Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 3

Non-free images
Why is the Manananggal on the Cryptids page, shouldn't it be only on the List of legendary creatures (M) page?

Non-free images
Please do not use non-free images in this article. If we do not have free images, there does not need to be any image at all- we do not use non-free content to decorate list entries. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are images even needed on the list. Looking through, you can barely make out any of them and most are available on the associated article page. Happy to do the work removing them if I get some consensus.Angry Mustelid (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i think you can go ahead on that. As you say the tiny size makes them useless. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Removals
I am considering removing the Giant Snake of Mt. Tsurugi from the list. Responding to the citation request, I went on a little hunt to find one and could only find one report from 1973 which is mentioned on several blogs (usually the same article regurgitated) and Crypto pages, nothing else. There is nothing on the supposed legend. Nothing on any of the other sightings. Just one report and one, somewhat dodgy and itself disputed, photo. Doing a search for "Giant Snake of Mt. Tsurugi" on Google produces 24 disparate pages while Yahoo! provides 46 all pointing towards the same thing. Anyone got any ideas (books it may be referred to in).Angry Mustelid (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Have removed Also tagged the Muwa page for speedy deletion - Moved the page's content to Orang Mawas article due to lack of content and similarity between the two.Angry Mustelid (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Masamin - Absolutely no references to it to be found - just regurgitations of this list.
 * Renton River Beast - One Youtube video is the only evidence and that's obviously a Uni project.
 * Sampson - Only refs I can find are in the Bible.
 * Willy, Wippy, Winnie - No confirmed articles. Bastardisation of Nessie.

Type Lice
What about the illusive type lice, allegedly found in old typecases, eating holes in lead composition type? Surely these would be a worthy addition to this fabulous list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.174.130 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not cryptids, any more than, for example, the gremlins which make engines fail are. A cryptid is a hypothetical animal (or rarely other organism) that is not recognised as currently existing by science (or not positively identified as representing a known species), but for which there is inconclusive physical or anecdotal evidence. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Latin Attack
... bogus "scientific" names for random creatures... he continues to attack, the page should be made semi-protected for a week or so. Hopefully that would put him off and he'll go away and bug some other project. Anyone agree (.Angry Mustelid (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have submitted a long term block request for IP:173.86.93.236.Angry Mustelid (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IP:173.86.93.236 blocked for 14 days. Hopefully that'll calm things down for a while.Angry Mustelid (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More attacks of a similar nature. I have to request herefor a period of 1 month to see if that stops it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs)
 * Not done. To request semi-protection, see WP:RFPP. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, wasn't sure how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will these be walls of paper or just bricks and mortar? 2 wks should tell.
 * To the guy who's doing all this. Please stop. While it's flattering to get the attention, it's bloody annoying. I get it. You've had an article rejected or (unfairly in your view) in this category. No need to turn into the Tooth Fairy. If you can find some references to back up your contributions, then they would be excellent additions to this article. Until then; as a fellow human being who is only interested in the furtherance of Human knowledge, please stop.Angry Mustelid (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

J'Ba FoFi
I've found a few web pages discussing this all of which seem to be articles written around the same date (Sept-Oct this year). Also, reading them, they seem to follow similar structure and rhythm suggesting that they were written by the same person. The Wiki entry for this was only recently written, whether by the same person or not. It just seems like a complete hoax to me and, as I can find no written reports (newspaper / magazine / book) articles, I would suggest that this is a fantasy creation and should not be entered on this list (the wiki page should also be deleted).Angry Mustelid (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a good article on this written by Karl Shuker in Fortean Times a couple of years ago. It's probably not an outright hoax - Shuker makes mistakes but he doesn't invent - so it could probably go back in. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find details on the article then by all means. Reference must fill:
 * either the issue # or date will suffice, both not required.
 * then repost. Or if you post just the ref here, I'll retrieve the info from the archives.Angry Mustelid (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to dig through my stack of back issues! It's there somewhere though... Totnesmartin (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to dig through my stack of back issues! It's there somewhere though... Totnesmartin (talk) 09:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The correct spelling is j'ba fofi (no internal capitals) meaning "great spider" (language not stated). There are good details on the j'ba fofi's appearance, given by a tribe of pygmies in Cameroon. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Job done. Thanks for doing the research.Angry Mustelid (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Slender Man and Memes
The inclusion of the Internet Hoax (meme) - Slender Man - has raised some questions on whether it should be included. For my part, I think it should as some people were taken in by it. The question really becomes not so much as to whether to include Slender Man but whether to include memes. Again, I think that they should be included (possibly in a new section with creation dates) as the computer is the tool of the modern hoaxer. Where 30 years ago, models and shoddy photography would've been used ([[Hodag}} is a good example), today it is digital mastering and websites.

However, any memes included should have a reasonable following with a number of accounts available and as such should be referenced by more than one reliable (as far as THAT goes) source, and have been around for at least a year.Angry Mustelid (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When were memes ever a part of cryptozoology? it doesn't matter if someone believed a joke creature was real. What matters, and what defines a cryptid, is its serious proposition as apotentially existing and scientifically describable animal - at least according to this. I really don't see that a cartoon character made up on somethingawful and riffed by 4chan fits that. If some people believed it, that's their affair. Some people believe Sherlock Holmes was real, that doesn't mean we can file him under biography. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was that it entered into the public conciousness to a higher than usual degree. Things like the Renton River Beast which got local coverage only, a few YouTube videos and a whole bunch of wikia refs citing each other shouldn't be included as it was a local phenomenon and lasted a matter of weeks. Slender Man has been around for over a year now and seems to have a following and fits perfectly into the Hoax category for the modern age. I'll be happy to remove it if we can get some sort of consensus going (in other words others need to chime in on this one). If it's unresolved by the new year, I'll remove it from the main list and put it in a new section at the bottom - by your criteria, there'll be a few more joining it from the list (Jackalope comes to mind).
 * Homo Slenderis - A forest dwelling, nocturnal creature, with human-like characteristics characterised by it's tall, thin stature and lack of pigmentation.Angry Mustelid (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still only a meme - who outside of 4chan are proposing it as worthy of scientific study? I'm removing it from the list, you can put it back in when there's some evidence that the world of cryptozoology is taking it seriously. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Are the pictures needed?
I would propose that, over the next few weeks, that the Pictures column is removed. So long as there are valid links and refs to each of the items, added to the fact that the pictures available are little more than icons, then the info in the rest of the list should suffice. Any ideas?Angry Mustelid (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Having tried to improve them, I've found them to be nothing more than massive source of clutter. Many of the image I found were not even related to the cryptid so I took them down or replaced them, the sizes vary wildly and there seems to be no precident for what that should be, some even being too small to distinguish what is going on. Others link to an image offsite or say to see the main article, and why I don't know. It is certainly detracting from the professionalism and fluidity of the article. If you want to tear it down, I support you. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 06:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Extinct" Cryptids
Some of the cryptids on this list as classified as being "extinct", even though there is no evidence that they ever existed in the first place. Examples include the Andean wolf, Buru, Ennedi tiger, and the kumi lizard. If there is no hard evidence for their existence, it is absurd to classify them as extinct. Could someone do some research and find out what the real status should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shumats86 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything that is both open to question and uncited can (and should be) be removed without prejudice. See WP:CITE. Indeed this may apply to almost all of the list. I have just noticed Haggis - apparently "once though to be real" according to the definition of "hoax". Now that is a joke - perhaps the list should be added to Category:Wikipedia humor. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Xanthopan morgani
Is Xanthopan morgani considered a Cryptid? From that page, it meets the definition - it was predicted based on the presense of the comet orchid, and it turned out to exist when discovered in 1903. The only catch is that it might appear to be same as the mainland species, but I can't tell if the mainland version was already discovered. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Improving the "description" section.
What I'm considering doing is going through and improving the "description section". These descriptions are rather vague in many cases. What I would do is increase each one to 2-3 short, clear sentences, giving a very brief description of what the creature is and the major details about it's appearance. However, I'd like to make sure that this is OK first, because if it's not, that's a lot of work to do on something that shouldn't be done. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 03:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and PS, obviously I would reference those descriptions. - NickGrayLOL  (  talk  ) 03:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 125.239.2.231, 10 July 2011 Sangalingali Vanuatu Bigeared Hominoid Described in Break of day Islands by Basil Nottage 1930
Sangalingali Vanuatu legendary creature. Break of Day Islands by Basil Nottage, Presbytarian Missionary ,Tongoa 1930 pages 68, 225

125.239.2.231 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

❌: please specify what needs to be changed and the reference. F R E Y W A  08:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dragons
Why Are Dragons not on this list? Unicorns are so why aren't Dragons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More to the point, why are unicorns, which, like dragons, are mythical creatures rather than cryptids, on the list. I've removed the unicorns, which keep being added by someone from Ontario.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A cryptid is an animal or plant that's existence has been suggested, but is unconfirmed or unrecognized by the scientific community. Dragons and unicorns are purely mythological, and it is almost certain that they do not exist in our world. Therefore, they cannot be classified as cryptids.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Will-o'-the-wisp
The will-o'-the-wisp article doesn't discredit it. As far as I can tell, it's unconfirmed. 68.159.225.63 (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
The Kraken is real, as the Giant and Colossal squids, so could you do that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Kraken is most likely to have been either a giant or colossal squid. Angry Mustelid (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not characterized quite that way in the two Clash of the Titans movies. In any case, the giant squid connection is already discussed in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivory-billed woodpecker
Hi folks, would the ivory-billed woodpecker belong on this list? There is a lot of skepticism about it's existence. As a birder, it's something that interests me a lot :) There is also a section in the ivory-billed woodpecker page (linked above) about cryptozoology! SarahStierch (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It sure is an interesting case, but I'm not sure it belongs here as its former existence has been confirmed by mainstream science in the past. The online source that implicates it into Cryptozoology doesn't seem to me strong enough (i.e. self published and non-scholarly) to warrant inclusion in this list, but then there probably are other entries in this article with weaker sources. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly as an extinct or possibly relict species. More discussion is needed.Angry Mustelid (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pretty controversial subject. Many of us birders hope and pray there is a possibility of it existing. There was an article about six months back in Living Birds that examined the most recent treks to Mexico to find the bird. I wish I hadn't tossed it in the recycle bin before moving... however, Cornell has a nice space devoted to the bird on it's website here. Hell, so much hope is out there that in 2010 the United State Fish and Wildlife Services developed an action plan for the bird, here. If that's not "questionable" status in some regards I don't know what is :) It's like the bigfoot of birds! SarahStierch (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...except this bird exist/ed unlike (in theory) big foot ;) SarahStierch (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added to list due to a number of recent sightings.Angry Mustelid (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Discredited cryptids
I don't think it's a good idea to "discredit" any of the entries. It's just not a good thing to say. It's too "final", and is quite unscientific. It's also inaccurate in many cases. It implies that the case is closed and that's final. Perhaps something a bit less unbending, these are, afterall, cryptids. Perhaps "possibly discredited" or "presumably discredited" or somesuch. There are exceptions to almost every "discredited" cryptid that could make a valid argument. Additionally, there are some cryptids marked with a status which is not even one of the choices, such as "mythical". The "status" boxes need to be overhauled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.105.60 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. After all, it is practically impossible to have 100% certainty as to whether something does or does not exist. For example, if Bigfoot sightings should ever cease, there will be those who say that the monster died, or perhaps escaped into the remote wilderness to gain relief from the scientists and cryptozoologists constantly hunting him.--24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious addition...
Devil Monkey links to the Yeti... Should we delete it? --Againme (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed?
Koolakamba is listed as confirmed, but the article on koolakamba says "... to date no empirical evidence has been found to substantiate the existence of the creature and it has no entry in the NCBI taxonomical database." I only know what I read in that article. This is the first I've heard of this thing, but I wonder if it should be listed as confirmed, or whether maybe an over-zealous proponent snuck their opinion in as fact.Dcs002 (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The same seems to hold true for the Minnesota iceman, according to its WP article. Dcs002 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

removal of alphabetical colspan
The COLSPAN alphabet letters make the table non sortable, and are IMHO otehrwise useless. Unless users complain here, I'll delete them.--MarmotteiNoZ 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No complaint ; done --MarmotteiNoZ 03:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed "Leviathan"
I have removed Leviathan/Livyatitan from the list. Leviathan is a sea monster mentioned in the Bible that was said to be found in the Sea of Galilee, and to have very non-whale characteristics like armored skin and fiery breath. Livyatitan is a fossil whale known from Peru, and was named after Leviathan because the authors liked Moby Dick--not because it had anything to do with the Biblical Leviathan. There is zero reason to think that anyone has encountered or seen a surviving Livyatitan, so it is not a cryptid in its own right. Because Behemoth is not listed on this page, I chose to follow convention, and removed the entry completely. If someone wants to add it back, great! Just please leave this Livyatitan stuff out. 50.30.49.10 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing...
This list is missing the so called "Atmospheric beast". Here is Wikipedia's own link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_beast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariznobrega (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

platypus
would the duckbilled platypus be a confirmed cryptid?--Patbahn (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not as far as I know. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * it wasn't predicted but, it was believed initially to be a fraud. --Patbahn (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
What's the inclusion criteria for this page? I regularly see people change, add, or remove e.g. place names without a preexisting or new source and indeed much of the list could have come from anywhere. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's caos... --Againme (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion criteria
''Sorry about the length of this post. It spends down to the section below.''

Edits to this page are consistently indiscriminate and seemingly arbitrary. There are so few sources and an overwhelming amount of speculation and -- I'm assuming -- things people just WP:MADEUP.

Wikipedia rules for stand-alone lists
Here is what Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists says: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines." "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Common Selection Criteria:
 * 1) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.
 * 2) Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.
 * 3) Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Number 2 is not relevant. That cryptids' existence is deemed insufficiently supported by scientific evidence is not relevant as Wikipedia doesn't care, and of course has a great deal of articles on subjects science rejects.

Number 3 is also not relevant, as the list is potentially infinite.

Number 1 is what applies to this article. So...

Proposed inclusion criteria
A cryptid belongs on this list if:
 * 1) It has its own Wikipedia article which explicitly specifies its cryptid status.
 * 2) *An article about a non-cryptid with atypical geographic range or an article for an extinct animal rumored to still be alive are not sufficient unless the article explicitly discusses it being a cryptid in these ways.
 * 3) A Wikipedia article for a non-cryptid animal exists and does not explicitly specify it as a cryptid, but a reliable source is cited on this list about its cryptid status in a particular geographic region.
 * 4) A Wikipedia article for an extinct animal exists and does not explicitly specify it as a cryptid, but a reliable source is cited on this list about its present cryptid status.
 * 5) No Wikipedia article exists, but at least one reliable source is cited for all information about the cryptid on this list.

Former cryptids (whether confirmed or shown to be a hoax) should be included if:
 * 1) The cryptid/animal/hoax has its own page on Wikipedia which explicitly specifies that it was formerly a cryptid but was shown to be either a hoax or confirmed.
 * 2) The cryptid/animal/hoax has its own page on Wikipedia which does not explicitly specify it was formerly a cryptid, does not explicitly specify it was a hoax, or does not explicitly specify it was confirmed, but one or more reliable sources are cited on this list which explicitly verify both former and confirmed/hoax status.

To prevent Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list of trivia or a collection of things people WP:MADEUP, hoaxes which do not have their own Wikipedia page should not be included.

''Relicts should not be included in this list except when also considered a cryptid. Same goes for legendary creatures (except when a reliable source also classifies them as a cryptid).''

Regarding names, description, location: Everything in these fields must come from either the Wikipedia article for the animal or cited sources. If the sources do not specify listed details, they should be removed.

Status column
Presently the status column is supposed to say unconfirmed, disputed, proposed, extinct, confirmed, or hoax. Unless there is some governing body categorizing cryptids this way, it seems like for an editor to make the call between e.g. "disputed" and "proposed" would be WP:SYN or otherwise WP:OR. My inclination is to get rid of the column altogether, as the only existing set of criteria I see, developed by a librarian, is Eberhart's, which seems of dubious authority and not really fit for this list anyway.

Action/Discussion
It doesn't seem like too many people watch this page, but I hope some of you will comment. I don't have a lot of expertise in the field of cryptozoology, so the e.g. statuses would benefit from someone with more knowledge. What I do know is that the article as it stands is a bit of a wreck per Wikipedia standards and I don't see anybody doing anything to fix it (at least not lately).

After a week unless people object I'm just going to start removing things, starting with unsourced entries with no separate article. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  17:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Making improvements
Per above, I've started making changes to the page. The only feedback to the above in the 14 days since posting it was a "thanks" and an endorsement on my user talk page.

Every item I remove will be done on a different edit with a summary to make it easy for someone to go back and find the information should they wish to add it back with a source (or if I made a mistake). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Phew. Ok. Pruned. One added, a few renamed, some other fixes, etc. Should be pretty clear by the history. Still a lot of work to do, but I'm out of time for today: --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't go through and check the details of each entry -- only the entries themselves
 * A few "iffy entries" explained below
 * The categories/statuses desperately need improvement or removal/merge into another column.
 * Inclusion criteria should be clearer in the lede.

Iffy entries
A few left in but potentially problematic.
 * Garou - the name is mentioned on the werewolf page, which it simply redirects to, but I can't tell if it's something different. If not, it should be included as a note on the werewolf line and removed.
 * Hokkaidō Wolf - doesn't look to be a cryptid save for scant reports since extinction. I think it should be removed but there does seem to be precedent to call it a cryptid.
 * Hyote - no wp page. link is a Boing Boing post which aggregated content of some local Maryland station's news site -- and those links are now dead.
 * Megalania - extinct animal - the article it links to talks only vaguely about sightings
 * Ndendeki, Ngoima, and Row do not have wp articles and rely on a book I don't have access to -- can anyone confirm?
 * Pygmy gorilla - no wp page and the source is "Abominable Snowmen." I don't have access to the book but we can perhaps presume it's made redundant by Yeti on the list?
 * Šumske dekle - no wp page and the source is "Working with Fairies," which I presume means we're talking with fictional/mythical and not necessarily a cryptid. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pygmy gorilla is Pseudogorilla mayema and Pseudogorilla ellioti, which is generally agreed to be based on specimens of immature gorillas, but has had some currency in the cryptozoological literature (e.g. Heuvelmans). [Therefore, it's not redundant with respect to Yeti.] Lavateraguy (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stricken from the list above. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Doubts
I have some doubts about your edits: I think sometimes it's better to leave and tag with citation needed or a similar one; besides some of your edits are poorly supported (such as Arica monster which has nothing to do with Africa: Arica is a place in Chile famous for being one of the driest spots on the Earth. Mass deleting is sensible only for clearly wrong statements or duplicates, in my opinion.--Carnby (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are surely correct regarding the Arica Monster (the removal of which is at this diff for anyone who cares). I must have accidentally connected it with the previous list item which was based in Africa. Nonetheless, it still doesn't have a Wikipedia page nor a citation.
 * While I can appreciate wanting to keep more, the strategy just isn't in line with Wikipedia standards. The gist is above, but also can be found at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The inclusion criteria you're proposing equates to a list that anybody can put anything on as long as it's tagged with citation needed -- and just isn't encyclopedic (falling into several categories of what Wikipedia is not). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  01:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, but I prefer moving (possible) unencyclopedic statements or unrefrenced ones to the discussion page rather than simply deleting them.--Carnby (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have no problem with that. It's for that reasoning of keeping track of what was removed that I took the route of separate diffs/edit summaries to keep track By all means do a compare revisions and copy them here somewhere. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ozenkadnook tiger
Why is it not on the list?142.176.114.76 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Itzcuintlipotzotli
There is more cryptids not on the list. One of them is itzcuintlipotzotli, cf. http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Itzcuintlipotzotli 31.11.242.188 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Manbearpig
This is from Southpark season 10 episode 06. Also it's unclear if Manbearpig is half man halb bear halb pig, half man half bearpig, half bear half manpig or half pig halb bearman...NorPhi (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Refimprove tag
Can you be more specific about what kind of sources you're talking about? Everything on the list should either have its own article (with sources you can pull if you need to verify) or cites a reliable source. If the sources cited are poor, I'd encourage you to bring them up here (I don't know that I'd disagree), but a blanket refimprove tag isn't very helpful for such a list. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, the blanket tag might not have been appropriate here, but I just saw few questionable entries with little to back them up. It's been a while since I've been over this page, but after giving it a second look, it looks a lot better than it did then.  When I went over it quickly, I thought I saw some of the OR and RS problems that plagued the page in the past, like the broken/missing source for the "Wog", questionable support from sources like occultopedia, bOING bOING, etc.  There just seems to be too much temptation on this page (particularly for less experienced editors, I think), to change or add new entries without enough regard for WP policies on verifiability.  But, I think you're right that that tag is not the right way to remedy that situation - I'll remove it.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Cryptid
There is a Japanese cryptid called the "Ningen" (人間, Ningen - meaning 'human') this is never mention in the article and should be added. Here a link to some sites that features them. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 --Paleface Jack (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on List of cryptids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120811150554/http://www.unknown-creatures.com:80/wendigo.html to http://unknown-creatures.com/wendigo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120215153721/http://www.brownsguides.com:80/blog/weird-georgia-the-wog/ to http://www.brownsguides.com/blog/weird-georgia-the-wog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 09:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"Legendary creature", "mythological age"
A user recently added the following text: "Cryptids are a type of legendary creature; however, they differ from most by being based on modern sightings, while most legendary creatures occurred in the mythological age." This is problematic for a few reasons. First, "legendary creatures" are extremely common in modern folklore, perhaps no less than the modern period. second, there's no such thing as "the mythological age". Mythology exists today in many forms as well, from Christianity to Islam to Hinduism to mythology in literature and symbolism and the reconstruction of ancient religions. This sentence needs to go. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Its an unsourced statement which contradicts the mainstream views on mythology. You can delete it yourself. Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey stalker, it's called discussion after reversion. Try it sometime. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are aware that you can search any user's contributions through simply going to their page and pressing "user:contributions". That is not stalking. A removal of an unsourced statement is not a straight-up deletion of the page. I have removed the sentence. Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, going behind me and reverting my additions, often without even bothering with an edit summary, is indeed wikistalking. I'll thank you to knock it off. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Reformatting for rewrite
As discussed at AfD and according to a wide consensus there, I've removed all obvious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR from the article (Diff) in order to conform to WP:FRINGE, WP:LIST and WP:MOS.

The table formatting was quite problematic, as it encouraged fringe views, misleading classifications ("confirmed", "unconfirmed", "disputed"?) and fantasy/speculative graphics treated as authoritative - all in Wikipedia's voice. It also made it unwieldy to edit and difficult to make needed article improvements without messing up the table formatting.

Further editing to strip out legendary and fantasy creatures unrelated to or unclaimed by cryptozoology is required, along with finding adequate citations to WP:FRIND sources to establish a notability within cryptozoology for each list item, however, this is a good starting place from which to rewrite the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be more than a list of names linking to articles to serve any value.
 * I like your intent, but we do need to provide some information on these cryptids on this page. Otherwise it is not providing anything the Category:Cryptids page doesn't already.ZayZayEM (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand the goal, but I also agree that the article should be more than just links to articles. I tried an edit using Louie's opening description, and removing the "Status" row of the table. Is that an improvement for everyone? Maybe we can go even further... but I do like the pictures column, and a short description could be helpful. Of course we need to be careful not to represent any of these creatures as actually existing if they don't, and Louie is right that entries unrelated to cryptozoology should of course be removed.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree with restoring [most] of the material, and fine to take out the status column. I do not see the claimed consensus for removal of the rest. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Invalid Cryptids
I suggest we remove the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) from the list. This was *very much* a real creature - it's now extinct. Not sure how it ended up on this list. --ForestLycan (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done-- Auric    talk  14:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

List Fails Wikipedia Selection Criteria
This list fails Stand-alone_lists pretty hard. Anything not backed with reliable, secondary sources should be removed and only replaced when it can meet these conditions. As it stands, this list is simply a place for drive-by editors to dump random creatures they've found an article about, often with a shoddy image attached. This has been going on for a long time but I'm pretty sure this isn't how lists are supposed to function on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Original Research Regarding Usage of "Cryptid"
The article currently contains the (ungrammatical and semi-coherent) sentence "The terminology has also entered modern lexicon outside of the pseudosciences." What this appears to claim is that the noun cryptid is being employed by non-cryptozoologists to refer to entities from the folklore record. To back this claim up, the sentence has a few references tacked on to it but they're all either simply referring to cryptozoology (this one) or some random article that may have been influenced by an older version of Wikipedia's Loch Ness Monster article (like this one). Each is a primary source and none of them are secondary. No entry is provided by a linguist discussing this supposed shift in usage. This is a classic violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and needs to come out of the article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Coinage of "Cryptid"
Over at cryptozoology we've got a solid secondary source discussing the coinage of cryptid. Here we've got a contradictory poor source—a cryptozoology piece—that may even be a result of original research. As we've got a superior source discussing the term over at the main cryptozoology article, this just needs to come out. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoologist George M. Eberhart's Classification Scheme
Why are we parroting cryptoozologist George M. Eberhart's personal classification scheme here? Do we not have a secondary source discussing why this is at all notable and if its influence reaches beyond Eberhart's personal whims? Is this left over from the previously pro-Cryptozoology state of much of these articles—is this supposed to be promotional or what? I fail to see the notabilty of Eberhart's classification scheme and see no reason why it should be in the article without a secondary source discussing its relevance. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The bulk of the contested material that was removed and restored (and referred to in the section below) is this classification scheme. If it weren't for that, 's recent edits probably would not have the appearance of removing most of the merged content. That said, it was a perfectly legitimate bold edit, and likewise a valid revert on BRD grounds. Let's move on from that and move back up the page a bit. :) Bloodofox raised Eberhart's classification as an issue here a couple weeks ago and waited about a week and a half before moving ahead and removing it. It is typically the case that for content to be featured so prominently there should be something beyond the primary source to justify WP:WEIGHT. This isn't, as I'm talking about it now, about cryptozoology vs. folkloristics, cryptozoology sources vs. academic sources, etc. but simply the WP:NPOV question of why we're using this model? I did a quick look for sources. There were several books that I don't have access to, but the only decent source I see which cites the classification is this brief piece in Investigative Genetics (now cited). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The secondary source that you've found discussing his scheme is worth adding, certainly. The primary source itself is a real problem, particularly as it's Eberhart's scheme alone and but also because he's written it for his own apologetic purposes.


 * One of the things that Fyunck(click) removed was a secondary source that quite explicitly stated cryptozoologists in practice have no criteria and essentially just haphazardly draw from the folklore record (diff: ). This was a secondary, reliable source and one can only guess why he removed in favor of what we have now. It needs to be restored. I restrict my reverts to one article per 24 hours, otherwise I'd restore it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of non-discussed merged material
A large chunk of info was moved here from the article "Cryptid." It was determined that the fuller context was better suited in one article rather than two. If the material is just going to be deleted from here then we should just have left it as two articles. Otherwise the redirect to the merged article is useless. Certainly it could be discussed on how to tweak (not butcher) the wording, but not a one-way discussion by a single editor. And not the removal of sourced material. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So are you here simply to edit war (which I refuse to do) or are you intentionally ignoring all of the discussion above? Or perhaps it's both—your recent mass reversion edit summary strongly implies that you're blindly reverting to your preferred version, which restores plenty of pro-Cryptozoology content and removes secondary, peer-reviewed material. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw no consensus to mass-remove entire sections. There was however consensus to merge two articles to make a fuller more balance larger article. The merge request was headed by User:Rhododendrites stating that "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." On that basis the articles were merged. Your removal of that merged content is a problem. Editing it, rewording it, shifting sentences, etc.. that's fine and dandy... but not wholesale removal. As to your complaint of a sentence that seemed too synthesized (but much shorter), I have now made it more exact with actual quotations and links to the main-stream wikipedia articles. It is certainly much longer but perhaps you are correct that this required a more detailed sentence structure in describing the term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary makes it clear that you didn't bother to read the talk page before blindly reverting.


 * You've shifted the sentences (while admitting that they were synthesis, yet you haven't resolved the problem. What you've added is complete WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that continues to push your agenda. You have yet to add a source that makes the claim that "The term "cryptid", while used most often by cryptozoologists, has also entered into some main-stream publications outside of the pseudosciences." This is a claim that requires a linguist or an appropriate specialist to make and none of the sources you've added even dare to make the claim. In fact, the sources you've provided are either operating in a cryptozoology context or may even be influenced by Wikipedia, particularly given your aggressively pro-Cryptozoology stance. Either way, it's not your place to make that call, and this is exactly why we have policies against this sort of tomfoolery. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we see it differently then. If I provide sources where the word is used in some mainstream publications, then the word is used in some mainstream publications. That is not synthesis. I even provided quotes that it is used in mainstream sources. It is a fact the term is used in "some" mainstream sources, and it has been proved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your usage of this article space to prove something is WP:OR—original research. For example, you're not a linguist nor a specialist in this area and you haven't gone through the peer review process. It's also undue emphasis on a small sample you found on the internet (which, as I point out above, has its own problems). In short, it needs to come out of the article and the secondary, academic sources I inserted need to be returned. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just as there is no exact quote saying the very first sentence "In cryptozoology, a pseudoscience, a cryptid is an animal whose existence cryptozoologists believe has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community or by direct evidence." That is actually quite inaccurate. It should just say "A cryptid is an animal whose existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community or by direct evidence." That would be the most accurate way to say the first sentence since the term is used well beyond the pseudosciences. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia as Cryptozoology Promotion Platform
You're again attempting to push your pro-Cryptozoology agenda here, an entirely inappropriate forum. By your introduction recommendation, you're also making it increasingly clear that you're attempting to synthesize the term to apply beyond Cryptozoology to simply get it all over other articles, further hijacking the site to promote your beloved pseudoscience. The problem is that you simply don't have a reliable source that makes this claim and thus, as you repeatedly admit, you have to synthesize it. Yet unless you can find a secondary source that explicitly states this claim, it's simply come out again and again, ad nauseam.

Now, as you know, I've recently rewritten the introduction with an academic, secondary source in hand. Yet that wasn't promotional enough, so you've edit-warred to restore the mess we have here (along with a bunch of other pro-Cryptozoology stuff). I'm not sure where you think you're going with this. This site really isn't the place to promote pseudoscience and with policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, your efforts will ultimately prove futile. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Another whoa is me, let's label someone as having an agenda baloney. I'm not sure what pro-cryptozoology means. I'm simply being accurate as in all articles. Have I been putting it in other articles, no... so that's another lie of yours. And one persons edit-war is another persons doing a simple revert to stop pov-pushing and ownership. Cryptozoology may be some ridiculous pseudoscience in that it actually studies these myths, but the term cryptid is now used far beyond that pseudoscience. That's just something that happens with language when a term is used often enough. And when someone points that out you have a tantrum and start throwing labels and personal attacks. There's just no call for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nah, Wikipedia is very clear about what an edit war is: Edit warring. As for your statement "Cryptozoology may be some ridiculous pseudoscience in that it actually studies these myths"—that says it all right there, a favorable comment about the pseudoscience totally negating the academic study of folklore (folkloristics]) and biology.


 * All of this falls right in line with your previously stated disdain for academic editors and your stated distaste for what you refer to as "global warming alarmists". Again, find a secondary source explicitly stating this rather than your own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or it's just coming out again and again. Wikipedia isn't your promotional venue. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said... you are simply full of personal attacks. I have no idea what even attracted me to this article but if you were bullying someone else like you are attempting to with me, that could be it. I'm not fond of your bullying and personal attack style, but I can certainly handle it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A "bully" like those "global warming alarmists" and academics, lol? Only one of us refuses to edit war here, so you might look in the mirror before throwing out accusations like that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

All of this finger pointing and painting with broad strokes seems counter-productive (I'm referring to this section as a whole, not one thing in particular). I'll again suggest engaging on the specific subject of Eberhart in the section above. Another useful exercise may be to open a discussion to compile a pool of specific reliable sources from which content could be summarized (before actually using them). If there's agreement on the reliable sources to use, finding the wording drawn from them should be easier. If there's no agreement, at least there's something specific on which to argue rather than this mess above. Tedious, but perhaps productive, with less drama? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, as you saw, my edits to the article met with mass reversion—even the restoration of a link to strangeark[dot]com. I'm attempting to draw other editors to the fold with an interest in related subjects but I am not willing to engage in an edit war. Going back and forth like this is pointless and isn't resulting in a better article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your mass removals could not be easily undone. You have removed certain lines before and this time intertwined it with other changes. It would not allow a simple undo. Perhaps if you wrote here the wording you would like, so others could tweak it before it goes into the article it would be better. And since the article needs to have a detailed listing of what actually constitutes a cryptid, it would be best if you had a replacement paragraph handy to replace any material that is removed. That's the type of give and take that works well in the wikipedia environment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Edits don't go through you for approval, nor are you some sort of authority who may blanket revert without reproach. If there was something in there you didn't like, you could have edited it or partially restored it. There's no excuse for behavior like that. In fact, the added content was academic material discussing how a cryptid can include anything cryptozoologists pluck from the folklore record—yet I'm assuming you didn't bother to read it given your edit summary and comments above. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Boy do you have that wrong. If you make an intertwining set of edits it's up to "YOU" to fix it, not others. You created the problem There's no excuse for mashing it up like that. None. And talk about an agenda. I see you have made all kinds of one-sided canvassing. No_original_research/Noticeboard, Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology. Not a "hey, come help us work on this" but a divisive set of falsehoods as if cryptids are spreading through the galaxy. Goodness. It was in a couple articles and with a merging (that I did) it's in one less. No one was expanding it at all. I see no "resurgence" here as you put it. And the only thing that is expanding is your attacking. Please stop with the personal attack agenda you are pursuing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, I won't edit war with you, despite your provocations. There was no reason to restore the nonsensical bullshit you did.


 * And the problem is in fact enormous. Look, if you want to promote pseudoscience by pushing for the term cryptid and hating "global warming alarmists", get a blog—this isn't the place for it. As you're clearly not interested in improving this article and are simply here to obstruct "academic editors" out of some kind of sad grudge, I can assure you that you're going to find your time is better spent on your usual routine of editing tennis articles. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Uh, I see you've partially restored some of the text I've added while mishmashing it outside of what it referred to. Please restore that. Is there some reason you've left links to strangeark[dot]com? I'll also be replacing the bizarre cherrypicked definition weirdness going on in the article now with the Oxford English Dictionary definition and etymology (which is where everyone should have gone to a definition and etymology to begin with). Note that it does not say anything about general usage. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't do all the editing, as others have also changed things. If you mean under "further reading", I don't care what happens to strangeark.com. I put back what was good about your addition but it interfered with what was good before. Things had to move around for that to happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What you did do is break the reference, resulting in another user adding a tag. And you're also the user who reinstated the strangeark reference, as well as the section under discussion above—without bothering to discuss it. It all needs to go. We've got a reliable source directly contradicting the apologetic primary source in the article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Big deal. You're the one lying and making personal attacks. You're the one removing whole sections without consensus. You're the one removing sourced fact without consensus. You're the one trying to make the merge as if it was a deletion rather than a merge. You're the one canvassing places left and right with extremely biased notation. This whining of yours gets old and is like the boy who cried wolf. What we need is for you to stay on-topic and work to give us an article that tells us about cryptids, gives us a list of cryptids, tells us how the term came about, gives us some parameters on cryptids, a definition of cryptids, lets us know their study is a pseudoscience, tells us where we can find more information if we want it, etc. To be honest it would be better if the prose were longer and more detailed, not shorter. I was assuming that this is the only article that tells us about cryptids, and that cryptozoology is the only other article on the subject? We wouldn't want the subject getting out of hand, but narrowing it to these articles seems reasonable. If it was set up like the Astrology article all would be fine. As long as folks reading it understand the non-science behind it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "We"—are you royalty now?


 * Actually, I mentioned the issues a week before removing it. No response from you or anyone else. Then you came along and decided to edit-war to restore the usual emic bullshit that these articles attract from drive by editors and, worse yet, your half-baked original research.


 * In fact, beyond fulfilling my merge request (which I myself didn't do to avoid you responding with edit warring), I have yet to see you provide a single edit that improves any article related to this one: your purpose here has been nothing more than obstruction for bringing this article up to WP:GA standards as a sort of anti-academic fixation and you seem incapable of finding solid sources. If you want to promote your pet pseudosciences, do it elsewhere: you're making no useful contributions whatsoever here, ultimately wasting your time and the time of everyone else. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to be impossible for you to stay on topic, and only possible to attack. Lovely. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

A list is a list is a list
90% of the text must be moved into Cryptozoology article, otherwise we have a classic content fork here. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed a while ago Cryptid was merged here. I am reading the arguments now. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, really "List of cryptids" should have been merged into "Cryptid" instead of the other way around, but that's not what the merge request resulted in. This article should be titled "Cryptid" or "Cryptids." That's what this is supposed to be about... details about Cryptids and a full list that follows. It should only peripherally touch on cryptozoology for context. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, both cryptid and list of cryptids should just redirect to cryptozoology. Why? The list was created as a sort of Pokémon index by cryptozoologist editors long ago. Entries have no criteria for inclusion. We have a secondary source that essentially states that any entity from the folklore record can be considered a cryptid by cryptozoologists. Finally, there's really nothing to merge: the cryptozoology article covers everything here with solid secondary, academic sources. This article really is just a content fork. If it were up to me, I'd just turn it into a redirect to cryptozoology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "can be considered a cryptid" - yes, just as every " +phobia" may be considered a severe anxiety disorder. In WP we have traditions for inclusion: reasonable coverage in reliable sources related to the domain. Of course there is a tricky question which sources are respectable in cryptozoology... And what are the notability criteria, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Therein is the crucial problem. There's no way of building list criteria for this. It's like list of food more than list of phobias. Sure, there are a few entities cryptozoologists have historically focused on. Yet this surely doesn't deserve a dedicated article—it even already gets a mention at cryptozoology. The reality is that since its creation in 2002, this article has existed as a sort of Wikipedia catalogue for cryptozoologists, very much in emic voice and very, very pseudoscientific. Now that the cryptozoologists no longer rule the roost in these corners, where do we go with this? What, are we going to list every entity that appears in cryptozoology literature? And to what end? This article seems pointless and wrong headed to me. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I kinda fail to understand your concern. We have plenty of lists on various subjects. Wikipedia lists are basically ether lists of wikipedia articles or glossaries. So we don't list every entity cryptozists mention: we list only entities with wikipedia articles for folkloric beasts for which cryptozists did some serious searching effort. For the rest we just "see also" category:Fictional animals. BTW, the latter one needs some work. E.g. there are category:Animals in mythology and its subcat [:category:Mythic animals‎]] which curiously overlap by category:Legendary birds‎. What the heck is "mythic" and why "Lions in heraldry" are mythic and whether "folkloric" are mythic. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually there are lists at wikipedia for non-notable sports players and non-notable events. Those lists were better than having an article for each and every player or event. So while the list could be trimmed a bit, there is no way it needs to only have critters that have their own separate article. Just make sure there is a listed source or two that tells us it is considered a cryptid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are lists of nonnotable events do tell me which ones and I will see whether they may be deleted. In any case, for a fringe subject, to list items which are fringe within this fringe, i.e., a "fringe squared" endeavor, would be rather strongly objectionable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's the thing... all the members of the Tennis Project don't want them deleted. They work well. An example would be a list of tennis umpires. None of them are notable on their own so there are no articles on them individually. But we have a list of those that have judged grand slam events or have attained the highest badge ratings (dozens). Same with minor league tennis tournaments. The highest level minor league tournaments are notable and have their own articles. The lower level minor league events (100's) are not notable so we have them only as a list with no articles. Many sports projects do the same thing. But as you said, if it's a fringe of the fringe without any sourcing you's want those trimmed. With this what I'd do is combine the "other names" and "description" and add a last column for sourcing. That way we'd easily know which have been sourced and which have not. If 6 months goes by without a source being found we'd eliminate the item in question. That gives time for those who have worked on the article in the past to get things nice and neat. I'm sure there are other ways of doing it but that's one suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no comparing the situation with tennis with what we have here. Sourcing tennis stuff is easy. Sourcing this stuff with secondary sources is a real problem. As for previous editors, discussion about what to do with this article has been going on for, what, a year? If they had a stake in what was going on here, they'd have spoken up. Unfortunately, most of them were themselves cryptozoologists and were more than happy to keep this article as a Pokédex for their pet pseudoscience. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with saying nothing if you want to keep it as is. In checking the recent history most of the complaining about it has come from one editor, Bloodofox. I see improvements noted by Rhododendrites and Jess, I see an editor Fiziker who wanted the list of creatures to be better sourced (as I suggested). Like astrology or a retired figure skater, once completed this article really shouldn't change very often, so it should be relatively easy to maintain... unlike articles on current tv shows which can be a nightmare. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Man, this guy. Actually, the archives of this talk page show the same issues popping up again and again from many users. I just happen to be the user willing to do something about it. As you're keen to side with pseudsocience at every turn, I'll just chalk this up to yet another goofy comment from your corner that sides with the cryptozoologists and sticks it to the academics—this time speaking for a silent group of cryptozoologists suffering in silence over the loss of another promotional platform, boohoo. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was mainly looking over the last year. Yes you were the user with most of the objections, that's pretty obvious. And if retaining the article, improving it, and sourcing it is coming down on the side of the pseudsocience, then so be it. The opposite seems to be your way, which is to eliminate it at every turn... section by section. First it's merge two articles, then it's a sentence, then a paragraph. If something doesn't meet truthfulness in an article I look for sources or ways to help it out. You just cut it and have done with it. That isn't working and playing well with others and striving as a team to improve the article. Now as I said, I'd like to see the chart with a source column and weeding out entries that magazines, cryptozoology books, and newspapers don't really relate to cryptids or cryptozoology. Heck we have articles on concert venues with massive lists of every concert ever played at the arena, so there is precedent to include everything under the sun. But it would be nice if there was some criteria to trim this main list by a third or half and perhaps making a separate box with just a name and a source for the lesser known entities. I could have tried to work on the chart but I wasn't going to do it while being chastised or yelled at for the attempt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it's at least good to see you admit that you're on the side of the cryptozoologists rather than here to build an article from secondary, academic sources. Then again, this was already obvious.


 * Misinformation will go, whether you like it or not, and whether it backs your views or not. This is why the cryptozoology article is no longer an apologetic piece. I essentially wrote the entire thing from scratch using only academic secondary sources.


 * This banal, unreferenced list of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and pseudoscientific tomfoolery still exists as a remnant of the cryptozoology promo days. It'll get changed into something more palatable eventually but sooner or later it's likely to disappear. It frankly shouldn't have been created to begin with. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If that's an example of your reading comprehension, it makes me sad for you. Wow, but I'm not surprised. Indiscriminate hacking, whether you like it or not, and whether it backs your views or not, will not be tolerated. As I said, your agenda has always been one of elimination rather than actual helpfulness. It was go along with a merge temporarily, to strike down one article, then work on ridding yourself of the merged article. Again I'm not surprised, just disappointed in your not wanting to work with others to better the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Cryptozoology is a super fringe topic. As a subculture, it's also all but dead. It's always been rejected by the vast majority of folklorists and biologists, in the latter case we have examples of intense rejection on the cryptozoology page. There's no criteria for this list—what, are you going to reference some geocities page regarding some supposed "cryptozoology research"?


 * The categories you mention don't compare. In folkloristics, "mythic" and "legendary" are also two different things, for example. At the moment, our folklore coverage is kind of a mess on the site, and it's primarily due to the 2006-era hijacking of the site by internet cryptozoologists combined with a lack of folklorists on board with the project at an early date. We did have biologists though and the result is that our biology articles don't suffer nearly as much as our folklore articles. In the latter case, sometimes the cryptozoology voice—extremely fringe—completely dominates an article about an entity from regional folklore. I've seen this over and over now.


 * All of this discussion begs the question: what is the future of this list? It has essentially no references. A lot of its entries are, to put it simply, totally inappropriate, and are a result of drive-by internet users throwing it on there. We have figures from Philippines folklore, Japanese yōkai, and everything else. The list has no criteria whatsoever and is essentially frozen in place. I think what we should do is, at the very list, come up with some kind of criteria or just redirect the list altogether. After all cryptozoology already handles cryptid and can be expanded to discuss entities that cryptozoologists have historically focused on and why. There are enough secondary sources for it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)