Category talk:Cryptids

Perhaps some items should be removed from this list
Why are what "appears" to be completely mythical creatures (and not really thought to exist by some individual today) in this list here.

Example of what should be here: Thunderbird (cryptozoology) which has almost zero possibility of being real, but not completely zero to all ... so the realm of this st and should be here. Please see this text I found directly in this article ...

"This article deals with modern sightings of such a creature, reported as real, as opposed to clearly mythological accounts, though believers in the phenomenon often use the Indian legends as further evidence for their claims."

Example of what should not be here: Hellhound, which is purely mythological and does not belong in the list of potential Cryptids. Here is some text I found in that article ...

"The myth is common across the UK, and many names are given to the apparitions: Black Shuck of East Anglia, Moddey Dhoo of the Isle of Man, Gwyllgi of Wales, and so on."

So, am I missing something in these articles here? 206.127.114.34 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Kracker


 * Some hellhounds are believed to be real flesh and blood creatures by local populations, no different from say Bigfoot or Ogopogo. There are legends aout both Bigfoot and Ogopogo that impart supernatural powers to them and yet they are both considred Cryptids.  There's unfortunately a lot of cross-fertilization between legends and cryptids.  Hard-line Skeptics consider ALL Cryptids to be legendary.  I would argue that we should err on the side of inclusion. Lisapollison 14:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am surprised this was never changed. perhaps there are some tribes that believe the hellhound still exists, but we haven't got anything to that effect in it's article, so either that should be added or it should be removed from the list.98.27.212.23 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

God?
Just a suggestion, but a Cryptid is defined as "legendary creatures that are rumored or suspected to exist, but for which conclusive proof is still missing"...does this include God? And if so, I will edit it in. 84.12.21.251 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No God would not be included because, in most religions, God is not a creature, and lacks a physical body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.56.254 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Fictional animals
Cryptids are not actual animals, but described animals from folklore and myth. Since no formal scientific classification exists, one must assume that these animals are "fictional" until discovered otherwise. Once they ARE discovered to be real, they are given a proper classification and are no longer cryptids. Case and point: Cryptids are fictional animals, so that's the subcategory they should fall under.  Justin  chat 08:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I laughed when I read this. That is arguably the most narrow-minded and skeptical claim I've seen all day. Elasmosaurus (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean up, and new additions of creatures and sub categories perhaps?
I'm fairly sure that this inst all the cryptids and sub category's for cryptids. I am wondering as well why "Gilled Antalope" is under the pages category? If their is an answer I will revert it back to where it was, otherwise i'm going to see if I can move it to the "aquatic" or "mammal" category upon further research. - (MadDogObertt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadDogObertt (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say go ahead and remove it—there was a time when the pseudoscience had free rein on the site and went essentialy unquestioned, but that is no longer the case, and this may be leftover from that era. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)