Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 2

Cryptids that should be on the list
This would be a good place for people to drop suggestions that others can research and add if appropriate.

stucie (an irish lake monster) should be on the list of cryptids i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.173.227 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Snallygaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snallygaster (I dont trust my editing skills to add it myself)99.245.142.194 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dodo and known extinct animals
why is the dodo here? it should be removed along with other known extinct animals, exculding presumed exticnt animals.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Any extinct animal that has a suspected but unconfirmed colony should be included here. I don't know of any reports of Dodo sightings but animals such as the Tasman Tiger and Atlas Bear are good examples of what to include.Angry Mustelid (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New Cryptid???
I found the video here =. Looks like a shark.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a dead Basking shark--Abomasnow (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Status" and Organization
The intro to the page states that; "All animals on this page are marked as one of the following", but few of the classifications outlined are used in the list itself. Furthermore, several classifications (under the "status" column) appear to simply be made up by individual editors who added them, without referring to the overall organization the page is supposed to have.

If this sentence in the intro is supposed to refer to the "status" column, then this needs to be made more clear, and the categories need to be cleaned up. JWAbrams (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot entry
Someone is altering the Bigfoot listing here to "Verified" (apparently believing the information yet to be released on the 2008 body find of a proposed bigfoot specimen.) I changed it to "Unverified" as the press conference is to come at 12 - 1pm PDT. Whomever is jumping the gun, please stop until we have a definite and verifiable consensus as to what it is that has been located (if anything). 192.44.136.113 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jackalopes misclassified
Jackalopes belong to a category not used: Joke. Jackalopes are imaginary animals described by jokesters to the gullible people of this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.113.107 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

no jackalopes are real animels so i think they should be put down as confirmed--Cryptod (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, Dahus are a typical joke... not cryptids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahu --81.250.237.67 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild Haggis similarly misclassified
This is also just a joke, an occasional gentle leg-pull of tourists. It has never constituted a serious attempt at a "hoax". Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a "Wild Haggis" on display - stuffed and mounted - at the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow. Quite amusing. 83.71.166.34 (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

dragons
i really wasnt trying to be silly in adding dragons as "unconfirmed," i just meant, so many cultures around the world have been writing about seeing dragons and stuff before even knowing about each other, I just think it's too big to be a coincidence Arisedrew (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of the words "good faith" in the edit comment means that he didn't think that you were trying to be silly.
 * Dragons in different parts of the world are very different - that they're all translated into English as dragon doesn't mean very much. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"various sightnings allegedly occurred" yeah that's what most cryptids are, why should this one get an honorable mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

New Crypids of Colorado (unofficial) and Cryptid explamations for Champ (semi-official)

 * Look this isnt in official Cryptozoology but a cryptid is an animal not known to science but has been reported:
 * Me and my father have seen many amazing animals, i've seen a Cockroach that was 3x its size, the botoom half was 4x its size and there were 8 legs, 2 were small and it flew. I've also seen Flies with red and yellow bottoms. I saw a falcon with sickly green talons, head and body feathers the color of a humans skin, a bright yellow beek and the wings looked just like Monarch Buttefly wings, so thus i call it the Monarch Butterfly. My dad saw on the ground what looked like a Golden cross beetween a Porcupine and a Crested Gibbon with soft fur lying on the ground. And out of the corner of his eye well trying to rescue of a boat, he saw a big splash that was to thick for a fish, which leads me to think it was a lake dolphin.
 * Also Champ, possible exlpamations that are indeed Cryptids are lake Dolphins, Belugas and even Elephants! (ex. Mansi Photograph looks alot like a lake elephent) So... i'm just wondering if any of this goes in the list. 75.166.16.54 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Statuses
Whereas the page says "each animal is marked with one of the following [statuses]", in fact very few of them are marked with one of the specified statuses. So, either remove the list of statuses or update each animal with one of the specifed statuses. 90.198.230.156 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually just about to suggest this. I propose we update each animal, because it IS a good list of statuses, and would help to better organize the page. Gotiki (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Montauk Monster
I don't think it's been confirmed yet. 189.158.145.189 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Has, identity unconfirmed weather its a dog, turtle, racoon, mutant, new animal or even Demon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.209.61 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Love of Loving land lords and living llamas!
Okay, so i see Flying Jellyfish and Flashlight Frog on this page, i mean its OBVIOUSLY just the cryptids from The Secret Saturdays, and yet i thought "if there here then Fiskerton, Komodo, Zon, and the Firecracker beetle deserve to be here to" and yet the were deleted, so i just wanna know why they were and not the Flyers and Flashlights! 71.218.209.61 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If Flying Jellyfish is fictional go ahead and delete it. There's enough clutter from a Google search that it's not immediately obvious that Flying Jellyfish is not a genuine (if implausible) cryptid, and the description of it as possibly a misperceived bird presents it as such. (IIRC, I marked it as citation needed.)
 * Google does find some mention of a Cameroon Flashlight Frog as a cryptid. It's not clear whether it has any meaningful support, but a bioluminescent frog is not obviously impossible. Maybe it should have been deleted, but it wasn't obviously wrong, and I thought that WP:AGF applied. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Look the Flashlight frog is just a cartoon cryptid/character. Im ganna delete them 71.218.201.179 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an invasion of the Flyers and the Flashlights...AGAIN! We need to know who's making the edits and block him from this article, and P.S. since when does Wikipedia look at good faith instead of only suddled down truth? 75.166.17.142 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, WP:AGF has been around since 2004. Gotiki (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That dosent make ANY sense WHAT SO  EVER! As long as i've been on Wikipedia and expressing my right to edit Wikipedia always un-edited my edits if they werent 100% true. 75.166.17.142 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts
Why are "ghosts" listed here? I don't see how they fit in. I mean, aren't they more spiritual than biological? I was about to just delete the entry, but I figure I should maybe suggest it first and wait a bit. I'll be watching for a response, and if I don't get one within a week, I'll delete it. Gotiki (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a creature that no scientists have found but alot of people have seen them, and P.S. i believe in ghosts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.17.142 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe in them, too, but they're not really cryptids, right? I mean, they're the undead, not living things. I think it doesn't quite fit in with the theme of the list, which is biological creatures, rather than mere paranormal or supernatural phenomena. Gotiki (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You know Gotiki, i think you may be right know that i think about it twice, maybe there should be a whole new page of Spiritual Cryptids eh? 75.166.17.142 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

cleaning up article
there are a lot of creatures that don't belong here like mythical creatures and ghosts. This article needs a serious cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.183 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts need to go somewhere else yes, but Mythological creatures used to be Cryptids, so there listed here. 75.166.17.142 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes
I would like to suggest a few changes to this article/list. 1) We should remove all mythological creatures, with the exception of those that are known to be claimed to exist by cryptozoologists. For example, Griffin would go, but others might stay on a case-by-case basis. 2) We should change the status "Presumed Extinct" to "Extinct", with a note in the description to the effect that cryptozoologists believe that a relict population exists. Referring to an extinct species as anything other than extinct is a way of placing undue weight towards cryptozoological claims. 3) In application, there is little difference between the categories of "Local Legend," "Urban Legend," "Folklore," and "Unconfirmed." In fact, "Unconfirmed" is essentially synonymous with "Cryptid."  I think that the status categories should be changed to simply "Unconfirmed," "Debunked (or Hoax, or Discredited, or a new, similar term)," "Extinct," and "Confirmed (or Verified)."  It is worth noting that there really aren't many animals which fall into this last category. Discussion is welcome.  If no one objects, I will begin making these changes soon.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, there are now five possible statuses: Unconfirmed; Verified - [animal name]; Discredited - [explanation]; Proposed [animal name]; and Extinct. I think that "extinct" is the most problematic, since as far as cryptozoologists are concerned, the issue of interest is if these animals are not extinct, so this status should really be "Unconfirmed," as in "their continued existence is unconfirmed." Any suggestions?  ClovisPt (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Moose-pig (aka Beast of Dean) appears to be a genuine, if obscure, cryptid. I checked it out with Google when it was first added. But skimming again, it sounds as if the early 19th century creature (moosepig) is not the same as the modern sitings (Beast of Dean). Lavateraguy (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to sort that out and add Moose-pig back in, that's fine with me. I went ahead and made most of the changes I mentioned above - we'll see what happens to this article.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were agreed that verified and extinct species are to be listed elsewhere, separately, or not at all, then it would make sense to consider the "status" more as notes, in the case that some explanation were proffered. I'm not sure that outright discrediting is possible due to the black swan problem. Many Loch Ness Monster sightings are proven hoaxes, but there's still no way to know if there ever was such a creature in historical times. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why creatures claimed not to be extinct make this list at all. There is always the possibility that such a creature is not really extinct; the difference is that some get more hype than others. Plus they are an entirely different category in the first place because they did actually exist at one time. Otherwise creatures that were once said to be extinct but are now known to be extant, such as the coelacanth, would have to be marked as verified. What a bizarre implication! The status would leave one to believe that the coelacanth was though to be myth until it was discovered, but in fact Scientists always knew the coelacanth to have existed. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The more I think about this the more I'm confused. The pages on cryptids and cryptozoology claim that these include the search for living members of species presumed to be extinct. So theoretically speaking, what's going to happen when it's possible to bring species out of extinction (if that hasn't already happened) or to genetically engineer those that have only ever existed in the imagination? I wouldn't think it makes sense to count those as confirmed. Whether a creature is a cryptid depends on whether it existed at the time it was claimed to exist. So then it may make sense to note how far back a legend or a hoax can be traced. On the other hand, every creature discovered in modern times was at one time claimed to exist only by one or very few men until it was verified by others. What's being juggled here are modern inventions, modern claims of legendary creatures, legends that are no longer taken seriously, and modern claims of creatures that are known to have existed. What a terrible mixture! 67.9.175.207 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Cryptic list' entry for "kelpie" has in the right-most column instead of a horse-like creature on the creek bank a nice Rubenesque nude. These image references seem to be mixed up.  It is a tad confusing and misleading. Uncle Bbob (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is called "The Kelpie" by H.J.Draper. I've taken it off and will replace it with a proper pic when I can find one.Angry Mustelid (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Giant squid
[Edited] I'm confused as this has been on the list off and on and in various places, and at the same time there have been debates about what should be on the list, with Triceratops9 a year ago deleting anything that was marked confirmed. If that's what everyone agrees should be done then fine, but right now the page seems to accept not only the debunked foolery but also the embarrassingly undebunked. There is even more confusion as to whether this is synonymous with the Kraken. Was the giant squid ever believed not to be in existence, or does that only apply to larger sea creatures? Perhaps the giant squid, as a species inferred from the evidence, had always been known to exist and just never been seen alive until recently. Based on how it is listed on the page I would presume the latter. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, this just demonstrates how fuzzy or gray the line really is. Whether the creature has been discredited depends on exactly what one means by "giant squid". Truly gigantic creatures are not likely to have ever existed. The Kraken of sea myths are unconfirmed. Giant squid are a fact, but how large they can get nobody really knows.
 * There are two completely separate issues at play here. First, the category of the cryptid is based on whether it is understood to have ever existed before. A creature is either entirely unconfirmed or just unconfirmed as existing in the present. Second, how unconfirmed are the reports? Is it believed to be an outright hoax, a hyperbole, or a modern possibility, or is there some other explanation? The first issue is more black and white, and it makes little sense to mix the two categories. The second does not lend itself to classification so easily. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Too Many Hoaxes!!
There are way too many hoax creatures showing up on the list. Such things as the furred trout and willy were never taken as real or had actual sightings. I would advise spliting this list into different sections:


 * Legendary creatures that might have been real (Sirrush, Bunyip, Griffen, etc.)
 * Extinct animals that may still survive
 * Prehistoric (Dinosaurs, Ground Sloths, Pterosaurs, etc.)
 * Historically Extinct (Dodo, Sea Cow, Japanese Wolf, etc)
 * True Cryptids: undescribed animals with some evidence of existing- either reliable eyewitnesses or physical evidence
 * Since the majority of items under this topic belong to one or the other of two sorts, 'hairy humanoids' or lake creatures, I would suggest having subsections for these
 * Known Hoaxes (Fiji Mermaid, Jackalope, Furred Trout, etc.)
 * Perhaps also an 'Unknown Status' section, also for things like Trunko, Phantom Kangaroos and Cats, Mothman, etc.

Sorting the list like this would actually be helpful in showing trends and searchers could avoid unrelated trivial information. For instance, someone looking for surviving dinosaurs just would need to look in that section, without waisting time searching through the whole list and possibly missing something in the traffic jam. As it stands, it's just becoming a mess with anything being added to it. CFLeon (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Griffin isn't a plausible cryptid. The unicorn myth might originate from corrupted verbal descriptions of rhinoceroses, but the griffin seems even more divorced from a source.
 * There's already a list of lake monsters, so it might be worth replacing them here with a link. (I don't see the value of the separate list of Scottish lake monsters.)
 * There's a 3rd category that comes up frequently - carnivores.
 * But I do wonder whether this list is worth the effort that goes into it - apart from vandalism, it accretes a lot of cruft. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

more/less cryprids/ rant
First there should be more cryptids listed and the cryptids that dont have links unless someone can make the link should be taken off because people geanrly that like crypridzoology (like me(just because I watche monster quest but I still know alot). Also even though dragons are supsidly fake they lived at one point but people killed them of so they should be in the list as region worldwide and what ever the other thing is as extinct,and griffans are dragons but they were in theroy not killed out. A lot of things people think is a loed of bull is most of the time real Also I there are to meny sea serpents/monsters listed, but on the page sea serpent there is not a lot of information. One last thing im going to bring up im not sure if they should add heiry man due to the fact it is the samething as big foot, but it lives in a diffrent part of the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptod (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bunyip
Why is the bunyip put down as unconfirmed? The bunyip was a Gaint Sloth that the first Abarignal people though was a fire breathing monster that lived in the water. Eventouly tough the Gaint Sloths died out due to the fact that they were to big to hide from predators.C.JD 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptod (talk • contribs)
 * some one keeps changing the bunyip back even though i am putting the right information but if you want it like this its fine with me have a messed up oart of the list C.JD 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptod (talk • contribs)
 * That's not concrete. IT's more like '[someone] has proposed that the bunyip was a giant sloth'. It's similar to saying mermaids were actually manatees and dugongs. It's arguable, but you can't prove that past observances were actually something without having extant physical evidence. That the stories sort of match up is not enough. It's also like saying that the Behemoth in Job must be a hippo, rhino, elephant, mammoth, or diplodocus ...--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Kur" addition messing up formatting. Fix, please?
Someone added "Kur" to the list, and their attempt at formatting messed up the entire page, pushing the spreadsheet out into the stratosphere. Can someone more adept at formatting Wikis than I please fix this? Thanks! Bricology (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Revising List, cont
Another possibility is to keep this page, letting it become more of a mess, and starting a second page, organized by the categories I've proposed:
 * Legendary creatures that might have been real (Sirrush, Bunyip, Mermaid, etc.)
 * Extinct animals that may still survive
 * Prehistoric (Dinosaurs, Ground Sloths, Pterosaurs, etc.)
 * Historically Extinct (Dodo, Sea Cow, Japanese Wolf, etc)
 * True Cryptids: undescribed animals with some evidence of existing- either reliable eyewitnesses or physical evidence
 * Since the majority of items under this topic belong to one or the other of two sorts, 'hairy humanoids' or lake creatures, I would suggest having subsections for these
 * Known Hoaxes (Fiji Mermaid, Jackalope, Furred Trout, etc.)
 * Perhaps also an 'Unknown Status' section, also for things like Trunko, Phantom Kangaroos and Cats, Mothman, etc.

I'm not sure about the labeling of this second page: 'List of Cryptids By Status' doesn't fit, neither does '... By Type', which would be more the type of animal. Perhaps 'By Category'? CFLeon (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another idea would be do the same thing but put all unidentifiyed cryptids in one list


 * Also the bunyip is the same thing as a ground sloth or also knowen as a giant sloth C.JD 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptod (talk • contribs)

Gallery?
Would this list benefit from a gallery link of some kind? I came here hoping to find one myself. Is this doable? Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At first, I was going to say it wasn't a good idea, but I thought about it a bit, and I'm thinking now that it is a theoretically good idea. Most, if not all of the cryptids have a link to their corresponding articles, and each of those should have an image. But a lot of them don't have images, for various reasons. I'm thinking that such a gallery wouldn't be very useful, since it would most likely not have an image for each cryptid. However, if you're willing to find or create enough accurate-to-description images that can be used legally, I say knock yourself out. And, beyond that, add those images to the corresponding article for each cryptid. Gotiki (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for bumping this section, but I think a gallery page would be a great idea. I don't think this list article would benefit from containing images though. I would be willing to help out with creating a gallery page, were ever appropriate. Then other people will guaranteed come to help out as well. Where do you think is a good idea to put the gallery? As a sub page to this page, maybe like this (if subpages to list articles is possible somehow)? Or as a separate page, maybe Gallery of cryptids?


 * Also, how should the list article and the gallery page be synchronized in best possible way? --Ediug (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could go and take some in-game snapshots of a rancor for a gallery. You know, a rotten whale means a lot.....Leonnatus (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vagueness and clarification
I think this list needs some clarification. For example, what is a Settontot, why is it a cryptid, and how it was discredited? Many "hoaxes" and "discredited" cryptid pages have no mention of why they are invalid. I think this list needs some tweaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.222.124 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's just the fact that quite a few of the hyperlinked articles don't mention "possibly real". Some of them lean towards advocating the mythical creature. Leonnatus (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To Whomever it may concern
To whoever keeps deleting my comments in the Fairy section, please stop it. The Cottingley photographs were admitted to be hoaxes, but the Dorothy Inman Photographs, the 1928 German Summer photographs etc. are yet unexplained. --Isshii (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened?!
I came ot this page about a month ago and it looked pretty good. Now it looks like there's been an explosion of stupidity... the flashlight frog is gone (it is NOT from a cartoon, Karl Shuker I believe is the source) and there have apparently been some really dumb and SOURCELESS additions. The Kelpie is not a "werewolf hybrid", and there are several other claims that have no references whatsoever. As far as I can tell this is all original research. I'd try my hand at fixing it up a bit but I don't even know where to begin. Personally I'd recommend locking this article, because from the looks of things it needs it badly. 68.205.68.57 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

POV problems
The article suffers from major POV problems (I have added a POV tag to it). Specifically it promotes fringe beliefs, giving them undue weight. There are two main, somewhat connected problems with this list. The first is the promotion of the views of some cryptozoologists who say that several real animals are cryptids and the second is the arbirary nature of the status column as well as misleading use of statuses. There is also seems to be a problem with inclusion and exclusion practicies but this is less directly related to the POV problems.

A number of cryptozoologists have made claims about certain extant animals being cryptids. These claims have come about after the discovery of those animals and their status as cryptids/former cryptids is not supported by the scientific or skeptical communities. Therefore, to include them on this page without regard to the scientific view is in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, most don't have reliable sources on this page or on their articles that even show that cryptozoologists have claimed that these animals are cryptids—none the less that they are considered cryptids by science. All of the extant animals listed on this page should be removed or seperated into a seperate section of this list that makes it clear that their clasification as cryptids is a fringe view.

The status column also has major flaws in it that lead to WP:NPOV violations. The most notable is the use of discredited. There are no reliable sources on this page stating why they are discredited and many don't have sources in the articles giving reasons to list them as discredited. The more serious problem is that while some items are listed as discredited, there are many other ones that aren't listed as discredited despite being discredited in the scientific community. This results in undue weight being given to fringe beliefs.—Fiziker t c 3:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a huge problem. (Also can whoever wrote the above material please sign it?) For something to even remotely be considered for this list, either the article on the "cryptid" or a reference in this article needs to show that a reliable source has called this a cryptid. If it is a 'pure' cryptid that no scientists believes exists, a reliable source could probably be a cryptozoological source since inclusion in this list would simply denote that some cryptozoologists believe the creature to exists. However, if it is an actual extant species, there needs to be very strong documentation that it was a 'cryptid'. In particular, there either needs to be a mainstream source or a combination of a cryptozoological source calling it a cryptid at a time before a second mainstream source shows that its existence was seriously considered by mainstream science. I don't see any other way to make this page verifiable. I am going to begin going through the entrees that do not have either of these kinds of sourcing. I will do a reasonable search for such sourcing, and if I cannot find it then I will remove it from the list. Feel free to readd those entrees with adequate sourcing if it can be found. Locke9k (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A second major point, mirroring the editor above. The status "unconfirmed" is truly unacceptable. The word unconfirmed means that something is thought to be probably but simply has not been proven. The mainstream view in all or almost all of these cases is that they are ficticious, not simply unconfirmed. This column either needs to be removed or seriously rethought. Locke9k (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unconfirmed" is the nature of the cryptid. The most famous of all cryptids Nessie,Bigfoot, Yeti, etc. are all believed, by some, to exist but, despite numerous scientific expeditions to find them, remain elusive. The fact that they haven't been found, however, is not enough to classify them as hoaxes or non-existent as (and this is the important thing) there exists some evidence for their existence. This evidence may be in the form of footprints (that haven't been explained as hoaxes or other creatures), numerous reports of sightings from varying sources over a significant period of time (outside of high-point events such as extra interest generated by a movie or popular TV show on the subject) or simply (as in the case of the Bunyip) inveterate local folklore.
 * This said; should God be on the list?Angry Mustelid (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The masked rogue was I. I didn't catch my error until I check up on this page. Is there a reason to have the status at all? While there probably are some items which could uncontroversially marked as hoaxes or one of the other status that I did not mention, the problem of misleading categorization comes up again. Bigfoot for example is not entirely due to hoaxes but there are known, well documented hoaxes of Bigfoot. If the status column is kept, we would need to go through the list and add all status that apply. However, a one word status that is limited to a small number of bins would be contentious and not very accurate. I am therefore inclined to remove this column entirely. While I think that removing extant animals that are only considered cryptids by cryptozoologists from the list is necessary for NPOV, I think that it may be useful to include elsewhere on the page. There are extant animals which cryptozoologists continually trot out so there would not be much ambiguity in what to include and what to not include. Even though I think this would be useful, I am concerned about giving undue weight. It could be done but it probably will be somewhat problematic. —Fiziker t c 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned
24 non-cryptids have been removed. I think it was time to remove the "rewrite" and "copyedit" tags from the article, so I did it. We still need more references. --Againme (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions
has recently added several known extinct species (Mastodon, Iguanodon, etc) to this list, with the status of "unconfirmed". I don't really believe the point of this list is to include known extinct species, but only animals of unknown nature (or those that were once uknown but have now been proven or disproven). Should these changes be reverted? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The absolute minimum burden for inclusion should be references showing that it is considered a cryptid in this article, or a reliable/sourced assertion to that effect in the article on that creature. If neither of these things is present, the entry should certainly be removed from the list. If one or both of them is present, we can consider more carefully whether to include it and how to maintain NPOV with respect to the mainstream view that the species is extinct. Locke9k (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree, except that NONE of the entries are referenced, so going by that logic we would have to delete the entire article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edits by Spinosaurus Rex. If we let people include every extinct species, ghosts and hoax in this list, is gonna be completely unuseful.--Againme (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For now I am trying to focus just on entries where the article on the entry doesn't even contain a credible assertion that the 'creature' is a cryptid. In those cases there is no reason to keep. Where there seems to at least be a credible assertion that it is a cryptid, we can look in the article on that entry or elsewhere to more carefully determine whether it should be included. Locke9k (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Following this spirit, I've deleted Zanzibar Leopard from the list. --Againme (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Appalachian Black Panther" listed as unconfirmed?
Isn't that just a melanistic cougar? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but true melanistic cougars are not confirmed to exist. --Nacnud298 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Zuiyo Maru 'hoax'?
Is there a specific reason the Zuiyo Maru carcass is listed as a hoax rather than 'discredited' or 'unconfirmed'? It didn't seem to have been intended as a hoax, and it is still up for debate (though I personally believe the identification of basking shark is correct.) - 98.223.180.183 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Againme (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unicorn
I don't think unicorns should be on this list. I can find no reference to any modern allegations, even among cryptozoologists, that unicorns exist. --Nacnud298 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Againme (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just removed it again... --Againme (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

table in section of letter B
table in section B jumps out Palapa (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)