Talk:Giant (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Clarityfiend in topic Deletions
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Giant Human Remains edit

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)

Aside from mythology and folklore (see Tall tales), remains of extremely tall people have been reported, although rarely documented. The book Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman (1971) recounts the following finds:

A decayed human skeleton claimed by eyewitnesses to measure around 10' 9" (3.28 meters) tall unearthed by laborers while plowing a vineyard in November 1856 in East Wheeling, now in West Virginia.[citation needed] A human skeleton measuring 12 feet (3.6 meters) tall unearthed at Lompoc, California, in 1833 by soldiers digging in a pit for a powder magazine. The specimen had a double row of teeth and was surrounded by numerous stone axes, carved shells, and porphyry blocks with abstruse symbols associated with it.[citation needed] Several mummified remains of humans with reddish hair claimed to range from 6' 6" to over 8' (2-2.5 meters) tall dug up at Lovelock Cave, (70 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada), by a guano mining operation. These bones supposedly substantiated claims for legends by the local Paiute Indians regarding giants which they called Si-Te-Cah. However, there appear to be no verified Paiute legends about giants or that call the Si-Te-Cah giants.[8] Some of these artifacts can also be found in the Nevada State Historical Society's museum at Reno. Adrienne Mayor states that these skeletons are normal sized.[8] Mayor does not mention that some of the fiber woven sandals found at Lovelock Cave are extremely large, as great as 7 inches across the toes and up to 16 inches in length (size 20 US mens) suggesting persons more than average size.[9][10] A 9' 11" (3.02 meters) skeleton unearthed in 1928 by a farmer digging a pit to bury trash in Tensas Parish, Louisiana near Waterproof.[citation needed] In 1931 a 10' 2" (3.1 meters) skeleton unearthed by a boy burying his dog in nearby Madison Parish.[citation needed] Other sources give examples of the remains of extremely tall people:

The skull of a youth 7 feet tall, and the partial limb bones of a man estimated at over 11 feet tall unearthed in 1890 at the Bronze Age cemetery of Castelnau-le-Lez near Montpellier, France.[11][12][13][14] In 1894 workmen excavating a water works reservoir at Montpellier, France uncovered human skulls 28, 31, and 32 inches in circumference. The bones which were found with the skulls were also of gigantic proportions, and all the relics were sent to the Paris Academy of Sciences whereby a "savant" declared they belonged to a race of men in excess of 10 feet stature.[15][16] A 9' 8" (2.95 meters) skeleton excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana in 1879.[17] The skeletons of seven giants with receding foreheads and complete double dentition found in mounds in Clearwater, Minnesota.[citation needed] A mound near Toledo, Ohio with 20 skeletons with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people," beside each a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures."[18] In 1945 the skeleton of a human giant was discovered by Soviet scientists in the Tian Shan Mountains of Central Asia. The skull was 33 inches in circumference, and a shin bone was 33 inches in length. [19][20]

Please create a page for the REAL Giant remains found throughout North America. The section has been deleted from the Giant (mythology) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.179.53 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Real Giants? There have never been any real giants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.182.153 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nephilim edit

Why is Nephilim the first entry on the page, ahead of the more general Giant (mythology)? From that article, it seems that giants may not even be the best translation of nephilim. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't be here at all (it's linked in the mythology article anyway). I'm going to take it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress edit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Giant (mythology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Deletions edit

An editor just deleted some Giants saying they were partial matches. But so are others? Lily Duncan, also known as "Princess Giant", from the television series Mona the Vampire, and Judge Giant, two fictional characters in the Judge Dredd comic strip, etc. I don't get it. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

You added multiple entries linking to the same article under partial title matches. Only one is needed under the person category under the presumption he may have been known as a "giant" without the modifier. olderwiser 14:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The goal is to add the person under person. But there is also a Giant song, for example. A reader of this page looking for Giant songs should be able to see it. Same with the famous "Giant" photo that sold for half a million dollars the reference to which was deleted. That's the logic. Not "let's have one link that links to the underlying person." We should help the reader. --2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the title of is "Giant" or "Giants" then yes it should be included. If it merely includes the word Giant in the title, it is not ambiguous. Disambiguation pages are meant for listing of content that are ambiguous, not an index of things having a particular term as part of the name. olderwiser 16:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
But see my prior comment. And I just pointed to two examples. There are close to a dozen other such entries. What you are describing as the rule here is not the rule that has been applied to other entries. It's plainly inconsistently applied by you in cherry picking to delete a couple out of a dozen but not the others, if that is indeed the rule. And nobody has explained that inconsistency. And if you choose to address all dozen cases, why would you delete them all - as you deleted these - rather than create see alsos to include them on this page? 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Bkonrad's edits are correct here. A link should not be included on this page unless it is susceptible to being referred to by the title term alone, and a subject should appear one time on the page, in the section most appropriate for that subject. Yes, we want to help readers find things, but excessive clutter on the page hinders that process. BD2412 T 17:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
So, since he says the rule is "If it merely includes the word Giant in the title, it is not ambiguous. Disambiguation pages are meant for listing of content that are ambiguous, not an index of things having a particular term as part of the name.", I again ask first what should be done with:
Also, second - if these and those deleted do not belong, per your indicated criteria, then why are they being deleted rather than moved to a see also? --2604:2000:E010:1100:3CB1:2CAD:16BF:6112 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
All of those should be deleted per WP:PTM, except Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Giants Gaming, Giant Bicycles, and Giant Hypermarket, which are sometimes referred to as "Giant" or "Giants". Station1 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
(same IP speaking) - I'm ok with doing that for consistency if we are to not include the other just deleted Giants (and the same issue is here, so the same solution makes sense there). Question I still have - should these all not then be see also's? Perhaps User:Bagumba, who seems to know a lot about these rules, has a view. 2604:2000:E010:1100:40AE:9CCC:FC6E:4A6C (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Actually, some of the entries listed do belong and some don't. I'll add/delete as appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply