Adds the line "In the sci-fi series Stargate SG1, "Chimera" is a season 7 episode."
  5. Removes five [six Septentrionalis] bullets:
  1. "The Chimera is a space fighter in the video game series Colony Wars."
  2. "In the web cartoon Xombie, Chimera is the name of an undead Velociraptor."
  3. "In Alan Dean Foster's short story, Witchen Woes, Mad Amos defeats a live 'kitchen witch" in a cooking duel, by cooking chimera chili: "The recipe ain't too hard to work up. Hardest part's findin' chimera meat." (moved to chimera (creature)
  4. "The Chimera is an APC of the Imperial Guard in the table-top wargame Warhammer 40,000."
  5. "For the locations called Chimaera in antiquity, see Chimera (creature)#Theory about origin."
  6. "[Also * Oil paintings of the cycle Chimaeras by Lena Hades Septentrionalis 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)]
Now, I'd like to ask Septentrionalis which of these you dispute. I imagine we can agree on # 1-3, and if so I'll put them in right away. Also, #4 seems like a reasonable addition, especially considering we have an article for that episode, Chimera (Stargate SG-1), which DG may not have realized. #5 is likely the hard part. Let's keep in mind the purpose of disambigs: "to let the reader choose among different pages that might reside under the same title." With this in mind, 5.3 is definitely out, as the story is a redlink anyway, and redlinks are typically not included in disambigs. In fact, reasonable arguments could be made that all of 5.1-5.4 are too tangential to need to be covered here. I suspect #5.5 is the crux of the matter, but lets see if we can't resolve the others first. Dmcdevit·t 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, this is the sort of approach I have been asking DreamGuy to take for some weeks now. My objections are as follows.
  • 3. The link to magnolia was intentional. We have no article on the color, and the color is the color of the tree; so this is the best link possible, without writing an unnecessary dicdef. This may also have been collateral damage.
  • 4. Yes, we should have the link; the disambiguation may well be necessary.
  • 5 My complaint here is general. 5.1-4 and 5.6 may well be tangential; but some editor saw fit to include them. They should not have been unilaterally deleted without the argument being made - so it can be answered. (I add 5.6 because Dmcdevit seems to have overlooked it.)
    • I think 5.3 could be transferred without loss to Chimera (creature), since it is about the creature; whether it is important enough to keep there is another question (about which I do not greatly care). The others probably were added because someone tried to look up Chimera with that meaning and came here. which is a prima facie case for keeping them on a dab page.
    • 5.5 is not tangential. I was surprised to find it was accurate, but it appears to be so. The phrasing removed does not seem to be open to DreamGuy's stated objection, and I sourced it here.
  • I have no objection to DreamGuy's additions in 1 and 2., although the picture should be right so as not to overlie the bullets. I think my double-bulleted form of the last entries is neater, but this is presumably another incidental casualty. Septentrionalis 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I have stricken the ones we've resolved. Warhammer 40,000 (5.4) has a substantial article but no mention of chimera, leading me to believe it is not important enough to be included here. Now, 5.1 seems tangential to me considering that "chimera" isn't even mentioned in the Colony Wars article. Similarly, (5.2) in the Xombie article, there is no mention of a Chimera, or even any velociraptor at all. This makes me think that if those chimeras aren't even important enough for their articles, their not important enough to be disambiguated. More importantly, we would be directing readers looking for "chimera" to articles that don't have them. 5.6, though, could probably stick around, since readers looking for that chimera would find a link to see her paintings at Lena Hades.
As to 5.5, I think we can keep it here while addressing DreamGuy's NOR/POV concerns. How about if it is reworded as:
The suspected locations called Chimaera (as referred to by Ctesias), and the resulting geographic theory of the chimera myth origin.
Importantly, this refers to the theory itself, as a theory, and does not make it sound like there is an implicit suggestion of the locations' existence. Dmcdevit·t 04:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You aren't getting the point on this one... The fact that some ancient writers came up with their own theory that some geographic feature was the basis for the origin of the Chimera myth does not make it something to mention on the disambiguation page, as nobody has shown that these areas were actually called that as their names. It is mentioned on the creature article as a theory, because that's where it comes up.
Regarding the Lena Hades mention, you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that anyone would be looking for that chimera... from the article itself on that artist it is clear that she was barely notable for her own article as it was, and a single nonnotable work of some barely notable (and likely only that because of the vote early vote often option votes for deletion attract) absolutely should not be listed here. If you do list it, then any and all anything that ever used the name in any way would have to be listed, which is completely unencyclopedic. We are not creating a link repository or some massive list of ultra trivia, we are creating an encyclopedia.
I'm not seeing that any rationale argument exists for keeping any of the mentions I deleted for lack of notability. The web comic, colony wars, etc. all, as you described, have no information in the articles about any chimera.
Regarding the whole concept of "collateral damage" that's just another way of saying Pmanderson was so lazy and arrogant that he'd revert all the changes instead of dealing with the ones he cared about. It's absurd that he should now be saying that he agrees with some of them, as he shouldn't have been blindly reverting them in the first place.
So, so far, other than arguing for Lena Hades and a misunderstanfing of the geographical location's name, it sounds like you agree with all of the changes I made. Of course the two you haven't decided on seem to me to be the most clear cut.DreamGuy 09:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that it is not helpful or kind to describe another editor as "lazy or arrogant"? Please remember that it is a Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith. Sorry, Dmcdevit, if my comment is unwelcome. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest that assuming good faith only takes someone so far, and when someone clearly demonstrates a willingness to blind revert a huge number of fixes solely because he objects to a small number of changes that good faith is already completely out the window. Also keep in mind that the other editor has repeatedly falsely accused me of vandalism for FIXING the article and has outright called me either a liar or insane. This is way beyond good faith into being a matter of Pmanderson being a hardcore abusive editor here. But thanks for your reminder of how things might work under some hypothetically completely different circumstances. DreamGuy 20:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • These are reasonable arguments for 5.1 and 5.2 being tangential, at last. If DreamGuy had bothered to make them when first asked, I doubt we would be having this conversation. I would still consider that the original editor wanted to keep them; but I would be neutral myself. (If they are removed and some anon reinserts them, this would be additional evidence that somebody is in fact looking for them.)
  • The Chimera of 5.4 is (I find) mentioned under Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000 army) to which the link should be changed.
  • Dmcdevit's text on 5.5 is too tentative. Pliny and Strabo are two of the most comprehensive surviving ancient sources on geography; there are lots of places we know about chiefly because one of them mentions them. The writers mentioned are, like all Greek (or Latin) prose, some centuries after Homer, so perhaps:
    For the locations called Chimaera by the geographers of later antiquity, see Chimera (creature)#Theory about origin.
  • Of course 5.6 should stay.
    • I do not comprehend DreamGuy's argument against 5.5 and 5.6; it sounds all too like "I haven't heard of them, so they're not notable".

I find DreamGuy's attitude fully as deplorable as he finds mine. His reverts have destroyed well-intentioned formating as well as creating it. I may be particularly sensitive to persistent complete reversion accompanied with edit summaries claiming "good" or "correct" text; but I do in all calmness consider his proceedings here abusive. Septentrionalis 02:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

DG and Sept: you may both be beyond assuming good faith, or whatever it is, but the point is that you don't have to say so. It is unnecessarily confrontational. Just calmly respond to the comments (that aren't about you). DreamGuy, this is a disambiguation. It is a link repository (well, internal links). I think you are being overly sensitive to what should be included; to my mind, if "Chimera" play's a part in the article, then it could be reasonably searched for here. That's why I think Lena Hades and (now) Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000 army) should reasonably stay.
Now, about the "location" Chimaera. I think inclusion makes sense. But it's not because I think that these areas were actually called that as their names. I have no clue, (or opinion). Rather, I know that those writers wrote that those areas were actually called "Chimaera" as their names, and so it is reasonable to assume that someone searching for the "location" or controversy over whether there is a location called "Chimaera," would end up here. If you think the theory itself is unproven, then that certainly should be dealt with by adding the other side to Chimera (creature) in accordance with NPOV. But the theory itself that refers to Chimaera as a location deserves mention here, since it does exist. That's what I think you two can agree on. Dmcdevit·t 06:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Lana and Warhammer absolutely do not belong here, as the "Chimera" connection to those are so trivial and unimportant that listing them here would necessitate thousands more equally trivial mentions. We need a line drawn so that that criteria can be fairly used to judge later additions to see if they deserve to be here.. Moreover, I have seen no evidence that the ancient authors "wrote that those areas were actually called "Chimaera" as their names" -- if that were true and actually citations showing that that was their name were provided, I would have no objection to it being listed here briefly that they were called that. I find the idea that areas named something else completely that somebody came up with some theory might be related is not something for a dsambiguation page but something for the main article itself.
By the way, the Chimera article itself has been moved to Chimera (mythology), so the link in this article ought to be updated to reflect that. I'd prefer that an admin go and do it while it was locked instead of unlocking it, as I don't want the problem editor to blind revert to the bad version again that was full of errors. DreamGuy 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not making the judgment that I believe that claim (this is not my area of expertise), the evidence provided on the main page is this reference. Do you dispute it? Dmcdevit·t 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing on that page that supports the contention that any geographical area was ever named Chimera or Chimaera... in fact I see neither word on the page. Is the link correct? If so, what about that page is supposed to be evidence? DreamGuy 11:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Perseus sometimes behaves oddly, although I have no problem with the link. The text is (Perseus also links to other pages of their own:

CHIMAERA (Chimaipa), a mountain in Lycia, in the territory of Phaselis, where there was a flame burning on a rock continually. Pliny (ii. 106; v. 27) quotes Ctesias as his authority, and the passage of Ctesias is also preserved by Photius (Cod. 72). Ctesias adds, that water did not extinguish the flame, but increased it. The flame was examined by Beaufort (Karamania, p. 47, &c.), who is the modern discoverer of it. This Yanar, as it is called, is situated on the coast of Lycia, south of the great mountains of Solyma and of Phaselis (Tekrova). According to Spratt's Lycia (vol. ii. p. 181), near Adratchan, not far from the ruins of Olympus, a number of rounded serpentine hills rise among the limestone, and some of them bear up masses of that rock: at the junction of one of these masses of scaglia with the serpentine is the Yanar, famous as the Chimaera of the ancients: it [p. 609] is nothing more than a stream of inflammable gas issuing from a crevice, such as is seen in several places in the Apennines.
It is likely enough that the story of the Chimaera in the Iliad (vi. 179) had its origin in this phenomenon. Servius (ad Aen. vi. 288, flammisque armata Chimaera ) gives a curious explanation of the passage in Virgil. He correctly places the fire on the top of the mountain; but adds, there are lions near it; the middle part of the mountain abounds in goats, and the lower part with serpents; which is obviously an attempt to explain the passage of Homer (comp. Ovid. Met. ix. 647, &c.) Strabo connects the fable of the Chimaera with the mountain of Cragus in Lycia; and he says that there is, not far off, a ravine called Chimaera, which opens into the interior from the sea (p. 665). This is not the Chimaera of Ctesias, which is near Phaselis.

Does the crossing off of the Stargate text (#4) reflect actual unanimity to keep it, or what? Septentrionalis 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The book entry above does identify the name as Chimaera, but the entry itself only says that a few ancients identified the feature with the creature and not specifically that it was named that. It's difficult to tell if this book decided to bestow that name upon it for purposes of a dictionary-style entry or whether the ancient inhabitants actually did give it that name. Before someone claims in Wikipedia that it really was named that instead of just linked as a possible explanation of the myth, I would like to see a less ambiguous mention -- which, if it is true, should be fairly easy. At this point the mention on Chimera (mythology) is more than adequate. DreamGuy 13:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Few? There are six citations for this (the new Pauly-Wissowa adds Isidore of Seville, 13.3.36); a fact is normally counted as well-attested if it has two or three attestations; several facts are in WP on the sole authority of Herodotus or Thucydides.
Furthermore, both Strabo and Pliny attest to this, and I am surprised to find four more authors interested in a toponym in Lycia. Who else would DreamGuy suggest? Septentrionalis 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Unlock it. Rewrite it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). --Andylkl (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I did just noe do editing to bring it more in line with the manual of style. DreamGuy 13:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
There's still issues that needs to be ironed out: the MoS indicates that entries should not be in piped links, and redlinks are generally acceptable. May I suggest having some consistency within the entries, like this?
Albums and singles should be notable enough, but I think entries that doesn't have either redlinks or wikilinks should go. What do you all say? --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Lists are permitted if their "entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, item 2. "Adding links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be done with care. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or if they are, likely to be removed. For example, quite a few names will show up as song titles, but with few exceptions, we usually do not write articles about individual songs, so there is no point in linking to them. If you must add this type of information, be sure to link to at least one existing article (band, album, et cetera)." From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redlinks. I'm a bit dubious that the album articles will be written, I confess. "Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters, the songs on albums and the villages in a municipality, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one." From Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked.
Where is the MOS guidance cited above? I was unable to find it. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've started and edited quite a number of album articles in line with WP:ALBUM, and I'm willing to start the album article by Delerium if needed. And given the fact that there's a WikiProject that guides album articles and a long list of albums, I'm confident that the album articles will be written eventually.
And besides, the redlinks aren't there just because I think it is, if consensus says there shouldn't be any, so be it. I'm just pushing for some consistency here. Despite the long talk page here, right now this disambig page still isn't in line with the MoS. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 14:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Embedded editorial comments in Chimera[edit]

This was copied from User talk:Wsiegmund at 16:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't add editorial comments to article pages, and especially not in all caps. The Talk page is more appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe! I've added my view of the consensus on additions to these sections to the article talk page. That was a very good suggestion. I wonder if a comment of the sort, "Before adding to this section, please read the editorial consensus on the article discussion page.", might be appropriate to add to the article? I wonder if you would be kind enough to point me in the direction of the relevant WP policy or guide on the use of comments in articles, please? Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Talk pages: On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Zoe, thank you for the kindness of your reply. I can't help wondering if your answer is to the point, however, since my question was about the use of <!--comments--> in articles and the reference you cite is about the talk pages. Moreover, it seems not to discuss comments. DreamGuy cites the use of comments in Wica (see his edit summary). I might add Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. These examples suggest to me that some use of comments may be appropriate in articles. The Katrina article was edited frequently by many distinct editors. I don't think comments would have been retained without support for their use.
I wonder if you might be willing to reply to my query regarding the comment wording (and caps use) that I proposed in my previous message?
May I say that I don't agree with the reversion by DreamGuy of your deletion of my comments? My preference is to resolve this matter through discussion and dialogue. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
(... two editors want them here, one does not, so far that means the two editors win.... these guidelines are useful and used elsewhere, so no reason to remove them) copied from editorial summary DreamGuy (Talk) 06:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
As a gesture of good faith, I'm going to put the wording I proposed above into the article in place of my original wording. I think my original might be considered shouting because of use of caps. Zoe and DreamGuy, please show restraint and don't revert my wording for now. Once we've agreed on a final version, one of us can edit the article to suit. Zoe, is there an editor whose judgement you trust that might be willing to take a look at this dispute and comment? Thank you both, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In fiction and In music consensus[edit]

The consensus (painfully) reached here is that the In fiction and In music sections should contain short representative lists of the most notable instances of chimera in fiction and music (see the article edit history and the arbitration on the article discussion page). These sections should not include every instance since the lists would become so long as to have little or no value and would give the impression that such uses are more important than mythical or scientific uses. Wikipedea is not mere collections of internal links. See what not to put on disambiguation pages, as well.

Consequently, before adding to this section, please take the following steps:

  • be sure that the article that you are linking mentions chimera. We should not be sending readers that are looking for information about chimera to articles that do not mention the term.
  • verify that your addition is at least as notable as the examples already listed and that chimera plays a major, not just a tangential role in the work.
  • consider replacing an existing less-notable entry.
  • justify your edit on this page.

Finally, if you disagree with my opinion of the consensus, leave your comments here. Please don't edit the article to make your point. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move request[edit]

To move the page to its classical Latin spelling Chimaera. It is of course a classical creature / concept, which has nothing to do with the US, so why should it be at a recent US variant spelling? - MPF 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable argument. On the other hand, the majority modern usage is with the Chimera spelling, I think. Google finds 3,230,000 (Chimera) v. 1,010,000 (Chimaera). If Google is an indication of use frequency among Internet users, a majority of readers will be searching for Chimera. That is a weak argument; redirects are relatively cheap, or so I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Gee, why should it use a recent US spelling? Well, there's Wikipedia:Use English policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy that say we use the most common version, and a conspicuous lack of any policy that says Wikipedia:Use archaic Latin. We spell it the way it's spelled in the real world, it's a little thing called Wikipedia:Use common sense. DreamGuy 06:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

\== In fiction ==

The Star Wars and Stargate SG-1 articles do not mention the term chimera. I think they can be deleted because we should not be sending readers that are looking for information about chimera to articles that do not mention the term. Fullmetal Alchemist does use the term chimera and can be included, under the criteria listed above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello... the lines in question had two links, the first was to the name of the sci-fi series, the second was DIRECTLY TO AN ARTICLE THAT HAD CHIMERA IN THE TITLE. And we approved both of those in discussion above, quite specifically, by name, whereas we did not approve Fullmetal Alchemist. Please pay attention to what you are doing here. DreamGuy 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You are right, of course. I searched the first linked articles only. I somehow missed the second links. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Chimera In BeyBlade[edit]

In the series, Beyblade, on of the main characters/bitbeasts, Draciel, is a chimera.I think someone should add this under fiction or under the article of the animal, Chimera. --PokemontrainerNelly (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Five changes[edit]

The changes made in this edit sequence consist of two formatting changes, which have never been objected to; and three additions to which DreamGuy is the only editor who has objected to.

Two of these objections (to Lena Hades and Warhammer) have been quite brief, and appear to amount to: I haven't heard of them, so they're not notable.

The third, to the site in Lycia, he alone holds, against and myself. Nor has he responded to the evidence above, but merely reverted.

None of these qualify as consensus against.

I separate the three stages, in the hope that he will apply judgment. Septentrionalis 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to find a mention of chimera in Warhammer. (I searched both links, this time.) To find anything of substance on chimera in Lena Hades, I had to follow a link in an external link in the article. That is too tenuous to merit inclusion, in my judgement. It isn't very notable if the Lena Hades editors have not seen fit to include it. I didn't follow the Lycia usage closely, but I think it should stay. Please see my earlier comments for links to the relevant sections of the Manual of Style. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Odd, the Warhammer reference was there a couple weeks ago... it was here
Use of a search engine reveals that the Warhammer articles have been rearranged, but perhaps this time permanently. It is now chiefly mentioned under Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), but there are several other references, suggesting the vehicle is important to the universe.
I will defer to Walter's reasoning on Lena Hades; although I observe that the article mentions only one of her works, and that quite briefly; so the conclusion that this one is unimportant may be unwarranted. I do not recall Also Sprach Zarathustra mentioning a chimaera, so I think this is an independent cycle, as the website suggests. I will enquire. Septentrionalis 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More deceptive comments from Pmanderson/Septentrionalis, what a surprise. Lena Hades and Warhammer were both discussed above and clearly do not meet the standards for inclusion. The Lycia section he tries to add claims that the site was known by the name Chimera in ancient times. So far no reference has been provided to support this conclusion, only a reference to the claim that some ancient sources thought that the myth was based upon a geographical feature called by a different name. If someone wants to claim that, say, the Medusa head was based upon a stylized owl, that info would go on the article about the mythoilogy of Medusa, not the disambiguation page for Medusa. Until such time as you have a source showing that the ancient feature was actually named Chimera it has no place here.
Furthermore I am thoroughly disgusted that Pmanderson/Septentrionalis would come back after all this time and start up the same edit warring he did months back in which everything he wants gets put back in despite the clear consensus already established to the criteria needed for inclusion. DreamGuy 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be preferable if DreamGuy could argue without abuse; but I have not seen him do so in any context, even those where I agree with him (and would be actively supporting that position, if I were not engaged here).
The name is ancientm see Smith's dictionary; the location was identified in 1811, by Sir Francis Beaufort, and described by T.A.B. Spratt, in 1847, long before there was a Turkish Tourist Board. Strabo's words are esti d' ouk apôthen kai hê Chimaira pharanx tis apo tou aigialou anateinousa.,"a certain ravine, Chimaera, stretching down to the coast" and Pliny twice calls his location Mount Chimaera 2.105 Mayhoff], 5.43, and once uses it as a reference point 5.53 (Perseus's English text differs in chapter numbering; IIRC become 2.110, 5.28, 5.35)Septentrionalis 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is clearly support for grouping the musical entries by genre; so this reversion was both unjustified and non-consensus.Septentrionalis 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is the dispute regarding the geograpical use:
  1. Regarding the content of Chimaera (geography)
  2. Whether chimera should link to chimaera
If it is the former, shouldn't the discussion occur on that talk page? If it is the latter, it should be discussed here, but I don't understand the argument for not linking it. Isn't chimaera the Latin spelling of chimera? As User talk:MPF comments above, chimaera is the preferred spelling among most English speakers outside the U.S.
I'm unconvinced by the argument for including Warhammer. I don't think it falls in the category of "entries [that} are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Also, it bothers me that chimera doesn't appear on the main article page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand DreamGuy's objections to the Lycian geography either. The Warhammer reference was not mine; this discussion began when DreamGuy came along and made a blanket deletion of several items (see the numbered list above) and I had the presumption to ask him for reasons. He gave none, and I think the fact that someone looked for it here and then listed it is at least some reason to keep it; and searching "Warhammer Chimera" finds half-a-dozen references to it. Septentrionalis 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I would be content to see the title Chimaera; although I believe the scientific uses (in English) are predominantly chimera. If you feel strongly about it, take it up at WP:RM - although it is likely to become an Anglo-American style issue, which would be undesirable. Septentrionalis 17:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this page in order for this dispute to be settled on this talk page. This dispute appears to have a long history; I would suggest mediation if a compromise is not reachable in a reasonable amount of time. android79 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As part of the Mediation Cabal I can help mediate if necessary. I have no prior edits on this page and would be coming at it from a neutral standpoint. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept this offer. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Septentrionalis 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I need one of you guys to go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-10 Chimera and fill out the relevant information. Then we can continue from there. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Done Septentrionalis 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to help mediate this dispute as well, though I am not part of any formal mediation group. android79 19:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cabal mediation[edit]

Cabal mediation is now underway. The initial case has been filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-10 Chimera. I would now like to hear DreamGuy's side of the story. Thank you. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We had a long discussion on all of this in the past, consensus was reached, criteria for notability were decided upon, items previously on the page were listed as not being notable enough for inclusion. All was good for months until Pmanderson/Septronis came back and started reverting back to everything the way he original had it and had been edit warring for originally, ignoring clear consensus, and once again making personal attacks in the process. His actions are a complete violation of pretty much all accepted practices here. Frankly, from past experience with "Cabal mediation" (simply just another editor who acts like his opinion is more important than others... there's no group or anything, just someone trying to declare his findings, when any editor who comes along is equally capable of declaring their own, that's how Wikipedia works... and, before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, the only "Cabal" (poor name choice there) mediation I was involved in decided in my favor) I would prefer that the editors here simply go about the normal consensus building methods without your input. I will accept all true consensus, regardless of outcome, but not simply Pmanderson's unceasing edit warring and proclomations of notability simply because he says so. For example, the Final fantasy alchemy or whatever the heck it was originally did not meet criteria for being listed here, as it was not mentioned on the page in question, but since then a whole article about the topic was created, which fits the new guidelines, so it stays now. The Lena Hades artist absolutely meets no notability criteria for this topic, for example, and this wsa clearly decided earlier, which Pmanderson ignored with no justification. His actions here are clearly bad faith. DreamGuy 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Consensus might have been reached at one point in time, but things change. Editors come and go, and the topic itself changes (as you pointed out). Nothing is ever set in stone and given the last consensus was many months ago, it's time to reach a new consensus. That's what Cabal Mediation is for. As for who I am to come in here and mediate, please see the random musings on my user page. And it's not just me; we members of the Mediation Cabal frequently refer with each other on various matters. Please join us on the Cabal Mediation page as we come to a new consensus. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If I could see the records of this consensus discussion, it might persuade me; I don't see it here. Septentrionalis 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since DreamGuy is plainly ignoring the third-party intervention attempted by the Mediation Cabal, I will make one more attempt here:

Three items are at issue. I list them from weakest to strongest case for inclusion here. Someone (not me) took the trouble to include each of them on this page; they deserve at least a clearly stated and factual reason for removal, supported by more than DreamGuy's fiat (or, I suppose, evanescant). I list from the weakest to strongest:

  1. The cycle of paintings Chimaeras by Lena Hades.
    • Walter Siegmund points out that they are not discussed in the article itself (although only one of her works is, and that one briefly). I would be prepared to give it up as part of a compromise.
  2. The Warhammer APC Chimera.
    • This is mentioned in a half-dozen articles, including the equipment article mentioned above. I conclude that it is a non-trivial part of the world, and see no reason not to mention it here.
  3. The placename Chimaera in ancient Lycia.
    • This is supported by TobyJ and myself (the anon may be TobyJ). It is opposed only by DreamGuy. I do not understand his arguments against; and what I can make out is inconsistent with the evidence. If he could state calmly and clearly what he believes and what and why he does not believe, it would help.
    • There are sources under Chimaera (geography) for.
      • The ancients called at least one moderately volcanic place in Lycia Chimaera, including a mountain close to Phaselis;
      • Sir Francis Beaufort identified Mt. Chimaera of the ancients, near Phaselis, with a volcanic site now called, roughly, Yanar, back in 1812.
    • I accept that TobyJ writes in good faith in photographing and describing this place Yanar. Since the Lycian Way goes past Phaselis[1], I see no reason to even doubt him. (See also [2])
    • I do not assert, and to the best of my ability have avoided writing, that the site is the origin of the myth. Any assertion on the point, either way, would be conjecture. I do judge that Servius, and Prof. Smith, did so conjecture(and apparently the modern tourist guides); but that is a different question.Septentrionalis 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And Isidore, 11.3.36, demonstrates the existence of an ancient theory on the subject. Septentrionalis 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we're pretty much done here. I will ask for the page to be unprotected and the reference to the paintings by Lena Hades will go and the rest will stay. If anyone else has any comments please make them as soon as possible. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright the page is unlocked. I will keep the Cabal Mediation page up for one more day in case anything else pops; otherwise, I will close out the case. Thanks to everyone for your cooperation. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you kept the Mediation Cabal page in existence. Should this need (which God forbid) to be argued in yet another forum, I would like to save my phrasing; also the evidence of a resort to mediation. Septentrionalis 06:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not going to get deleted, I'm just going to close out the case. Much like a police murder investigation ... after they've gone to trial they don't destroy the case file, they just archive it. Because the evidence could always be needed at some point in the future. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


I am in fact neutral on the move suggestion; but since the possibility has been mentioned twice recently, it is worth surveying. Septentrionalis 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose While the move is not unreasonable, this is – or shouldn't have anything to do – with where it originated per se. What will a visitor likely intuit and type? The simpler and prevailing spelling — chimera (which even my Oxford English Dictionary lists first and under which the entry is at). The article, partially supported by the Google test, should be entitled as per the Wp common naming convention with appropriate redirects and notations/alternate spellings in the article lead; distinct treatments can be treated later in the article or in others. And see encyclopedia for comparison, with redirects from encyclopaedia or (properly) encyclopædia ... and note that Wikipaedia is a redirect too. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving this would require a pointless redirection, as the majority of users type Chimera not Chimaera into a search box.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: because (a) it is more 'correct' (is that a contentious word) when transliterating Graeco-Latin words; (b) it is how many people world-wide would expect to find it spelled (I can't judge whether more or fewer). But if we are following Wikipedia's 'first-come, first-spell' policy, then so be it, I suppose. I congratulate the person who has just cut the Gordian knot by giving the alternative spelling in brackets. (But in truth I'd like to see the order of preference reversed.) TobyJ 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment As indicated above, both are correct, but (as indicated below) the current title is more prevalent. And regarding parenthetical notes, that was me. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


copied from above :

To move the page to its classical Latin spelling Chimaera. It is of course a classical creature / concept, which has nothing to do with the US, so why should it be at a recent US variant spelling? - MPF 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable argument. On the other hand, the majority modern usage is with the Chimera spelling, I think. Google finds 3,230,000 (Chimera) v. 1,010,000 (Chimaera). If Google is an indication of use frequency among Internet users, a majority of readers will be searching for Chimera. That is a weak argument; redirects are relatively cheap, or so I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Gee, why should it use a recent US spelling? Well, there's Wikipedia:Use English policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy that say we use the most common version, and a conspicuous lack of any policy that says Wikipedia:Use archaic Latin. We spell it the way it's spelled in the real world, it's a little thing called Wikipedia:Use common sense. DreamGuy 06:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

X-files episode[edit]

This is a somewhat less important entry than the Star Trek entry immediately above it. It has a sentence, rather than an article. I feel no great inclination to fight for it. Nevertheless, it only took a couple minutes to find the right link; and fixing such a link is preferable to removing it. If it's removed again, please place it here. Septentrionalis 03:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

CSI chimera[edit]

In a CSI episode, a suspect was a kind of a chimera, by which means he had two different DNA structures in his body. His blood and semen had one, and spit and hair had another one.

A chimera is a person who has two set of DNA in different parts of their body. When they were conceived, the egg splits into two eggs as if were to form twins. Then the eggs form back into one, resulting in one zygote.

In prime-time TV, this unique feature of humanity has been featured on Crime Scene Investigation, and also on House.

This is an instance of the zoological sense of chimera, already listed. The article linked to does not mention it; no article appears to. Removed per Walter's guidelines above. (Also too vague to be verifiable.) Septentrionalis 04:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of all fiction and music related references[edit]

Please note that this is a disambiguation page. If you have a reason to remove something, please discuss it here first - unless that specific item is not worthy of being in the article and does not disambiguate the word. Blanket removal of items as 'cruft magnets' is not acceptable. -Localzuk (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Could someone add www.infowarscom/articles/brave_new_world/chimera.htm [Unreliable fringe source?] this] and message me on the talk page when it is done? I dont want to add it myself, due to conflicts with other editors. --Striver 23:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking someone else to include content from on your behalf? That's borderline deceptive, and "generally considered uncool." (not to mention odd since the request is in the open for anyone to see) --mtz206 12:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything deceptive about making an open request. However, my preliminary opinion is that the Infowars "chimera" (a human-non-human-animal hybrid) is not distinguishable enough from the Zoological definition (an animal with DNA from two zygotes) to deserve a separate mention. --Hyperbole 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy[edit]

  • In the video game series Final Fantasy, Chimera is the name of an enemy that is composed of various different animals.

Deleted as a use of the primary sense of Chimera, and not important enough to mention in any article about them. Septentrionalis 23:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

this page is a quite a mess[edit]

Disambiguation pages and article pages should not be mixed up. This site needs a cleanup in format/style per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Why is this page protected?

"In art and architecture" section[edit]

I've moved the blurb about non-waterspout gargoyles to the new "In art and architecture" section since I found two pages that link the section. I changed part of the introduction to the Gargoyles article, making chimera bold and removing its link back to this disambiguation page. I've also redirected the link from Grotesque to the Gargoyles article, so as of now, I don't know of any article linking to this section.

However, since there plenty of links I haven't pursued yet, I ask that editors please leave the section intact for now, to make it easier for anyone seeking out chimeras in architecture who get led here by a link not yet updated. I appreciate it. --Tiresias BC 08:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In filmmaking[edit]

User:Wsiegmund removed this definition, with the comment "removed unhelpful redlink". Where is "unhelpful" in the disambiguation guidelines, and what are the criteria? Binba 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unhelpful to readers to include redlinks on dab pages, for the most part, because the link is uninformative, i.e., no content exists.
  • Please see WP:RED, "Sometimes it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about an important, verifiable subject."
  • WP gets a fair amount of commercial spam (WP:SPAM). It isn't clear to me that Chimera (filmmaking) doesn't fall into that category.
My suggestion is to stub the article if it satisfies WP:N and WP:NOT. Then, add the link to the dab page. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

you know what no[edit]

chimera s are anything 2 living things that have been breeded together and that can be anything ok


The term Chimaira exists only as the american band. The word is not in wiktionary (see). The only use of the word Chimaira is tha band. That is why Chimaira should not redirect to Chimera.--  LYKANTROP  12:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TV show[edit]

This, which I removed from the dab, should be in a reliably-sourced article:


Chimera, the prophetic thriller, written and adapted for television by award-winning science fiction author Stephen Gallagher. Directed by Lawrence Gordon Clark (Harry’s Game), was broadcast on ITV on 7 July 1991. Classed as a mini-series it ran over four, one-hour episodes.

The series tells the story based at a fertility research centre, The Jenner Clinic, which has been destroyed in an explosion and the entire staff wiped out by someone or something of superhuman strength.

Journalist Peter Carson (John LynchSliding Doors, Hardware) fears his girlfriend, nurse Tracy Pickford, is one of the victims. As he begins to investigate the tragedy, he is drawn into a nightmare of secrecy, violence, and hostility as the government seeks to hide the truth about the clinic's work, determined that nothing will stand in the way of scientific progress.

On DVD[edit]

The original uncut TV version comes out on DVD for the first time on 5 July 2010, released by Revelation Films.

At The Cinema[edit]

Screened at the BFI in 1991, the original TV mini-series will be shown again at the BFI on 5 July 2010 as part of BFI's future human series.

External links[edit]

Eekerz (t) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Recent Cleanup[edit]

I've added a link to Chimera in popular culture in the "See also" section -- this page offers detailed descriptions of the many cultural references to chimeras, and as such I have removed a few of the minor references from this Chimera Disambiguation page, as they are much more clearly enumerated on the Popular Culture Page.

I have also removed the link to Chimera (novel) and suggest that that page be deleted. There was only one novel on the list, so I have added it directly to the Chimera Disambiguation page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SlothropShuffle (talkcontribs) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Album to add[edit]

The album "Chimera" by Chris Pureka (she also has a "Chimera II") should be added under Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatFiggy (talkcontribs) 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)