text:
Talk:Lidar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Justinvmaher, Zehracheatham.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Phantom2k10, Loganbarrett28, Gyutaek.c, Ghammack.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren't radio waves light, technically?
Call me crazy, but aren't radio waves technically light as well? Thus it's hard to say that LIDAR uses light rather than radio waves... --Dante Alighieri 09:19 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Light and radio waves are both distinct forms of electromagnetic radiation. I don't think the definitions of light and radio waves overlap.  The wavelength range of light is about 400 to 800 nm, while the range of radio waves is about 0.1 m to infinity.  These ranges do not overlap.  See Electromagnetic spectrum. -- Heron 09:31, 28 June 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not talking about visible light, but light as a generic term... used to refer to the entire electro-magnetic spectrum. If light refers only to visible light, then it seems rather redundant to call it visible light. ;) --Dante Alighieri 09:45 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Infra-red and ultra-violet are generally thought of as light too. Generally "light" is used to refer to anything between the far infra-red to the extreme ultra-violet. Terahertz radiation represents the grey area between "light" and radio at the low end, and EUV starts to blend into "soft" X-rays at the high end.

 * So it's:

 * Radio
 * ELF, VLF
 * UHF
 * Microwaves
 * Terahertz rays (grey area)
 * Light
 * Far IR
 * Near IR
 * Visible spectrum
 * "Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet"
 * Ultra-violet
 * Extreme ultraviolet (grey area)
 * X-rays
 * Gamma rays
 * etc...
 * etc...

 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.44 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2003 (UTC)

 * (A comment by 131.107.0.102, 10 November 2009, was moved down to More on the definition of light below, due to the age of the above discussion.) --83.253.248.109 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name
Is LADAR the correct term here - or should it be LIDAR? Perhaps with a sub heading for Ladar.
 * Ladar also seems to have a lot of eye surgery references as there is a tradenamed procedure that begins with Ladar.
 * Also see Ladar which cross references to Lidar, as a more general term.
 * A google search for Ladar gives 9,160 entries, while a google search for Lidar gives 296,000.

Lidar is linked to Ladar in Wikipedia. I think it should be the other way around, or there should be two entries. Also should these terms be capitalised? They are spelt as Ladar and Lidar in many internet entries. Any thoughts? kiwiinapanic 09:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm with you on this. I originally created this as an offshoot of RADAR and have since learned that it's much more common to refer to it as LIDAR. Feel free to move it! Maury 13:19, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Page moved from LADAR to LIDAR. kiwiinapanic 11:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Lidar is the more general term. The distinction between lidar and ladar depends more on the nature of the target. Traditionally lidar has been used to refer to diffuse targets (eg atmospheric aerosols) while ladar has been used to refer to hard (ie solid) targets. In the early 90s there was a letter submitted to Photonics Spectra (IIRC) that discussed the subtleties of this issue. Personally I tend to use the term laser remote sensing these days as not all of the instruments I develop in my professional life provide range information and lidar is therefore a subset of laser remote sensing. There are a number of implicit assumptions built into the information currently conveyed on the page that are not always correct. I will think about how to correct these with minimal editing changes but do not have time at the moment. --Gary Spiers - www.lidar.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.192.247 (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2004 (UTC)

Mirror choice
Can anyone tell me what some of the pros & cons are of using a polygon mirror? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.234.99 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2004 (UTC)

Acronym
LADAR stands for LASER Detection and Ranging. LASER stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. If you string the whole thing together, you get "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, Detection, and Ranging." How do you emit detection and ranging? Same thing goes for LIDAR, except it emits imaging too. — Daniel 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * LASER in the name simply refers to the device which emits a coherent beam of light. LIDAR is simply Detection, Ranging and Imaging through the use of a scanning laser. Trying to work the LASER acronym open inside the LIDAR acronym is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.179.232 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I dimly recall that it was an acronym of Laser Interferometry Detection And Ranging. It was probably in a journal or newspaper. Or perhaps on Tomorrow's World, a BBCtv science-magazine program. It is an uncertain memory. Archolman (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
The style on this article is horrible. It's poorly formatted and many parts sound very informal. I'm gonna mark it for cleanup. 69.161.13.68 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That massive chunk added by Mcgowan30 is just... a mess, and seems to be entirely focused on laser-based speed traps, but as an anon I'm hesitant to simply wipe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.179.232 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I just took my eye off this article for a few weeks and look what has happened. I agree entirely with the comment just above. It will need some work to tidy up, and it was never very good to start with. I would be prepared to have a go in producing a balanced shorter article. The first thing I would do is to move all the addition on the laser speed measurer to another article (presumably new - I'll have to check there is not already one covering this). Then I would write a paragraph to summarise what has been removed. Unless anybody argues against this I shall try and spend some time at the weekend on this. That is of course if no one else has had a go at a cleanup in the mean time. Op. Deo 22:39,a 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Back again! having nosed around a little it seems that the part added by Mcgowan30 is straight off a motorbiker's description of laser speed guns. It is therefore a copy violation unless the webpage author has released it for use in WP. I will therefore delete the whole of it for now. I will come back at the weekend and try and write a short paragraph using the deleted material. The reference given below also contains useful background on the development of lidar as sensor for autonomous control of vehicles - a somewhat different type of instrumentation. Op. Deo 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A resource
The following article (abstract) by the National Institute of Standards and Technology would provide some good background information to help with a cleanup of this section.
 * Performance Analysis of Next-Generation LADAR ... NISTIR 7117; 198 p. May 2004 (9 MB)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingpolarbear (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Laser sources
1550s aren't all that rare nowadays. I'm not really sure I buy the rep rate comment either. Maybe that's true for power, but if you needed a lot of power you'd be using a YAG anyway - right? - not a 600-800 diode. 600-800 isn't a very good range limit spec either if this is supposed to imply "conventional III-V edge-emitting diode" - 904 nm LIDARs are common as dirt. Is this section from an outdated source perhaps? Tarchon (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A more general introduction, and more
All kinds of systems and applications use the term LIDAR. Not all LIDARs are based on lasers or pulses. And the distance measurement is only one of the measured parameters. I suggest the following more general introduction.

I am also working on a short general principle section. Which could be followed by the following applications section suggestion:

and finally a more detailed principle description of the different subsections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.79.64 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree about generalizing it. Restricting LIDAR to pulsed laser techniques is just incorrect. It might be better to describe that as the way LIDAR is usually done. I'm never quite sure where LIDAR ends and profiling begins though. I'd mention the disadvantages compared to RADAR too, not just the advantages. Short wavelengths also imply more scattering, less range, for example. Tarchon (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

LIDAR and RADAR interfering with one another
Does anybody know if lidar and radar were fixed on the same target from roughly the same place if they could mess with each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.43.137 (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2006

 * I can assure you that lidar (visible or near infrared light) and radar (microvawe range) use wavelengths differing by several orders of magnitude. Therefore no interference is possible. If it were, you would actually see microwave radiation interfering with light inside a microwave oven. It does not happen and intensity of both form of electromagnetic radiation in an oven are much higher than what a radar or lidar use to illuminate a target. Friendly Neighbour 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture of the laser
I'm somewhat sceptical of ...if the laser interacted with air particles, it would encounter too much interference and would never reach the intended target, so I believe someone has skilfully photoshopped the picture with a lightsabre-like beam – anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.80 (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The bright laser beam is clearly impossible. First of all, it would break US safety rules on how intense beam you can send into the atmosphere (not to blind airplane pilots). It's either a fake (photoshop job) or a dual exposition photo (short daylight exposition overlayed on a long nighttime photo of the beam).
 * (continued) Yes, it's a dual exposition photo. You can see how the stars moved during the nighttime exposition in the original large photo while the clouds in the lower left corner (photographed in daylight) do not move (are not blurred). Friendly Neighbour 10:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You are mistaken in general, and although I have no way of knowing if the particular image on the page is authentic or not, I have no reason to believe it is fake. Atmospheric research lidars in visible wavelengths are easily visible by the naked eye during nighttime, and have an appearance exactly like in this photo, except that the ones I've seen myself have all been green.  To ensure aviation safety, powerful lidars are marked on aviators' maps, and there are exclusion zones around them.  Operators also use protective goggles which block the wavelength of the lidar.
 * As for your claim that this is a dual exposure, I suggest you take a look at many more nighttime long-exposure photos before you make strong claims of forgery. In what way do you suggest that it was necessary to make a daytime exposure to create this scene?  --Togr 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag
The article seems well organized and well written, although a bit technically confusing with all the terms you use. You need to add a reference section for citations sourcing your information. KarenAnn (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lidar measurements and techniques
I think there should be a section listing the different techniques for measuring each parameter such as aerosol type and air temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap.fwiffo (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You are free to start one. However the techniques for different aerosol types are identical; the only thing that differs them is the backscattering coefficient for a given particle size / wavelength combination. It's the trace gases that need a different approach. Friendly Neighbour 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid Friendly Neighbour misspoke. Even for aerosols, there are a number of different measurement techniques that are commonly used.  Simple backscatter lidar (e.g., the spaceborne lidars GLAS and CALIPSO), Raman lidar, and high spectral resolution lidar (HSRL) are all commonly used to measure both cloud and aerosol properties.  For trace gases, differential absorption lidar (DIAL) is the tool of choice...but even DIAL can be (and is) used to make aerosol measurements. Xavier onnasis (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In fiction section?
LIDAR may be used in science fiction as an alternative to RADAR. I'd add a section but I'm not sure it meets notability requirements, as the only thing I know of for sure that uses it is Space: Above and Beyond. 69.81.123.154 (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored link to KQED
Hey y'all: I've reverted a previous removal of a KQED-TV (PBS) science story from LIDAR#External links. I didn't get a reply from User:JuJube after requesting clarification for removal. Craigrosa (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * WP:EL: No link should be added unless its inclusion is justified. Until there is consensus for its inclusion the link should not be reincluded. Femto 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Links to vendors
How about a link or mention somewhere of some of the leading commercial contenders eg:

 * [  Since editors started to add suggestions here to the 2 by Davagh, I moved the whole list down to below Davagh's signature. --83.253.244.23 (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC) ]

I see there is already a link from the Zephir disambiguation page to this lidar article. Other sources of information on these products at:

Davagh (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NaiKun Wind deploys ZephIR LiDAR (Marketwire)
 * ZephIR - papers, evaluations & studies (Natural Power)

 * Please put your additional suggestion at the end of this list, and sign it with four tildes ( ~ ).
 * Windcube
 * QinetiQ ZephIR Davagh (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Galion lidar --91.135.13.220 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Airborne 1 LiDAR --Oscariveros (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This page slows down my browser
This is the only Wikipedia page that has ever slowed down my browser. Is it because of the animated pictures? Running Mac OS X and Firefox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.212.193 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More on the definition of light

 * (Comment moved down from Aren't radio waves light, technically? above, due to the age of that discussion. --83.253.248.109 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC) )

The article on light is ambiguous on this discussion ("In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not"). It would seem most clear to simply edit the lede to remove "which is light that is not in the visible spectrum..." (the clause is unnecessary and reads somewhat awkwardly anyway, I think). A reasonable alternative would be "which is electromagnetic radiation not in the visible spectrum," I think. Not that this is a huge issue, but the wording is odd enough to have caused me to click the discussion tab. ;) 131.107.0.102 (Microsoft web proxy) 19:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the term "laser radar" really misleading?
The sentence about calling "laser radar...misleading" doesn't feel right. My logic is that LIDAR would in fact be a type of radar. Many of what we call radars utilize the microwave bit of the spectrum. Radar grew beyond its original acronym some time ago. Do even shorter wavelengths make a radar not? ~ Theparadigmshifter (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 * "Laser radar" simply means: "like radar, but with laser light" (instead of radio waves).

 * I see the two most basic properties of a radar system as: 1) The basic working principle, which on a very general level is sending something out and detecting its reflection, and 2) The sending and detection of radio waves or microwaves. The first is shared by LIDAR, and the second just differs in which part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is used.

 * The only way I can see that one could be mislead by the term "laser radar", is if one thinks that the word radar in the phrase means that "laser radar" involves radio waves or microwaves. But one who knows that much about radar, most likely is able to figure out that the word laser in the term means that that part of the electromagnetic spectrum is used, rather than radio or micro waves as in radar.

 * (Also, to claim that something is misleading, you should either be able to show that someone has been mislead by it in any significant way, or, at the very least, show in some way that people are likely to be mislead by it.
 * And just in case you find someone who has managed to become mislead in some way by this term; is that of enough statistical significance or notable enough to deem the term "misleading" in the lead section (or anywhere else)?)

 * In my opinion, the term "laser radar" is not misleading in any significant way. --83.253.248.109 (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Bye the way, ever heard about "optical maser"? That's a "maser", which instead of emitting microwaves like a regular maser, emits radiation in or near the visible spectrum. It's also called a "laser". --83.253.248.109 (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Replaced "but is misleading because" with "even though", to avoid the word misleading. --83.253.251.169 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if you can show me a "light radio" then MAYBE you could say "laser radar" is not misleading. Ultimately, this term is inaccurate, un-scientific and misleading. See the similar discussion above or just learn the EM spectrum. 132.38.190.22 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps mention survey of Caracol under the Archaeology heading?
A couple of days ago (mid May 2010), several publications were made about how NASA has used LIDAR to survey Caracol, a large Maya city. Could be interesting to mention this and provide suitable links to more information. TobiF (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Robotics attention needed

 * Refs - large swathes of text need refs
 * Content - complete?
 * Reassess
 * Check (from feedback footpage): "147.102.195.66 posted feedback to LIDAR3 months ago - The citation missing in "Meteorology and Atmospheric environment" could be: Weitkamp, C. (Ed.), Lidar: Range-Resolved Optical Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere, Series: Springer Series in Optical Sciences, Vol. 102. 2005."

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

LIDAR in the film industry
I noted a credit for "on set Lidar scanner" in the recent movie Total Recall. I gather moviemakers are now using LIDAR to scan objects that are going to be represented in CGI? There should be a section on this in the article. 38.111.35.2 (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I worked in the business until recently. Over the past few months my friends have seen Lidar used in location and sets scanning for the art department or for animation/cgi. CGI set extensions have been going on for a while, so it's been useful in helping to cut down labour in that regard. Set it up and get a lovely 3d model in an afternoon? Absolutely someone should write something about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.64.27 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Propose renaming article to Lidar instead of LIDAR
Most publications use "lidar" not "LIDAR". To be honest, this is a more logical spelling, since lidar is not an acronym, see the revisions at LIDAR#Derivation and spelling of LIDAR, which provides a history of the usage. I think we should acknowledge this, and rename the article Lidar. Thoughts? Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, seeing no objections, I'll make the change. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

LIDAR → Lidar – 1. Lidar is not an acronym, it is a portmanteau of "light" and "radar", as it is stated in the first published reference (James Ring, "The Laser in Astronomy." p. 672-3, New Scientist Jun 20, 1963). 2. Even if you believe it is an acronym, it should not be all caps, since it follows the pattern of "laser" and "radar". 3. Most publications use "lidar", not "LIDAR" (see Google Books: []}. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it was, radar is in lower case, not all caps. I have no problems with the move.  Thegreatdr (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Support per laser, radar, sonar, etc. Powers T 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it is an acronym. "LIght Detection And Ranging" is a frequently found expansion. Further, in many documents in the past, LASER and RADAR were capitalized (though not in the modern day, as they've transitioned from being pure acronyms into common words) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * support this acronym has evolved into being a word. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

BDD (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

LADAR Lives.
When this article was moved from LADAR to LIDAR to Lidar all mention of LADAR was deleted. However, at least the USAF continues to use the term LADAR. The redirect left behind does not explain that LADAR is still in use, even if it is not the more common name. I believe the etymology section needs to add a mention of this alternative name. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I have no objection to your inclusion of a Ladar section. I think you should do it lowercase, since its cognates, laser, lidar, radar, and sonar, have long been lowercase. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lidar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120406133456/http://www.arete.com/index.php?view=stil_mcm to http://www.arete.com/index.php?view=stil_mcm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Did Lidar invent LIDAR?
Is there a good source that debunks this? It doesn't seem to want to die otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lidar in Forestry section
I would like to add a section on lidar use in forestry. Any thoughts?

Here is a source I would use for reference:

Loganbarrett28 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Logan Barrett

Lidar spelling in article
Putting this on the talk page for future editors. I just went through and changed all (hopefully) the different spellings of lidar, for consistency. I used the NY Times format of lidar, non-capitalized in any way, unless it's the start of a sentence. If other groups use LiDAR or LIDAR I left those references alone. Timtempleton (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Purge autonomous vehicle methods
The 3 example papers for "Approaches of processing lidar data" are absolute rubbish. These are papers in third tier conferences and workshops that have absolutely no impact (23/4/10 citations). The summaries have very low quality and plenty of obvious mistakes. As an example "using Fast R-CNN[53] as this method doesn't need training" is completely false! I suggest to remove all of them or have at most one sentence per method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.10.144.135 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lidar. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lidar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160219045753/http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/ to http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608055751/http://www.cmu.edu/news/blog/2010/Summer/unprecedented-robochopper.shtml to http://www.cmu.edu/news/blog/2010/Summer/unprecedented-robochopper.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231016/http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Compression-zone-technical-paper-A4.pdf to http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Compression-zone-technical-paper-A4.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512223921/http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/EWEA-2014-Poster-ID-175-Lidar-Measured-Wakes-B3.pdf to http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/EWEA-2014-Poster-ID-175-Lidar-Measured-Wakes-B3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512225420/http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Power-Curve-Technical-Paper-A3.pdf to http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Power-Curve-Technical-Paper-A3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160219045753/http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/ to http://lidar.cr.usgs.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lidar. 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/20070822232155/http://harlie.gsfc.nasa.gov/IHOP2002/Pub%26Pats/AMOS%202002%20final.pdf to http://harlie.gsfc.nasa.gov/IHOP2002/Pub%26Pats/AMOS%202002%20final.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TEDxUniversityOfStrathclyde_TheEmergenceOfEolics.pdf,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lidar. 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/20111008044625/http://www.sick.com/GROUP/EN/HOME/PRODUCTS/PRODUCT_PORTFOLIO/Pages/product_overview.aspx to http://www.sick.com/group/EN/home/products/product_portfolio/Pages/product_overview.aspx
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20141112204623/https://www.hokuyo-aut.jp/02sensor/07scanner/urg_04ln.html to https://www.hokuyo-aut.jp/02sensor/07scanner/urg_04ln.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720141859/http://www.rta.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-TR-SET-098 to http://www.rta.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-TR-SET-098
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703035643/http://130.226.56.153/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1506.pdf to http://130.226.56.153/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1506.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417103501/http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Offshore-Power-Performance-Assessment-using-lidar1.pdf to http://www.sgurrenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Offshore-Power-Performance-Assessment-using-lidar1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lidar. 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/20140404105837/http://3dlasermapping.com/index.php/mining-monitoring-applications/volume-measuring to http://3dlasermapping.com/index.php/mining-monitoring-applications/volume-measuring
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080717184531/http://creativity-online.com/?action=news:article&newsId=129514&sectionId=behind_the_work to http://creativity-online.com/?action=news:article&newsId=129514&sectionId=behind_the_work

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Images
The images at the top of the article are really messy and it makes you scroll a good amount before getting to the article. Should I add a gallery section? Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be the application you're using to view the page. I don't see that problem on my desktop computer. The only thing that stands out is the exceptional width of the table of contents. Try viewing the page on other devices. Eric talk 00:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Uber self-driving car?
The picture of the "Uber self-driving car" has someone at the wheel. Are we sure this is a self-driving car? Morfusmax (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 * The photo in the article as of 2021/03/02 is not an Uber robot car. The actual, infamous Uber robot car had a safety driver, but she was not paying attention. Also, the Lidar was not connected to the brakes.   JHowardGibson (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First sentence inaccuracies
The first sentence says that lidar is "a surveying method that measures distance to a target by illuminating the target with pulsed laser light and measuring the reflected pulses with a sensor". This scope is too narrow on at least three accounts:

 * First, not all lidars are used to measure distance. Lidar can be used to measure surface reflectivity, atmospheric conditions, and speed. Doppler lidar, for example, measures wind speed by measuring the frequency shift of light that has been backscattered by the air. Differential absorption lidar detects trace amounts of gases by measuring the difference in attenuation of two wavelengths of light, only one of which is absorbed by the target gas. Neither of these examples measures range.
 * Second, not all ranging lidars use pulsed light. There are continuous wave lidars, which can be either amplitude- or frequency-modulated at, say, gigahertz frequencies. These can measure range without using pulsed light; instead, they interfere the continuous outgoing signal with the return signal and analyze the beat (wave physics).
 * Third, not all lidars are used for surveying. As the article proceeds to mention, it is used in many industries for many applications.

I suggest replacing the first sentence with something like, "Lidar is a type of sensor which obtains information by bouncing light off a target. Such information may include distance to target, direction of the target, reflectance, speed, or atmospheric conditions."

I also think that the article itself needs a huge amount of cleanup. I can probably look into reorganizing a lot of it when I have the time, although I'm working for a lidar manufacturer so it is probably best that someone else does it. For a good technical overview, I recommend the SPIE Field Guide to Lidar. dllu (t,c) 10:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

More detailed "history" section
I'd enjoy if the history section included a timeline of when each application went into common service, or at least if the application sections included those years. If others agree this is a good idea, I can go ahead with a rough pass, with citations of course. Adamw (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

History and etymology - Radar/Raider claim
No reference given for the claim that Radar is a pronunciation error of raider. Sounds very suspicions. Given the article isn't even about Radar, might be best to remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisH256 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lidar safety concerns
I wonder if others might have more information to create a section about Lidar safety conserns. BBC made an article a while back about a photo-camera being ruined by a car with lidar (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46875947), so I wonder if there isn't more. 62.238.252.34 (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 * The safety problem with Lidar is the laser. Wikipedia has an article on Laser safety which covers most of the problem.  The only issue I can think of as unique to Lidar is that eye‑safe Class 1 lasers are strongly preferred.  On airborne Lidars, the system may be Class 4 at the bottom of the aircraft, and Class 1 at some minimum altitude above the ground.  The aircraft does not activate the Lidar below that altitude, which is not much of a problem because aircraft don't like flying at those low altitudes anyway.  Design practise on Lidars is to use a beam expander to accomplish Class 1 level energy densities.  I know this because I used to work in the industry.  I am searching Google for this stuff, and not finding much. JHowardGibson (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

iPhone iPad Lidar
I’d like more info on how iPhone 12 Pro Max does Lidar. DBGustavson (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Ouster OS1-64 lidar point cloud of intersection of Folsom and Dore St, San Francisco.png, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 27, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-01-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wind measurement
See https://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/lidar-controls-wind-turbine#:~:text=The%20LIDAR%20(light%20detection%20and,before%20it%20reaches%20the%20turbine.

LIDAR in this sense is a related means of measuring wind speed at a distance, using much the same technology. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Requirement of Gallium-Arsenide imagers Still True for Flash LiDAR?
There is an older source from 2018 saying that flash LiDAR cannot be done using silicon photonics in an eye-safe range and requires Gallium-Arsenide photonics. Is this still true? It seems like SiLc’s product might make this assumption false by proof by contradiction. I also thought using OPA made silicon photonics viable for flash LiDAR.

I am not an expert, but would appreciate any experts chipping in to re-examine this source for accuracy. 2603:8080:6001:9C81:0:0:0:1008 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Use of LIDAR in Additive Manufacturing
LIDAR was recently incorporated with 3D Printing in Bambu Lab's X1 Carbon. Would this be a worthwhile addition to the article? Trojari (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 * If there are independent reliable sources, perhaps. MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Error in "Technology/Mathematical formula" section
"Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server " http://localhost:6011/en.wikipedia.org/v1/ ":): {\displaystyle d=\frac{c\cdot t}{2}}" Zhamelax (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

EH Synge
How do i add a reference to a Wikipedia article on Edward Hutchinson Synge, who did theoretical work on LIDAR in 1930? Wikiijohn (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lidar


text:
Dead Boys

The Dead Boys are an American punk rock band from Cleveland, Ohio. The band was among the first wave of punk, and regarded by many as one of the rowdiest and most violent groups of the era. They were formed by vocalist Stiv Bators, rhythm guitarist Jimmy Zero, bassist Jeff Magnum, lead guitarist Cheetah Chrome, and drummer Johnny Blitz in 1975, with the later two having splintered from the band Rocket From The Tombs. The original Dead Boys released two studio albums, Young Loud and Snotty, and We Have Come for Your Children.

The Dead Boys were initially active from 1975 to 1980, briefly reuniting a few times in the mid-1980s, and then later again in 2004 and 2005 for the first time without Bators, who had died in 1990. In September 2017, Chrome and Blitz reunited the band with a new line-up for a 40th anniversary tour along with a new album, Still Snotty: Young, Loud and Snotty at 40, a re-recording of their debut album. The new lineup includes vocalist Jake Hout, guitarist Jason "Ginchy" Kottwitz and bassist Ricky Rat, alongside Chrome and Blitz.

Formation and 1970s punk rock era
Chrome and Blitz joined Cleveland proto-punk band Rocket From The Tombs in late 1974. Chrome invited his friend Steve Bators on stage to sing a few songs at a show in August 1975. This caused most of the other band members to walk off stage and they broke up. Shortly thereafter Bators, Chrome and Blitz recruited Magnum and Zero to form Frankenstein who recorded demos in October but they broke up in January 1976. When the band members relocated to New York City in July 1976, they adopted the Dead Boys moniker which came from a line in the RFTT song "Down in Flames".

Moving to New York City at the encouragement of Joey Ramone, the Ramones' lead singer, the Dead Boys quickly gained notoriety for their outrageous live performances. Lewd gestures and profanity were the norm. They frequently played at the rock club CBGB (the band was briefly managed by club owner Hilly Kristal) and in 1977 they released their debut album, Young, Loud and Snotty, produced by Genya Ravan. Their song "Sonic Reducer" is often regarded as one of the classics of the punk genre, with AllMusic calling it "one of punk's great anthems."

Their second album, We Have Come for Your Children, produced by Felix Pappalardi, was recorded in Miami in early 1978 and released later that year. Sire Records pressured the group to change their look and sound to appeal more to the U.S. mainstream (which had yet to embrace punk on the level seen in the UK) and this contributed to Dead Boys breaking up in 1979.

Shortly after returning from Miami, Johnny Blitz and a group of his friends got into an altercation on Second Avenue in Manhattan which led to Blitz being stabbed in the chest five times. While he was recovering in the hospital, a benefit was held for him at which the Dead Boys performed with John Belushi and former New York Dolls and Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers drummer Jerry Nolan filling in for Blitz on drums.

Several 1979 performances were featured in the 1980 film, D.O.A.. A few months after the breakup, the band had to reunite to record a live album and thus fulfill their contractual obligations. To exact revenge on the label, Bators purposely sang off mic and the resulting recording was unusable. When the material eventually surfaced on Bomp! Records, Bators had re-recorded the vocals in a studio. They booked a 1979 - 80 tour but Magnum, then Chrome, Blitz and finally Zero left, leaving Bators as the only original member. He recorded his first solo album with the final (until later reunions) Dead Boys lineup.

Bators' and Chrome's subsequent careers
in 1979, Bators recorded some singles including a cover of "It's Cold Outside" by the Choir and a solo album, Disconnected, for BOMP! Records. Bators later joined the Wanderers with former members of Sham 69 and shortly thereafter formed Lords of the New Church with Brian James from The Damned and Dave Tregunna from Sham 69. They released several albums on IRS Records, including the keyboard-laden hit single "Open Your Eyes" and a cover of "Like a Virgin".

After the Dead Boys dissolved, Cheetah Chrome played around New York City (mostly at Max's Kansas City) doing shows with The Stilettos as well as his own band Cheetah Chrome and the Casualties. He recorded a single for ORK Records, "Still Wanna Die" / "Take Me Home", recorded with Atlantic Records co-founder Herb Abramson. Shortly thereafter, he played on Ronnie Spector's debut solo album Siren. He appeared on several recordings during the 1980s, and rejoined the Dead Boys for their ill-fated reunions of the late 1980s.

In 2003, after the release of The Day the Earth Met the Rocket from the Tombs, Chrome reformed Rocket from the Tombs with David Thomas, Craig Bell, with Steve Mehlman (Pere Ubu) on drums and Richard Lloyd (Television) replacing the late Peter Laughner. This reincarnation of the group toured in 2003 and 2006.

In summer 2003, they entered the studio to record some of the band's old material for the first time. The recordings were released as Rocket Redux. In 2005, the members of Rocket from the Tombs flew to Germany to headline one night (Buzzcocks headlined the other) of the International Punk Kongress in Kassel; then, in 2006, they reconvened in Cleveland, Ohio to write material for a new record. This material became the single "I Sell Soul"/"Romeo and Juliet", released in 2010, and the full-length album Barfly, released in 2011.

In early 2010, Chrome formed a short lived band called Batusis with Syl Sylvain of the New York Dolls. They recorded at least 10 songs but released only four on an EP. In September 2010, Cheetah Chrome: A Dead Boy's Tale from the Front Lines of Punk Rock was published. At the end of a week-long Rocket from the Tomb tour in December 2011, Chrome announced to the band that he had decided to stop touring extensively after 2012. He currently works for Plowboy Records in Nashville, TN, mainly in production and promotion.

Reformation, death of Bators, 40th anniversary tour
The Dead Boys reformed for several gigs in the 1980s. They re-released their first album as Younger, Louder and Snottier in 1989, mastered from a cassette tape of rough mixes, attributed to a young Bob Clearmountain, a studio assistant at the time.

In June 1990, Bators died in France due to injuries sustained after having been hit by a taxi. In September 2004, the remaining members of the band re-formed for a one-off gig in Cleveland. In 2005, they played a benefit show for CBGB and another reunion show on Halloween.

On April 25, 2017, Chrome and Blitz played six shows in Canada as a tribute to the 40th anniversary of Young, Loud and Snotty. The band played the record in its entirety. Chrome and Blitz then announced in 2017 that the band would go on a full reunion tour.

On September 8, 2017, Still Snotty: Young, Loud and Snotty at 40 was released. The album is a re-recording of their debut album and the first studio album by the Dead Boys in 39 years. Along with Chrome and Blitz, the tour and album featured Jason "Ginchy" Kottwitz (Bulemics, Sylvain Sylvain and the Sylvains, Cheetah Chrome solo band) on guitar, Ricky Rat (Trash Brats) on bass, and vocalist Jake Hout from zombie-themed Dead Boys tribute band the Undead Boys.

Chrome said of the tour "(w)ith the 40th anniversary of the Dead Boys on the horizon and a solid band that could interpret and deliver the performance and sound needed to maintain the authenticity of the Dead Boys, I reached out to Johnny Blitz about an anniversary tour and he said yes and we began the journey of what would become Still Snotty. I've been singing the Dead Boys songs myself for 20 years because I couldn't find another singer I trusted enough to hand it to. The first gig with Jake, it was like, 'You got it, man!' I think Stiv would be very proud of our choice." A photobook, Dead Boys 1977: The Lost Photographs of Dave Treat, was also released on September 29, 2017.

CBGB movie
In 2013, an American-made motion picture titled CBGB was released to theaters. Bators is portrayed by actor Justin Bartha, best known for his roles in The Hangover films and the National Treasure films, while Rupert Grint, best known for his work in the Harry Potter film series as Ron Weasley, plays Cheetah Chrome. Chrome also makes a cameo appearance in the film.

Members
Current members
 * Cheetah Chrome (Gene O'Connor) – lead guitar (1976–1979, 1987, 2004–2005, 2017–present)
 * Jake Hout – vocals (2017–present)

Former members
 * Stiv Bators (Steve Bator) – vocals (1976–1979, 1987)
 * Johnny Blitz (John Madansky) – drums (1976–1979, 1987, 2004–2005, 2017–2019)
 * Jimmy Zero (William Wilden) – rhythm guitar (1976–1979, 1987, 2004–2005)
 * Jeff Magnum (Jeff Halmagy) – bass (1976–1979, 1987, 2004–2005)
 * Jason "Ginchy" Kottwitz – rhythm guitar (2017–2019)
 * Ricky Rat – bass (2017–2019)

Discography
The Dead Boys only have three official full-length studio releases, however many labels have released rough material and outtakes in the years following their initial 1979 breakup.

Studio albums

 * Young, Loud and Snotty (1977, Sire Records)
 * We Have Come for Your Children (1978, Sire)
 * Still Snotty: Young, Loud and Snotty at 40 (2017, Plowboy Records)
 * Re-recording of Young Loud and Snotty

Alternate mix albums

 * Younger, Louder and Snottier (1997, Bomp!)
 * Original rough mixes of Young, Loud and Snotty
 * 3rd Generation Nation (1999, Bad Boy Production)
 * Premix of We Have Come for Your Children

Live albums

 * Night of the Living Dead Boys (1981, Bomp! Records)
 * The Return of the Living Dead Boys (1987, Revenge Records) (Import/France)
 * Recorded July 22, 1977 at CBGB
 * Liver Than You'll Ever Be (1988, Various Labels) (Import/Various)
 * Recorded December 26, 1987 at the Ritz, NYC
 * Twistin' on the Devil's Fork: Live At CBGB's (1998, Hell Yeah Records / Bacchus Records)
 * Recorded October 2, 1977 and August 31, 1978 at CBGB
 * All This and More (1998, Bomp!)
 * Recorded in 1977, November 1 in San Francisco and August 7, 22 and April 7 at CBGB

7" singles

 * "Sonic Reducer" (1977, Sire)
 * "Tell Me" (1978, Sire)
 * "Search and Destroy" (1979, live, Revenge) (Import/France)
 * "Buried Gems" (2000, Cold Front Records)

12" singles

 * "All The Way Down/Nights Are So Long" (1987, Relativity Records 8165) (never released on CD)

DVD

 * Return Of The Living Dead Boys! Halloween Night 1986 (2008, MVD Visual)
 * Live At CBGB's 1977 (2009, MVD Visual)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dead Boys


text:
Talk:Lists of legendary creatures

Why is this all mixed up?
The overall list includes deities, animal symbols which were never believed to be real things, cryptids, angels, demons, spirits, undead, a real natural and mundane bird, and a city whose page is a stub containing nothing more than a statement that it is a city with a map showing its location. Almost nothing on the list would be a "creature" by my understanding. (In particular, I don't think undead would count at all- they're dead. Creature implies it is a living animal. Spirits, ghosts, zombies, and the like, probably shouldn't be on this list.) Also, many of the deific beings listed are currently worshiped to this day, they are part of rich, complex, and CURRENT religious communities! I think their inclusion here as "creatures" would be mildly offensive to anyone from one of these faiths. Furthermore, including religious entities like Zeus as being equivalent to "gold-digging ants", which are easily summarized as an ancient translation error which got repeated for too long, is pretty disrespectful to our own history. You could change the name to "lists of supernatural entities, mythological beings, cryptids, fairytales, and animal-like symbols" but I don't think that would be an especially useful list to anyone. (Which, by the way, is why I have a problem with what the list currently contains). 68.179.88.89 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, many of the entries are alternate names for the same thing and redirect to the same page. Many entries direct the user to a collective page about a given mythology which contains lists of creatures; and some of these do not have the creature under its listed name on them. This is less than helpful, especially as some of those lists then link you to a dedicated page just for that entity! If the entity has its own page, why are we directing users to a general page about the thing's surrounding mythology? 68.179.88.89 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The list also seems to conflate mythical beings and legendary beings as being the same. This would be highly offensive to some people, as legendary implies a thing is blatantly a work of fiction, while mythic implies that it was something people actually believed in. Some people would be offended by you calling their beliefs myths as well, because they can't tolerate their ideas being called anything other than "fact", but that's besides the point. There is an objective difference between a legend and a myth. 68.179.88.89 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up
In the introduction where it says "Creatures of modern invention are not included." I think, should be changed to clarify what is considered modern and in being so are not included on this list. Maybe just "Creatures invented after 1900 (or the 17th century or 11th Century, whatever is accurate) are considered of modern invention and not included. Or, "This list only includes creatures imagined before the 13th century. Something like that. Yes I know I have weird grammar but I don't think I technically made any mistakes. Besides in relation to style.

Also, on the list for 'B', ba is on there. That should probably go under spirits or something like that, since the Egyptians believed that the ba was part of the soul, like the ka (i think) and there were others too, that are probably also on here and should be removed and put elsewhere.

Species or Individual?
I'm noticing a lot of individuals from mythology (such as Aethon and Zeus) in this list. Is it meant to list just legendary species, or both species and individuals? For my part, I think it should just list species, otherwise it can grow out of hand too quickly. Pfhreak 03:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cancer
How the hell is Cancer(the disease) a legendary creature?! The link in this article directly links to the article on the disease. Question2 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Feeling stupid. Further research shows nisser to be plural for nisse which is another name for a tomte. I added a listing for nisse with a an indication to see Tomte--Carapowers 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dorson in "A Theory for American Folklore" in American Folklore and the Historian, University of Chicago Press, 1971, makes reference to the Norwegian demonic being the Nisser. Perhaps this creature should be added to the list. --Carapowers 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed Gigantopithecus because I don't think a prehistoric animal belongs on this list. Perhaps Giant Ape or another article would be better for a legendary creature. -- Triple07 2:51 19 Nov 2006.

"List of fictional species" sounds like all the Star Trek races belong here, too? :) -- Timwi 09:40 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes :) Nikola 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I wasn't actually being serious about that. I don't think we should combine lists of Star Trek species with things like dragons, werewolves, gryphons or the like. I vote we create a List of Star Trek races (I'm surprised it doesn't already exist) and link to it from here. -- Timwi 13:26 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This content duplicates (in very small part) mythical beast. I think this page should be deleted, but I won't list it on VfD til we hear from the author... --Dante Alighieri 09:50 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, what I wanted is to make a list of all fictional species, mythical or not, of beasts aliens or plants, it's just that mythical ones first came to my mind. As the list gets larger, it would be separated by groups of species. Nikola 11:08 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, I'll drop in a few non-mythical ones now to get the ball rolling. --Dante Alighieri 19:21 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Since list of aliens in fiction and list of species in fantasy fiction are already seperate lists, this page's title is now quite misleading. I think list of species in folklore and mythology would be a better title, following the lead of list of giants in folklore and mythology. -Sean 05:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are there any legendary creatures that were proven to exist? I mean were there any that were thought to be mythical but now there officialy exist?

I removed hominids, which are patently not "legendary" creatures.

I’m looking for a mythical creature ... please help :)))
Sorry, but it’s my first time and I wasn’t sure where to post my question so bare with me.

I’m looking for a mythical creature that when killed will reborn stronger and more dangerous thank before. Because of his special ability there wasn’t any creature that can take him and eventually he dies from old age. Thank you,

AdSSonic 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesent the pheonix revive stronger???

Nahual
Should´nt the nahual be on this list????
 * I think you meant Nahuelito, the argentinian version of Nessie. I added it, by the way. --Apeder 16:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think they mean the nagual (or however it's spelled), a shapeshifting animal/sorcerer from Mexican folklore. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.

Lizardman
Reptilian Humanoid or lizardman should be on the list. I'll add it now --LizardPariah 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does that show up in actual myth or folklore? The closest thing I can think of is the Draconians, who show up starting in the 1980 -something book Dragons Of Autumn Twilight by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, first book of the Dragonlance chronicles series. Just asking, because I LOVE mythology and folklore, yet I haven't any mentions of a reptilian humanoid or lizardman anywhere besides the above example, which is not myth or folklore, so draconians are not legendary creatures. 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

Legendary Animals, but not Fictional, please
I was annoyed to find 'Orc' on the list. The list is meant to be about Mythological animals, Cryptozoology. Not things in stories. Werewolves are acceptable because people have reported sitings, but nobody believes in orcs.

 * "Mythological" creatures are from stories, just not modern stories. When selecting articles for inclusion in the list, I've tried sticking with the definition from the legendary creature article: "A legendary creature is a mythological or folkloric creature (often known as 'fabulous creatures' in historical literature)." Cryptids have been excluded, except in cases where the given cryptid is simply a legendary creature that is still believed in. (This was done partially because cryptids already have their own, rather extensive list, which also includes known hoaxes like the jackalope.) Species from modern fiction, like orcs, are definitely out. Pfhreak (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orc is a word for Goblin in one of the ancient elf languages created by JRR Tolkien. Therefore, it is a modern word of fictional origin which was originally intended (maybe) only to represent the author's intepretation of a real legendary creature. However, through possible misunderstanding or maybe because the word is just really catchy, it infiltrated fantasy-themed games like Runescape and turned itself into a real word. This in modern vocabulary the sord orc can be taken to refer to either Tolkein's Goblin or the real Goblin. Granted, most people think of an Orc as portrayed in said games or literature whenever the topic of conversation concerns Orcs, instead of the actual Goblin which usually does not carry axes as far as I know. I will return with a citation of this etymology as soon as I can find the book I read it in. My point is, just because Orcs are modern doesn't mean they haven't ret-conned themselves into legend in the minds of the less-educated-about-orcs. DR. Tourny (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

God?
God is a legendary creature? Isn't that offensive??

 * It's also inaccurate... deities have their own list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.53.11 (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ringwraiths?
Fictional, not mythical/legendary. I'm deleting this entry because it's ridiculous and just links to the Tolkien writings and what not. Stupid.

 * For similar reasons, I'm removing the Acromantula item. A general cleanup to remove fictional (vs legendary) creatures might be in order. Pfhreak 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dabah, Gog and Magog
Gog and Magog and Dabah are (Islamic?) legendary creatures but they are not in the list. Mussav (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Gog and Magog have been added in their usage as giants that protect London. Their original usage in the scriptures of the Abrahmic religions are as tribes, not creatures. Dabah doesn't have an article, so it shouldn't be included at this time. (The list is long enough as it is, without including creatures that don't even have an article to link to.) Pfhreak (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannibal
Cannibal means that they eat their own kind. Someone seems to be using that term to mean that it eats humans, which is incorrect unless the eater is human. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 * My mistake. All the incorrect uses of "cannibal" should be fixed now. Pfhreak (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orc, lich, and other modern fantasy archetypes
From the Orc article: "Orc (OR'k) is a word used to refer to various tough and warlike humanoid creatures in various fantasy settings, appearing originally in the stories of Middle-earth written by J. R. R. Tolkien and derivative fictions." The green skin is an even more recent innovation. Ork, on the other hand, is from the legends of Tyrol. Pfhreak (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The lich, another fantasy archetype, is from an archaic word for "corpse", and is also not present in legends. Its use as an undead sorcerer appears to begin with D&D. Pfhreak (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the old legends of Beowulf (film and game was made on them) there are "ylfe" (elves) and "orcneas" (ORCS). And one more thing. Why there are no gnolls on the list? <> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.89.208 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because gnolls are FICTIONAL, created for the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. I don't know the exact origination of the term "gnoll", but I'm guessing it's a combination of "gnome" and "troll". Fictional does not equal mythical; fictional creatures have known creators and are used solely for entertainment purposes, while mythical/legendary creatures have no one certain person as their creator because they have been built up by word-of-mouth tales through more than one generation and mythical creatures embody moral/personal/spiritual lessons or teach why the world is the way it exists today. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.

 * Elfs are on the list because there are legends about them. OE "orcnéas" has nothing to do with the post-Tolkien usage in fantasy fiction (race of savage — usually green-skinned — humanoids) — and Tolkien himself claimed he picked the word because it sounded right, not for any etymological reasons. Gnolls are a D&D invention, based on "gnoles", themselves created for Lord Dunsany's fiction. There's a perfectly useful List of species in fantasy fiction for these races, they don't need to be added to the List of legendary creatures when they're not legendary. Pfhreak (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * A gnoll, just so you know, as of Forgotten Realms (DnD) and World Of Warcraft is basically a hyena-like humanoid creature (like a tabaxi- kind of) that is also normally evil. Definitely should not be on a list of mythical/legendary/etc creatures.75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

Pegasus as Progenitor?
I have an issue with excluding Pegasus on the basis that he is a "progenitor". Pegasus is a unique, one-of-a-kind creature from Greco-Roman mythology. He is not the father of any other winged horses, except perhaps in modern pop culture. There are, however, two distinct winged horses also from Greco-Roman mythology: Arion, the winged stallion who can speak the human language and was born to Poseidon and Demeter; and the Pegasi, a race of winged and horned horses discussed by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History. You can look up all three of these creatures on theoi.com, which gives English translations of the exact Greco-Roman texts that mention them. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.     Same thing here... Just joined wikipedia because of this list. Even if pegasus was the progenitor (which I doubt), he/it should get a listing. Why should it be any different that looking Pegasus or pterippus on a normal wiki page? One is an example of the the other. Thirdly, on the Pegasus page, it even points out that pteripus is less often used than pterippi. And BTW, the pterippi comment does not even link here. First wikipedia post, sorry if I don't get the format right. Also, can someone explain to me why me text isn't wrapping? Thanks.BandyRat (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your text isn't wrapping because of the leading spaces, you can replace it with an asterisk to indent. Listing Pegasus alone amongst all winged horses would set a precedence for listing (amongst many, many others) Chiron of the centaurs, or Sutr of the fire giants. The list has gotten enormous (almost 1,240 items) even with a lot of effort to keep the size down. Including non-unique individuals would make it quickly balloon to unmanageable proportions. "Pteripus" is less common than "pterippi" because it's the singular, and most authors use the term to refer to winged horses in the plural. Pfhreak (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, I realize looking at the introduction that I wasn't clear on that point. Pegasus isn't excluded for being the progenitor, he's excluded for not being unique. The Pegasus article at one time made reference to a race of winged horses sired by Pegasus, which is why I excluded him. The article has since been changed, perhaps because of the concerns you raise about the idea of a Pegasus-sired race being the product of pop culture rather than mythology. It does, however, now list two offspring: Celeris and Melanippe, albeit with no information if they were winged as well or continued the lineage. The Arion article doesn't mention anything about wings, just extreme swiftness, speech, and a green mane, which I do think qualifies Arion for this list on his own. I also did a text search for "wing" on the Theoi article for Arion and got nothing. The Pegasus article on the same mentions other winged horses, with no mention of them being descended from Pegasus, so I'll remove the "progenitor" part (especially since it's unnecessary and confusing), but he still seems to just be an especially famous member of a species or class of beings. The Ethiopian Pegasi (winged and horned horses) article on Theoi is interesting, and I'll try to create a corresponding Wikipedia article in the next few days. (If nobody else beats me to it, which I wouldn't mind.) Pfhreak (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Capricorn
So is Capricorn a mythological creature? The seagoat that you commonly seen in the Horscope. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. He is a symbol for the babylonian god Ea, but he is mentioned under "Aigikampoi", goat-fish. As I've been told, Capricorn is never a goat nor a buck, but instead a goat-fish. He have been refered to as Oannes, but I deem it incorrect. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would assume, that if Capricorn was on this list for any reason, it should be marked as a subgroup for something like the hippocampus and not as a separate entity. 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

Faberjacks and Frulubians
Just in case I'm being an idiot (always possible): I recently did some anti-vandal clean up including removing references to Faberjacks and Frulubians from this List of legendary creatures. I want to make sure there really are no such creatures (my brief searching came up pretty dry). If they really exist I'll fix up everything and apologize. -- Quartermaster (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jack-In-Irons.jpg
The image Image:Jack-In-Irons.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page size 110kb
It would be good if someone with a passion for this topic would be able to look to splitting this page up in to several parts. It is way big. Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 113 kb. It won't be hard. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I splat (imaginary strong form preterite for "split") it according to WP:SPLIT and be-bold, because of >113 kb. It took a little while. I'm trying to find some suitable template to mark this page that look exactly as before. Slow-connection surfers might wish to browse the splots (imaginary strong-form substantivation of "split"). ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Spirits and Deities
It seems odd that there are spirits and "Deities" in this list. Shouldn't this list be confined to "creature"---i.e., things that were or are supposed by those who believe or believed in them to have physical bodies. Corbmobile (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Jesus had been changed back to "son of Christian god" (or something similar). Don't worry, I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenrules (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, deities definitely go on a different list- not sure if there's one for spirits more specifically or not though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Related Lists
So, I understand the need to nit-pick when it comes to what makes the list and what gets deleted from it, as well as not putting things like people's religion on here so that people don't complain, but after reading through this talk page and learning that cryptids have their own list (I had been under the impression that Cryptids were included because I came across what appeared to be one, the Agogwe), I think it would be nice if links to other related lists. Seeing the links to the list of cryptids and list of deities would definitely clue me in that cryptids and deities weren't supposed to be on the currently viewed list. DR. Tourny (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You were going to make me wait until I'd read the whole list before telling me about the related ones. While this is embarassing to a degree because on a computer you can probably see the whole page without scrolling, I primarily use this page on my iPod. Now the dilemma is whether to break the fundamental laws of wikipedia by making the See Also section not the penultimate section on the page, or find a way to make a mini see also at the top so that innocent smart alecs like myself don't get suckled into stupid talk page posts. DR. Tourny (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Grendel
Should Grendel be added to the "G" list? I guess the question is does the creature have to appear in multiple stories/legends/myths, or just one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enthreri (talk • contribs) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Best to ask on Talk:List_of_legendary_creatures_(G). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This Is Not a List of Legendary Creatures
This is a list of the letters of the alphabet in order from A to Z.

It does happen to have 26 links to separate pages that list legendary creatures grouped by starting letter, which I suppose shows a good faith effort on the part of some Wikipedians to not make the information the page purports to have completely inaccessible, just frustratingly scattered and time-consuming to access. But really, this is a pretty damn useless page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.26.108 (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPLIT. But we could rename the page "Lists of Legendary Creatures" EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we might just have to rename the page List of Lists of Legendary Creatures, because that's what it is. 75.118.167.20 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)nerdorama

"Gravity Falls" is NOT Mythical
This list should be kept as cultural and historical mythical creatures from real places. "United States of North America" is not an official place under contemporary geo-political definition. I deleted "Bill Cypher" and "Demon Caterpillars" because they linked to Gravity Falls references. Go read a copy of Thomas Bulfinch's Mythology, for cryin' out loud.

I'm also dubious of the term "Riva - a wild-eyed creature of the future, sometimes bird". Never heard of this, and I can't find any references to it anywhere else. This should be verified or deleted.Teridactyl (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see Gravity Falls mentioned on this page at all...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see someone added a few things to other subpages, but they've been removed from I can tell. I am adding a few myself, like the hidebehind because they are real folklore critters.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 03:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
Lo que sigue es una lista de listas de criaturas legendarias de varios cuentos históricos, folklore, y sagas. Las entradas consisten en criaturas legendarias y únicas, no de individuos particularmente singulares de una especie comúnmente conocida. 186.30.145.36 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC) not English.  Programming Geek talk to me 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

merge
You might want to look at this [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And yet again the same suggestion is being made Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: List of cryptids
Propose redirecting List of cryptids to Lists of legendary creatures and merging any relevant content onto the alphabetical pages linked off of this one. The discussion at List of cryptids has, to this date, failed to provide a reliably sourced definition that separates the subjects of the list from other legendary creatures other than the non-notable criteria of one "cryptozoologist". Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 * oppose Not all Cryptids are Mythological (in the sense of being from a myth cycle, rather then fictional), and not all Mythological creatures are Cryptids.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please provide a reliably sourced definition of cryptid that shows how the creatures in that list page are distinct from legendary creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion for this page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And how many of the sources for this list call the creatures legendary?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the absence of a reliably sourced definition of cryptid is central to this discussion. In contrast, there are many reliably sourced definitions of legendary creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it should be the other way around since List of cryptids was created first. And we do have dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of cryptids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Support. "Legendary" and "mythological" are not at all equivalent. Carlstak (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No? Legendary creature.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * your opinion seems ambiguous. Could you clarify?  We are discussing a merger of "legendary creatures" and "cryptids", not "mythological creatures".  Jehochman Talk 20:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I was replying to Slatersteven with that comment, but I can see that it looks like a non sequitur. I agree with Simonm223's statement on the "List of cryptids" talk page that that article is useless and superfluous. As he said there, it's "a POV content fork of legendary creatures, for those particular legendary creatures which may be of interest to one subculture mostly residing in the United States." That sums up my position on the merger very well. Carlstak (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the legendary creatures article may have been the content fork since it was created long after the List of cryptids article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Being created first does not set precedence or priority to a page; Wikipedia is a living document and a new page may very well supersede a later page if it's a better fit. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No but WP:CFORK says "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. ", in other words the second article is the content fork, not the article it forks from.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "The following is a list of lists of legendary creatures, beings and entities from the folklore record.", not all Crytptids are form the folk lore record.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Care to provide an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alien big cats, there is no real folk lore antecedent.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is most certainly a folk lore antecedent for giant otherworldly cats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In Scotland, not England. Want another, mothman, of course it all depends on what you mean by folk lore. So do you have a definitive definition?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
 * How is it at all relevant that Cat Sith is from Scottish folklore rather than English folklore? I mean I've heard of that particular fairy myth and I live in Canada, so I'm sure it's in the general British popular consciousness, even if you weren't aware of it. The point is that there is a folkloric antecedent for alien giant cats. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is indeed quite common to encounter folklore about panthers or other cats said to be outside of their range (many readers will have encountered this—discussion about phantom big cats said to be in a location where they shouldn't be—themselves at some point in their lives). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We has this in Connecticut. Finally, a mountain lion got run over on the highway. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is not a traditional English folk tale. Because using this argument Hobbits are a folk tale because some culture somewhere has folk tales of short people (and thus should be in these lists). And again I ask for a definition of folk tale.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Support Cryptids either derive from traditional legends or "modern" urban legends. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Support Cryptids are creatures from (per Dimadick) traditional or "urban" legends that some people have convinced themselves, without verifiable evidence, are real. - Donald Albury 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per arguments made above. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this was tried at an rfc earlier in the year and those people not discussing should be informed of another rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it had been tried before with in the last 12 months.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Although no consensus emerged at that discussion, it's pretty clear in the intervening time that those people who opposed the merge have failed to make their argument - that there is any functional difference between cryptids and legendary creatures - despite having seven months in which to do so. If you can't provide a single reliable source distinguishing this group of legendary creatures from other legendary creatures in over half a year it's pretty clear that your argument they were different is not based in anything Wikipedia can use but rather on a fondness for the subject material. WP:ILIKEIT applies. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, they should still be pinged.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Support based on the arguments made above. Seems pretty clear to me that this should have happened a while ago. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose As per previous attempts to merge this with the myth/legendary list, seem way too pointless as there is a clear difference between the two. Merging this with the other is just wishful thinking... Don't even know why there are still attempts to do this. The past 20 or so times that this failed, users clearly decided not to merge it all the time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please spell out what the clear difference is? What is the criteria to decide which list an item belongs to? Jehochman Talk 01:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 * (Readers might want to note this user's off-site posts on drawing more cryptozoologists into this topic, such as this one.) :bloodofox: (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Paleface, this was unacceptable. Canvasing is against the rules. And bloodfox, this comes a bit too close to outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Steven, thank you for your concern. It's not outing if a user has the same handle on this site and another site.  As for the canvassing, Paleface was asking for people to help improve articles.  As long as they are not asking people to come vote, it's more or less ok.  Wikipedia welcomes all new editors who come here to improve articles.  We even welcome people who come here (like me) with other ideas.  My first edit was to add link spam, was reverted and I got a warning.  I eventually become a constructive editor. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You neglect to mention that Paleface Jack was actively soliciting cryptid fans at that site to edit "cryptozoology-related" articles on WP to counter changes to those articles made by an editor here. I quote: "We recently had an editor with biased leanings go in and damage the validity of a lot of articles by removing them from Cryptozoology-related categories and reworded them so that they fit with their own opinion on the subject." It's a safe bet that he was was referring to bloodofox, but that's immaterial. Paleface Jack is a crptid enthusiast with a WP account who was recruiting other enthusiasts off-WP to edit these articles. Carlstak (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's mission is to educate people, to make the world's knowledge available for free. We welcome everybody, especially those who would benefit from what they could learn here. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true, but it's beside the point. Paleface Jack was recruiting Meatpuppets. See Meatpuppetry, which says: " While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Carlstak (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of "soliciting cryptid fans" is unacceptable and completely uncalled for. There was a legitimate reasoning behind this and if you look at the discussion I posted, I stated people on the site could help improve such articles. Not "take over them" as some people have claimed. I also clearly stated that in order to work on those articles, they would have to find legitimate and reliable sources that are accepted by Wikipiedia. Make such UNDUE/NAME CALLING accusations is NOT helping anyone. I have been trying to be patient and have ended up defending myself for my actions for a while now and its now starting to to feel like a "ganging up" so to speak (Especially from BloodofFox). As for the "Canvasing" charges against me I have no idea what that is nor do I know that I was doing it. Explaining myself as to why the merge shouldn't happen, I will say this. The BIG difference between legendary, mythological, and cryptozoology is this: Legend and Mythology have no ties to the real world nor do they have any claims of being true (especially mythological figures). Cryptozoology is defined by the purported existence of its subjects (I say the word PURPORTED as they still aren't proven or disproven beyond reasonable doubt). Cryptids tied to urban legends (Melon Heads, Pope Lick Monster, etc.) are clear examples of LEGENDARY (Urban Legend) classification rather than cryptozoological classification as there are no purported sightings. Nessie, Sasquatch, and Yeti are tricky as they appear and ALL categories and thus are more difficult to deal with. My thoughts and suggestions have been this for a while but have never been talked about in great detail by anyone else. Why don't we include thee cryptid/myth/legendary into ALL classifications? The ones that are purported to exist and are also part of mythology should be a part of both WikiProjects (after all, the real animals such as Coyotes, Crows, and Foxes have all been a part of legend/mythology). Putting ONLY the Legendary classification sort of detracts from all the other parts of the article. Now I'm not calling for any sort of legitimization on the Cryptid articles, just for an inclusion from all related articles since most of them are a part of multiple classifications. Hopefully this clarifies my views and standing (I will NOT take any UNDUE accusations nor ANY NAME CALLING from anyone so please don't use this as a platform for slamming other users or POV PUSHING, after all this is an info database).--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Support After thinking for a while, I agree that cryptids are "legendary". The only notable difference is that the people who spread the legends are alive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mythical Legendary and cryptid are not the same. This would be like merging health stories in myths legends with pseudoscientific medicine. They are different things, behave differently, and achieve different effects. Socio-epistemologically, cryptids are somewhat in the middle between myths legends and science. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't at all relevant as this merger addresses lists of legendary creatures rather than list of mythical creatures. As has been mentioned repeatedly, legendary and mythical are not identical. In addition the idea that cryptids are somewhat in the middle between myth and science is patently false, and doing away with this erroneous view is one advantage of this merge. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I meant legendary then. We would still be doing away with the pseudoscientific component of cryptozoology and patently ignoring semantical differences. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Socio-epistemologically, cryptids are somewhat in the middle between legends and science" is not correct. Cryptozoologists draw from legend, and there's nothing scientific about their approach, despite their claims. Folklore studies is the academic discipline that handles folklore, including legend. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that "Socio-epistemologically, cryptids are somewhat in the middle between legends and science" is correct. Legends are symbolic stories and the communities of those who study them (folklorists) do not have an epistemic goal to prove them true. Cryptozoologists, on the other hand, do have a community with claimed epistemic aspirations, and unless they believe in true self-contradictions and in-principle reject any and all empirical evidence, there is something scientific about it, as there is something scientific about knowing what train stations are near your home. Just not enough to make it a science. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We're still in legend territory here, just dressed up in pseudoscientific garb and aggressively anti-academic. Dressing up like Indiana Jones to go chat with a reporter, taking checks from some Young Earth creationist groups, and penning false taxonomies, none of these things divorces any of this from legend. In comparison, legend tripping—which is really what some of these trips to the Congo to hunt for dinosaurs boil down to—is far more common, and is ultimately just as scientific as cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point. The pseudoscientific garb and aggressive anti-academic attacks make cryptozoology different from both legend and academic folklorology. Pseudoscience is not just non-science or falsehood, it has its own sphere. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Comments

I will start the ball, this is in the order the posted and is not meant to be complete, I should not have to do this.

Not sure if that is all. I got a couple of cut and pastes wrong, so it started to lose order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to notify past merge discussion participants; if you are going to notify though you had best notify all participants lest it look like canvassing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have notified the ones I could see. If I have missed any it is an accidental oversight.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I double-checked. Looks like you pinged all the participants who hadn't already weighed in here so all good. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It might have been nice for you to have done that before issuing a warning. (not matter how mild).Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please let minor offenses slide. You both seem to be good faith editors. Jehochman Talk 19:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A question to those who support this merge, why are there creatures on t he list of Cryptids that do not appear to be in the lists of legendary animals?Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the list is incomplete? That is the point for most mergers. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been going on for a long time (and all that effort), and no one has even bothered to make the two lists the same. So no I do not think "its not complete" is an adequate explanation. If the two lists are merged all those entries will have to be added to the lists.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 * If there is a merger, I recommend that any article on List of cryptids be added to Category:Cryptozoology for ease of tracking. Any article that mentions cryptozoology should probably be in this category. Proper categorization should be done before merging! Jehochman Talk 18:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I think this is a bad idea, people may well want to look up Cryptids.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the list is merged, I recommend doing two things: 1. Add all of the articles mentioning cryptozoology to the category so they can be tracked and found.  2.  Move some of the content to Cryptozoology, especially a summary of each of the most notable cryptids, the top five or six.  At some point in the future, if a well-referenced, well-formatted list is constructed within the article, consensus might change and it could be spun off to a make a stand-alone list. Jehochman Talk 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is a huge effort has been made to remove any reference to cryptozoology form many of these articles as its not "real folklore" or some such. Someone reading this [] might well think "I want to know more" and no be able to find out about many of these "cryptids" because we do not discus this aspect of these creatures. Either in the article about them, or a list of them. So what doers the reader do, searches for "Kraken + cryptid" in google and get this []. His head is filled with half baked nonsense, because we do not give any view (*let alone a balanced one). We must acknowledge that the media is how people find out what to look for, and we must reflect what they are looking for, and inform them about the fact. But that means covering the subject, not pretending it does not exist in the hope it goes away.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the blanket statement, "we must reflect what they are looking for", just as I would disagree with the assertion that a respectable encyclopedia should list every known animé character. The subject is covered under the article "Crytozoology"; an exhaustive list of all such non-existent creatures called "cryptids" is not required for an encyclopedia, especially for such a frivolous reason as appeasing fans of the subject who think it's "fun" to read about them. Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which was not the reason I gave.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Fyunck's remarks: "...the topic is fun and able to be sourced", "...Some powerful people don't want you to have the fun of seeing them anymore" and "...there is a different standard being applied here with the fun some of those other article lists give our readers" on the talk page of List of Cryptids. Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you should really have replied to him. But (if I may make an assumption about what he means) I do not think he is saying that he wants to appease fans (and more then the list of elves appeases fans), rather that many people may find this fun to read about who may not be fans. This is ancillary to what I said about informing people who have seen this stuff in the media and want to read more. I will add that many people who do not believe in all kinds of things (and may even think they are stupid beyond belief) enjoy reading about other peoples stupidity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not an article is "fun" to read for anyone, regardless of whether or not they're a fan or what they "enjoy reading", should have no bearing whatever on whether or not an article should be part of Wikipedia. It shouldn't even be necessary to say so. Carlstak (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, time after time here at wikipedia, we do just that with lists and articles. This is just another example of one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because something is done on WP doesn't mean it should be. Providing "fun" isn't part of the purpose of any credible encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Eh - I would be inclined to support if this seemed less of yet another attempt at deletion by other means, "merging" into an article about which the sourcing matter is more "settled". The last time this was proposed, it was articulated quite explicitly that the cryptids list is all pseudoscience and that "the pseudoscience would not be merged". So I would ask this: could those supporting this provide concrete examples of entries that would be merged into the lists of legendary creatures that would not otherwise be included in the lists of legendary creatures? — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose- legendary creatures and cryptids may overlap, but are not the same. Legendary creatures is a term that covers a wide variety of imaginary animals; cryptids are animals that are proposed to exist, but have no evidence to support their existence. In addition, cryptids draw enough popular interest to qualify as different. That being said, this list could use significant clean-up.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you a cryptozoologist? "Animals that are proposed to exist, but have no evidence to support their existence" is what cryptozoologists typically present "cryptid" to mean, but the reality is, as academic after academic makes clear, in fact 'any creature that a cryptozoologist decides is a cryptid'. Essentially all extend from legend, except maybe pet stuff like globsters. A legendary creature is, quite plainly, any creature from the folklore genre of legend. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose. A "cryptid" is a creature investigated by cryptozoologists, who search for these animals and seek to establish their present-day existence.  "Legendary creature", by contrast, is a broad category encompassing fictitious, mythical, and imaginary beings appearing in folklore or literature throughout history.  Many cryptids are legendary creatures, but not all legendary creatures are cryptids.  Examples of legendary creatures that are not cryptids:
 * Ratatoskr, squirrel that runs up and down the World Tree in Norse mythology
 * Talos, giant bronze automaton said to have patrolled the shores of Crete
 * The Easter Bunny
 * Tim Smith (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because some legendary creatures are not cryptids it does not follow that some cryptids are not legendary creatures. There's a reason that the proposal is to merge the sub-category into the parent list rather than the other way around. And the Easter Bunny is just as real as Nessie. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but your original argument as nominator was that cryptids couldn't be separated from legendary creatures, due to lack of a reliably sourced definition. But "cryptid" has a reliably sourced definition, namely:
 * An animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist. — "cryptid, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2018.
 * Thus, as I said, a "cryptid" is a creature investigated by cryptozoologists, who search for these animals and seek to establish their present-day existence, whereas "legendary creature" is a broad concept encompassing fictitious, mythical, and imaginary beings appearing in folklore or literature throughout history. The examples I gave above make clear that that these two sets are not equal.  At most, cryptids are a distinct subset of legendary creatures.  But then nothing prevents them from having their own page.  Indeed, "legendary creature" is such a broad concept that it already has numerous overlapping subpages, as can be seen at Category:Lists of legendary creatures.
 * Moreover, based on Google results, "cryptid" (8,000,000 hits) is actually a more notable term than "legendary creature" (4,460,000 hits). Thus, I see no problem in having this as a separate page. Tim Smith (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, some random guy (like me) can, by calling himself a cryptozoologist, by investigating the Easter Bunny and by seeking to establish its present-day existence, transmogrify it from a legandary creature into a cryptid and thus move it from one Wikipedia list into another. If cryptozoology were are valid field of scholarship routinely accepted at universities, like imaginary-friend-in-the-sky-ology, you would have a point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hob. Saadly, that is the case. A useful analogy is "alternative" "medicine": "unicorn" horns, something said to come from an animal that in reality only exists in legend, are sold for healing purposes. This automatically turns something from legend into an "alternative" pseudomedicine. What is key to understand is that something, like cryptozoology or "alternative" "medicine" can be pseudoscientific, and still be different from legend, because pseudoscience has its own sphere. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Its been a month now, I think this can be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And we have now hit the two month mark.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose A cryptid is not the same as a legendary creature. For instance, if sightings of giant sharks have been alleged throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and such sightings have come under investigation, and information about it published in scientific literature (Does Megalodon Still Live? Alleged Megalodon Sightings That Will Make You Want to Believe Megalodon: Hunting the Hunter Megalodon: Fact Or Fiction? Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters Sasquatch Chupacabras And Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature) then it is a scientific matter, unlike for the dragon. The latter, unlike the shark, is a legendary creature for which no strong scientific evidence exists, isn't it? Leo1pard (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC); edited 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we now close this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Cryptids and legendary creatures are not necessarily equivalent terms. If multiple, independent reliable sources describe a supposed creature as a "cryptid", then I think we should consider it as such. – Matthew  - (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lists of legendary creatures