Talk:List of avian humanoids

Fire Emblem

There are ravens and hawks in the Fire Emblem games. They are referred to as laguz though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.197.10 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures?

Can anyone find any pictures from mythology of bird people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillakilla (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrived names

Who, apart from Wikipedia and a few science fiction stories, calls these things "avian humanoids"? Pretty much everyone calls them some variation of "bird people" or "birdmen". This title seems like an unnecessary formalism. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So which would you choose? Bird people or bird men? Or birdmen? Or birdboys? Are we to establish seniority based on number of google hits? Better to stick with a technical description. Serendi^podous 12:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Angels as avian humanoids?

Descriptions and depictions of angels with wings are a post-biblical phenomenon. They are not so described in either the Old or the New Testament. Winged heavenly beings are designated as cherubim or seraphim, are not exclusively humanoid, and are never called "angels". I don't know if the Quran describes angels as winged or if any Jewish post-biblical religious literature or art does so. Koro Neil (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll specify in artistic depictions. Serendi^podous 14:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability

Maybe just me, but I am not clear what the point of this article is and how it in any way satisfies WP:NOTE. The article has very few references and none tie together the random items listed here. I could just as easily create articles like "Things that are red" or "Cars that have unusual have funny headlights" but that those would not have merit either.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this page is really about notability; it's basically a navigation tool to send people to the right articles. Serendi^podous 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that violates WP:NOTCATALOG.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is basically a disambig. People come here, they think, what was that guy with feathers? And then they look it up here and then find the article. Serendi^podous 15:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what a disambig is. A disambig clarifies multiple uses of the same term. Again, you could just as easily have a page called "Things that are red", but WP does not do that. It would create a limitless number of pointless lists.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so; there is a limit to how many examples can be placed on this list, particularly if we limit them to examples with their own pages. A list of "things that are red" would go on forever. This list hasn't really changed in months, if not years. Serendi^podous 17:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(Undent)

I didn't say anything about the length of the list.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe in deleting articles just for existing, so we'll have to agree to disagree. If you want, take this to AFD, though I would suggest starting an account first. Serendi^podous 17:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you guys have mentioned NOTABILITY and NOTCATALOG. I'll add RELIABLE SOURCES and VERIFIABILITY to the list. If these entries aren't going to be cited rather soon then AfD might well be the right answer. We can't rely on wikilinks for sources as Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and there's no guarantee (aka, a miniscule probability) of finding anything useful at the other end of the existing bluelinks. It's very unclear what encyclopedic purpose a list like this might serve for the reader; it's easier to see why enthusiasts might create such a collection, forming what professor Ian Sommerville once called a "write-only paper". We shouldn't have any write-only articles here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)