A fact from Guivre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that according to medieval French legend, guivres were dragon-like creatures with venomous breath, known to prowl the French countryside?
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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Just a French wyvern, yes? Same word. Or is such a virtually identical cognate worth an additional separate article under every possible obscure variant: "a spelling variation of the more common word "Vouivre."" (The fact that vouivre is not the most common variant may be left aside.) So, why do Wikipedian editors go out of their way to select the obscure spelling or odd variant in so many cases? To me it seems naively pretentious. Compare "Henry Strangwish" [sic] for another recent example. This is so consistent a bent, it's bound to mean something.--Wetman (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most legends depict the guivre as a serpentine creature, which you can read in the second sentence. The image is there to help explain the difference between the two, that's why that user put it there. ceranthor23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shuker's whimsical "Natural History" is not as sound a guide to "legend" as one might wish. If my own reading of medieval French legends were as wide-ranging and deep as Ceranthor's, I would be able to edit this passive of non-attribution: "Guivres were said to possess a long, serpentine body and a dragon's head. " "Were said to" always strikes the warning bell: one might naturally inquire, were said by whom and where? --Wetman (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but there are other stories which we can pull information from. But, apart from the concept, what is a wyvern but a subtype of a dragon? What is a human but a subtype of primates? Now, I do not discount your opinion, I see your standing point at this moment quite well, and of course policy must be strictly adhered to But, surely, guivres are notable. I say that to be true. ceranthor10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
