Talk:Cryptid

Redirect to Cryptozoology
There's an ongoing discussion regarding the state of this article and its satellites over at the fringe theories noticeboard: "A Long-Term Wikipedia Problem: Wikipedia as a Cryptozoology's Pokémon Database.

Consensus seems to be to simply merge it with cryptozoology. Currently the article has zero reliable sources—they're entirely pro-cryptozoology primary sources written by cryptozoologists, no matter how the descriptions of the authors dance around this fact. The term cryptid is also restricted to cryptozoology. This article appears to exist solely to further promote cryptozoology on Wikipedia with its self-designation.

We've long had an issue with cryptozoologists revert-warring to have their way on promoting this pseudoscience on Wikipedia and this has to end if our coverage is getting any better. As a result, if you're a cryptozoologist, now is a good time to reconsider your goals here. If you want to assist in building solid and neutral coverage of the pseudoscience, you're welcome. if you want to use these articles as a forum to promote your pet pseudoscience, you need to go elsewhere. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article has been around for 9 years. No one can just wily-nily remove it by page blanking without extensive discussion here. That's ridiculous and vandalism to do so. Sure it can be edited and tweaked... but removal, no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Look who wants to chat after violating WP:3RR. This article has seen far too many cryptozoologists revert-warring for it over the years. It doesn't have a single reliable secondary references (they're all pro-cryptozoology) pieces. But, of course, you know this, and your primary interest here is promotion. Enough is enough. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The proper venue for this discussion is WP:AFD. clpo13(talk) 21:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this still count if we're looking to make a redirect? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've vandalized and blanked the page 3 or 4x already. You simply cannot do that to a 9 year old article that you yourself have contributed to. Could this content all be merged in it's entirety into another article...possibly it could. Possibly it might retain only 80% of it's content and be merged. But that require discussion here to see if others agree that this article must be removed. You can't just revert things 4x and blank the article 3x with no discussion with those who have worked on the article.... that's blatant vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the process may be called "Articles for Deletion", but redirection is a common outcome (see Deletion process). Of course, a redirect can be WP:BOLDly made (as it was here), but if the redirect is challenged, then consensus can be found at AFD, per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. clpo13(talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I've left a comment on the talk page there to get some feedback. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

False Claims Regarding Cryptid Usage
So, while we figure out what is going to happen to this mess, let's take a look at one of the claims made here. One of the regular pro-cryptozoologist editors around this article has attempted to claim that the term is now "main-stream" and used outside of cryptozoologist. Notably, it's totally ignored by folklorists, and, as another user put it on another article: Really, enough is enough. The tactics used to make this pseudoscience look legitimate and to use Wikipedia as a promotional device have really worn out their welcome. The clean up really needs to begin. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, you're bold-faced lies really do get tiresome. I'm not even sure what pro-cryptozoologist means. No one said it has entered every source of every book. But the term has entered some, it is certainly used by sources other than cryptobiologists, and that is important and it is sourced. You've reverted it 5x now... are you going to try for 6 with all these open discussions? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cute. I changed the paragraph, as the next edit shows. And you restored it. How many reverts for you has this 24 hours seen exactly? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple less than you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, for anyone watching this as it develops, none of the three sources provide a reference for the claim that "The terminology has also entered modern lexicon outside of the pseudosciences." The provided sources are as follows:, , and . From this we're supposed to extrapolate some kind of linguistic development—classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and the classic approach used by cryptozoologists and their proponents on these articles. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said the sentence was perfect and if others can tweak it to show that "some" perfectly sound sources do use the term outside the playground of the cryptozoologists, I have no issues with that. To say that it is only used by cryptozoologists is wrong. Ping all those who have worked on this article and see if they also want it to be deleted or merged. Make a merge request. Do something other than page blanking and 6 reverts and get editors talking and discussing here at its talk page. That's what we do at wikipedia. Maybe it'll be a giant snowball to merge and redirect, and I'm fine with that. But to blank the page contents right out of the gate is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm pretty sure that your goal here is simple obstruction. As is clear, this article and those related to it are under discussion in a variety of forums. You seem well aware that your revert contains problematic material and remain perfectly fine with it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool down, stop being so damn hostile, and other editors might be willing to work with you.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of possible merge to List of cryptids
I see there's some rather tense discussion/edit warring about a redirect to cryptozoology. I'd like to propose something altogether different, and I'm not interested in getting into the matters of significance, pseudoscience, etc. intertwined with those discussions.

List of cryptids desperately needs a better lead. It should explain what a cryptid is, what types of cryptid there are, where the term came from, what sorts of information the list contains, what should be included, etc. When I look at this article, I see content that would be very useful in the list. In fact, nearly the entirety of this article would be useful there.

If I were to copy the content, however, we'd have a duplicate article. That leads me to wonder: why not merge the two? Either the list into this article or -- most sensible to me given the relative size of each -- merge this article into that one (I'm indifferent as to where the resulting redirect points -- to the list, or to cryptozoology). If, down the road, the list's lead becomes overly long and detailed, it could be spun off again, but for now it looks like the lead got chopped off and moved to a separate article, creating a scenario that doesn't seem ideal for either. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm on board. And for my part, I'd like to henceforth restrict my reverting to once per 24 hours. And that goes for all articles. It's clear that old systems aren't in place like it used to be (I've been around here for what seems like forever) and edit wars aren't just aren't productive. I also just don't have time for that kind of interaction these days, admittedly resulting in overly terse comments from my direction as I rush to move on to something else. I apologize. I'd be glad to work with anyone sincerely interested in getting these articles up to snuff. Than you for bringing this up,.


 * That said, I recommend taking a second look at the content here. I point above that the linguistic observation is simply wp:synth and wp:or. None of the other references are secondary sources: they're almost all cryptozoologists promoting cryptozoology. I still think this article is best redirecting to cryptozoology and an etymology section taking its place. As for the list of cryptids article, I still don't see the point: cryptozoologists focus on a handful of beings from the folklore record in particular and a long list of whatever drive-by editor or random author decided might-be-hiding-somewhere is, in my opinion, pointless at best. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this conversation about the content itself is important, but I think it might be most productive to focus on the question of the merge first rather than try to sort them out at the same time. (In other words, my preference is to wait to address specific problems with the text until after it's determined whether a merge should take place). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. That's a reasonable approach. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly the two articles could be merged to create one big article. It almost might be better to put it under the title "Cryptids" rather than "Cryptid" or "List of Cryptids." Then you could explain what Cryptids are and list all the fictitious beasts. So long as this info isn't lost. Perhaps informing people who have edited this article might be appropriate, to get their input. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason that I can see to have two articles. Support merge with List of cryptids. jps (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. Rhoark (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, would support mergeDkspartan1835 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I too would support a merger; aside from the content here being a better introduction to the list, the Eberhart classification scheme might serve well to organize the material. It also provides some inclusion criteria—at least a starting point therefor—something the list seems to lack at present. I’m ambivalent about the direction of the merger, whether the result should be considered a list with a longish introduction or a short article with lots of examples.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  21:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As there does not seem to be opposition to this idea, that I can see, shall we move forward with this? Or should we have a formal Merge discussion w/ mergeto/mergefrom templates? I'd like to suggest that those involved in recent edit wars over the redirect not be the ones to actually carry out the merge/redirect, just to avoid unnecessary drama. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR and forge ahead! jps (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been sitting here for a while now. The support seems universal. Can we go ahead and merge so we can talk about some of the poor sourcing and wacky claims made in this article? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I noticed this and since it seemed unanimous I went ahead and moved essentially everything (except duplicates). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change redirect from list of cryptids to cryptozoology
Currently this article redirects to list of cryptids. This follows a merge discussion that occurred in 2016 (see discussion above). However, since then, the cryptozoology article has seen significant development, and now includes a robust section discussing the development of the term cryptid and its application (in short, the term was coined by cryptozoologists as a reflection of the pseudoscience's approach). Everything but the list itself and Eberhart's proposed classification scheme are included at cryptozoology and with more detail and context. List of cryptids also refers readers to cryptozoology for more information. So, should we redirect this page to cryptozoology?


 * Yes, as nominator. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No As "cryptid" is the title used for a creature (and not its study) (like Cat) whereas cryptozoology is the pseudoscience of their study (and not about the specific types of creature) (like Felinology) it seems best to redirect to a page about Cryptids, and not the discipline.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison to cat isn't a good one. Unlike cat, this term was coined by cryptozoologists (after cryptozoology), and is only used by cryptozoologists and in cryptozoology-influenced material. It's not used by, say, academic zoologists or folklorists, and it's obscure to the general public. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, though this is probably pointless now. If a term is defined as part of an article, you clearly redirect to that article, not to a list of notable instances of that term.--tronvillain (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody sees talk page threads on redirects. This is what RfD is for. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll open discussion at RfD. I'll link to that discussion thread when it's open. Thank you to those who have taken a look at this so far. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, ; Thank you for your patience — I've opened the discussion here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/19/jse_19_1_eberhart.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. tronvillain (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say this is not a copyright violation since it has been synthesized down from the original a great deal. It can certainly be re-written and I can take a stab at it in my own words if needs be. But at least this is a fair debate on the merits of inclusion rather than a backdoor attempt to delete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you're well aware, discussion about this has been ongoing at Talk:List_of_cryptids. There three users called for it to be removed from list of cryptids, and so in protest you restored this content fork against the article's own talk page consensus, citing a non-existent policy about never deleting material merged form a page. This is simple, classic, and juvenile disruption. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So you come over here to continue your bullying ways instead of being constructive. Nice job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content not users, if you have a problem report it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)