Talk:Roc (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Wasn't there some enormous flightless bird in Madagascar (Dinornis? Elephant-bird?)? -- Error

Is there some relation between the Roc and the Chinese 鹏 (Peng, which Unicode defines as a "fabulous bird of enormous size")? --Gro-Tsen 12:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. That translation is an exotic one, and not commonly used. --Buddhasmom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See the page Kun for information on Peng. The animal in question was a shapeshifting fish/bird, and the bird form's size was never specified, so it's not really that likely. More likely might be a relationship with the Fenghuang, aka the Chinese Phoenix. 82.69.37.32 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rook / Rokh

The article mentions that "Rook" is from this mythological bird, or that it's from a siege-tower mounted on an elephant. The dominant hypothesis, i believe, is that "Rook" comes from the Persian for "chariot", thus corresponding with Indian / Chinese etc. versions of the chess piece. I'm making a change to reflect that. 82.69.37.32 11:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cruft

Is there anything in the following that adds one iota of understanding to the subject of this article (Wetman 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)):

Many, many articles on Wikipedia have a section similar to or exactly "Uses in popular culture," just like the one below. For example, see griffin which has a section "Griffins in Literature" I suggest adding it back to the main article. (Scottcmu 08:14, 1 September 2006)
Many, many articles in Wikipedia do need to be cleaned of similar childish junk that doesn't actually add anything to understanding their subjects. When they are separated as subsidiary articles, they are immediately put up as candidates for a vote for deletion: that really means something, doesn't it. Monster in My Pocket #34 may need a link to Roc (mythology), to explain what's up: the converse is not true. --Wetman 19:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wetman, there is no need to be condescending to the editors-at-large of Wikipedia. (Scottcmu 05:18, 4 September 2006)
There was nothing condescending in my remark describing the concept of relevance: it is simply not a reciprocal concept. I drew my obvious example from Pokemon so that we could all understand. --Wetman 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't have any interest in either toy, Monster in My Pocket =/= Pokemon. If you read the articles, you'll see how different they are. I do agree, however, that the pop culture stuff doesn't really add to the article. But, some people like that kind of thing, and Wikipedia is quickly turning into a pop culture encyclopedia--Geekopedia if you will--rather than a cultured encyclopedia. See List of Naruto episodes for example. As if we really need that list... 24.14.198.8 17:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Chris G.
There's certainly room for everything in its place at Wikipedia. Infantile intrusions on articles covering serious topics are distracting from the genuine purpose of the articles, and their presence is undermining, sometimes I'm quite sure, intentionally so. --Wetman 09:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Often" white

I suppose this (spurious?) insertion was inspired by gazing upon the illustration from a children's version of "Sinbad the Sailor" we have for an illustration. In fact, is there any mention of the roc's white plumage? --Wetman 09:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)