|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Manticore
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Delete[edit]
Nothing to link here, not really mission-y, a subsection of some other article at best. P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.
13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. ТyYAUA 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm too busy to be bothered right now, but a list of legendary creatures would be pretty on-mission if anyone wants to start it. --Danfly (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll get my Monster Manual </snark> Тycommunications wire 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since it's a part of mythology, it's at least vaguely on-mission. Not exactly useful as-is, but yeah. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I gotta go with "dump this thing". my own bias is this: RW is not WP. we don't have articles on everything, nor should we. If WP can do a better job, and we have nothing -- well, nothing "rational" to add, why have it. Besides, it's not like this is any great modern myth like Big foot or Lock ness where we can show that there are idiots who believe in this stuff. and it's not hooked up to, say, the Knights Templar.... --
En attendant Godot 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I concede. I could create a "List of legendary creatures" article myself. Lpetrich (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe this is self-evident and I could be mistaken - but why would legendary creatures be automatically on-mission? (And I don't mean "we have an article on x therefore ...") --BobSpring is sprung! 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like
my girlfriendGodot said, can we "show that there are idiots who believe in this stuff"? If so, we need an article. If not? Meh. P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss. 20:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd consider the history of superstition to fit into mission statement 2, but I don't really care either way. You can find a few people on the internet who believe they did exist (as you can for just about any legendary creature), but it's harder to find people who believe they still exist. --Danfly (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's room for stuff on people who believe old mythologies (perhaps a section in folklore) but I'd be against articles on individual mythological items. See Talk:Arthritis for another thread on this theme. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd consider the history of superstition to fit into mission statement 2, but I don't really care either way. You can find a few people on the internet who believe they did exist (as you can for just about any legendary creature), but it's harder to find people who believe they still exist. --Danfly (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Like
- Maybe this is self-evident and I could be mistaken - but why would legendary creatures be automatically on-mission? (And I don't mean "we have an article on x therefore ...") --BobSpring is sprung! 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I concede. I could create a "List of legendary creatures" article myself. Lpetrich (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I gotta go with "dump this thing". my own bias is this: RW is not WP. we don't have articles on everything, nor should we. If WP can do a better job, and we have nothing -- well, nothing "rational" to add, why have it. Besides, it's not like this is any great modern myth like Big foot or Lock ness where we can show that there are idiots who believe in this stuff. and it's not hooked up to, say, the Knights Templar.... --
- Since it's a part of mythology, it's at least vaguely on-mission. Not exactly useful as-is, but yeah. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll get my Monster Manual </snark> Тycommunications wire 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm too busy to be bothered right now, but a list of legendary creatures would be pretty on-mission if anyone wants to start it. --Danfly (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly, I'm sure I've just had the word "manticore" stuck in my head (and put it into Wikipedia and did some thorough reading) but I'm sure didn't read it from this discussion popping up on recent changes... weird. Unless I caught a very brief sight of on RC subconsciously. ADK...I'll hurt your houseplant! 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think it has a place for those of us who are also interested in "historical woo" (I know I've added some historical conspiracy theories and quackery that I don't think anyone believes anymore), though mythological creatures are probably better off in list form as suggested above. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
