Talk:Globster

Paranormal Mid‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philippine Globster was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 March 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Globster. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

POV-pushing[edit]

"Some Globsters are supposed to be the victims of pathological skepticism, because the scientific community has refused to look at them until after they have decomposed too much to ever possibly be good enough as evidence for a new species"

This is POV-pushing. Calling people's attitudes "pathological" just because they differ from your own is unhealthy for dialogue and therefore hinders the seeking for truth. I'll neutralize it. --217.86.36.217 16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the globsters[edit]

Would it make sense to merge all blobs/globsters (excepting the St. Augustine Monster) into this article, perhaps with a table for ease of comparison? Most of them only have a couple of lines. K602 (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Philippine Globster[edit]

I made a rather minimal merge from the Philippine Globster article, just keeping the name and the "best" ref.

The question that remains open is whether there will be any coverage of the results of the investigation, such as identifying whether this was the carcass of a sea cow or part of some whale. Once the object is identified, will it cease to be a globster? It seems like a shame to remove it from the list here after all the work that has gone into it, but I don't see how its continued presence does anyone any good. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first merge and I made many mistakes. I trust the bots will do the job that's expected of them, despite the errors. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying..."By the way, the mystery has actually been solved. It’s the body of a whale and it’s in advanced decomposition. It’s believed to have died two weeks ago after being hit by a ship."^[1]

It would be nice to have a better ref. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hartley-Parkinson, Richard (2017-02-24). "What the hell is that massive blob that's washed up in the Philippines?". Metro.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-04.

Recent edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rm nn globsters w/o stand alone articles; this section is for notable subjects". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article doesn't need to become a dumping ground or merge target for every piece of decaying flesh that somebody, somewhere described as a "globster". –dlthewave ☎ 13:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN disagrees. There is no requirement in lists (this is a specifically recognised useful aspect to lists and list articles) for individual items to separately demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC goes into a bit more detail about selection criteria; there's not one right or wrong way to do it. A list can be exhaustive or consist only of notable or non-notable entries as determined by local consensus. In this case, "Notable globsters" implies notable entries (those with Wikipedia articles) only, and I would also suggest that including a named "globster" in a list with no further explanation or context does not further the reader's understanding of the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 14:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to include entries that are sufficiently obscure that articles on them never existed or were deleted for lack of notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hartley-Parkinson, Richard (2017-02-24). "What the hell is that massive blob that's washed up in the Philippines?". Metro.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-04.

[1]