Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Fortean times

Is this (can some one check it who has access) an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Business Insider source

Business Insider is a questionable source. First, the descriptions contain several links to Wikipedia articles, implying a circular referencing issue. Second, the map which most of the citations rely on is republished from Hog Island Press, which appears to be a tertiary source with no indication of fact-checking. The accolade from Loren Coleman raises eyebrows. –dlthewave ☎ 15:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

maybe ]not, but it might be nice if people also checked for other sources, rather then just crying delete, Abominable Science!: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids says this "The classical hippocamp and the modern cryptid Cadborosaurus share a general body plan" but I do not have access to the book, so cannot source to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add that many of the other creatures sourced to Business Insider may well be mentioned in books I cannot get preview of on google books (as they do produce hits).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This in fact does appear to be the case. Back when a lot of articles on entities from the folklore record were initially produced, they were solidly written to cryptozoologist POV by cryptozoologist editors (Wikipedia appears to have had no folklorist involvement for much of its history). These articles trickled down to poorly researched pieces like the one you highlight, Dl. "As Frank Jacobs of Big Think points out, cryptozoological creatures have actually been found to be real in the past, like Central Africa's giraffe-like okapi and Indonesia's Komodo dragon ... " is outright misinformation that happens to be a favorite talking point among cryptozoologists (usually when attempting to present their subculture as a scientific discipline to the general public). The Business Insider article is little more than an advertisement for the poster stapled together with stuff derived from old versions of Wikipedia articles. This article, and those like it, need to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I was able to access that text from Abominable Science! without being signed into to Google. It's true that more text is available with preview in Google Books if you're signed into Google; you could create a throw-away account that you use only for searching Google Books. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Can we get Business Insider deprecated the same way the Daily Mail is? It's so often used as a source because it looks like a news site, and it's so often used to introduce dubious, POV or straight-up fringe perspectives into articles. Such a constant garbage website. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It comes up as not available for preview for me (you do not get full access to books in preview, as I thought you would be aware, but then it is often a bit random, you can access a certain pages on one view and then not be able to on another, and vica versa), so if you can access it why not add it? As to deprecating BI, take that idea to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course I was aware that "you do not get full access to books in preview"; I was trying to be helpful, and my point was that I can access this particular text without being signed into Google Books, so I assumed you could too. I've found also that if a certain page is unavailable in preview , you can often access it by putting the preceding or the following page in your browsers's address bar. If that fails, I've often been able to access a text I couldn't preview in GB by signing into Amazon and searching the text with the "Look Inside!" view (more text is available if you're signed in, just as with GB). Carlstak (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: Preview availability may vary if you're using a books.google.co.uk address rather than books.google.com/books. Carlstak (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Well you could have always added it, as you have access to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You should be able to see it if you click on the link I gave. In any case, you keep saying you don't have access, so I've been trying to help you get it. Carlstak (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just add it for me, google preview does not work for everyone the same way (or even the same person the same way all the time)? But as there appears to be no objection to using it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to add it, but I see you've added it already, so I assume you gained access. Good. Carlstak (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Time Life

Is this usable [[1]]?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Highly dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I remember the time life books from my elementary school library. They were credulous bullshit back then, and transparent enough credulous bullshit that I could see through them at age 13. I doubt they've improved with time. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Time Life books were laughably bad when I was kid as well, and I thought they were commercial rubbish even at that age. Tthey're still filled with retch-worthy "amazing tales". Carlstak (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There is also the matter that the source is likely dated. Time Life, the company, still exists. But it last published books in 2003, when its publishing division was phased out. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

K-12 education books

What the hell are they and is this an RS [[2]]?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"K–12K" refers to the first 13 years of education in the United States, in other words, from kindergarten into high school. It's hard to say what setting in which this book would be used but as the book doesn't bother to mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but does mention "demons" in the title, chances are that this is aimed at America's sizable Young Earth creationist homeschooling market. Let's stick to WP:FRIND sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The publisher is Rosen Publishing, which mostly publishes "educational" books. Dimadick (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Loxton & Prothero

The Kraken [[3]]. Any more we are not aware of?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Erik Pontoppidan died in 1764. Please read the source before applying it to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So, What is the title of the book? He is clearly disusing (as far as my limited access allows me to tell) sea serpents and issues of credulity, he is disusing the Kraken in context of a cryptid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not wise to discuss a book without reading it. The chapter discusses the influence Erik Pontoppidan yielded on modern ideas of sea serpents, ultimately influencing the subculture (and modern pop culture in general). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So then he does not discus the Kraken in relation to modern Cryptiozoology?Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the authors discuss an 18th century Scandinavian Lutheran Bishop's influence on modern ideas of sea serpents, and, again, how that has gone on to influence pop culture, including, presumably, cryptozoology. The Kraken is mentioned exactly three times, including its listing in the book's index, one in the context of Old Norse folklore, and another mentioning that Pontoppidan thought the Kraken existed (and also mermen). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Odd as the index says it is mentioned on page 193, 196 and 252.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that "Craken" occurs in a 19th century quote in the third instance. If you have further questions about it, I recommend getting the book. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Chupacabra Appears to be mentioned, any more that have been left out?Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Chessie Also may be mentioned as there is a mention of Chesapeake Bay.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Bessie Also may be mentioned as there is a mention of Lake Erie.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you actually reading this book, or just doing word searches on google books? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained that, I do not have access to the book, so yes I am doing a word search. This is why I am asking those who have access to it to confirm or deny this contains possible sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Entries and Possible References

Now I know that my name has been slandered and dragged through the mud by some users. In spite of such my thoughts and opinions still count. I had a great idea that came to me in terms of sources that could be used and some of the entries that either need to be deleted or added. I'm going to start with the possible references that could be used for sources. Entries such as Bunyip, Caddy, Mongolian Death Worm, Trinity Alps Giant Salamander, Shunka Warakin, and Yeti all have had expeditions (although failed ones) that might be reported in legitimate acceptable sources with a short blurb of information on the purported cryptid. Other entries such as The Wampus Cat, and Pope Lick Monster are folklore based (Urban Legend) and should not be on this list. Entries such as one on The Kraken are tough since it spans so far back, might just have to tie it in with The Giant Squid since that species was referred as such before it's eventual entry into the annals of discovered animals. I was also thinking (again, I put a key emphasis on thought since I KNOW that some people will criticize this whole thing) whether or not previously listed cryptids such as Giant Panda, Mountain Gorilla, Pygmy Hippo, and Komodo Dragons should be included on the list as Previously Listed Cryptids. When I mean by "Previously Listed", is that there were reports of those species for a while but were shrugged off as being "fanciful myth" until their later discovery and cataloging. Again, I don't want this to be a BIG debate, and I KNOW that some people will not take this user's thoughts into consideration because of the slandering/accusations that have been made against me. I just want this to be looked at as a possible avenue that could be explored to fix the whole "legitimate sources" issue that has plagued the crypto articles for some time now. Hopefully this can be used as a starting point for more avenues that can be explored for the fate of WikiProject Cryptozoology.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We can certainly explore those directions, but first we will need reliable sources that describe those species as cryptids or provide workable criteria for the list. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what differentiates most of those rare species is that, while they may not have been described by Western biologists, there was plenty of material evidence that they were alive: bodies for instance. And as for the Panda, Chinese people knew about them way longer than biologists in Europe did. In short, no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the giant panda, the scientific name and suggested taxonomy dates to 1869, and the works of Armand David (1826-1900). Are you suggesting the inclusion of animals unknown to taxonomists prior to the 19th century?Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Poor Quality Sources

When searching for sources, please keep in mind this section of Wikipedia's cryptozoology article:

Media outlets have often uncritically disseminated information from cryptozoologist sources, including newspapers that repeat false claims made by cryptozoologists or television shows that feature cryptozoologists as monster hunters (such as the popular and purportedly nonfiction American television show MonsterQuest, which aired from 2007-2010). Media coverage of purported "cryptids" often fails to provide more likely explanations, further propagating claims made by cryptozoologists. (Reference on article)

We're not here to continue this practice: Please stick to WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm

The Tatzelwurm (aka Stollenwurm) was held to be a legitimate cryptid by some researchers. I remember seeing references to it in Ivan T. Sanderson books. It already has a good Wikipedia entry and certainly could be listed.

165.225.110.218 (talk) 2019-07-03 —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Reflections on the Possible Merger and Ideas for Expansion

I'm going to try and keep the reflections part of this thing short so as not to get into a heated argument with people, so here are my thoughts on the merger that (thankfully) didn't happen. I have noticed that, in spite of the unclear consensus on the merger, people have been adding entries from this list onto the List of Legendary Creatures list. I'm not point to say I understand the reasons for this but it appears as though someone is doing a covert merger in spite of the unclear consensus. Again that might not be the case so I will give the person responsible for the benefit of the doubt.

I've recently had some thoughts as to the expansion of this article and others related to Cryptozoology that I'm just going to say here. Since there is no actual article on Cryptozoology itself, and the definition listed in the lead section in this article seems to come from a Non-Neutral standpoint and some other cryptozoology articles have the same issue only they sort of advocate for the subject's existence rather than reporting from a neutral standpoint as is Wikipiedia's standards. Might I suggest that we actually create an article specifically dealing with Cryptozoology itself so as to give this article more focus on its subject, a list of cryptids and purported cryptids. Again, these are just my ideas, and I wanted to run them by the community here before anything is done about it. --Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You mean like this one Cryptozoology?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Beast of Gévaudan

Wanted to add this to the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1210sjtn (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Any RS call it a crytpid?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New creatures need to be listed

This list is missing three cryptids. The Owl man, the Feegee mermaid and the Cardiff giant if someone could add them, I would be really happy. 24escheuanimal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24escheuanimal (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Legendary creatures and documented hoaxes are not cryptids.Mr Fink (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

it is also missing the Wendigo. Atlantic and great Lakes areas that eats men. An ancient native forest creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BC66:5800:9C55:E705:E016:EB3D (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an RS calling it a cryptid?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Key part of that being the "R" half of RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No mention of this angle at Wendigo, which is quite well-developed. I think this goes nowhere. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you added Ahool, Orang Pendek, and Cigau? That is a cryptid creature from Indonesian Zephyroth666 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are all mythological creatures. See Mythology of Indonesia§Deities--Auric talk 11:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

An image of the Beast of Bodmin Moor HLJOHNO (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Fangalabolo

The Fangalabolo of Madagascar [4] has to be added

Do you have any sources for its notability that aren't from the website of a Young Earth Creationist themepark?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Big Bird (cryptid)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Big Bird (cryptid). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"List of species rumored or believed to still be alive" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of species rumored or believed to still be alive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#List of species rumored or believed to still be alive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Black Demon Shark" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Black Demon Shark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Black Demon Shark until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Aseka-moke" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aseka-moke. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Aseka-moke until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

Chupacabra[21] Δδ Delete chupacabra. New evidence and sources It was recently discovered,having unknown animal DNA evidence and hunger for blood. (a few years ago) https://www.livescience.com/13356-el-chupacabra-mystery-solved.html https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101028-chupacabra-evolution-halloween-science-monsters-chupacabras-picture/ New DNA evidence: https://www.txstate.edu/news/news_releases/news_archive/2007/11/Chupacabra110107.html

107.12.170.245 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I get you, none of these creatures exist, its why they are cryptids.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The sources listed do not support the claim that the mythical creature is real. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

The Tianchi Monster from the Heaven Lake in North Korea should be added. 109.17.163.176 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a full table entry that can be added. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kasai rex" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kasai rex. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Kasai rex until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

Young Earth Creationism is unrelated to cryptids, ufology, ghost hunting, and comment should be removed Truth1234567 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 07:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

"Related pseudosciences include young Earth creationism,[1][2] ghost hunting, and ufology. Some dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term "cryptid" as an animal whose existence is unsubstantiated.[3][4]"

should be changed to

"Related pseudosciences include ghost hunting, and ufology. Some dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term "cryptid" as an animal whose existence is unsubstantiated.[3][4]"

Young Earth creationism is not a cryptid. Cryptids are unidentifed creatures within the pseudoscience arena. Youn earth creationism is a religious belief that Earth was created thousands, not millions of years ago. This is totally unrelated to cryptids. Bcm137 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article doesn't state that it's a cryptid, but rather that it's related. The requested removal is supported in the article by multiple citations. Among others, I see the cited quote "Creationists have embraced cryptozoology and some cryptozoological expeditions are funded by and conducted by creationists hoping to disprove evolution." ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Chipekwe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chipekwe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7#Chipekwe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Devil monkey" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Devil monkey. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7#Devil monkey until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Njago-gunda" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Njago-gunda. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7#Njago-gunda until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 07:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Ngamba-namae" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ngamba-namae. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7#Ngamba-namae until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 23:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"List of megalodon sightings" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of megalodon sightings. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 21#List of megalodon sightings until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• イッシーの像.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Two inclusions by Nayerb

Hey Bloodofox. Thanks for patrolling the page for poor sourcing. Just commenting here because I'm not sure I agree with your rationale for reverting Nayerb on these two inclusions: diff. Both entries have their own wikipedia articles (and so presumably meet WP:N), which contain several references to reliable sources, news articles, books, and so forth. It's been many years since I've edited this article, so if there's inclusion criteria I'm not aware of, please point me to it! Otherwise, could you explain in a little more detail? Thanks   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Loveland Frog article makes no mention whatsoever of the subculture/pseudoscience. This is a WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE article and requires solid sourcing (just like anywhere else, WP:RS applies here). :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean I haven't perused that article, I'm only really talking about its mention here. I referenced it just as a comment on notability. The skeptoid reference (which I planned to include here before hitting an edit conflict with you) is excellent, and covers the subculture/pseudoscience in detail. It's also covered in several news articles, and explicitly referenced (by skeptoid and others) as a cryptid.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The website you're referring to is for a podcast hosted. Anyone can say anything about anything on a podcast. And what scholastic background do these individuals have making these claims? We need something that complies with WP:RS, ideally peer-reviewed and from experts on folklore, like folklorists. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Skeptoid is a generally well respected source on topics of folklore, ufos, and so on. See RSN. It's not "just a podcast". The author is an expert in the field and his articles are, themselves, well sourced.

If we're looking for a published book: Hidden Animals: A Field Guide to Batsquatch, Chupacabra, and Other Elusive By Michael Newton covers the topic on page 163, but with a much less skeptical POV.

We're talking about Cryptozoology here, a psuedoscience... so it's not like we can expect respected academic references for most of this content. Outside of big names like Bigfoot, individual cryptids are only going to be referenced by self proclaimed Cryptozoologists in fringe sources, or in news articles about supposed sightings. Several news articles should sufficiently meet WP:RS for the question of "is this creature a figure in cryptozoology".   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The blog source is indeed very lightweight, and including something on the strength of that ref would not fly. However, the high-handed demands for Professional Folklorist(tm) coverage start sounding a little more fatuous than usual when a dozen entries on this list are sourced solely to this Salon article. Skeptical Inquirer would do just fine as a source in that league. The main issue with that goblin critter is that there seems to be nary an indication that it is regarded as a cryptid - all the wild theorizing is about aliens. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Newton book is obviously also an WP:RS fail. And regarding academics, folklorists regularly write about topics like monsters, including their history, development, and cultural implications. This all often adds to be more complex than one might expect.

It's not hard to find coverage from them on notable creatures. They also write about cryptozoologists. And so do other academics in fields in which the pseudoscience bumps up against, like Donald Prothero, a well-known biologist. We cite them throughout our coverage of these articles.

If there are no reliable sources—that is, material from experts, like any other Wikipedia article—then that's a good indication that it's simply not notable enough for inclusion (again, like any other Wikipedia article). Under no circumstances should we be directly citing pseudoscience adherents for their claims—they are by no means reliable, including for their own claims. Some "skeptical" guys with a podcast won't cut it here (or any other Wikipedia article).

Finally, if the source doesn't even mention cryptozoology, it's totally useless for this article—which is explicitly about adherents of the subculture/pseudoscience.

As a side note, the bar is already far, far too low here: The Salon "coverage" really needs to go. This is a super dubious primary source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment of Brian Dunning (skeptoid), and so does RSN. I also strongly disagree that we should only be using the work of folklorists to source this list. That standard is unnecessarily harsh and is not in line with our content guidelines, including WP:PARITY. All the sources I've cited have used the words "crypid" or "cryptozoology" explicitly. I can start an RfC if we need to get additional input, but I suspect an RfC would result in a similar outcome to the RSN discussion I linked above, and favor a less stringent requirement than you're proposing.

Our goal in this article is not to claim that these cryptids exist or back them up with academic coverage. Our goal is to list notable examples within Cryptozoology. We're essentially acting as a category, and removing a substantial number of articles from our list does a disservice to readers looking to explore the topic fully.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You can also cite biologists like Donald Prothero or, well, any academic in a relevant field that writes about these topics. You know, reliable sources or experts. If you want to start an RfC thread about including a podcast as a source, be my guest. Feel free to also take it up over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, where such a discussion will inevitably end up, particularly as this is a WP:FRINGE topic at high risk of WP:PROFRINGE slants (and historically hovered over by adherents, like every other fringe/pseudoscience/Young Earth creationism-connected article on the site). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, did you read the RSN thread I already linked to? It was posted only 4 months ago, and the consensus seems fairly clear to me. It received a lot of input from a lot of experienced editors, and the source was used to back up significantly more than we're looking to source here.

You're responding to me as though you're not reading the things I'm writing. I'm sure that's not the case, but it's frustrating; nothing I'm suggesting is introducing a pro-fringe slant. The source we're discussing is explicitly anti-fringe slant. The only claim we're trying to source is that these creatures exist in the eyes of Cryptozoologists, and we have books by Cryptozoologists backing that up, respected skeptical articles backing that up, and news articles backing that up. WP:PARITY allows us to cite adherents about opinions of the adherents; we're doing that, and then more.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, sorry I missed your reply in the mix of indenting. I'm not really familiar with that article (or the frog we're discussing). It looks like skeptoid also covered that incident, but never used the word "cryptid" or attributed it to Cryptozoology. Our news articles also attribute it to ufo stuff. So off the cuff, it seems entirely reasonable to exclude it from here. I think you're right! I'm mostly concerned with the frog and some of these other entries right now. They explicitly reference cryptozoology and (at least the ones I've checked) have adequate sourcing to back up their existence (as an idea).   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What was the closure result of the diff you provided? Again, some guy's 'skeptical' podcast is an obvious WP:RS fail, just like a YouTube video from Uncle Ted would be.

The big issue with this article has always been that literally every entity in the folklore record is perceived as (or at least described as) a Pokémon-like critter to be 'found' by a small circle of cryptozoologists, with a significant amount of them hellbent on finding "proof" that those darned atheist are so very wrong about evolution. And this is why it's important to keep this list restricted to the creatures the subculture has historically particularly fixated on, like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

We assess what those monsters are by sticking to what experts say. Right now we've got a bunch of random media stuff on here, which is bad, but clearly a podcast website is even worse. Additionally, if you're concerned about the removal of Loren Coleman and Bernard Heuvelmans items, please review WP:PROFRINGE—as adherents, their work here makes for an obvious WP:RS fail, although cryptozoologists and other assorted driveby editors keep adding them back into the article. It's the same situation as with the Newton book you suggested adding. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Of the diff I provided... to RSN? The conversation wasn't "closed" as in hatted, but it had an extremely clear result; almost everyone in the thread supported skeptoid as a RS for this kind of content. The main opposition to it was not based on its reliability, but the author's personal history with alleged wire fraud, which is irrelevant to WP:RS. I can't see any other possible interpretation of that consensus.

We've worked together in the past (quite some time ago) and never really butted heads, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE in this instance. I'm sure you're working to clean things up here, which is a daunting and respectable task, but the standards you're applying aren't consistent with our content guidelines as I understand them. I think we're going to need to solicit broader input from the community, so I'll post an RfC or to a noticeboard when I get a chance. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to weigh in, please do.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take this to the Loveland Frog article. If the references are sufficient to keep the article up, they should be sufficient to support inclusion on this list. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

But not if they don't discuss the subculture at all—and there's the rub. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what that means? I'm not sure what the subculture of cryptids is. Can't really weigh in without that. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(Edit to be clear: I'm aware that it's mentioned in the cryptozoology article but that also doesn't provide an explanation of what the subculture except for the findings of one(?) reference... For the purposes of this discussion I'd just like to know where you're coming from Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC))

Still an abomination

Oh, Jesus, just looked at this article again, for the first time in a while, and it's still an abomination, of course, and a magnet for kooks. What else could it be? I can hardly imagine a more useless lot of drivel, with the most pathetic illustrations imaginable (what else could they be?). Such a waste of time and bandwidth. Carlstak (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire academic field of folkloric studies would like a word...Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you conflating the academic field of folklore studies with the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology? That's like conflating geologists and Flat Earthers. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "cryptids" are a part of the folkloric traditions of a lot of cultures. Not everything on this list, obviously, but a lot are! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Many monsters upon which cryptozoologists have fixated are indeed from the folklore record, although some are from literary sources (like The Monster of "Partridge Creek"), and others still are essentially inventions of cryptozoologists. All are considered "cryptids" in the subculure. In reality, the term "cryptid" means, as OED puts it, "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". FYI, scholars don't use the subculture's emic term, "cryptid", except when discussing the subculture: See extensive discussion at Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach. This is because "cryptid" implies a monster is 'hidden' (and therefore waiting to be found), which is, uh, not the position reliable sources (like scholars) take on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, it is a place where we can tackle the issue in a way that enables us to put a more neutral slant on things than you would get at a Cryoptozooolgy site.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which "issue" you're talking about, but regarding your point: that is what the cryptozoology article is for. This article is unnecessary, and consists of little more than goofball trivia illustrated by junky, badly done images. I know a lot of people like that sort of thing, but those people generally have little respect for actual science, and prefer speculative nonsense about cryptids, ufos, and ghosts. They may even be the majority of people in the US.;-), but their preferred entertainment has no proper place in an encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is why we write this to include the actual science. Remove it and they will go to the bad sites to find about about specific Cryptids. Our task is to inform, even about fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reintroduction of a few entries

I reintroduced the Loveland Frog, the Fouke Monster, the Michigan Dogman, and the Thunderbird with new sources. I also removed several entries which don't appear to have wikipedia articles, and therefore I will presume are not notable. If sourcing for those entries is pretty good, please feel free to reintroduce them!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure about this as I think RSN said we needed an RFC to determine consensus. I am not sure the RSN discussion came down strongly in support of these sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It came down pretty strongly in support of Skeptoid (and similar). It didn't come down strongly with respect to Cryptozoology sources. One person at the end suggested an RfC, and if that seems to be necessary, I'll start one up (or anyone else can feel free to start one now!). Now that we have a few eyes on the article, it seems like it might be productive to simply discuss content normally and see where that takes us. Ultimately, I think we need to come up with a specific inclusion criteria for the article, especially if it is ever to be expanded, and that may require an RfC all on its own. I don't have time to throw myself into that right at the moment, however.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As it seems that you're keen on ignoring the strong consensus in the responses that noted that fringe sources are obviously not acceptable, go ahead and start the RfC. In the meantime, the addition of fringe sources will be removed (such as strangark.com). I also maintain that a podcast is not an acceptable source—we need clarity about Skeptoid. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox, you reintroduced several entries I had removed without a relevant edit summary. These entries don't have wikipedia articles. One is cited only to Salon. Are these entries notable? Can you please explain why you're making these changes instead of hitting undo?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And now you're edit warring instead of trying to work together collaboratively. This is extremely frustrating and exhausting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You got consensus for the obvious: Fringe sources are unacceptable. Do not reintroduce fringe sources here or elsewhere on the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So you're not willing to answer my questions or work together collaboratively. Do I have that right? Nothing you just said has anything to do with my edits, or my comments here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you going on about? You keep inserting fringe sources into the article, that's the issue here. Find WP:RS-compliant sources and we can talk. Add WP:PROFRINGE sources, and you can expect them to be removed—here or anywhere else on the site. WP:RS is not optional. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit you just reverted didn't have any sources in it. You made a change, I made a partial undo, and you edit warred back to your version. Can you please answer my questions above? I don't know why you're acting so aggressively here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you did: You introduced and then attempted to reintroduce several fringe sources into the article, which I've again removed (Newton, Halls, Offutt). Knock it off. You've been angling to insert fringe sources into the article for days now—you even pointlessly received consensus over at WP:RSN pointing out the obvious fact that fringe sources are obviously a problem–and went ahead and just reintroduced them anyway. Complying with WP:RS is not difficult: Find WP:RS-compliant sources and you will not run into issues. Repeatedly attempt to add fringe sources and expect your motives to begin to come into question. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So no... you're not going to answer my questions or work with me collaboratively. Got it. I'm sorry you feel that way. For what it's worth, my plain reading of RSN is that skeptoid is a reliable source, and that we should prefer independent academic sources (note prefer). Editors were divided on whether Cryptozoologists could be used in any capacity at all, and one suggested an RfC to suss out that question.

You're under no obligation to discuss these issues amicably, but I'd ask that you please stop removing entries from the article and then edit warring to keep them removed. Please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bloodofox is absolutely right to remove these unreliable fringe sources, including the Skeptoid podcast. And seriously, the New York Post? You should not be adding these cringe-worthy sources; they have no place in the article. Carlstak (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm against the "reduction" of this article (including vanishing of a lot of images created by me, with sources). Wikipedia is not a merely scientific enciclopedia, it deals about mythology and questionable topics as well.--Carnby (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A WP article must deal with those subjects using reliable non-fringe sources like any other article. Carlstak (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Does a reliable non-fringe source exist for e.g. astrology? Should we delete all pages dealing with astrology because there's no scientific evidence of stars/plantes influence on human beings (astrologers even use outdated star maps)? I don't believe in cryptids, but I think they are interesting, just like mythological cretures.--Carnby (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Have you even looked at the astrology article? It has 165 reliable sources, as far as I can see. You really should know by now that what you find personally interesting has no bearing whatsoever on what belongs in the article. You're wasting our time here. Carlstak (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to waste your precious time. I was just thinking about the former list which I found (probably wrongly) informative. I would like to know exactly what "fringe sources" are to avoid them use in the future.--Carnby (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Please add Hoop snake to the list of terrestrial cryptids. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC) 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 07:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

New Cryptids for inclusion

The Hodag should be included in this article. It is centered around Rhinelander, Wisconsin. One of many references to it: https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Hodag

I apologize for not editing this in myself, but I don't know how to edit tables without destroying them.

Mikerios (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Michael Rios

@Mikerios:, fandom.com is not exactly a reliable source. You need to find some solid, reliable sources that refer to the hodag as a cryptid. - Donald Albury 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Hodag isn't a cryptid, it's a fearsome critter. Stop trying to appropriate folklore. --tronvillain (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget rabbit cryptids! The skvader, wolpertinger, jackalope, and peryton are some of my favorite cryptids.

Query about Rod

Should Rod (optical phenomenon) be included in this list? Squad51 (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please point to reliable sources that state that rods are cryptids. - Donald Albury 11:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Two cryptids with academical references

I found two non-fringe sources for two cryptids that were formerly in the list: Ningen (source) and Wucharia (source). What do you think about?--Carnby (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

On a skim the first paper treats the Ningen as a folkloric entity, and as such is not a WP:RS for the Ningen as a cryptid. Wucharia redirects to African Wolf (Canis lupaster - a segregate from Canis aureus). Several of the papers involved in the recognition of Canis lupaster cite your second paper; it seems that it's a case of comparing the observed animal with Eurasian Canis aureus rather than African Canis (aureus) lupaster, and consequently failing to identify the animal as the latter. I wouldn't have thought that one failure to identify constitutes a cryptid. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not "Ningen" qualifies as a cryptid, the supposed sightings were in/on the Subantarctic sea, and not on the continent of Antarctica. The image in the article of a Ningen walking on land or an ice floe does not match the descriptions in the sources. Also, while I know it is easy to forget, it is good practice to check all wikilinks in an edit to make sure that they go to the correct article, and not, as happened for Ningen, to a DAB. - Donald Albury 22:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm no fan of this rather lame WP article, but the Greenland-Hayward paper says on p. 135: "The cryptid ningen is classified in Japan as an UMA (pronounced yu-ma or U-M-A) (Unidentified Mysterious Animal)." And as I told Carnby this morning, "The article about the canid is merely a report about an unidentified canid, possibly a new species, which would not be a cryptid—the word "crytid" isn't mentioned." Carlstak (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I also see that the Discussion section of the Greenland-Hayward paper seems to conclude that the Ningen is a projection of one or another psychological state. The paper is concerned with the development of a legend via social media, and while it uses the term "cryptid" to describe the Ningen, I do not feel that the article supports any conclusion other than the Ningen being a figment of imagination. - Donald Albury 15:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, Donald, but I thought all cryptids were figments of someone's imagination—that's the main reason I don't like this article. I do like the phrase "projection of one or another psychological state", though. One could really go to town with that.;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure that is not true for most Cryptids, and thus am not sure it's particularly valid for exclusion. If an RS called it a cryptid, I would say it goes in.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Add the dahu

Hello, I think that the dahu could be add in the table : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB15:373:1A00:BD:E3FC:99A9:F055 (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nahuelito crop.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shealy ape.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wendigo

Where's it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:CFF6:7CB5:B1DC:D832:94A5:5446 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wendigos aren't Cryptids as they're not a type of animal KanyeWestDropout (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

folklore counts as animal 2600:6C54:4E00:1DC:11F8:553B:2349:3446 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It does? Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Crawlers

The Crawler is a cryptid also know as the Pale Crawler or the Cave Crawler which is pale in appearance and crawls on 4 legs but is humanoid a famous sighting of a Crawler is the Berwick sighting more famously know as the rake photo as it was used in a creepypasta called the rake, They are seen in forests. so im wondering where are Crawlers. 2600:6C54:4E00:1DC:11F8:553B:2349:3446 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to any reliable sources (not para.wiki or a fandom site) that describe this "crawler" as a cryptid? - Donald Albury 16:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

Change: "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but are not believed to exist by mainstream science"

To: "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but are not recognized by science"

Reasoning: What is referred in the original as "mainstream science" is simply "science" as governed by the application of the scientific method. The article even links this label to the entry for "Scientific Community". In science, conclusions and even hypotheses are rarely presented as beliefs. The way the article is written may mislead readers into overestimating the validity of pseudoscience next to science. This is unacceptable in knowledge curation. CamiloHelps (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why were my additions removed?

I added a couple of cryptids to the list (among them Bathysphera) but they were later removed. What was wrong with them, can I fix them and add them back? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

They are unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Done and fixed KanyeWestDropout (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Winged section rename?

Currently the page is split into three categories, Aquatic or Semi Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Winged. After looking into the moa (considered a cryptid due to reports of their continued survival), I read that ratites, a group of flightless birds of which moas are grouped into, have wings though they don't use them. I clearly see that the page is intended to be split into water, land and flying animals, so would the winged section possibly need a rename to "flying" or "aerial" or is that too pedantic? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

other cryptozoological beings

A great list. Can you please add the Goatman, the Flatwood monster and Queensland tiger --Boxfan88 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)? Boxfan88 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Goatman (urban legend) is an urban legend and the Flatwoods monster is a folklore creature tied to a meteor sighting, neither of which qualify for this list. The Queensland tiger article has problems. Donald Albury 01:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What problems does the Queensland tiger article have? I could try and fix it up KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Footnote needed for "declared extinct" cryptids?

A lot of people get confused over how scientifically recognized but extinct animals like the Thylacine and Moa are considered cryptids, could someone maybe add a footnote that could be used to mark this distinction whenever it shows up on the list? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Cryptids are animals which are unrecognized by science

I had my additions removed because "These sources contain no mention of cryptozoology or the word "cryptid" whatsoever". Why? These fit the definition provided by the article of "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but are not recognized by science". I don't think sources have to mention cryptozoology explicitly for it to match the definition KanyeWestDropout (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:v. If a source does not explicitly support a claim it can be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we add an FAQ saying that the requirement for adding a critter to the list is a reliable source saying that crypotozoologists regard the critter as a cryptid? If we had one, we could just respond "read the FAQ" to the requests above about Wendigo, Goatman, Flatwood monster, Queensland tiger and Bathysphera. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be helpful. This article is always going to be a magnet for unsourced or improperly sourced additions. Carlstak (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Q: The X is cryptid. It should be in the list.

A: You need a reliable source saying that crypotozoologists regard X as a cryptid. Otherwise we cannot add it.

Any suggestions for improvements? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't that lead to problems? Considering the page currently explicitly regards Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience that shouldn't be given credence on wouldn't those sources be removed? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is why we would need RS to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So cryptozoologists themselves can't be sourced "saying that cryptozoologists regard the critter as a cryptid"? It has to be someone else that does it? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, all of the articles I mentioned are added to "Wikipedia scope Cryptozoology" and Category:Cryptids. Not saying that that's right per say, but I'm not sure by what standard they're in those pages and not this one. If there's a source for them being there I could use it KanyeWestDropout (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing text that is sourced to cryptozoologists only is a good thing, not a problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If the topic is Cryptozoology I think that they can be quoted, since we're specifically looking for "a reliable source saying that crypotozoologists regard X as a cryptid". It's not like I'm trying to source John Keel saying that the Mothman is real KanyeWestDropout (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia editors should not trawl primary literature for things to quote. We need secondary sources to summarize that and choose the more relevant parts. Otherwise there will be a lot of irrelevant stuff in articles because some editor happens to find it interesting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, is there a way someone can direct me to a list of possible accepted sources then? There are a ton of cryptozoological articles on Wikipedia that aren't on that list because of that reason, I've looked through several of them and added them since they had anti-cryptozoological sources, but there's still a lot more that could be added. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, a lot of cryptozoologist literature does that. For every primary source of a cryptozoologist looking for/into a specific cryptid (think Heuvelmans' work) there's another cryptozoologist that summarized that work in a different secondary piece of literature. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It would surprise me if there were such a list, beyond WP:RSP, which is filled more and more when people ask about the reliability of a specific source. But WP:FRIND pretty much rules out pseudoscientific literature, and therefore cryptozoologists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Either way the list would be by cryptozoologists so the page wouldn't allow it KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of digital cryptids

I have added Crungus and Loab to the page on the grounds that multiple reliable sources refer to them as cryptids. Wikipedia exists to cover what sources say, and sources say that they are cryptids. They were removed however, which I think is wrong. I want to start a discussion on their inclusion. The sources pretty much agree that they are cryptids, and as such I believe that they belong in the article.

Here are the main sources (there are more, but these are the ones I cited).

• https://www.ebaumsworld.com/articles/ai-generator-creates-cryptid-and-shes-already-haunting-our-dreams/87264887/
• https://www.pcgamer.com/ai-image-generaotr-loab-cryptid-supercomposite/
• https://www.ign.com/articles/loab-first-ai-art-cryptid
• https://iflscience.com/nothing-to-worry-about-dall-e-has-created-a-new-cryptid-named-crungus-64118

Di (they-them) (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Digital cryptid is clearly a different concept from "cryptid", although it does not even have its own article yet at the time of this writing.

This is like adding Sea lion to Category:Lions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources don't make a distinction or claim that it's a different concept. They simply describe them as "cryptids". Di (they-them) (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article defines cryptids as "...animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but are not recognized by science." Digital cryptids are not that by any means. Carlstak (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that definition simply need to be updated based on what the sources say. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing the definition of what this article is about will require a consensus. So far, only you support including "digital cryptids" in List of cryptids, while four of us have opposed that. Just because something can be verified does not mean it has to be included in Wikipedia, or in any particular article in Wikipedia. Donald Albury 13:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the important aspect is that Di's reasoning is not good enough, not that they are in the minority. Being in the minority is just a consequence of having no good reasoning.

Those very recent sources which use a very new concept with the same name as a decades-old concept do not justify changing the definition in the article about the old concept. At maximum, we could have a new article about the new concept and mention those two thingies there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

AI generated entities for the title? I feel like it'd be best not to reuse "cryptids" there. But the topic has gotten mainstream attention KanyeWestDropout (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The definition isn't supported by any cryptozoologists. Cryptozoology is the study of potentially new animals that aren't confirmed by science. AI generations aren't animals by any definition. The media sources use the term incorrectly KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the writings of cryptozoologists are not reliable sources, so you have no reliable sources to support this. Carlstak (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that there aren't any reliable writings on Cryptozoology that state that "digital creations" are cryptids KanyeWestDropout (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)