Talk:Wyvern

Listy

I've been watching for some time as this article continues to get more and more listy. There was actually a decent article here a couple years ago, and since then every week or so more and more non-notable listcruft has been added, often without any attribution to a reliable source. I'm tagging the list sections with {{Prose}} and challenging the veracity of every single unreferenced entry in the lists. I will come back in a few weeks to clean up whatever is left at that time. Anything still in list form will be incorporated into prose (meaning that only the most notable examples will be kept), while anything unreferenced or non-notable will be trashed. Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to help track down references or to establish both WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability, your work will be greatly appreciated! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and weeded out some dubious and some obviously non-notable entries (such as high school mascots) and converted the lists into prose. It still reads poorly and needs citations, and we still need to establish notability for each item, but at least we are pulling away from the endless listcruft. I will come back to make some further improvements later this week. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to the talk forum, but after reading each different suggestion, I believe many issues are caused by a the paucity of useful content classifications. Breaking down the wyvern in early literature; wyvern in heraldry; and wyvern in pop culture, could be overarching categories. These headings would allow room for the mythic origins; use by governing bodies, from the early Saxon kings to Queen Elizabeth, and furthermore to its depiction on modern flags. It would also reduce the problems caused by the donation of information on wyvern in video games and the "Dragonology" understanding of its relationship to elephant eating birds (or whatever the deleted content said prior to edits). I'm sure a different standard of citation is in order for the scholarly versus video game-esque information. I hope this suggestion is helpful. I came to the forum intending to read only, and do not know how to carry out my suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacKenzieWhitlock (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wyvern & Wyrm

Since there's no entry for Wyrms on Wikipedia, what's whe difference between a Wyrm & a Wyvrn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.123.254 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wyvern = 2 legs, Wyrm = 4 legs. Wyrm is currently redirecting here. It should be redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_dragon

Midland Railway

I find it difficult to see the connection between the wyvern crest surmounting the Midland Railway coat of arms and Leicester, given that Leicester is already represented on the shield itself along with Birmingham, Bristol, Derby, Leeds and Lincoln.

Also that the railway originated and had its headquaters in Derby. Similarly others make a connection with the Leicester and Swannngton Railway when it was not part ofthe original Midland Railway.

Regardless of the truth of the matter, it widely believed that the wyvern was an emblem of Mercia and this would seem to explain its usage in three parallel but otherwise unconnected cases. Chevin (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alleged 2013 sighting

This account was recently given to Unexplained Mysteries online forum and is surely worth a mention? (Strange Creature: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=250151&st=0)

It is uncannily like the coat of arms of the 1st Duke of Marlborough [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/1st_Duke_of_Marlborough_arms.png[/img]

"About a month ago, I was walking late at night and I saw a weird creature up the road so I slowed down so I didn’t spook it, once I got close enough to see it clearly it had long thin but muscular hind legs and slightly more muscular front legs its feet were like a cross between a cats and a bird they had what looked like the soft pad like mass but where the toes would normally be it had huge talon like claws, the main body was big and bulky roughly 4ft in length and about 3.5ft in height with a long tail about 3ft in length with a pointed tip to it, the neck of it was short like a dogs but risen above the shoulders like that of a horse at the rear area of the head it had two small-ish ears that came to a point at the tip and ballooned slightly in the middle like a leaf and diagonally down from that were its eyes they were a large oval shape slightly pointed at each end and were blue with cat like slits for the blacks its front of its face was set like a horse with the positioning of the nose and lips but it had teeth of a carnivore it had two large K9 teeth top and bottom surrounded by smaller jagged teeth.

It didn’t seem to have fur or anything like that and if it did it was very short and fine, once I got about ten feet from this thing it turned to look at me when I made eye contact with it I felt like time had stopped it just stared at me it must have been thirty to sixty seconds then it made I noise I will never forget it sounded like a dieing scream so high pitched that I had to cover my ears then it ran across the road into the forest since then I have herd the scream a few times but I haven’t seen it." 176.24.226.120 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

Sorry, but forum posts very much do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines and this will not be added to the article. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that—this does not in any way qualify as a reliable source of anything—and I'll add that this description also notably lacks any mention of wings. Respondents on the web forum mentioned dogs and dog-like creatures, but none of them made the leap to wyverns. So not only is it absolutely unreliable, it's also irrelevant to this article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tolkien drew his dragons as true dragons not Wyverns

The text says that the hobbit films show a creature described as a dragon although it has features closer to a wyvern. That's true, but I wonder if it is worth mentioning that Tolkein himself always drew his dragons with four legs? So it's another example I think of poetic license taken by Peter Jackson.

I give some examples of his drawings in my quora answer here. So the creature shown in the films is not identical in appearance to the dragon of the story the Hobbit itself.

I'm not sure how you can do that without being clumsy but it might be worth mentioning if you can find a way.

As well as that, just to say in case it is useful as an example, the dragons of Berk include a mixture of some wyverns and some dragons. Of course none of them can actually speak in that series. Interesting as a modern movie and tv depiction that acknowledges the distinction and makes a special thing about it. Though I'm not sure if it is remarked on in the films itself. Robert Walker (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Unrelated creatures"

The text reads, "The wyvern has often been confused with the dragon (even though the two are distinct, unrelated creatures)". What does that statement even MEAN when discussing imaginary creatures out of mythology? Who sussed out the imaginary DNA record? The next paragraph goes on to say "The wyvern is regarded, moreover, as the distant, lesser cousin to the dragon, similar to a dog being the distant cousin to the wolf." Would anyone say dogs and wolves are "unrelated"? In any case, any claims about the "natural history" of imaginary creatures need either to cite a source—someone who has bothered to conjecture an actual genealogical record—or better still, to show how and why, in mythological traditions, the animals are "distinct". Absent such information, it comes across as nonsense to insist the creatures that consistently show up in hugely popular culture labeled "dragons" aren't dragons but wyverns. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The bracketed clause "even though the two are distinct, unrelated creatures" was added by an IP yesterday, and I agree is nonsense: the two are variations on the same concept, and in that sense are clearly "related". I will delete. However, the distinction in British-tradition heraldry, based on number of legs, is a definite and well-documented one, and seems to be accepted in parts, at least, of the fantasy universe. More references would always be good, but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the section as it stands. GrindtXX (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Modern fiction

The attempt to generalize Wyverns in modern fiction is very poor in this article. It should be something along the lines of "The Wyvern is featured in a number of games and films,such as-"

Saying how they compare to other creatures is not only inaccurate atm, its off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.137.85.207 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked the 1 listed source for that paragraph (5e D&D monster manual)... to sum it up the wyvern entry describes a creature related to but distinct from 'true' dragons, with a poison stinger on the end of it's tail. Creature type is listed as 'dragon', but anyone reasonably familiar with 5e D&D will tell you that creature types in that edition are in general very simplified. That isn't proof D&D doesn't distinguish the 2, as the rest of the entry makes pretty clear. There is notably ZERO mention of gila monsters, which the paragraph in question strongly implies is stated by the source. As an enthusiastic consumer of fantasy literature & games, frankly the assertion being made here comes off as BS. Most often wyverns ARE distinguished from dragons, with not only the 2-legs thing but also an inability to breath fire, the stinger on the end of the tail, & being much, much less intelligent. It sounds like out-of-touch nonsense that someone made up. In addition to D&D, that pattern holds true for Warhammer Fantasy, World of Warcraft, & the Witcher franchises... as well as a whole host of more obscure works. Warcraft in particular has wyverns that are not at all draconic (flying wolf-lion things). Of course, I'm just an untrustworthy rando on the internet... but given that the referenced source ALSO doesn't back up the information currently posted I think it's justifiable to delete the contentious text, & let someone else with the time, interest, & GOOD SOURCES add content to the section at a later date, because what we have is someone making un-sourced claims, with a non-public access ref to make it look more legit. 74.134.30.21 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sea Wyvern

I removed the sentence about a sea-wyvern from the lead for the following reasons:

• The lead summarises the article. The sea-wyvern gets no mention in the article so the information does not belong in the lead
• It is unsourced. The lead need not be sourced when the info in the main article is appropriately sourced, but as mentioned, there is nothing in the main, so no sources at all.
• Attempts to find sources showed only modern sources, and these were themselves wikis or discussions. Nothing authoritative turned up. Also information was contradictory, with deviant art hosting pictures labelled sea-wyverns that had the usual wyvern tail, not fish tales.

If anyone is aware of a literary reference or reliable source, I suggest putting the material in the appropriate main section (e.g "in modern fiction"), but I still doubt its notability for the lead. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Y Draig Aur

Hello all. Draig in Welsh is a feminine noun. After the definite article, feminine nouns soft mutate. It should be "Y Ddraig Aur". My Welsh isn't fluent--dydw i ddim yn siarad Cymraeg yn rhugl--ond dw i'n siwr yma gyda'r treiglad meddal. I'm certain here with this soft mutation. Can anyone elaborate?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Y Draig Aur Owain Glyndŵr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

History section

The history section is full of citation needed tags, citations which don't seem to relate the the body of text and one failed citation. I would also ask what a "history" section in a cryptid article is trying to achieve, when there is already a heraldry section?

One of the citation tags is dated 2018, maybe it's time to scrap this whole section? Cymrogogoch (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the first two paragraphs are largely unsourced gibberish, and should just go. In particular, what on earth is meant by "in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, when depicting Merlin's prophecy of the red dragon of Wales beating the white Anglo-Saxon dragon, they are seen to have two legs"? The Historia Regum Britanniae was a written manuscript text, so nothing can be "seen" in it: there are of course illustrated versions, but the best-known image of the dragon-fight (see right) clearly shows four-legged dragons.

The third paragraph looks a bit more solid (although its only reference is badly formatted – I'll fix that in a minute), and I think can probably stay.

I think the point of calling this section "history" is to admit that wyverns, or creatures very similar, are found outside strictly heraldic contexts, and at dates earlier than the emergence of true heraldry in the 12th century. GrindtXX (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Have to agree with all of that, the image you've highlighted is pretty much ubiquitous with not only the Galfridian texts but the legend of Merlin's prophecy in general, so I think it's pretty clear the contributor has made an erroneous assumption.

The third paragraph is certainly worth keeping, and perhaps goes someway to justifying the section, despite being on the brief side. Let's wait and see if there are any other contributors or watchers who want to add their opinions but at the moment, I think a wholesale removal of all but the last paragraph is the best option.

Cymrogogoch (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cymrogogoch:, it's been almost 2 weeks without anyone else chipping in, so I'm going to take that as consensus and delete the two problem paragraphs. GrindtXX (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Including 'English/Welsh border' to describe Cheshire's location

Cheshire is legitimately located on the Welsh/English borders, yet the inclusion of this fact is seen as 'unhelpful', how is it unhelpful if it helps readers better understand its location within the UK? English/Welsh border still includes 'England' so I don't understand why it's a big issue.Hogyncymru (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

But the English/Welsh border is completely irrelevant to this article, and of no special interest to most readers who have come here to find out about a legendary creature, not British geography. If you're suggesting that the wyvern has some particular connection with Wales, that's just not true: it's a pan-European creature, and the name is Anglo-Norman. This image is just one representation of a wyvern, which happens to be in Chester Cathedral. If any reader wants to know where Chester is, there's a wikilink to help. Your version makes as much sense as changing the caption to "... in Chester Cathedral, 16 miles from Liverpool". And by the way, per WP:BRD, you should not have restored your bold edit until consensus was reached. GrindtXX (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:GrindtXX here. No sense in mentioning the border there. I suggest you self revert per WP:BRD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Firedrakes?

Why is Firedrake redirected to here? Not even mentioned. I don't think firedrakes are depicted as dragons, and especially not as Wyverns. Please explain! 47.69.165.158 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)