Jump to content

Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Suggestions

To minimize further disputes, I recommend:

  1. Editors find the most reliable definition of "cryptid" in reliable source.
  2. Cull anything from the list that doesn't satisfy that definition. (Perhaps there is another list that would be a more suitable home.)
  3. Search for WP:RS references for any remaining items. If sourcing is disputed, submit the source to WP:RSN to determine what is reliable and what isn't.
  4. Remove any entries for which reliable sources can't be found within a week or two. Keep in mind that if a reliable source is found later, the item can be retrieved from the version history and restored.

Please don't fight! There is no reason to fight even if you disagree strongly. Wikipedia provides suitable venues for resolving disputes. Use them and respect the results even when things don't go your way. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

So is the source for the Kraken acceptable, I have raised it at RSN and got no response?Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Replied there. But more eyes are needed. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bloodofox:, please join this discussion. Jehochman Talk 14:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm all for finding WP:RS for anything on this list. However, cryptozoologists primarily focus on a handful of monsters, namely Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the concept of the Yeti (yes, still), Chupacabras, and, the classic, Mokele-mbembe. In turn, when biologists and folklorists do turn their attention to the subculture, they primarily discuss these entities. Loxton and Prothero (the only source currently on this list that appears to uncontroversially meet WP:RS) discusses this at length. In turn, a list like this is really overkill and rather misleading, and strongly I doubt reliable sources can be found for much of it. It should really just be reduced to what we can find reliable sources for and merged into cryptozoology, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
As a reader, I've heard of Nessie, Bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Chupacabra and I'd like to learn about other monsters that are popular in other cultures. A list of notable cryptids has value to me. However, adding a bunch of non-notable cryptids to the list is harmful to me, the reader, because it clutters the list. I would think a first step is to remove an non-notable entries from the list, and then see how many remain and then decide whether to merge, or not. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
So does this mean that an source that anyone challenges cannot be used? Also notability does not apply to article entries (read wp: n.08:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Also how can we discus RS if no one discuses RS [[1]], we have a book that looks like it met almost all of the caveats raised here as to what would be an RS (certainly the ones that are based upon wp:rs, and yet it has been rejected.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Reliability has to be paired with relevance. Is that a book about cryptids (which are yet to be defined) or mythical creatures (which is a different, duplicative list)? Jehochman Talk 10:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
So the book has to be about Crytptids? I was not aware that policy stated that a source has to wholly be about the subject it is being sourced for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody even know what these darn things are?

While removing unreferenced items, I found: extinct animals, unusual morphs of animal species, mythological animals, mythological spirits, purported aliens, and even a reference for a type of plant. Does anybody have a WP:RS which meets WP:PROFRINGE criteria that adequately describes just what these things should be, beyond, "whatever bigfoot enthusiasts say they are?" Because this is a total mess. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically what I'm saying is that I have big problems with poorly defined lists. And this is the second most poorly defined list I've ever had the displeasure of seeing after List of largest empires. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This is why I asked for nothing to be deleted, as we have no idea what this list is even for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I will note that List of largest empires has improved dramatically in recent days, it's possible for these things to get better. But having a clear understanding of listing criteria is crucial and I don't believe anybody has one that meets Wikipedia's requirements. Are Cryptids animals believed extinct that may not be? Are they aliens? Are they monsters, spirits, demons, etc? Or are they an ad-hoc collection of folkloric things connected only in the muddled minds of WP:FRINGE proponents? Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: that's not how Wikipedia works. Honestly this should be clipped down to only those things where a reliable source explicitly calls them a cryptid until a criterion for broader inclusion can be found. I've started by deleting unsourced entries. But more cuts will come when I have time to actually review sources and see which ones mention the word "cryptid." And which ones are reliable. I left in the Fortean Times ref for the moment, but that's more because I wanted to keep those sorts of, "this isn't reliable" cuts separate from the, "there's no source here at all" cuts.Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, until we know what the inclusion criteria is we cannot say something does not fit it. At this time it is still not clear counts as a source, and many of these may well be souracable to that very kind of source. Until that is cleared up we cannot say it cannot be sourced, either that or allow any old source to be used until it is clear what we are counting as usable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't default to 'just keep it in', we default to WP:RS, doubly so for fringe topics. Slater, you're an experienced editor who has done respectable work on this site, and I know you know this. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
And this is why, until such time as a definition from an authoritative WP:RS can be provided, we can only include, on this list, things about which a reliable source has said, "this is a Cryptid." Because absent a reliable authoritative definition, we need to resort to ad-hoc definitions by reliable sources. And this means accuracy is critical to inclusion. If it says, "this animal is believed to be extinct," or "this mythological plant," that is not sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
We have general dictionary and encyclopedic definitions, but if the term cryptid is mostly used by cryptozoologists, and this is a list of cryptids, then shouldn't we be using sources of cryptids by books and websites on cryptozoology? Sort of like what we do for things like Ents? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The difference is that there isn't a bunch of eccentrics convinced that ents walk among us and writing unreliable WP:FRINGE tracts about the Conspiracy To Hide Ents From The World. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
LOL... that's all too true by flipping a tv channel. But a note to that effect should take care of those issues so that it doesn't ruin things for the vast majority of readers. Most of us look at these creatures as another fantasy world like Tolkien, Harry Potter, ghosts and mythology, so there's no reason not to have a large list of these things as long as it's spelled out and they don't invade the world of science. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is we cannot default to RS because we do not have an agreement of what RS are in this case. Sp why not wait till after the RFC that has been proposed?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:The disagreement seems to stem from your refusal to accept that WP:PROFRINGE applies to cryptids. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
No it stems from the fact WP:PROFRINGE forbids outright the use of Fringy sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE does prohibit using sources that advocate fringe positions as reliable sources under most circumstances. And it's Wikipedia policy. Which is why you're facing so much pushback on wanting to include fringe sources as RSes on this list. Sorry. But there's good reasons for Wikipedia to limit the impact of fringe sources. I've seen what happens when this policy fails. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Then provide a quote, because I cannot find where it say that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not (and we make that clear in the intro) a scientific subject, it is a psedoscientific one. It is clear that minority views can be included. All we have to to is ensure we do not give the impression that it is true. Also this looks to be about notability, which has nothing to do with article content but article creation. But OK, lets use an RS's definition of what a Crytpid is, can you provide one?Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There are surely definitions by crypto writers but:

  • A dictionary definition is "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist".
  • An encyclopedic definition is "a creature whose existence is suggested, but has not yet been confirmed by the scientific community."

This is per the Cryptozoology article until it was accidentally removed yesterday. As later shown it was no accident the encyclopedic source was removed. Someone tried to hide it's very existence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the first definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary, the golden standard for this sort of reference, the second is from this writer's rather poorly researched entry on Sasquatch for the Canadian Encyclopedia, which simply parrots cryptozoologist talking points and neglects to mention this minor, very unimportant matter of pseudoscience. Ongoing discussion about the latter here. Additionally, you can read cryptozoologist Wall's own definition of the term he coined back in the early 80s here. He rather clearly states that he's suggesting its use to avoid the word monster, which those of us outside of the subculture generally use for this sort of thing (cryptid, being coined from Greek and after the false academia-ese of cryptozoology, sounds more like something resembling science to the general public and all). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ref 12 is dubious

Gemma-Louise Stevenson is a sport and culture freelancer and the article cited is a puff piece on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. The individuals quoted by Stevenson are random cryptozoology cranks of no particular note. Their opinions on Kraken and Thunderbird are not a basis for including either of these mythological creatures on a list of cryptids. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

So a writer about culture (even a freelance one) writing about culture is not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
An article about a different subject that only mentions this subject as an aside is not RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Why not?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Because of WP:RSCONTEXT: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Except the article is about cryptozoology. It is not about the film, but the "reality" behind the film.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It looks ok to me. This is a list of creatures called cryptids, and "cryptozoology cranks" and BBC articles should be perfect for generalized usage of the word "cryptid." Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The BBC piece is used to support the Kraken entry. This source only mentions the Kraken in a quote of a layperson: Anthony McAtamney, 44, is from County Armagh and describes himself as an "ordinary bloke" who has "a life-long interest in the paranormal and cryptozoology" ... "Remember the giant squid - referred to as the Kraken in cryptozoology before it was renamed by scientists upon its discovery - was not photographed or filmed live until 2004." In this case the BBC is a reliable source for McAtamney's opinion, but they do not support it as fact in their own voice. It is quite common for reliable sources to quote opinions this way without adding their own endorsement, similar to a "man-in-the-street" interview in which a random bystander speculates about an event. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
And we make it clear in the intro this is just what they Crytptozoologosts believes, we do nit claim they are right.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Except that, as Dlthewave quite rightly points out, the person quoted is, even by his own words, not an authority on cryptozoology, he's just a "man on the street" which means his opinion is non-notable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Odd then the BBC went to him (and no he does not say he is "man on the street" he says he is "ordinary bloke". Now I do not know why the BBC choose him for his views (maybe he has a big social media presence, I don't know), the fact is they did.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
A freelancer went to him for an article she pitched to BBC. He could, very well, be a bloke she met in the pub. It's a puff piece, I don't think extensive background checks were conducted. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
So you do not know why. Neither do I and we do not second guess sources. Maybe she knows him, maybe he was recommended to her by the Cryptozooalogical community, maybe she met him down the pub. The fact is we do not know why she went to him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
That's what makes the reliability of this source dubious. We don't default to reliable when the reliability of a source is unclear. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Its the BBC, about as RS as you can get. So yes we default to RS unless we have good reason not to, this is not the Daily Mirror or Fox news.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we've now talked back in a circle, no, we can't. No publication has automatic reliable status in all contexts per WP:RSCONTEXT. I'd suggest you need to start listening to what multiple editors are telling you on this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Amen. Carlstak (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the BBC citation without having seen this discussion. It just struck me as so inappropriate. The only connection in the article to Kraken was an "ordinary bloke" offering his opinion that the Kraken had been shown to be a giant squid. If, indeed, relevant authorities have made that identification, there should be reliable sources by or that quote such authorities. But, then, the Kraken would no longer be a cryptid. The Kraken is a legend. The real cryptid was the giant squid. Scientists had known suspected for quite a while that there was some sort of large cephalopod that lived deep in the ocean, for which there were no reliable records of live sightings, and for evidence only large sucker scars on sperm whales and occasional badly decayed body parts that may have come from such an animal. Giant (and collossal) squids stayed hidden for so long because they lived in the deep ocean, and rarely, if ever, came near the surface while alive. - Donald Albury 17:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As anyone who follows US current events knows, reliable sources quote all sorts of opinions (notable or otherwise) as part of their routine coverage without endorsing them. For example, sources often cover a politician's position on climate change, but we would never include this in our climate change article as anything more than an attributed opinion. BBC's coverage of a Flat Earth conference does not mean that we can say the Earth is flat in Wiki voice and source it to the BBC. We have RS support for the fact that a regular bloke says the Kraken is a cryptid, but no indication that this is a significant, prominent or factual viewpoint. –dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm saying here too. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
And my point is we are not saying it in Wikipedias voice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
We are saying it in Wiki voice, though. The source is being used to support the inclusion of Kraken in the list, with no "according to..." qualifier. –dlthewave ☎ 19:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead "This is a list of cryptids, which are animals and plants presumed by followers of the cryptozoology pseudoscientific", so yes we do not say it is true, that it is only what a fringe pseudoscience thinks.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I would also ask users to read sources before they delete them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

How is a book, by an academic, about folklore, that uses the word Crypitid not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I confess that I'd missed the cite of Juliette Wood's Fantastic Creatures in Mythology and Folklore: From Medieval Times to the Present Day, conflating it with the cite of the BBC article, which certainly should not be used a source. My first thought when I saw the misspelled note Slatersteven left on my talk page was, "Why won't these cranks give it up?" Then I clicked on the citation link and signed in to Google to read the text.
Wood's book seems okay to me as a source, but really, it speaks to the inherent goofiness of a "List of Cryptids" that her book, which isn't even about "cryptids", is one of the better sources cited in a WP entry that leans so heavily on two magazine articles, one in Salon and another in Business Insider (!).
Woods says in her introduction, "This book draws on a variety of sources: legends, folktales and myths; classical, medieval and Renaissance works; the writings of early modern scientists and naturalists; filmmakers; writers of fantasy; creators of roleplaying games (RPGs); and even contemporary cryptozoologists." [emphasis mine] So she apparently considers the works of contemporary cryptozoologists mainly as an afterthought in the writing of her book, which is understandable, given the very thin gruel served up by cryptozoology literature.
The sad truth remains that this article, given the "pseudo-" nature of its subject and the lack of interest in pseudoscience by actual scientists, will always be inadequately sourced and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It would seem that Wood's book could only be used as a basis for inclusion on this list if she, in the context of the entry being included, mentioned cryptozoology as much of the book is not about cryptozoology at all. Again we're hitting the central problem with all poorly defined lists - that editors are using the vagueness of the definition to include items they feel are appropriate rather than items that meet a set of objective criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
So now the sources have to be about cryptozoology?Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It is very strange and hypocritical to say the least. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Issues for discussion

  1. What is the difference or relationship between a cryptid and a folklore creature?
  2. What is the difference or relationship between a cryptid and a fictional character?
  3. What is the difference or relationship between a cryptid and an extinct creature?
  4. Should this list contain entries that aren't notable enough to have stand alone articles?
  5. How is this list different from List of lake monsters and List of legendary creatures?

Please try to answer these questions. The results might help clarify the inclusion criteria. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, Lists of legendary creatures is a page that lists all the subpages, starting with List of legendary creatures (A) - Z; area related lists and a link to List of legendary creatures by type. List of lake monsters is closer to this page, although organized in a single table.

As I see it a "cryptid" is a creature that may or may have not existed, but whose roots can be traced to a real or extinct creature.--Auric talk 18:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As I see it a cryptid is any creature that Cryptozoologists say is real (not Cryptozoologists, not anyone else). I agree that the list of lake monsters overlaps (and could be merged) wit this one. Whilst there will be an overlap with List of legendary creatures it is not quit e the same (as only those that are claimed are based upon reality are Cryptids). Wholly fictional, creatures is less clear as they are not (by definition) alleged by anyone to be real, but there may be a degree of overlap (for example paramafait) which has somehow seeped into the field. But (as I said) the clearest indicator is that it is regarded by (here we get into murky waters (paramafait is lurking about)) "authoritative" crryptozoologosats as real.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC) As to the last but one point, as I understand lists they do not have to be lists of Wikipedia articles, but entries that have articles do not (generally) need to be sourced for inclusion in a list. Notability for inclusion in a list is not a strict as notability for an article.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Following the numbered format provided above:
  1. (Readers, regarding the development and use of the term cryptid, please see cryptozoology if you haven't already.) When discussing the concept fo the cryptid and the folklore record, I think it's important to highlight that cryptid is a term coined by a cryptozoologist in 1982 to avoid the word monster (which the rest of the English-speaking world uses for these entities) and to make the subculture's point of fixation seem more scientific (being derived from Greek and all). The term implies the subject entity—usually drawn from the folklore record—to be 'hidden' and somehow missed by academics or other experts, and so invokes the pseudoscience's central anti-academic approach. This is also around the time the subculture seems to have more explicitly become involved with Young Earth creationism and stuff like "creation science", pseudosciences that employ similar tactics (they coin science-y jargon around otherwise widely known concepts to lead the public into making them believe they're authorities). Folklore studies is a wide-ranging academic field, as folklore encompasses orally transmitted stuff like jokes and recipes to more flashy genres like myth and legend. Now and then folklorists comment on cryptozoologist use of folklore topics, but cryptozoologists mostly get a response from biologists who encounter them now and then presenting themselves as authorities (Donald Prothero's writings on this topic are particularly notable). Both fields generally just ignore the subculture, and it's generally obscure. In fact, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if not for cryptozoologist hijacking of Wikipedia early on in the project's life, until recently making Wikipedia into the subculture's most visible and influential promotional machine.
  2. When they're not drawing from the folklore record, sometimes cryptozoologists make claims about fictional entities and long-unspooled hoaxes, considering them to be cryptids. However, since the subculture has no formal definition of what they might consider to be a cryptid, more skeptical cryptozoologists (if any still exist) have long derided this sort of thing. Nonetheless, there's no such thing as an authority in the subculture, so you'll still find references to stuff like the Partridge Creek monster breathlessly described as a "cryptid" in various internet quarters (And, until recently, right here on Wikipedia!).
  3. Sometimes cryptozoologists claim that an extinct creature is still running around somewhere, and consider it a cryptid. Biologists sometimes find creatures they once considered to be extinct, but cryptozoologists never do. Biologists don't call them cryptids.
  4. In my opinion, no, because we'd lack reliable and independent sources on the topic.
  5. While List of lake monsters is a sublist of list of legendary creatures, every entity that cryptozoologists commonly 'pursue' falls in the genre of legend (whether or not they claim that legend ultimately came form a dinosaur or an alien or whatever).
I think it's also important to note that since this is a subculture and not an academic field, there are no institutions present to demarcate any level of authority. Around these parts, Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Emporium at Geocities is just as authoritative as Dr. Ash Q. Gottafindemall, who holds some kind of unrelated degree from Pokemon University or whatever, and who managed to get a book published from a generally respectable press. They're both pushing pseudoscience, whether the latter doesn't think it's OK to consider ghosts to be cryptids or not. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing it, but Altamaha-ha does not appear to be on that list. So unless I am mistaken it is not a case that every entry is duplicate here. So not it is not a fork of that list (also this list is in fact the older of the two, so if anything Lists of legendary creatures would have been the content fork from this list.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's about the chance of an encounter. If you went hiking in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, you might encounter a Bigfoot (or someone in a Bigfoot suit). But where on earth could you go where you might encounter a dragon?--Auric talk 14:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the zeal to add as many listings as possible, similar to that uncritical zeal to list every mention of a given subject no matter how trivial (a profligacy that ruins the "In popular culture" sections of so many articles), has been historically operative in this article. I also detect the enthusiast's lack of respect for scientific skepticism in that history. In my opinion there is no need whatsoever for this article to exist, since, as Jehochman has stated, all its listings are already present, or can be added, to "Lists of legendary creatures", which is a more appropriate title anyway. Carlstak (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Cryptozoology and this article use similar definitions: "Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that aims to prove the existence of entities from the folklore record, such as Bigfoot, the chupacabra, or Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture" and "...animals and plants presumed by followers of the cryptozoology pseudoscientific subculture to exist on the basis of anecdotal or other evidence considered insufficient by mainstream science" respectively. It seems that a cryptid is nothing more than a preexisting mythical creature that cryptozoologists have glommed onto; this doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic or grounds for a dedicated list. –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I would add that with the pseudo-credibility the neologism cryptozoology lends their hobby, enthusiasts are motivated to find even more legendary creatures they can call "cryptids". Carlstak (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Shame that so many do not appear until after their finding by Crypties.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Cryptozologists haven't found any cryptids, except in their imaginations. As Michael Schermer says, "In order to name a new species, one must have a type specimen—a holotype—from which a detailed description can be made, photographs taken, models cast and a professional scientific analysis prepared. If such cryptids still survived in the hinterlands of North America and Asia, surely by now one would have turned up. So far all we have are the accounts. Anecdotes are a good place to begin an investigation—which by themselves cannot verify a new species. In fact, in the words of social scientist Frank J. Sulloway of the University of California at Berkeley—words that should be elevated to a maxim: "Anecdotes do not make a science. Ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten." I employ Sulloway’s maxim every time I encounter Bigfoot hunters and Nessie seekers. Their tales make for gripping narratives, but they do not make sound science. A century has been spent searching for these chimerical creatures. Until a body is produced, skepticism is the appropriate response." Carlstak (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I was hoping we would wait at least three more months before another attempt to delete this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOT, WP:BURO, WP:IAR are all policy. Jehochman Talk 17:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
How about a book by a professor of folklore, how about that for a start?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Allow me to summarize the above discussion. There seems to be no formal definition of cryptids we can latch onto other than “a legendary creature that fringe culture has named a cryptid.” Moreover, the many fringe views (each deserving no representation on Wikipedia) don’t necessarily agree on what is and isn’t a cryptid. Also, “cryptid” seems to be a neologism because autocorrect doesn’t know it. Jehochman Talk 10:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that auto correct is a great determiner of a word being a neologism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Autocorrect is not a reliable indicator of whether or not a word is a neologism. Oxford English Living dictionary says the word originated in the 1990s, from "crypto- + -id". In the preface to Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, Michael Shermer says cryptozology was "coined in the late 1950s by the Belgian zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans." Carlstak (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think autocorrect raises an initial suspicion that a word is recently made up. To me, the 1990's is recent. @Slatersteven: can you provide a definition of what distinguishes a cryptid from a legendary creature beyond "a pseudoscientist says so"? That's really the heart of the matter. On Wikipedia we don't write about fringe topics from an "in universe" perspective. We write from the perspective of a neutral academic. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"But where on earth could you go where you might encounter a dragon?" Try the island of Komodo, habitat of "the largest lizard on Earth". Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You'd be disappointed...--Auric talk 18:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You need an old map: Here be dragons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles about fringe theories

Wikipedia has articles about notable fringe theories, such as controlled demolition hypothesis. Would it make sense to rename this “List of cryptid theories”? We could then document the notable theories, where notability is determined by coverage in mainstream sources. We can also use occasional references to fringe sources for the limited purpose of documenting what a theory promoter asserts (not its factuality, or notability though). This may solve the definition problem. A cryptid is whatever the fringe asserts it to be, and we will cover all the notable theories, making clear that they are fringe theories with no basis in science. It also solves the duplicate list problem. Jehochman Talk 10:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That name reads a bit odd, but something like "list of alleged Cryptids" would be fine to my mind.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
How about "List of supposed Cryptids"? Alleged reads like they're all suspected of committing some crime.--Auric talk 14:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That was sort of what I was aiming for, not sure it makes it clear enough but its a least policy complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's just merge this nonsense and be done with it

Merger discussion started here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would have been nice to have waited two weeks (as suggested above) before trying this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No. This circular debate is tiresome, the WP:TEND demands that we ignore the absence of inclusion criteria are bothersome, this list is superfluous, and the sooner it is gone the sooner we can all get on with the rest of our lives. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see how saying what believers believe is in any way a violation of policy. No one is trying to claim they are right, just that they think it. I really do not understand this level of hostility towards what is (in effect) no more promotional, then list of hobbits. This list is (as I have said before) exactly the sort of things I want, a one stop overview of a concept that otherwise I might have to read only about in "in universe" works.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There are a lot of useless and superfluous lists on wikipedia. WP:OSE applies. And we have an opportunity to do away with this particular useless and superfluous list. It's just a POV content fork of legendary creatures, for those particular legendary creatures which may be of interest to one subculture mostly residing in the United States. So before we worry about deleting List of hobbits, let's get this one done. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No it is not, this was created first. Besides which I see them as different. Legendary creature, so not all Cryptids fit here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Then, for the final time, please provide a reliably sourced definition of cryptids which demonstrates them to be a distinct class from legendary creatures. As I've asked you multitudinous times and you have so far completely refused I'd suggest you stop beating this particular dead horse. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just think about it. As I've posted on another section, the distinction between cryptids and legendary creatures is that cryptids might be findable, whereas legendary creatures simply aren't. Some people think that legendary creatures might have a basis in reality, hence the overlap.--Auric talk 14:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I would posit that WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY suggest that from Wikipedia's perspective Chupacabra is no more findable than the Minotaur. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Except that both are clearly in the legendary category.--Auric talk 18:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Then why is Chupacabra on this list? Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

bloodofox touched on a problem with this list when he wrote: "....we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if not for cryptozoologist hijacking of Wikipedia early on in the project's life, until recently making Wikipedia into the subculture's most visible and influential promotional machine." Daniel Loxton has written an excellent essay, "The Problematic Process of Cryptozoologification", that delineates how what he calls "cryptozoologification" (which this article is an example of) is self-reinforcing:

I've researched the history of several prominent cryptids, and believe that this cryptozoologification process can be seen to have occurred in many such cases—cultural alchemy transmuting ideas with the vagueness of dreams into "cryptids" with the specificity of animals. Once it acquires a defined conceptual form, a cryptid becomes self-reinforcing. A standardized concept provides a culturally available template for the generation of hoaxes and misidentifications, which in turn "confirm" the correctness of the template. The template inspires sightings, which attract the attention of “researchers” and media, which inspire more sightings. A dream takes the form of an animal. Cryptozoology begins to "study" it. The template is filled in, polished, expanded upon. The cryptozoological literature is consequently full of confident, detailed assertions about the characteristics of cryptids (just as parallel paranormal literatures are full of firm statements about unproven alien beings, psi phenomena, and so on). Animals which have never been captured, dissected, photographed, or even reliably observed are described with astonishing precision. Confidence about the undemonstrated qualities of hypothetical creatures is the end result of cryptozoologification. Needless to say, it is a mistake.

Providing a ready-made template for hoaxers, scam artists, and kooks is a perversion of WP's purpose and mission. Carlstak (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Vandalism on Wikipedia occurs anyway. I keep this list on my watchlist because of the intermittent activity of a long-term IP serial vandal who has created many hoax articles, sometimes putting links to them on this list. When that happens it helps to identify his other edits. Bahudhara (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Good point to consider. This list is a honeypot (computing). It’s useful to have a place to watch for nonsense being added. Surely there are some notable cryptids. The problem is how to distinguish them from legendary creatures? I don’t understand the difference. Anybody who can point to a criteria, that might be very useful. Jehochman Talk 02:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell all sources (reliable and otherwise) agree that Cryptids are alleged to be real, today. Whereas legendary creatures are not, they are accepted as being part of myth cycles or folklore, not reality. This is why (as far as I know) no Cryptist claims Harpies are real (though give the credulity of some they may well do at some point).Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
So if I, a random person with no particular credentials related to the subject, allege that Cthulhu is real, does that make Cthulhu a cryptid? Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
If it was reported by RS quite possibly. Is he a legendary creature?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a fictional character made up by H.P. Lovecraft. And just as real the Yeti, Nessie, or any of the other nonsense that "crypties" purport to be real. So again, do you have a reliable source that distinguishes clearly what differentiates a cryptid from a legendary creature? Or is the only categorization possible that cryptozoologists say so? Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
What is the definition of legendary creature? I have given the definition of cryptid (from the OED, the go to source for words meaning).Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The concept of the legendary creature is a lot less controversial than the anti-academic idea of the cryptid; essentially it's a creature stemming from legend, a particular genre of folklore. Pretty straightforward. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That seems to be the crux of the problem. What if mainstream media start reporting about this person's theories and the supposed evidence? Such stories draw a lot of reader interest, thus becoming lucrative for publishers. Should Wikipedia cover the "hypothesis" so that we can educate readers about the context and the fact that the hypothesis lacks scientific evidence? Wikipedia remaining silent on the topic does not necessarily serve the reader's best interests. This is why I asked above whether we should cover the notable theories. It's all about framing. List of cryptids could be considered biased because it presumes that cryptids are a thing. List of hypothetical cryptids is reporting on the notable theories that are circulating. Wikipedia documents all sorts of fringe and conspiracy theories, such as Chemtrail conspiracy theory. We even have List of conspiracy theories. Is there a reason we should not have a list about cryptids, so long as the framing makes clear that this stuff is unscientific? Take a look at how List of conspiracy theories is formatted and framed. Maybe that could be a guide for the current list? Jehochman Talk 18:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
A page I also police, and make damn sure it never falls into the trap of claiming they are real. What we should do is write articles (or lists) that inform the reader so they can come to a balanced and nuanced judgement. That is done by how we write, not exclusion. All that does is mean they do not come here, or anywhere else that might give a balanced and critical view of a subject. We have a duty to inform, even about silliness.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Media Source Problems

Currently this article employs a bunch of media sources that do little more than parrot whatever cryptozoologists say. These media sources don't mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Academics have noticed that this happens and the role that it plays in promoting cryptozoologist narratives. I've just started a section on what academics have said about this over at cryptozoology (direct link). In the mean time, someone with more patience than myself might want to take a look at whether we should be using poor media sources like those anywhere on the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean there's currently yet another attempt to get the Daily Mail treated as a reliable source and I still can't get people to stop using the Epoch Times as a source in China articles so I'll wish you good luck on that one. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference between the BBC and the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven I think I've established at this point that I think Wikipedia is far too reliant on newsmedia sources in all areas. This allowance of news sources brings with it both constant WP:NPOV headaches, and also major WP:RECENTISM problems. In addition the over-reliance of Wikipedia on newsmedia leads to continuous WP:DUE debates since the online news cycle churns out so much content every day. I mean it all but killed the reputation of Salon which (hey look) is one of those questionable sources being used to identify a good number of "cryptids" for this list. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Salon has wide readership. Assume some of those readers go to Google and search for more information about cryptozoology. Would you rather they find cryptozoology websites, or a Wikipedia article that presents the topic from a neutral, academic point of view? Jehochman Talk 18:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ironically I agree, we should not use news media sources, the fact is though that is not policy. The DM is (in effect) depreciated as a source, the BBC is not so comparing the two is a facile argument.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess the question becomes one of triage. There are three categories of WP:FRINGE articles on Wikipedia: those where it will be reasonably viable to maintain in a state appropriate to WP:FRINGE (ex: Parapsychology, those where it is unlikely to be viable to maintain in a state appropriate to WP:FRINGE but where it is possible to delete, and those where it is both not possible to delete and not viable to keep it in compliant condition (ex: Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China). If this is in fact an article in the first category, then you're entirely right. If there's a risk that this will be an article in the third category though, we should remove it if an opportunity presents itself in order to avoid it becoming a perennial and toxic source of disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That can be applied to almost any article, I could create an account today and edit Barack Obama's page to say he is in fact Great Cthulhu. That is not an argument for removal, but for vigilance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Vigilance is always possible. The primary reason to delete is insufficient reliable sources to write more than a stub about the topic. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's better for Wikipedia to say nothing than to disseminate misinformation. And this loops back to the question of what constitutes a reliable source. Right now we lean far too hard on churnalism hurried out by over-worked and under-paid writers to drive page clicks, and that's a major problem. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Which takes us back to the RFC discussed above, and what we can use as a source. As well as can we only use sources that use cryptid, ect. Now the OED provides us with a definition, we can use that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
What, exactly is the OED definition and is it functionally different from the definition of a legendary creature? Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti." As to how this differs form the definition of legendary creature, well care to proved that definition, because I can find none in any reputable source. The best I can find is "is a fictitious, imaginary and often supernatural animal", which is not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to change Wikipedias polices. If they say X is an RS we have to stick with that. I would support a moratorium on all news media sources, but not just for one article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we can still make a case that the Salon article, or the BBC article for that matter, don't meet the WP:EXTRAORDINARY bar, nor are they WP:DUE as evidence that any given purported creature is a cryptid. At the very least the definition you mentioned disqualifies the plant on the list and all the extinct animals for which there is evidence that they existed and that only means there's less difference between this list and the much more appropriately framed list of legendary creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
They are not being used as evidence a creature is a CrytpTD, they are being used as evidence adherents of Cryptozoology claim they are, read the intro to this list again.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Slater, you're misrepresenting the OED here. Specifically, it says "an animal whose existence or survival to the present day is disputed or unsubstantiated; any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist" (my emphasis). Just like every other reliable source, the OED is saying it's anything cryptozoologists considers to be a "cryptid", which includes everything from Bigfoot to ghosts and angels. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Does it? Got an RS for that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The OED is the source. From back when I added it to cryptozoology: "cryptid, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2016. Web. 25 October 2016. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
We are still no closer to establishing a distinction between cryptids and legendary creatures than we ever were. As it stands, I really feel like I have to stand by my merge proposal on the basis that these two lists describe the same darn idea, only one does so without giving any credence to pseudoscience, while the other had, up until today, an apologia that cryptocranks were really folklorists and thus real scientists. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary

There has been a lot of discussion above. Would it be fair to summarize as follows?

A cryptid is any legendary creature that is the subject of pseudoscientific conjecture that the creature could be real. Wikipedia's list of cryptids should include any cryptids that are notable. To be notable, a cryptid (1) must have received substantial coverage in reliable (non-fringe) sources with more than just a few passing mentions (the criteria in notability policy), and (2) the coverage must include a pseudoscientific basis for asserting that the creature could be real. Synthesis or original research is forbidden. The reliable source must assert who thinks the creature could be real and why; A reliable source can't be stitched together with a fringe source.

Please list opinions below. Jehochman Talk 19:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. wp:notability does not apply to article content. Thus this is a misapplication of policy. On that reason alone I must objectSlatersteven (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    But this is a special type of article. It's a list of articles with a summary of what's in each. My summary suggests (as other stated above) that items shouldn't appear on this list unless they are notable enough to have a stand alone article. Jehochman Talk 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
No this is just another list, there is nothing special about it. But I think I misunderstood you. It is not necessary for an entry here to have an in depth source, just an entry here on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
If this is a "special" list, then you should amend your original summary and be specific about this one list. It should say "this particular List of cryptids article...". There is nothing to stop anyone, even me, from making a standard list of all named cryptids that don't have the summaries. Like we do at wikipedia for concerts, asteroids, etc... Either that or change this list into a standard list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with a significant caviat I would say that this provides a basis for identifying what concepts could be considered cryptids by Wikipedia, but I remain unconvinced that there is sufficient functional difference between cryptids and other legendary creatures to warrant a list distinct from lists of legendary creatures. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    My summary is trying to communicate that cryptids are a subset of legendary creatures. Those that some pseudo scientist thinks might be real and where this pseudoscientific view has received significant coverage (ie Bigfoot). Jehochman Talk 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    They certainly are the mythological beasts of our own time. Imaginations gone wild but written about with the same fervor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
All of these entities stem from legend, which is a very common folklore genre to encounter in a contemporary context. The twist here is the pseudoscientific approach—coming up with fake classification schemes, running around dressed like Indiana Jones and talking to news reporters, receiving "investigation" money from Young Earth creationist groups to go to the Congo. Encountering references to entities from legend, such as ghosts, is extremely common in everyday life for most people throughout the world, but the whole playing pretend scientist thing is what makes cryptozoologists so different from when Uncle Ted said he might have seen that hairy monster Bigfoot (or maybe just a big hog, he says with a laugh). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness they never tried to do fake classifications of hydras, centaurs, hippogriffs, etc... Those people were the cryptozoologists of their day. But whether it's Tolkien or Harry Potter beasts, unicorns or cryptids, lists of these sorts of things have been valid on Wikipedia. As long as we give it the proper context of real vs fantastical, all should be well. Just don't let them overlap. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
You're right that medieval bestiaries and curiosity collections, which you're referring to here, are in fact related to what cryptozoologists are doing nowadays, but the key difference is that the individuals (like Ole Worm, R.I.P.) were in no way anti-academic. They were rather the academics of their pre-modern science day, their enthusiastic interest in cataloguing and curisootiy about "antiquities" ultimately led to today's academia, including fields like folklore studies and biology. Concepts like bestiaries and curiosity collections were a step toward modern science and even cutting edge for their day, but cryptozoologist bestiaries are exactly the opposite: they're an attempt to push back and reject today's academic establishment. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
That is likely true. The ignorance of that time period doesn't mean we have to be as ignorant today. But then we aren't trying to fit this article into something scientific as those uninformed humans of the past would have done. Well, some might or have done so in the past, but making sure pseudo-science is prominently displayed should do enough to allay any problems. There are so many books and reality programs on the subject of cryptids and their cousins that it is only natural to cover or list them here too, but only in non-scientific articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

When does it call it a Cryptid

This [[2]] seems to be an RS. It says that there are "over 250 cryptids") and then has a whole section listing various creatures, dose it in fact say that they are cryptids? I would say yes it does, and ever creature in that section is a cryptid (its all about context).Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Does that encyclopedia have articles about each cryptid? Having an article is a specialist encyclopedia is a very good argument that a topic is notable. I'd have a concern with wholesale copying of a list of 250 cryptids all from the same source. That might be viewed as plagiarism or copyvio, depending on how it's done. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell, it is rather an overview. But again notability is not the issue, we have a source that lists a lot of creatures in a section called "Cryptids" in a section about "cryptozoology". Clearly the authors think s this material is notable enough to mention. As far as I am aware sources do not have to be in depth to include an item in a list, it just has to be a mention. It is not however a list as such. Thus we can use it without plagiarizing it. Any more then we do with any other source we cite more then once.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I will add it has short sections on each type of Cryptid, giving a few examples.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That encyclopedia sounds like it could be a useful tool for determining notability. Ideally any cryptid on the list would have an article with multiple reliable sources indicating who things it is real and why they think so. It doesn't matter if the theory is "bullshit". We are concerned with accurately reporting notable topics, including conspiracy theories, fringe theories and pseudoscientific theories. For instance, we have an article on Cold fusion. Jehochman Talk 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As the RFC said that is unrealisitc precisely because very few if any academics will touch the subject with more then a wave of the hand (as the source we are discussing does). This is why the RFC closer said that using fringe sources would be OK, in certain circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Cryptozoology contains a lot of academic sources to draw from. However, as I've pointed out elsewhere, cryptozoologists tend to fixate on about five entities in total, and academic material on the topic reflects this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Do they, which 5? provide an RS that says they concentrate on just 5. We have the big 5 (nessie, Big foot, yeti, Phantom big cats (is that more then one?), sea serpents, Alams, ohh wait!) Hell even many of the sources being attacked here list well over 5.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you'd do well reading some of those reliable sources over at cryptozoology. You'll find exactly what I said: "cryptozoologists tend to fixate on about five entities in total". This is why, for example, Loxton & Prothero have chapters dedicated to these specific entities and variations that spring up around them. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary 2

Next revision. Would it be fair to summarize as follows?

Cryptid are a subset of legendary creatures that are subject to pseudoscientific conjecture that the creature could be real (ie Bigfoot). Any cryptid notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia may be added to the list. Legendary creatures that are not subject to pseudoscientific conjecture as reported by reliable sources (ie Minotaur) should not be added to the list.

Please list opinions below. Jehochman Talk 01:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. I still contend that whilst most cryptids are legendary creatures not all are. As to the difference, all Cryptids are claimed to be real, not all legendary creatures are (and in fact most are not). Also I think this waters down the concept of legendary creature, I note that the lists of legendary creatures do not contain entries for creatures we have entries for that are in this list. There must be a reason they are not there, and I suspect it is because they are not regarded as legendary creatures, but fictional ones.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    These are good points to consider. I think it would be fair to ask at Wikipedia: WikiProject Folklore for help identifying distinguishing features of what is a legend and what is fiction. It would not be canvassing to notify the project of the merger discussion and ask for their input. It is not canvassing to ask neutrally a group that has no known bias. Jehochman Talk 18:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Party of the issue (which you identify over at the merge discussion) is that people will look for "cryptid", not "legendary animal". One problem I have found here at wiki is that often what you search for and what you need to search for to find what you want are often not the same (try looking for a list of "native american monsters"), and often I have to go off wiki to find what I am looking for. If we conflate "legendary animal" (or creature) with Cryptid this will mean when I (or anyone else) who just wants to look for Cryptids will be taken to a huge list that does not only include Cyrptids, cannot (by its nature) discus why Cryptids are not real (and why it is a pseudoscience), and implies that crytids are in the same class as Chimeras or Griffins (which gives them a spurious folklore credibility). This does not do the reader a service (and is not what we should be doing, our task is to inform the reader about what they have looked for). Here we can not only ghettoize the subject so it does not turn other pages into POV battlefields, but also we can give it a depth of coverage (the overall topic, not each entry) that it needs.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a good, rational argument, if I may restate what you are saying: Cryptids are only a subset of legendary creatures. Not all legendary creatures are cryptids. We do not do the reader a service by merging these lists. Jehochman Talk 16:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes that sums it up, almost. No I do not think Cryptids are a subset of legendary creatures as "legendary creatures" are "mythical", or "mythological" not all Cryptids are (many, and I include Nessie in this) being little more then tabloid silly season fillers. They may (in time) become true myths or legends. But I think it weakens to concept to include some of them at this time (and may even give then (as I think is the case with Nessie) spurious folk lore antecedents.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
The difficult question is where to draw the line. Do we include any legendary creature that has a reported sighting, limit it to cases that have been discussed by modern academic sources, or something in between? –dlthewave ☎ 17:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The thing is that the vast amount of material produced by cryptozoologists to date focuses on a few entities: Bigfoot (and 'other Bigfoots'), the Yeti (much less so nowadays), the Loch Ness Monster (and 'other Loch Ness Monsters'), chupacabras (most recently), and, finally, Mokele-mbembe (and other supposedly similar 'living dinosaurs'). Academics sources reflect this, and these 'collections of cryptids' books published by cryptozoologists in the past are peripheral and not reflective of the reality of the subculture's focus. Ivan T. Sanderson had a big focus on beach blobs (globsterss), but that seems to have just been a personal interest (?). In short: While this list may have had a zillion 'cryptids' once upon a time, cryptozoologists usually just fixate on about five entities, and scholarship on the topic reflects this reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a helpful explanation. Jehochman Talk 19:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Do they? What about that list of 250 cryptids I mentioned above? One example [[3]], lot of hits there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest taking a closer look at those search results: The majority of those hits make no mention of the word cryptid whatsoever, including items like Bunyips: Australia's Folklore of Fear. You get hits for stuff predating the coining of the term cryptid, like works by early cryptozoologists such as Heuvelmans, but it's mostly stuff that doesn't even mention the word Bunyip like The Desert Islands of Mexico's Sea of Cortez. As Loxton & Prothero, and numerous other reliable sources that discuss cryptozoology indicate, the vast majority of material produced by cryptozoologists focus on the five entities I list above. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
So we are back to the word Cryptid, a Cryptozooloogst can write a book about cryptozoology and cryptozoologocal creatures, but unless he uses the word Cryptid is not talking about Cryptids. Maybe then we should just rename the page "list off purported cryptozoolaogical creatures".Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you're having a hard time finding a reliable independent source that is very explicit, then whatever you're looking for is not likely to be notable enough for inclusion. The word "cryptid" wasn't even in use by the subculture until 1983, which also marked an ideological shift. Today, cryptozoologists bicker about what is and is not a "cryptid", and many freely apply to the word to any creature from the folklore record. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Which is why we need to change the name, this is about animals claimed to be real by Cryptozoologosts. You go on about there are only 5 cryptids, and refuse to accept anything that does not use that word. But we cannot even use Cryptozooalogocal sources before 1983 (which leave out its first 30 years, or about half the time it has been around).Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Or you could find reliable sources that discuss this like everywhere else on the site. I've provided quite a few to date, which you can find over at cryptozoology. Stick to reliable sources and discussions about source reliability evaporate. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Or we could rename the page to reflect the longevity of the subject? By the way Loxton & Prothero seem to list at least 6 cryptids that I can find reference to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Given the confusion you express about the book below, I recommend you get hold of a copy of it before you deduce anything from its contents. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
We list 4 in the article, are you saying that the line "The classical hippocamp and the modern cryptid Cadborosaurus share a general body plan" is not an explicit reference to a cryptid? So then we add to this a mention of the Chupacabra (well it in fact seems two mentions) and it seems to me that makes at least 6.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

There used to be like 200 cryptids in this list! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Some powerful people don't want you to have the fun of seeing them anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Fyunck, that isn’t helpful. Please try to understand that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jehochman Talk 21:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Lists are a little different, and it is sure less than a list of 100,000 non-notable celestial bodies or massive lists of concerts at venues. This particular list seems to have different criteria than other lists of things. Perhaps because more info than just a name is given here, but all the same, this one is different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
No. List are often abused. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a good argument. Which celestial list are you complaining about? I’ll look it over. Here we have a list of imaginary monsters, none of which are real. Therefore, we require verification from a reliable source that the legend exists and that the legend is notable. If my kid think there’s a monster in the closet, that’s obviously not good enough to add Jehochman’s closet monster to this list. Jehochman Talk 10:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
They're probably referring to List of minor planets. But it is neither true nor desirable that all list in Wikipedia have equivalent criteria for inclusion, so that's not an argument for an expansive set of criteria for thisn list. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct. Every list may have somewhat different criteria specific to the subject. What would be useful is if somebody provided a criteria for inclusion on this list. To date it looks like any fringe source was good enough. That can’t be. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
And requests for criteria supported by reliable sources have been met largely with deafening silence, which is what led me to propose that specific merge. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct on the List of minor planets where the total is now 1/2 a million entries that will continue to grow forever. There are things like List of Joan Baez concerts, List of Ramones concerts, List of concerts at the Wells Fargo Center (Philadelphia), List of film director and actor collaborations, Middle-earth objects, List of Middle-earth Elves, List of fantasy worlds, ...and this goes on and on here at wikipedia. It seems it's not a big deal for bandwidth, except for this article. It's very strange to someone who stumbled upon this page awhile back to have seen so much anger that the topic even exists. If it gets merged, it gets merged, but make no mistake, there is a different standard being applied here with the fun some of those other article lists give our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the Motie. This fusion would be like fusing List of ships in science fiction with List of UFOs. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A lot was removed as not notable or unsourced (the latter fine, less sure about the former).Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has raised bandwidth concerns for this article. Unlike examples such as "List of minor planets", the issue here is that the criteria for inclusion is unclear. A list of concerts is well-defined and easily attributed to high-quality sources. On the other hand, descriptions of cryptids often use fringe sources that do not reflect the mainstream view. Some of these creatures only have one or two cryptozoologists who treat them as anything more than a myth or legend, and the inclusion of real species such as Ivory-billed woodpecker (now removed) may lend undue legitimacy to some of the other entries. –dlthewave ☎ 01:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly the issue I have with this list. Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What the main stream view is that Cryptozoologists do not believe these creatures are cryptozooalogiocal? You seem to conflate "X think s Y" with "X is true". This is not what the article says.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Also note, this is not the merge discussion, any comments on that subject should be taken to the merge discussion over at lists of legendary creatures.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Lists of legendary creatures § Merger Proposal: List of cryptids editors may comment on the proposed merger. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

CN tag

Should not be used for sourced entries, if you disagree a source is RS use the RS tag.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cryptids/Archive_7&oldid=1004595094"