From PathfinderWiki

Update needed

Major section in Mythical Monsters Revisited covers this monster.--Fleanetha 16:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2E updates

2E Pathfinder Bestiary, a tier 1 source, eliminates all mentions of sexual monomorphism or requirements of other species for mating, and depicts male harpies in art (some 1E art also depicted harpies without feminine features; one such piece of art was already on this article).

Since this is a retcon rather than a conflict, I've moved the 1E content stating otherwise into comments but left it in the page source rather than flag it as a conflict. It's also possible from a canon perspective that harpies encountered during 1E adventures or depicted in MMR simply weren't representative of all harpy culture. -Oznogon (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Would a footnote on the main page help for those not editing though and seeing the hidden comment? I'll add and you can adjust if needed. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems disclosed here on the Talk page. It could be a note on the Meta page, and creating a Meta page would cause the Meta link automatically appear in the References section. But because this is a retcon through omission, there's nothing conclusive to cite, and I'm not sure what concrete information would go into a footnote in the main content, nor whom it would serve. Since this is an expansion of harpy lore rather than a wholesale rewrite, if it genuinely warrants a footnote, then perhapse we should treat it as a canon conflict and use {{Conflict}}. Otherwise, the only relevance is to editors, who will at worst see the commented-out content, and at best will read this discussion before attempting to make changes. -Oznogon (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, there seems little point in replicating the same words on the main page, so have compromised by making a reference to this discussion. --Fleanetha (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)