Talk:Globster

POV-pushing
"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)

Merging the globsters
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)

Merge from Philippine Globster
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)


 * 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)


 * 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."
 * It would be nice to have a better ref.  jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)