|WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Mythology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Correct errors
- 2 Less spoiling
- 3 Cock?
- 4 Duplication
- 5 Spurious "analogous" creatures
- 6 Basilisk and salamanders?
- 7 Final Fantasy fact-check
- 8 Image
- 9 Pronunciation
- 10 Re-Catagorization
- 11 What?
- 12 Modern fantasy fiction and games
- 13 Citations
- 14 Link to German WP
- 15 Darn history
- 16 cockatrice spoiler link is dead
- 17 Two labored impossibilities
- 18 Clean Up
- 19 Cockatrice/Wyvern
- 20 RV: Cockatrice Bible Abilities
- 21 Culinary usage
- 22 get this...
- 23 External links modified
Please feel free to correct errors all you like. This is my first page, and I'm very open to constructive criticism. -Iamthecheese
The following text text was removed since it was spoiling the game:
- as well as a formidable weapon once slain (assuming the wielder has some protection against the effects).
It is part of Nethack to die in as many stupid way as possible. Especially stupid ways involving the cockatrice. The proper way to use the dead cockatrice must be learned painfully.
APOLOGIES but could work out how to start a new section. This article has a "Modern Literature" section, and I just wondered if you wanted to add the Xanth books by Piers Antony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A cock is a male rooster. Is it really supposed to lay eggs? (Anon.)
- No connection, needless to say. --Wetman 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- The impossibility of this is actually part of the point. More detailed depictions specify the age of the rooster (normally seven years), have the egg being incubated by a snake or a toad, and I think I've seen a few "when the stars are right" or similar phrases associated with the egg-laying. Draxynnic 03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have a connection; back in the olden days, people thought 'cock eggs', eggs with no yolks, were lain by roosters. (In fact, it is just a fertilization disfunction) Feel free to interpret this in any way you want, as long as it is 'confirmable' and has a basis.
"The last public record of a cockatrice occurs in a Church document of births and deaths in Warsaw, dated 1587. Written by monks, the entry states that two young sisters died when exposed to the breath of a cockatrice in their cellar. The document calls for God to bless the girls' family and to keep it from the evil that takes innocents.
The Dragonology book, however, says a cockatrice kills by breathing on its victims. Its breathe contains poisonous droplets. The book also says the cockatrice does not kill by looking at its prey."
The html of the first section suggests that this has been cut-and-pasted from a source with a narrower column-format. Can some public source for this assertion be located, and some identification found of "The Dragonology book"? --Wetman 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I find it ludicrous that the cockatrice is so immediately compared to a wyvern. If anything, a cockatrice with its associations to petrification would be more related to a basilisk. A wyvern by contrast is a semi-draconian creature, not directly related to pure dragons, that have poisonous tails. I am ashamed of the blatant lack of cryptozoological expertise on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The reference to the cockatrice as the original Blood Elf mount in the World of Warcraft expansion is given twice. I suggest deleting the second reference. 188.8.131.52 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Spurious "analogous" creatures
user:Wetman has removed section “Analogous creatures” and I have replaced it. It is properly referenced and relevant to the article. (From looking at the history of the article I see that user:Wetman has been removing references to such creatures since 14 December 2005.)184.108.40.206 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is a comedy riff by Anonymous User:220.127.116.11, whose edit history here and under other IPs here and here demonstrate no healthy authentic interest in Wikipedia other than this ludibrium. The "references" are to Uncyclopedia, "article" ["Baby dragon shocks owner", a parody of Wikipedia, and to Nethack's supposed ["Ye Olde Bestiary"]. A co-vandal, User:Ednan inserted the spurious article Drachentaube, a hoax masquerading as "heraldry" refered to here as a "reference". The intention of this insistent cooperative vandalism is to undermine the credibility of the genuine information in this article. This article needs more adult supervision. --Wetman 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have reverted. Don't turn this into an edit war, please. "Nethak" has its own Wikipedia article. As for the Uncyclopedia, "article", I included the reference to the 4-legged duck as disabiguation. I would accept that reference being removed if it is not felt relevant. (However, as for the "parody of wikipedia" claim, the article is supported by a link to the BBC.) There is no evidence to support the claim that the Drachentaube is a "hoax". I think Wetman needs to prove it to be so, first. 18.104.22.168 17:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no point in direct discussion with an Anonymity, but gaming Wikipedia, in order to undermine its credibility, is a form of vandalism. Vandalism needs to be dealt with. The transparent hoax Drachentaube, with its spurious "references' purports to be "heraldic", but no armorials bear this figure, which was inserted at Wikipedia Commons. --Wetman 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is perfectly legitimate to contribute to Wikipedia "anonymously" 22.214.171.124 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- (Experienced readers and editors know that Anonymities provide ninety per cent of the vandalism at Wikipedia. Editors who consistently log in slowly develop a reputation, good or bad.) I have invited User talk:Ednan to come and explain his image of a "Drachentaube" with an authentic heraldic usage that is not "referenced" by a link to a gamester website, currently paraded as "The Legende of the Drachentaube", Dragonlore, No.53, St. Frideswide's Day 2004, 2-4. "Dragonlore" is simply a website: www.dragonlore.co.uk/. The Wikipedia image has been taken from the website and colorized. --Wetman 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
To round this off for future editors reading this, I cleaned up the section. The duckatrice poem and nethack creature look to be real, so were left. Drachentaube was removed due to the article being deleted (via an afd). The second duckatrice reference was removed as there weren't reliable sources. The BBC article mentioned by the anon above call him a 'Four-legged duckling' and his owners call him 'Stumpy'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6371901.stm The duckling is real but he isn't a duckatrice. Polenth 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to resemble a early pterosaur, without the teeth.
Basilisk and salamanders?
I removed the following sentence from the first paragraph since it has no relevance on this article:
- (Though a basilisk is often confused with a salamander, which has six limbs.)
If cockatrices, on the other hand, are confused with salamanders (and I can't imagine why), feel free to correct this sentence and re-enter it. –Adrian Lozano 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Final Fantasy fact-check
The information listed for Final Fantasy, regarding a Cockatrice being used as livestock may be incorrect. I believe it is refering to the Chocobo, which shares very few features with the Cockatrice. Briefly, it resembles a ostrich, with a parakeet head instead of the long neck. It attacks with kicks, as opposed to any sort of petrification or magical breath. It is mostly used as a riding animal, mascot, or comic relief character. It has no reptilian characteristics whatsoever. Other then being a sort of monsterous chicken-creature, it does not seem to have any relation to the Cockatrice.
Unless I am entirely mistaken about what the article refeers to, this section should be removed. --126.96.36.199 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is correct. For that particular FF game they were a form of farm animal. http://www.ffcompendium.com/h/espmon/cockatrice.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
We definitely need an image of this. Clerks. 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if we can get a ruling on the pronunciation. I always pronounced it with an I like in "machine," but I heard a character in a movie use a long i. That charatcter, as I recall, was a redneck type, so I'm not sure if I can take that pronunciation as correct. Thanks. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, cockatrice is pronounced like a cockatr-'is' as in 'is', only with a 's' sound instead of 'z'. Or my english teacher finally pronounced something wrong. If so, she owes me a dollar. (Yes, that was a joke. But this is a talk page, not the main article.) And by the way, you really shouldn't use the talk page to find pronounciations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't intros (the text that comes before the table of contents) usually smaller and meant to give a brief explanation of the article's subject? The intro seems to take up just about two thirds of the whole article. I think that the intro should be re-catagorized into at least two different sections (to be listed under the table of contents); and the actual intro should be a short paragraph, EX: "The Cockatrice is a mythological beast that..." Krakenen (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but either it's a Basilisk or it's not, And in Harry Potter's case it was a Basalisk that he killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreder 02 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- What? Well, I looked up 'basilisk', and apparently basilisk can mean either something like the cockatrice or something else. I also found that some facts that should maybe be moved here? In any case, I vote that this article shouldn't be changed for that. Either way, you should read those random facts because I think it tells you something there that you missed.
Modern fantasy fiction and games
- Then go ahead and fix it, no one's stopping you. I'm not going to do it becaue I'm not generally good at this thing.
- Now it is too long... |:(
A recent anonymous editor removed one of those little citation tags that are so easy to scatter about like breadcrumbs, with the summary: Yes, I looked this up in a book and it said it was thought a basilisk would die if it heard a rooster crow. So I deleted the  that was put there. It shouldn't be necessary to remind editors that this is not actually a citation of a reputable source and adds no weight to the text. Nevertheless, I haven't restored the tag, as they seem unhelpful, lazy and prone to abuse.--Wetman 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I found something that (sortof) gives weight to that; Basilisk#Accounts. It's only a shame that you can't switch to it immediatly... anyway, it's in the 4th paragraph after the quote from Pliny the Elder. You know how related the cockatrice is to the basilisk. Just trying to make up your mind to keep it (off), in case you're still thinking of placing those annoying :signs.
- And another thing, I think someone should find out if that: "The cockatrice was also able to fly with the set of wings affixed to its back." is accurate, because, well, if it's true, it's one of the only things that set it apart from the basilisk (beside that its looks are diffrent; and by that I mean compared to the description of the basilisk that it looks like.)
Link to German WP
Both Cockatrice and Basilisk link to de:Basilisk (Mythologie), which seems a bit odd, as they're different creatures. I don't know if there is a German equivalent to the Cockatrice, though. (The German article mentions no wings anywhere, which are supposed to be what distinguishes a cockatrice from a basilisk.) -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... weird. It seems opinions differ country to country and time to time... And when you say that, I hope you mean the basilisk has no wings, which is what it says on the English page.
- And why is a German equivalent to the cockatrice important?
- RE no wings, yes, that's what I meant. I was trying to say that, since there is no German equivalent, the English article shouldn't link to the German wikipedia at all, rather than to the next best thing. (Maybe a short section in the text instead explaining that most languages don't have an equivalent?) -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Uhh... no, I think what we've got here is OK. I misunderstood you before (albeit slightly) but now I got what you're saying (I think), and umm... well, I've seen you've already edited it. I think we should leave that alone for now unless we (you, I) can find some better, definite resource. (And by that I mean the links)
- This page needs a "History" section, where it'd be described in how it would be diffrent from a basilisk, when changes occured, what the changes were, and how old/new descriptions of the cockatrce fell in and out of use. Well, I think so anyway.
And how about a "Use as Heraldic Symbol" subsection? If anyone wants to make it:
- It has been used in many family herald/sign/bannery stuff
- It, as a heraldic symbol, is thought to mean danger
- Even though it is called a cockatrice, it resembles early descriptions of the basilisk by Aristotle
- Thought I'd share that.
Two labored impossibilities
The following strained reaches have been moved here:
- It is also possible that the cockatrice was inspired by the misidentification of feathered dinosaur fossils like those of Archeopteryx.
- Chicken embryos are known to develop reptilian tails, but chemical hormone triggers replace it with a "normal" bird's tail by the time it hatches. It's quite possibly a rare occurrence for a chicken, or any bird for that matter, to be born with its embryonic reptilian tail.
> http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/17-03/st_qa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the article to make it more encyclopedic and logical. I eliminated a lot of the footnotes because they really have no place here, some being just chatty asides and others containing important material which belonged in the body of the text.
The article still needs more work. Most importantly, someone needs to relocate the Breiner article and extract the factual matter. Unfortunately as it stands - or rather droops - the article incorporates commentary about Breiner but not his actual findings.
RV: Cockatrice Bible Abilities
I removed a recent addition by USER:All Worlds who took a passage from Isaiah out of context and claimed that the Bible taught something about mythical birds that lay flying serpent eggs; merely using a set of different Bible translations as reference (see WP:OR). Examining the verse, though, it clearly describes the traits of kings Uzziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The user, from glimpsing his talk page, has made other disputed edits concerning the supposed belief in and worship of mythical birds. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that was one of the edits done in an attempt to add "citations needed" at the time on that page, in this particular case, within the abilities of the legendary creature. The citation in reference was: The cockatrice was also able to fly with the set of wings affixed to its back. of which I see now should have been cited as it were and then added the additional information and cited as within that abilities section accordingly, which was not done properly in any form for whatever reason at that time. It would seem though, we are all flawed individuals. At any rate, I did notice that you did not return to the page the original requested "citation needed" or the issue of "able to fly" under the abilities section and which quite possibly should be the focus of all this. -- All Worlds (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I just removed the fallacious text; I wasn't aware of any previous controversy. KJV and like English texts were written millenia after the the book of Isaiah, and their specific word choice should not be used as a way of explaining the beliefs of ancient semetic peoples. The only real value such a translation has is to illustrate the ignorance of some medieval age scholars. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised not to see anything about the cockatrice as the name for a Tudor culinary speciality:
- Cockatrice was made by cooking the front part of a capon and the back part of a small pig and sewing them together.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cockatrice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708032156/http://www.curatorscloset.blogspot.com/ to http://www.curatorscloset.blogspot.com/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017085123/http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/cockatrice.htm to http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/cockatrice.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.