Talk:List of hybrid creatures in folklore

Goat people was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 April 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of hybrid creatures in folklore. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Tengu, race of mixed bird-monkey, japanese myth of warriors/bounty hunters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.99.231 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge question[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat people some are suggesting merging that list to this article. How does everyone feel about that? Dream Focus 19:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in part - it changes the subject: not all critters in the list are "upper part human", see eg Baphomet. IMO renaming the list as suggested by AFD is a better solution. Of course, "distributed copying" of the "goat-list" into relevalt parts of the complete "hybrid list" makes sense as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support distributed copying, i.e. merging. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devil[edit]

There is a picture of the devil, calling him that in the information written under the image, but the devil is not listed in the article at all. Dream Focus 19:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] An IP address removed information that was there since the start of the article years ago. Dream Focus 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pulgasari[edit]

The Korean article ko:불가사리 (전설) (mostly unreferenced) says: "body of the bear, the elephant's nose, the eyes of a rhinoceros, the feet of a tiger, the teeth of a hawk, the tail of a bull, and many other animal parts;" - i.e., basically a knock-off of Baku (spirit). I didnt add this description, because I could not verify it. Pulgasari article about film is no wiser. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for dispute and sources[edit]

The “factual accuracy is disputed” tag has been there since 2018 and never explained or discussed. I’ve looked at WP:LSC and it says ”Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.” so I assume that’s the problem with this article, but I’m guessing.
Related to that, it’s also tagged as needing additional citations, which I assume means citations concerning membership criteria.

The list has a clear theme but it is inherently diverse and eclectic so I can’t see where membership criteria could be sourced from. I’m inclined to remove the tags, say in about a week, but does anyone else have a view on this? --Northernhenge (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driders?[edit]

These are Drow-Spider hybrids, but there's a more generic (and older, Greek) term for more general humanoids with spider bottoms: Arachne/Arachnae. I'm not sure of a good citation but maybe someone with a library full of mythological history could find one? ;) In fact, this entire article needs some citation love and more references/entries. 47.221.237.206 (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Taur-hybrids (centauroid)"?[edit]

  Hi, I just made an account to post this, sorry if I don't know what I'm talking about.
  I just want to ask why these are called as such? I was under the belief that taur/taurus meant bull in Greek and Ancient Greek, so it doesn't seem right for these to be called taur-hybrids and centauroids when some of them don't have anything to do with bulls. In fact, it even says "Taurs are a class of mythological horse people..." it then goes on to list 5 creatures, of which three are part horse and one is part donkey, which is close enough to a horse, I guess, and the last one is the Minotaur that is not in any amount part horse, which goes against the sub-category description, despite the Minotaur being  the only one that makes sense when it comes to -taur meaning bull.
  So it seems to me as if the name of the sub-category makes no sense, I'd obviously assume it was spawned off of "centaur". The Wikipedia page for Centaurs says their name means "piercing bull", but offers no reason as to why that would be the case considering that centaurs are part horse. And even if the name had no issues, the 5 listed creatures are an exercise in finding the odd one out that does not fit the sub-category description, the Minotaur. Which is also the only listed creature that is part bull.
  Again, sorry if I'm just ignorant of something. Andreazj (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'draconian' in description of draciana[edit]

'Draconian' seems to be used in the description of draciana to mean 'pertaining to dragons'. This is not the standard, generally-accepted definition which is 'extremely strict; harsh'. 2600:8807:874E:E00:D1EB:EDD0:3FEB:284B (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed 'draconian' to 'draconic'. While the former is correct, if old-fashioned, according to the Wiktionary entry, we have a more up-to-date and less ambiguous word, so good catch! Daranios (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]