Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Youtube as a source?

I found a Youtube video that could be helpful in expanding this list with proper citations. It takes a skeptical perspective of Cryptozoology and cites it's sources. Would I be able to use a video in this case? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This a non-expert YouTuber self-publishing videos. Definitely not a WP:RS-compliant source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Source quality

I'm finding all sorts of the most bottom-of-the-barrel sources on this article. Articles citing Wikipedia entries. Articles without authorship. Articles that cite no sources. Articles that don't even mention cryptozoology. Just the worst garbage. Seriously, this is some of the worst sourcing I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time.

This article badly needs a source review. In the meantime, if it looks even remotely suspicious, chances are it is. This article is already on shaky ground—the sources holding it up need to be checked. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You and @Dlthewave removed the sources from the article I thought were the weakest. Perhaps you could look for better citations for the page? I've been trying to add some as well and I think the stuff that remains is pretty good. Most of the citations now are a mix of skeptical analysis and scientific papers KanyeWestDropout (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I've provided quite a few of the reliable sources on the article. The problem is that our reliable sources make it clear that cryptozooologists focus on a handful of creatures and then basically consider almost anything else in the folklore record a "cryptid".

Ultimately, there's no good reason for this list to exist–it could just be summarized in a section at cryptozoology—but yet here it is. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think it has enough notability and reliability to warrant its retainment. In terms of citations, I 100% agree, this article needs an extensive cleanup and reevaluation of its sources because there are always better and more approved sources for these sorts of subjects. --Paleface Jack (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Cryptids are extremely popular and very numerous, worth an article. Just copying this page to the main cryptozoology page would look awkward KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this topic for a while, there is a fine line between classifying "cryptid" with "mythical/folkloric creature". Sometimes, as is the case with Bigfoot, Nessie, and Thunderbirds, they tend to bleed into one another and are a part of both classifacations. I do think citing sources for the sake of sources is very poor for both arguements. This is wikipiedia after all and not an opinion-based site, remaining neutral on any subject without making controversial edits is required. I have noticed with a lot of Cryptid and mythological articles that the sources that advocate for "unidentifiable animals" or "hoax/wishful thinking" are poor and unreliable to say the least and a lot of them lean heavily towards the "hoax/wishful thinking" arguement with a sort of detraction towards the other theories that have been publicized by academics. Better wording as well as sources should be implimented.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you expand on what you mean in the second half of your post a little more? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@KanyeWestDropout: What I mean by that is this, certain cryptids are tied to mythology/folklore by certain native populations where they are found. For bigfoot, the names are numerous and tied to the various Native American tribes in addition to non-Native American folklore. The same is said for the "Thunderbird" which is very much tied to Native American mythology. With a lot of cryptid-related articles, the writing style has been lacking and unbalanced even for a controversial topic. Pseudo-science arguments aside, there is a lot of history and information out there that can be considered reliable but unfortunately, they have been overlooked. I have seen more often than not a tendency to write cryptid-related articles solely on the mythological/folkloric aspect with no acknowledgment of the cryptid aspects which are treated with disdain and glossed over. I could list a bunch of issues with such articles but that is not why I am here. I have been thinking of the possibility of creating a writing style and structure specifically for these articles in order to properly balance the articles and give other editors a clearer understandign of the structure needed for these articles.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, I agree. I rewrote the Mapinguari article to mention the cryptozoological aspect recently KanyeWestDropout (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@KanyeWestDropout: Looking into that article, it does not warrent inclusion into the Cryptid category or WikiProject as it does not mention, list of detail enough or any information to categorize it as such.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-cryptid

Why are extinct species that we have proven photographs of such as the Thylacine and the ivory- billed woodpecker on this page. That’s like putting the extinct Carolina parrot on the page, we know they existed and they have be accepted by “mainstream” science.. The inclusion of the ivory-billed woodpecker and the Thylacine need to be removed, or have some kind of footnote saying that it was a real animal that is now believed to be extinct, and if you see one you should alert the proper authorities.. 50.38.186.35 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Because they're animals that science doesn't recognize as currently existing. Some also consider Carolina Parrots cryptids by the way, as they're also sighted. I previously asked for people to add a footnote explaining this as I don't know how to. Bernard Heuvelmans in his initial cryptozoological work talked about Moas and Mammoths as well 144.13.254.81 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please remove Moa from the list. Existence implies not ever having lived. They are extinct, which means they existed. There is plenty of fossil evidence. 103.81.226.68 (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please remove animals that ARE recognized by science (such as the moa), as the definition at the top of the page states "Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but are not recognized by science."

Moa are extinct, they is no doubt they existed. They are recognised by science. The referenced article refers to the questioning of modern sightings, not the question of their existence. 103.81.226.68 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In Britain one category of cryptid sightings are "alien big cats". These could well be species that are not only recognised by science, but are recognised by science as extant (elsewhere). The category of cryptid can be drawn as broadly as animals not recognised by science as extant in the location of interest. Suspected remnant populations of species generally believed to be extinct (or locally extinct) and unrecognised introduced populations of alien species form the more respectable end of cryptozoology. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Changed the definition to make it clearer KanyeWestDropout (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Cryptozoology also recognizes animals that science thinks are extinct but which aren't recognized. The foundational tract of cryptozoology mentions moa sightings, they're 100% cryptids KanyeWestDropout (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

These fall under "Lazarus taxa", a category of cryptids that are, in short, extinct species reported to be alive. There's various subsets of them, but an all-inclusive definition includes sightings of extant thylacines, mammoths, etc. The ivory-bill in particular is on the list due to the current uncertainty of its status, which, until confirmed as extant, falls under this umbrella. Pondicherryyyy (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The woodpecker needs to be cut. Very confusing and is must be wrong (or the woodpecker page is wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:403:C200:93C0:2039:A3CB:E403:F992 (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the page? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This page can be confusing (as I was) since it seems to include both "clearly fictitious animals that people believe have been sighted" as well as "clearly animals that did exist at one point and are believed to now be extinct, BUT some people still believe they have also been sighted." I think that is from where some of the disagreement on this talk page originates. SquashEngineer (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If RS defines something as a cryptid, its a cryptid for out purposes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on recent removals

User Peakbisexual recently removed a number of entries on the list that I'd like to discuss as I think they have interesting implications. I can agree that the monkey-man seems like a possible exclusion, as it doesn't really fit as a possibly biological animal. Would excluding the ningen also be a good removal due to it only being known from a single anonymous (likely fictional) report? I'd agree with that and also say that the Dogman (which originated with a 1987 hoax song as you can read in it's article) should also be removed based on similar criteria. I know I'm not allowed to cite cryptozoologists here, but I do agree that cryptids which are explicitly paranormal in nature should be removed as cryptozoology was created as an explicitly non-paranormal "field". KanyeWestDropout (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ivory Billed Woodpecker

I had a section deleted off of this page for not calling it a cryptid. The section says that "It (the ivory billed woodpecker inhabits a liminal space between existence and extinction, between science and cryptozoology, between known and unknown, and when it comes to Cuba, between species and subspecies". Why wouldn't this be enough for it to be considered a cryptid? It described how the ivory billed has a weird status in multiple realms of science KanyeWestDropout (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the summary of my reverting edit, saying that it "inhabits a liminal space between existence and extinction, between science and cryptozoology" is nothing like saying it is a cryptid, as anyone can plainly see. The author of the cited article compares "existence and extinction" as opposites, and in parallel compares "science and cryptozoology" as opposites. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, not a science, as the much-discussed second sentence of our WP article says, so cryptozoology is not one of the "multiple realms of science" in which the ivory billed woodpecker has a weird status, obviously. Carlstak (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The source doesn’t call it a cryptid, and even if it did, one journal article wouldn’t be enough for WP to call it that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, got a new source then KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

KanyeWestDroput recently added Bathyembryx,Bathysidus and Bathysphaera cited to Richard Ellis Singing Whales and Flying Squid: The Discovery of Marine Life. While Ellis uses the descriptive term "cryptozoological" to describe William Beebe's hypothetical species observed during deep sea explorations, it's pretty clear neither Ellis or any other WP:FRIND source is actually calling these "cryptids".

Unfortunately, this latest edit appears to be part of a WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern attempting to force the definition of "cryptid" to include animals treated within the taxonomy of zoology: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. @KanyeWestDropout: I strongly suggest you give up this WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINTY pattern of editing, and instead discuss proposed edits on this Talk page. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What would you find wrong about this as a possible source?

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/05/long-search-ivory-billed-woodpecker-bigfoot-no-more-detailed-new-book-man-who KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're being harsh excluding those, if an animal is explicitly stated to be cryptozoological in a WP:FRIND source why would it not be a cryptid? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're taking creative descriptive language seriously. The author is comparing an ornithologist John Dennis's search for a real species with the fringe world of cryptozoology. Also, the Cornell campus newspaper is not a scientific journal, which is what we would need multiples of to justify Wikipedia defining the ivory billed woodpecker is a cryptid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I dispute that the ivory-billed woodpecker section especially is creative language, if a friendly source is describing them as cryptozoological there's no reason to not consider them cryptids. Multiple scientific journals aren't needed for any of the other cryptids on this page, why is it needed for the ivory-billed? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, you really, really, want to list the ivory-billed woodpecker as a cryptid. You cite a review of a book by Tim Gallagher—writer, photographer, and editor in chief of Living Bird (published by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology) but who is not an ornithologist, a review that treats the claimed "rediscovery" (in 2004) of the ivory-billed woodpecker as an accomplished fact (it is not). You are missing the point that if this were actually a definitive sighting, as the review claims, and the continued existence of the ivory-billed was unimpeachably established, then it would not be a cryptid at all, if one accepted its designation as such in the first place, so this source actually contradicts your own assertion that the ivory-billed is a cryptid. Carlstak (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do want to expand this list of cryptids to be as comprehensive as possible without expanding the definition! That's why wikipedia lists are useful. Even if the Cornell article isn't up to snuff, the above book passage would work too KanyeWestDropout (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. LuckyLouie is right: your repeated attempts to, as he says, force the definition of "cryptid" to include animals treated within the taxonomy of zoology is tendentious and disruptive. Carlstak (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Those animals aren't treated within the taxonomy of zoology considering multiple databanks recognize the ivory-billed as an extinct animals, just like the thylacine. The bathysphere fish are only sometimes listed in taxonomic databases due to their lack of type specimens. Multiple scientists have criticized their existence as well (which I should add to their wikipedia page). I don't think considering them cryptids is forcing them, most cryptozoologists consider them cryptids KanyeWestDropout (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Carlstak and LuckyLouie. You are attempting to redefine "cryptid" in a manner that is invalid. The ivory billed woodpecker is/was, like the Carolina parakeet but unlike the Loveland Frog, an actual animal for which actual museum specimens exist (i.e., their existence is explicitly substantiated), and that fact, among others, excludes it as a cryptid. You have also in this discussion repeated the same argument several times, which is disruptive. Because consensus is clearly against your desired content, and because you have already been warned above about tendentious editing, I suggest that you now drop this stick and move on to something else. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cryptids are animals whose present existence is disputed, in the first work of cryptozoology animals like the mammoth and moas were discussed because science recognized them as extinct. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That definition, which perhaps you took from the first sentence of this article, is at best inaccurate (and, for what it is worth, should be removed). If "present" was a requisite qualifier, that would mean that someone like me could dispute that Brontosaurus parvus was extinct. Most everybody on the planet, particularly the rational paleontologists who study such things, would disagree...but in your interpretation my ludicrous dispute would enable B. parvus to be defined as a cryptid. And then, of course, every single species of extinct animal would/could be defined as a cryptid. I suggest, one last time as I won't comment further here, that you please drop the stick now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That's funny because the brontosaurus is a sort of a cryptid, as it's the most popular (cryptozoological) explanation for the mokele-mbembe! No arguments here that the vast majority of the world rightly would disagree, but it does mean the animal falls under cryptozoology. Every single species of extinct animal wouldn't be defined as a cryptid since people don't report seeing 99.99% of extinct animals KanyeWestDropout (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Kting voar and Thylacine

More problematic additions. An oblique mention in one source isn't enough to classify Kting voar as a cryptid, it is more well known as a hoax. Thylacine is weakly possible, but needs more than one source that contains only a passing mention. It is more notable as an extinct animal, which is the reason why the Thylacine article does not identify it as a cryptid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would that mention not be sufficient? Most things on this list only use one source and the source I have is from scientists. I'll find more sources KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, what was the issue with the tatzelwurm inclusion? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm is primarily notable in RS as folklore. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It could fall under multiple categories, the current wikipedia page includes actual eyewitness accounts KanyeWestDropout (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Anything a few cryptozoologists have ever searched for can't automatically be defined as a cryptid. For example, some cryptozoologists claim sightings of a dinosaur. Our dinosaur article does not say "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles and cryptids of the clade Dinosauria". Extinct animal species can't be defined as simultaneously extinct and cryptids. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Because reports of living dinosaurs aren't notable enough to include. The thylacine has a section on reports of it's possible survival in addition to RS stating that it's a cryptid. What would define a cryptid by your criteria? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

Request that all references to Thylacine are removed because this animal is genuine as proven by specimens existing in museums. Thank you. 51.7.95.184 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: While it certainly did exist, it is now extinct. The reason for it being listed here is that some believe that it still exists in the wild - see the linked section Thylacine#Searches and unconfirmed sightings. Tollens (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, the RFC directly above is focused on criteria for inclusion in this list - you may want to participate. Tollens (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Seeking outside views on sourcing

There has been a lot of back and forth editing and discussion over whether or not recent citations on this page are appropriate additions (see the talk page). Are the sources being provided adequate for this page? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this intended to be a formal RfC? I think discussion of what the RfC should ask is needed. Your question appears to be about what is adequate sourcing for inclusion in this article. I think that involves at least the following questions:

1. Are there any reliable sources supporing the designation of "cryptid"?
2. What is the preponderance of opinion in reliable sources about whether something is a "cryptid" (i.e., due weight)?
3. Is an encyclopedic purpose served by including the "cryptid" in this article?

- Donald Albury 12:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to RfC so I appreciate the help. Yes it's intended to be a question of if the sources being provided are adequate, since many are being deleted. I do intend to expand the list as much as possible KanyeWestDropout (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, what you are asking is too vaque. You cannot expect users to approve or not approve "recent citations" as a group. Each proposed source that has been challenged needs to be discussed separately. Doing so with an RfC would be unwieldly. As the reliability of sources should always be evaluated for use in a specific context; you need to propose a specific use for each source. Even if a source is deemed reliable for a particular use, the content it supports is still subject to assessment of due weight. I would advise against an RfC on each source, and, as I said above, RfCs with many options to !vote on become unwieldly. Donald Albury 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it, I'll look for a specific case where a source is disputed then. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this article itself is on extremely shaky ground. Do we have articles for other fringe topics like this? Is any of this especially notable? It raises a lot of questions that still haven't been resolved. Everything here could easily be handled at cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

We discussed the article's existence before. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, the yeti, megalodons etc are all extremely culturally relevant and notable.

List of reported UFO sightings KanyeWestDropout (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

As I've said before, this article provides a ready-made template for hoaxers, scam artists, and kooks. I'll quote Daniel Loxton again:

Once it acquires a defined conceptual form, a cryptid becomes self-reinforcing. A standardized concept provides a culturally available template for the generation of hoaxes and misidentifications, which in turn "confirm" the correctness of the template. The template inspires sightings, which attract the attention of “researchers” and media, which inspire more sightings. A dream takes the form of an animal. Cryptozoology begins to "study" it. The template is filled in, polished, expanded upon. The cryptozoological literature is consequently full of confident, detailed assertions about the characteristics of cryptids (just as parallel paranormal literatures are full of firm statements about unproven alien beings, psi phenomena, and so on). Animals which have never been captured, dissected, photographed, or even reliably observed are described with astonishing precision. Confidence about the undemonstrated qualities of hypothetical creatures is the end result of cryptozoologification. Needless to say, it is a mistake.

Any such fantasy animals that are actually "culturally relevant" already have their own articles; so this generator of bothersome enthusiast nuisances is unnecessary. Carlstak (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Carlstak there are way too many items included in this list article that are primarily notable as folklore, legends, or rumors. The root problem is that there exists no authoritative text, journal, or academic program for cryptozoology. Consequently, fringe CZ books and websites and passing mentions in WP:SENSATIONAL media and exploitive TV shows are often cited as indicators of what is "definitively" a cryptid and how Wikipedia should confidently describe it. As Carlstak said, individual articles are better equipped to describe the culturally significant fantasy animals. In addition, the articles are capable of greater nuance in describing which things have their primary notability as folklore. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is also culturally relevant outside of the cryptids within it KanyeWestDropout (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Merely discussing a topic, especially when the actual pages typically have skeptical sections on them, isn't likely to inspire more fake sightings or further the lore of the cryptid KanyeWestDropout (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - This can be solved far more easily by a consensus on the WP:SELCRIT for the article. As a frequent visitor to this page, I've been disturbed by the number of things deleted over the last few years, often because the source's author is "fringe". Well, duh. This is a pseudoscience; reliable sources for proven-extant creatures, by definition, won't have cryptids. Conversely, a source that is fundamentally reliable when talking about yowees and mokèlé-mbèmbé (both of which were childhood obsessions of mine) would be "fringe" if it were cited for real creatures. The article's lede leaves too much wiggle room for what can be included, and thus too much room for deletion and controversy. Two other notes: I deeply disagree with LuckyLouie's assertion about folklore, legends, or rumors. If you're looking only for reliable sources on cryptids that do not rely on those factors, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of cryptid. As for Carlstak's statement (echoed by LL) on the fact that these have their own articles: Yes, that's the point of a List article type, to summarise items so people can get to those in-depth articles. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm, I simply disagree. This article causes more problems than it solves—it's a pain in the ass for editors who have to to fend off the cryptid enthusiasts, hoaxers, scam artists, and kooks, who so often try to creatively support their positions with lame sources. Carlstak (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a valid problem for which one solution is to have community-consensus selection criteria published on the Talk page and edit-guidance tags. You might specify that any list item must merit its own, stand-alone article, and that red-link titles must inline-cite three reliable sources until the article is created. That would be well within policy and make deletion/maintenance simpler. Without it, every deletion is inherently contentious since we don't actually say what the list must or must not contain (e.g., Ivory-Billed Woodpecker vs Globster). Not having a strong SELCRIT is also a recurring theme on the AfD boards for deletion of the list entirely, which I think would be a blow to Wikipedia. I've been a reader of this article for decades and visit pretty frequently (cryptids make wonderful business metaphors), and I would mourn its loss.

I honestly wasn't trying to be sarcastic, but attempting to point out the fundamental absurdity of the adjective reliable for sources about Bigfoot and Champ. Please tell me you can see the humour in establishing credibility for guys who hunt the Myakka Skunk Ape? Building the most comprehensive encyclopaedia every envisioned is serious, but it doesn't mean we can't laugh whilst doing so. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume you've read WP:FRIND. This is to avoid fringe sources being cited as defacto authorities. To describe the Loch Ness Monster, we look to third party sources independent of the belief that Nessie is an amazing mysterious creature that is eluding capture. It's not absurd that Wikipedia prefers high quality sources, e.g. uninvolved observers of the crytozoological culture are the only sources that reliably describe the hallmarks of the culture and what it identifies as cryptids. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree, I'm not sure how a SELCRIT would be established however. Is there another wikipedia arbiter that could be contacted? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is literally as simple as having a discussion here, on the Talk page itself. Build a strawman statement that other editors can opine on, come to consensus (the hard part), and then post it. There is, oddly, no guidance on how to post the SELCRIT. Personal opinion: Posting it both as a <!-- Comment --> in the head of the article and as an FAQ at the head of the Talk Page seems wise. I also think that {{ping}}ing editors who have made non-trivial changes to the article in the past year or two is courteous and helpful. If at least two editors think this discussion is worthwhile, I'll start a section. If people think the idea is unhelpful or a waste of time, though, it's probably both. Thoughts? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's unhelpful and a waste of time. There will never be consensus on inclusion criteria—there are too many enthusiasts who will never give up their quixotic crusade to include weakly or imaginarily supported entries. The content guideline WP:LISTCRITERIA (same as SELCRIT) doesn't even apply because none of these imaginary creatures has a "verifiable existence"—they "exist" only in the minds of fervid enthusiasts, who can't even agree among themselves which nonsense to include. Carlstak (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles on imaginary creatures and creatures that aren't verified to exist in the folklore section of wikipedia KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that could be worth it but I'm not sure if it's what's needed to solve the discussions here as it seems some of the editors are seeking to delete the page entirely. It's worth it to create a specific criteria to stop the addition of things like AI entities or creepypasta stories to the page, but I'm not sure if a consensus is possible. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion (aka WP:SELCRIT)

According to WP:SELCRIT (part of guidance on stand-alone lists), a list article needs to have a Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) which is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This article lacks that.

Complicating the question is a very strong, minority opinion that this article should not exist at all. Since that question is handled through WP:AfD, a process which this article has previously either passed or evaded, I suggest we set a ground-rule that we are doing this on the assumption that the article is worthwhile and can be improved. Even if you don't believe that it belongs in Wikipedia, the article does exist now, and your input can help us make it better until you can convince a consensus of editors that it should be deleted.

There is shockingly little guidance on the specifics of a 'good' SELCRIT, and examples have little similarity to one another. I propose that we consider the SELCRIT from two perspectives: what items can and cannot be included in the list; and what must and must not be included in the list entry itself.

I propose the following strawman for discussion, dissection and/or TNT. A strawman is, by definition, designed to be ripped to shreds and put back together, so I am under no illusion that this one will be satisfactory. With luck, we can reach a consensus on better wording, post it, then see if it helps use reduce vandalism on the page (or at least better explain to people why their cruft and fanfic does not belong here).

1. An item on this list must unambiguously meet all elements of the definition in the lead paragraph. This includes 'believed to exist in the wild' and 'disputed or unsubstantiated by science.' Imaginary, fictional, and mythological creatures belong elsewhere.
2. The creature's name must be linked to a mainspace article dedicated to that creature. Red link articles are not acceptable, nor are those currently in the Articles for Deletion process. If a creature is not notable enough to support its own article, it does not belong on this list.
3. Each list item must have at least one inline citation referencing a reliable source that is either secondary or tertiary, and is independent of authors who are prominent proponents of that particular creature. The source must either specifically reference the creature as a cryptid or use wording that matches the definition of a cryptid.

Will this solve all the problems? Of course not. But it can serve a purpose -- several in fact. It brings the article into line with Wikipedia expectations for a list article; for good-faith editors, it provides guidance when seeking to add or remove entries; and, for vandals, it gives us a way to explicitly show why their edit is inappropriate. With luck, it will reduce 3RR and repeated vandalism. Please propose changes below. You may want to {{ping}} editors who might want to participate in the consensus. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree with 2. I would go further and say that these entries should ideally link to a page or perhaps subset of a page that discusses the cryptozoological aspect of the animal. For example, how the thylacine link leads directly to the section of the article that discusses posthumous sightings. If a page doesn't already discuss cryptozoological aspects I'd say it shouldn't be linked until that's added KanyeWestDropout (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Middletown Muncher

Ask teenagers from Middletown Ohio if they have ever seen a cryptid, and they will tell you about the Sasquatch-like being who has a single horn on its head and carries a wooden spoon as a weapon. You'll know he is nearby if it smells like a skunk who took a bath in spoiled milk, or worse yet, you hear him shuffling through the woods whacking trees with his favorite wooden spoon. We don't know why or where he got the spoon, but he wields it viciously! Some say he was a baker in the 1950s that went mad and hid out in the woods. Others believe he is a mislabeled Big Foot. No one knows for certain. Coffeekona6 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything added to this article, or any article in Wikipedia, must be verifiable from reliable sources. We do not look kindly on hoaxes. Donald Albury 00:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a hoax. It is merely a lovable local cryptid that many of the local kids adore. It has become legend in this area, and as such, I thought it was a fun addition to the list. All tall tales come with a bit of truth. It is just as verifiable as any other cryptid on this list, if not more so. 74.140.235.168 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you can provide some sources covering it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Since this very discussion is the only place in the digital universe in which Google can find that term, I'd say it's a very recent 'lovable local cryptid', possibly first revealed to the larger world on 17 November around UTC 20:48. Perhaps over time there will be scholarship on this creature, at which point it will need to be added to this list. Until Then, Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

I request that a rougarou be added to the list of cryptids. Originating from Cajun folklore. Thank you. ≈ 2600:8807:5642:BAB0:3993:E920:D884:E33E (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Lake of Jak London in far east of Russia [5] 176.65.113.231 (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

THis is just a picture. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

New Hatnote: Distinguish?

Could someone please add a hatnote 'Distinguish|Cryptozoa' ? People can easily confuse the names "cryptid" and "cryptozoa" (undiscovered microscopic animals). I don't want to have to log in to edit the semi-protected page. Thanks!

 Done --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)