This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids 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.
This template 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.
Could somebody else take a look at how this template renders on the Cryptozoology page? It looks to be broken and is spewing bits of markup into the rendered page at the top of the navbox at the bottom of the page. --TS 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to remove Homo floresiensis from this template, and here's why...
It's not a cryptid! H. floresiensis is an extinct type of human that is known to have really and actually existed. Nothing in the natural sciences is ever 100%, but the existence of H. floresiensis is as verified as anything else in accepted natural science. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone should write an Article on Gougou, a giantess from an Ancient Native American legend. She lives on an obscure island in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in Canada. She wades into the surrounding water to pick sailors off passing ships. She takes them back to her island and eventually eats them. After writing such an Article, someone should link it to this Template. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a bunch of things on here that don't seem like true cryptids. I can see some hoaxes/mythes being considered cryptids; hoop snakes are something that some people genuinely believed to exist. I don't think anybody takes drop bears or jackalopes seriously; they're jokes. Fiji mermaids may have been taken seriously by some people, but at the same time, there is plenty of information about them being a hoax.220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not really abreast of other inclusions but the reason I have this article watchlisted is because of the occasional addition of wild haggis to the list. This example is very clearly a joke; nobody seriously believes it to exist so it is therefore definitively not a cryptid. However it gets added every now and then. I imagine there are other similar such examples, so whittle them out mercilessly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Hoaxes, i.e. "former" cryptids do have a rightful place in our List of cryptids, so please do not remove those. Againme (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)