Talk:Gargoyle

Sources

If you get the information from a source as far back as 1911, do you need to mention it-Adrian?

The age of the material means it is in public domain and there are no copyright issues at question. But intellectual honesty requires you to cite such sources: if you use a source for information that is not common knowledge and do not cite it, you commit plagiarism, regardless of the age of the material. -- Someone else 07:37 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Gargoyles are very atrocious and will try and to eat you if you get around them they will have you scent forever if you have ever been around one remember your never alone.

Pic

great picture!

--Yak 00:10, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

It is a great picture, but as it has no water spout it is a grotesque, not a gargoyle.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.249.67 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Misc

Perhaps I'm just making this up, but I'm pretty sure I heard this somewhere — doesn't "gargoyle" also refer to a some sort of mythical birdlike creature, capable of turning itself into stone? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking Abilities

I'm not sure if this is true but I've heard that it was also believed that gargoyles could speak when water ran out of their mouths, part of the reason they are used as gutters on ornate buildings.

Gargoyles in fiction

or perhaps Gargoyles in popular culture would get my vote. Carptrash 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Are gargoyles historically oriented specifically, like towards a particular cardinal direction? I'm hoping someone has something better than 'east...yada yada...sunrise' unless, of course that is the case

It is not unusual to find a tower on a building with gargoyles pointing it all directions. Many buildings, if you walk around them, will reveal gargoyles pointing in at least four directions. Carptrash 05:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

what if they are not ment to be fiction Melissa.D usa

Do you mean, "What if they represent real beings" or something like that? Carptrash 14:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if architectural gargoyles have finally seperated from . . ..... those others

and this is (opinion) a good thing. There has been a ton of literature published about gargoyles in the last decade or two and I am wondering if these titles should be included here even if they are not sources. Or, do I need to drag a quote from each of them to justify a book's inclusion? Carptrash 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I 'm not sure what this is about

so I moved it here. Spellcheck wiuld be a start, but probably not enough to get this put back. Any thoughts? Carptrash 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TV show

I thought Wikipedia topics were to go to disambiguation pages. I came here for the Gargoyles TV series, which has a huge base. Now I have to try to URL-guess to get to this? (That failed.) Fortunately I know the creator of the TV show is named Greg Weisman, and could get to the show via his page, but this is really ridiculous -- There should be a ***** disambiguation page here! 68.167.161.182 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's your opportunity to be the change that you wish to see in the world. If no one else had reason to make the TV show page yet, then you can make it yourself, and put a hatnote here. — ¾-10 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Snow Crash?

Trying to figure out why there's a link to Snow Crash on this page. --Jsderwin (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "gargoyle" appears once at Snow Crash, but it seems inconsequential and I support removing the link. The others appear ok, although Golem does not mention "gargoyle" and the connection appears more fan related (see Google). Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Animals = not soulless

Someone wrote, "Animals were viewed as soulless beings in the eyes of the Catholic Church.". This is incorrect, animals have souls according to Catholic belief, everything living does. According to Thomas Aquinas they have "material souls", as opposed to humans who he said have "rational souls".--74.195.50.72 (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 06:49, 10 August 2010 62.214.19.162 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article without references.--Wing (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for dogs

I am not real big on demanding citations, but this sentence, "Dogs were the most common native animal crafted as a gargoyle." has me wondering. Does it seem okay without a source to you? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It now has a source (after I restored it following a recent IP edit which removed a couple of things). It would be desirable to view the source, but the text is not implausible. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks ok, although I only had a very quick scan. The source is here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if we were both doing more or less the same thing at the same time. Life. Who knew? Carptrash (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncited text removed from article

I've removed the following text from the article, since it's not supported by a cite, seems dubious to me, and a quick search for any references backing it up came up with nothing:

"Gargoyle is an ancient term for one suffering Mucopolysaccharidosis , a syndrome causing disfigurement and mental retardation - perhaps becoming stereotyped as an innocent of the sanctuary."

-- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rain

There are a lot of pictures of gargoyles here, but in none of them is it raining. It would be good to add one or two, so that readers could see them "in action" as it were. 99.56.13.119 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The look of Gargoyles (and Grotesques)

I was wondering why are Gargoyles and Grotesques (often depicted as demonic or devilish-looking creatures) are often seen on 'holy' buildings (like churches and cathedrals)? I know the article says it's meant to ward off evil, but why use 'evil depictions' and not more holy depictions (like angels) or even just non-evil good guys (monks, clergy, saints, or even 'knights')? Any more insight would be awesome! Equidou (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical Introduction to American Government

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. The article is neutral, it is not biased towards any particular position. The viewpoints are not overrepresented, or underrepresented. Yes, the links for the citations work. No, there isn't any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article. Maybe a gargoyles in modern media section could be added. Nanomech3000 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Reddit

“That Wikipedia site has 23 images of an object that only fulfill its purpose during rain. Number of images with rain = zero.” - Reddit user pahag[1]. Copied here by Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Waqar💬 15:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Gargoyle → Gargoyle (architecture)
• Gargoyle (disambiguation) → Gargoyle

– There's no obvious primary topic here between the architectural element, and the legendary and/or fictional monster of living stone. While the architectural element gets more views (approx. 700 daily vs. 200 daily), according to Wikinav, 20% of the people coming to this page click through to the monster one instead, indicating coming here was potentially accidental, making the difference a fair bit less (560 vs. 200 when you subtract from one). This is not far apart enough to indicate any primary topic existing at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, clear primary topic per both WP:PT1 and WP:PT2. 162 etc. (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure how WP:PT2 applies here. The type of decorated drain spout does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". Gargoyles as fictional monsters have been a prominent part of popular culture for nearly a century and inspired numerous pieces of media. Please expound on how the drain spout is far more educationally significant. I should also mention that it's not even what most people think of when they imagine an elaborate decorative church monster statue, which is Grotesque (architecture). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support per views[[2]] though the TV series is in the plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Taking the views cited at face value, they indicate a very clear primary topic. That's not even considering the possibility that some readers might be clicking through to the monsters' article after learning about them for the first time here. Station1 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, I think gargoyle in architecture and in fiction are so tied together you can almost make them one article...--Ortizesp (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic by both criteria. Srnec (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic as already noted; the OED defines gargoyle as "A grotesque spout, representing some animal or human figure, projecting from the gutter of a building (esp. in Gothic architecture), in order to carry the rainwater clear of the walls" with citations going back to before 1400; it was not until 1864 that the term was first used figuratively to describe a grotesque person or thing. Ewulp (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.