This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cryptids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
Stephen Harrison (February 13, 2023). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate (magazine). Retrieved February 15, 2023. To sum up, it seems to me that the two sides of Wikipedia's Never-Ending Cryptozoological War could both stand to make some concessions. First, if a reputable publisher describes an entity as a "cryptid," then Wikipedia should classify it within its cryptid category. (Sorry, Bloodofox.) This relaxed admission standard does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia's list of cryptids needs to jump to the previous 300 entries—that doesn't really serve readers, either.
The contents of Cryptid was merged into List of cryptids on September 23 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2016. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep.
The opening paragraph was recently edited to contain a lot more information on what the scientific consensus on cryptozoology is. I think that this fits the specific cryptozoology page, but it's too long for the list of cryptids. Instead, would an opening discussing what scientists think about some of the more popular cryptids fit better instead? Perhaps discussing lack of evidence, biological implausibility, etc. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I have not seen an article on Cryptozoology itself, maybe if there is enough reliable information it can have its own article. I have recently seen some fringe article, which are very well crafted, promoted to FA because of how the editor has structured them within the confines of Wikipedia. Then again, I am not quite sure. I do agree, the paragraph is long and needs some trimming. Not sure the best response though. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edited) Looking over some of the citations, plenty of them need to be reformatted or replaced with better ones. I did notice recent citations by bloodoffox, but looking over them I am not sure what kind of format they are adhering to and they do not give the exact work they are citing (maybe have it as a note?). My thoughts are having citations in an sfn format (i tend to use it a lot as it is very simple and direct). Just wanted to see what others think of that kind of format change for citations.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reftag format is in dominant use here, and per WP:REFVAR, the article should stick to that. Refs like "Shermer (2003: 27)" and "Dash (2000)" needs to be properly written to be of any use to anybody. Reftag-refs are easy to re-use when they are named, both in source editor and VE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible that after all these years, this editor who haunts this talk page and has much to say, doesn't know that WP has an article on cryptozoology? He says here above, "Considering I have not seen an article on Cryptozoology itself..." and in an edit summary, "since Cryptozoology does not have its own article, at least that I know of...". The article was created in 2001. Bizarre. Carlstak (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am humble to admit that not all-knowing, and I am not fully involved with the project as I had originally planned to be. This topic requires more extensive and exhaustive research, and the sources deemed acceptable are not as interesting to me as the other information out there. Film and other articles provide more sources for me to use than controversial topics and I had originally planned on expanding Cryptozoology articles with that same method. Perviously mentioned reasons for not doing as much as I wanted to have regulated me to giving advice here and there. I am unsure what the point of your reply was. Can you explain it?Paleface Jack (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus has always been to keep this article, as such the real issue is working on it to fit the standards set by this site (source, writing, and the like). As for me not knowing, that was already explained above. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it bears emphasizing that, incredibly, all this time this user didn't read our cryptozoology article, the main subject of the primary article, because the user thought it did not exist. Yes, throughout all those comments and even while lobbying other users on cryptozoology forums off-site. A new for me on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man. Quote: "I am unsure what the point of your reply was. Can you explain it?" Surely you jest. The article was created on 28 October 2001, over 23 years ago, and you, with a special interest in the subject, who have been editing WP with this account since 2014, have frequently bemoaned the fact that "While most material is sadly not accepted here due to the fringe blanket", or something similar, for years. You've even gone so far as to say, "...cryptozoology is still a topic and one we as editors have a duty to enable within the elaborate and sometimes undue confines."
One would think that you'd also consider it a "duty" to check to see if there was an article on the subject before commenting on it so voluminously on this page, which has cryptozoology linked at the top, twice! How could an editor with your declared point of view be so incurious as to even look for it? Utterly amazing. Carlstak (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why must these conversations always end in personal attacks and slander? The original reply was in agreement that the lead paragraph was long, and I have stated my reasons for the error of not knowing about the Cryptozoology article. That article has a large list of issues with prose, structure, and citations. The main reason for my reply to this discussion was to help move everything forward in crafting a better lead for THIS article, not have it devolve. Yes, we do have a duty to give articles the best treatment they deserve and I have already admitted my error, no one if perfect, constantly bringing that up or other incidents in the past as a "drop mic" moment is unnecceary. Please refrain from making personal attacks and accusations, it is not the topic of this thread and has no place being here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is your responsibility to inform yourself on a subject before wasting the time of other editors on this talk page. Much of the discussion about this article centers on the fact that we already have an expansive and well-referenced cryptozoology article. Everything you've said here before now has been without knowledge of this fact, rendering it all pointless and, in my opinion, a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first words, Paleface Jack, in reply to the OP of this thread were, "Considering I have not seen an article on Cryptozoology itself, maybe if there is enough reliable information it can have its own article." It's not out of line to point out the incongruity and absurdity of that statement. You've found time for all these years to challenge editors trying to protect the integrity of the article from ceaseless injections of incompetently written content and fringe sources, and only now we find out that you didn't even know the main article existed. It does call into question just what exactly is your purpose here. Carlstak (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you had looked over those conversations, there was never an intent to challenge anyones integrity. I keep saying to move forward and stop bringing up past mistakes or even me not knowing about the article on cryptozoology. I have admitted that mistake, and bringing all these mistakes up like they are proof of malicious intent is unnecessary. My original reply was about the original thread, issues with the lead section. We should focus on that instead of getting off topic. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the lead on this article, my only thought would be to remove Many scientists have criticized the plausibility of cryptids due to lack of physical evidence likely misidentifications and misinterpretation of stories from folklore and just leave the first paragraph at the previous sentence, as to avoid repetition and help with the overall flow. The second paragraph does not seem to have any relevance as the lead is supposed to be an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Not entirely sure what a good alternative to that would be though. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There would be the question as to whether they have an accurate comprehension of the concept of a cryptid. While the article does use the word cryptid to describe not-deer, I didn't notice any suggestion that not-deer represent an unknown species or population. It strikes me as a combination of urban\\\\\rural legend/tall tale, and sightings of sick deer. While that is the sort of thing that fringe cryptozoologists tend to grab and run with no evidence was presented that any actually have. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source calls something a cryptid we don't get to decide that they aren't actually correct. That's WP:OR. Plus, "cryptozoologists" aren't a real authoritative discipline because cryptozoology is a psuedoscience with no qualifications and anyone can be a cryptozoologist if they call themselves one. The fact that people are referring to something as a cryptid means that it is a cryptid. Many so-called cryptids are folkloric or urban legends. Cryptids aren't all necessarily meant to be an unknown species or population; for example, Mothman is commonly described as a single entity and a supernatural harbinger of destruction. Similarly, there's only one supposed Loch Ness Monster and only one supposed Jersey Devil. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about cryptids, creatures found in folklore or that some people believe exist, but whose existence has not been scientifically proven (Cambridge Dictionary).
We could improve this article by removing reported sightings of animals that are known to have existed but are now considered extinct (e.g., certain birds, mammals, or fish). These do not fit the core definition of a cryptid.
A better approach might be to create a separate list or article for "sightings of animals considered extinct" rather than grouping them under cryptids.
Hello, cryptids and cryptozoology deal both with animals completely unrecognized by science and animals that are believed extinct but still sighted by people. The founding book of cryptozoology, On the Track of Unknown Animals, dealt both with animals completely unknown and with sightings of animals like moa or mammoths. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
