Talk:List of cryptids

Kushtaka

The Kushtaka (land otter man from North America's north-west coast) should be added into the list of (semi-)aquatic cryptids. There are other cryptids having a "citation needed". If the Kushtaka isn't added because of a lack of reliable sources, the other cryptids not having any must be removed from the list. Glasfaser Wien (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but those CN tags were not added by the people making the edit. If you do not have a source, do not include it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Tasmanian Tiger

Of course the Tasmanian Tiger was a real species with live specimens previously studied by scientists. Now regarded as extinct, it is listed as a cryptid here presumably because some people entertain the view that survivors may still exist in the wilds of Tasmania. Where is the evidence that such people and researchers are “unscientific” and reject scientific method? To class the survival of the species as myth and therefore put it in the same category as the bunyip and bigfoot seems rather premature.

SouthDweller (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is listed due to it being officially declared extinct by IUCN and governments of the countries it used to be found in such as Australia and Papua New Guinea. Most of the "sightings" are misidentified foxes or dingos or have "just trust me, bro" as sources. However, I do agree that it should be removed due to its potential and very likely revival. I do not see similar critically endangered and possibly extinct species such as ivory-billed woodpecker, Ganges shark, baiji, and auwo listed here. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it from the list: as you say, Tasmanian tigers, or thylacines actually existed and they are not cryptids. Carlstak (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Should giant moa, Zanzibar leopard and Malagasy hippo also be removed due to being similar recently extinct species described by science? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out: I've removed them as well. They absolutely have no place on this list. They all existed, and people thinking they might have sighted one does not make it a cryptid. Carlstak (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

These removals are problematic. What belongs in this list has been a source of contention for as long as the article has existed. I tried to get a WP:SELCRIT discussion going and no one thought it was worthwhile. Since there does not appear to be an official definition of 'cryptid' here, deciding to remove thylacines and moas is as much OR as adding them in the first place. This is a recipe for edit warring and needs to be addressed before decisions like this are made. Cheers, Last1in (talk) Last1in (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The only cited source for these two that describes the referent animal as a cryptid is that for the moa listing which was cited to "The New Zealand Moa: From Extinct Bird to Cryptid" by Joe Nickell (not Marc Kriedler as given), whose PhD is in English. Hardly a reliable source for biological information. The thylacine listing was cited to Daniel Loxton's Abominable science!: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids, no page number given (this is a device commonly used when given sources don't actually support the WP text) which says, p. 323, only: "These animals are unremarkable, since there is physical evidence that they existed — in the form of the petrels themselves and the last tigers in the zoo - and most scientists would consider it surprising but not shocking if the thylacine still survives...", and "Cryptids and credulity: The Zanzibar leopard and other imaginary beings", p. 55, by Martin Walsh, which says: "The subject of our chapter is the analysis of narratives and statements about an animal, the Zanzibar leopard (Panthera pardus adersi), which might be included in Eberhart's third category, given that it has been declared by some to be extinct, though many Zanzibaris remain convinced of its continued existence. The classic example of a carnivore in this category is the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus)..." Lame. Carlstak (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is also my statement of similar animals whose current status is widely debated such as ivory-billed woodpecker, baiji, auwo, Batman loach, and Ganges shark not being considered cryptids. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker has been a battle waged across the archives of this Talk since at least 2006 (see archives 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9). It was a major part of my push for a SELCRIT. If 'cryptid' includes presumed-extinct species (like many editors and RS assert), we need to include Thylacines and the IBWoodpecker. If not, then why do we have ABCs and (arguably) mokèlé-mbèmbé? Were coelacanths cryptids before their survival was proven in 1938? Imho, making this decision without input from more editors remains OR. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The ivory-billed woodpecker isn't on the list due to a lack of accepted sources, not due to controversially extinct species categorically not being considered cryptids KanyeWestDropout (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Heuvelmans discusses the moa, and other similar extinct animals sighted after their extinction, in On the Track of Unknown Animals. They're a a type of cryptid KanyeWestDropout (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

From the wikipedia page on cryptozoology:

"Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that searches for and studies unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated." KanyeWestDropout (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Not every creature tha thas been of interest to cryptozoologists will be on this list. The list frankly shouldn't exist — there's no central authority on cryptozoology and it is by no means an academic discipline — but if it is going to exist it should only be notable creatures fixated upon by cryptozoologists as discussed in reliable sources. And this doesn't include cryptozoologist-published material: As a reminder, cryptozoology is about as WP:FRINGE as it gets. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

While most material is sadly not accepted here due to the fringe blanket, cryptozoology is still a topic and one we as editors have a duty to enable within the elaborate and sometimes undue confines. That being said, cryptid is a loose term and has a wide categorization to what it includes. This also adds animals otherwise classified as extinct but sightings have suggested possible but not overwhelming doubt. Tasmanian Tiger has, in some corners including some respected zoologists that I have seen, been tentatively classified as extinct but possibly not. CITING it, as always with these sorts of things, is going to be frustratingly tenuous. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

To belabor the obvious, no animals should be listed that are not cited to reliable sources (I've said all along that this article should be deleted), and none should be listed that is not described as a "cryptid" in the given sources. Further to my points above:

Walsh and Goldman in "The Zanzibar Leopard Between Science and Cryptozoology", p. 15, do not describe the leopard as a cryptid. They say:

The available evidence suggests that when we began our joint research on the Zanzibar Leopard in the mid-1990s there were still a few of these elusive animals remaining (Goldman and Walsh, In press). Now we can't be so sure. Most zoologists think that this island leopard is extinct: indeed some of them already thought so when we began study in 1996... If the Zanzibar Leopard survives, then similar standards of proof will have to be applied for any record to be acceptable to the scientific community. Otherwise most of us will get no closer to it than that faded museum specimen and those colourful crytozoological narratives.

The source for the eastern cougar listing removed by Edelgardvonhresvelg is "Anatomy of a Real Cryptid Case" by Alison Hudson from the Skeptoid Blog, obviously not a reliable source. Hudson is described in her profile as "an educator and freelance creator".

The Research Reports published in American Anthropologist Volume 100, Issue 4 Dec 1998, "The Kilopilopitsofy, Kidoky, and Bokyboky: Accounts of Strange Animals from Belo-sur-mer, Madagascar, and the Megafaunal "Extinction Window" by David A. Burney & Ramilisonina mentions several individuals who:

"claim to have seen and heard animals that do not match any known extant animal of Madagascar. Two of the mystery animals, known locally as the kilopilopitsofy and kidoky, were described in terms similar to creatures detailed in historical accounts and folklore recorded in Madagascar between the mid-1600s and the end of the nineteenth century. The former of these has been compared by some authors to the dwarf hippopotamus..."

"The extent to which the details of these stories appear to match the appearance and behavior of the hippopotamushas led Godfrey (1986) to conclude that Madagascar's hippo may have survived in pockets of remote habitat untilthe late nineteenth century. To this day, legends of a hippo-like creature that formerly lived on the island, sometimesby the names given above, sometimes by others such as thelalomena (perhaps from lalo, "to be passed by" + mena,"red") or songomby (etymology discussed below), are widespread in Madagascar. Legends of giant birds and large primate-like creatures are also prevalent, but we have not previously encountered convincing accounts of twentieth-century sightings of any of these animals."

The word cryptid does not appear in this article, "The Kilopilopitsofy, Kidoky, and Bokyboky", and all the listings formerly in the WP article and cited to these various sources amounts to synthesis. Very lame and that's why I removed them. Carlstak (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If the real-life extinct animals were delisted for not being cited by reliable sources, having actually existed and described by science, and in the case of the thylacine, a likely revival in the near future, should the megalodon be delisted for similar reasons? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious; have you folks actually read WP:FRINGE or are you just using it as a bludgeon? I ask because it seems clear from comments above that you missed certain important parts. That guideline cautions against including fringe theories in articles about mainstream subjects. Your arguments above would be compelling if this were an article about marsupial carnivores, or woodpeckers, or flightless birds. However, it is not; this is an article about cryptids like thylacines, ivory-billed woodpeckers and moa.

The key part you missed is in the very first sentence of the guideline: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field (emphasis added here and later). The field for this article is cryptozoology; it is not biology, not zoology, not mainstream science. The lede of the guideline goes on to specify that it applies to fringe concepts that are discussed in an article about a mainstream idea. Again, from the guideline itself: Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The following are absolute parallels to this article, and several are called out in that guideline:

• List of ghosts
• List of psychic abilities
• List of conspiracy theories
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
• Moon landing conspiracy theories

I don't think any of the editors of those articles are saying that the Cock Lane ghost, retrocognition or ECE are real, only that they are discussed within their respective fields in (for that fringe field) reliable sources.

Speaking of sourcing, your objections are explicitly and specifically rebutted by the Fringe guideline itself: Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories… This entire article describes fringe theories, and we unambiguously state that fact in this article’s lede with phrases like: Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and rejected by the scientific community, and cryptozoology subculture rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express hostility to mainstream science.

The fact that you don't believe in cryptids (neither do I, for the record), is dealt with thoroughly in a very different essay: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The "parallel" articles you cite have easily defined criteria and some are far exterior to this topic, like ghosts, which are from folklore. Cryptozoology is, however, straight up pretend science and what is a "cryptid" has no easy criteria: it's just whatever random creature from the folklore biology this little group has fixated upon here or there. As for the quote, it is in full: "Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources." Golly, I wonder why you cut out the rest of this? Again, nope: We have plenty of WP:RS in actual scientific fields discussing cryptozoology and that's what we stick to. This isn't the place to try to shoehorn in Young Earth creationist and other WP:PROFRINGE literature — we have actual scholarship we defer to, as WP:RS and WP:FRINGE dictate. You're wasting your time and ours with these attempts at getting fringe sources into the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

In spite of all the misdirection, I'm not arguing for deleting this WP article, even though, as I said, I think it should be. I'm arguing that any sources, however reliable themselves, cited for a listing in this article should call the listed creature a "cryptid", or else the listing is merely synthesis not supported by the citations. Carlstak (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems you're specifically deleting entries that don't fall under your personal definition of cryptid, not ones you see have actual. Plenty of entries on the list have arguably "worse" sourcing KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That does seem to indicate borderline vandalism and conflict of interest. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What? Oh, good lord, that's farcical. You two look at the top of this section. I was responding to the posts made there. "My" definition of "cryptid" has nothing to do it. The only entry removed by me that actually called the referent creature a cryptid was "The New Zealand Moa: From Extinct Bird to Cryptid" by Joe Nickell (misattributed to Marc Kriedler), whose PhD is in English. He is not a reliable source for zoological information, which is what the info is if it refers to an animal that actually existed and supposedly might still exist. If more need to be removed then let's have at it, but I take it KanyeWestDropout is the editor who added these listings with their non-supportive citations in the first place. Even if your false imputation about my removals were true, it would have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of those removals. Capisce? Carlstak (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: And "borderline vandalism and conflict of interest"? Hilarious, especially "conflict of interest". I suspect both of you are responding to what you "think" I've said, rather than what I've actually said. Carlstak (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That was not my comment, nor my belief, nor my intent. I do not think any actions or posts have been anything other than purely in good faith and in an honest effort to improve the encyclopaedia. We differ on interpretations (especially on application of FRINGE and RS), not objectives. My problem is with the lack of SELCRIT, which the concomitant conflicts over editing this article. This is about cryptids, and the removal of content or sources that would legitimately not be reasonable on a mainstream-science article but that are appropriate on one about a pseudoscience. Until we, as editors, agree on and publish what the [censored] this article is supposed to contain, the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, et al, will perpetually cause strife and controversy. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

? I was responding to the two posts directly above my last reply, by KanyeWestDropout and Paleface Jack. To be clear: an editor adding entries to the list citing sources that don't even mention "cryptids" is the person designating the creatures as cryptids. I shouldn't even have to tell anyone that they are the one determining what is a cryptid, and what isn't, according to their personal definition of "cryptid", by adding them to an article titled "List of cryptids". Taking the sources' discussions of animals that once existed and according to some claims might still exist, and using that information to support their (the editor's) designation of them as "cryptids" is synthesis, purely and simply. Carlstak (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The issue of what can be classified as a cryptid is kinda vague sometimes as the topic is fringe. How and what to include is very limited unfortunately. As one who is fascinated by both sides of the argument, its sad that some information cannot be included under the fringe rules. While others take it to the extreme, not any in particular, I feel that information from reliable sources should always serve as a balance to what Wikipiedia is all about. That being said, literary and academic publications are the way to handle this within hard vetting of each source. I have seen some articles that have been added to the cryptid category that should not be and that should be avoided. Hopefully better discussion and direction for the project as a while will get it all on the right track. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

PSA to our cryptozoologist (or 'pro-cryptozoologist' editors, whatever you want to call yourself) editors: Commit WP:PROFRINGE to memory and stop wasting the time of Wikipedia editors. Anything that isn't from a reliable source will be zapped—you're wasting your time as much as the time of everyone else here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We're not promoting fringe cryptozoological theories, I don't believe that bigfoot exists. We're just trying to expand the list KanyeWestDropout (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Since cryptozoologists consider everything under the sun either from the folklore record to be a possible "cryptid", there's no criteria for this list. Either it needs to focus on notable entities from the record that cryptozoologists deem to be "cryptids" or it needs to simply be a paragraph on cryptozoology. Otherwise this is simply a list of entities from the folklore record with a WP:PROFRINGE paint job. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame more of you did not participate in the selection criteria discussion that was linked earlier in this thread. It would be worth restarting as a new, separate discussion. I think the existence of this list is reasonable—many of the included cryptids are undeniably notable and have their own articles—but you've got to develop some criteria. It doesn't have to be perfect and consensus may rule differently on certain edge cases but it would give you a basis from which to judge them. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

By “you” I mean everyone who has participated in this entire thread not just those directly above my reply. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing that. In any case, the vast majority of these figures are already notable for being from the folklore record totally aside any pseudoscientific fascination with them. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Many pieces of folklore have been mixed up into the topic. While some go hand and hand, others like the "Fearsome Critters", mass panic (Popobawa, Monkey-man of Delhi) are pure folklore or a psychological factor and nothing more. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would personally dispute some of these entries but there’s not much that can be done when the underlying topic is fringe and the community of editors hasn’t defined selection criteria. I don't believe in any of this stuff but I find the phenomenon of cryptozoology interesting and have enjoyed perusing this list many times in the past. I don’t think the existence of the list is necessarily PROFRINGE nor is “cryptid” a meaningless category. Surely Big Foot and Nessie are of a piece. But it should be cleaned up based on some sort of criteria. I would accept fuzzy boundaries and inclusion of some edge cases over the current hodgepodge and endless debates about fairy tale creatures and recently extinct fauna. I anticipate it will be contentious but having some criteria to point to would be an improvement. Maybe I’m being Polly Anna here thinking it would be helpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I quick glance at the list shows that something like 9 out of 10 entries is just an entity from the folklore record with a really poor quality source tacked on to it. In reality, cryptozoologists have primarily fixated on a handful of these creatures, like Bigfoot and Nessie, and they're so famous that cryptozoology's pseudoscientific approach to them is a mere footnote in the history of their reception. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source quality does need improvement. That and more expertise in sourcing and other fields. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a mess. I would applaud the attempt but given the nature of the subject and the inability to form even local consensus on inclusion criteria I suspect it will be contentious. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The question of appropriate sourcing is important and would also benefit from discussion. The attempt to include it in the failed selection criteria discussion was valiant. We might give more weight than usual to sources we wouldn't normally rely on elsewhere but we'd want to balance that so the list doesn't explode and the category has some coherence. Another option might be to add categories like "creatures from religion and folklore" and "extinct fauna" that are sometimes included as cryptids. I'm just spitballing and not advocating for anything here. I can foresee problems with these suggestions. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Problems? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Madness, I say.;-) Last1in's comments and proposals in the selection criteria discussion were sensible, but too many words.;-) He should have pinged the regulars and submitted only his three rules.

Personally, I can hardly think of anything more boring and uninteresting than this list that causes so much trouble and functions mostly as a wasteful timesink for editors who could better spend their time working on subjects that actually matter. Given the fact that it exists, editors who care about the integrity of WP must defend it from all the cranks, goofballs, hoaxers, and nutcases who are attracted to the subject.

If it were treated simply as folkloric material, with citations strictly from academic sources and snippets of commentary from such sources, it would be another matter altogether, but that is not to be. Instantly removing any entry that cites even a reliable source failing to call the listed creature a "cryptid" eliminates many of the inapplicable citations, but most of the argumentation appears to be about what constitutes a reliable source and the requisite rules for defining them, as you say. Sad. Carlstak (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear ya. I’ve looked through the list many times but never waded into the discussion before today. Not surprised to see how things go. Maybe @Last1in or someone else wants to give it another go. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I would honestly do it myself but have been stretched thin working on an extensive list of projects. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

So, what is the conclusion of this thread, is the thylacine allowed to be listed for the time being provided that a reliable source labels it as a cryptid? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is listed now with a cite of a source published by the University Press of Kentucky. Carlstak (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Although I did not create this thread, I did not expect it to be this heated in discussion. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Edelgardvonhresvelg Unfortunately, this has always been the case, though it doesn't need to be. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There wouldn't be nearly so much heat generated if people weren't constantly adding entries cited to crappy or non-applicable sources, if they even bother to cite a source at all. Carlstak (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Selection Criteria for List of Cryptids

Having a defined WP:SELCRIT (selection criteria, also known as inclusion criteria) that is agreed and published will help solve many problems with this article. I propose the following as a strawman for discussion. This discussion (see subheader below) must also include a refinement of that first sentence of the lead.

Each list item must:

1. ...meet all elements of the definition in the lead paragraph.
2. ...be linked to a mainspace (not redlink) article dedicated to that creature.
3. ...have an inline citation to a secondary or tertiary reiliable source that refers to the subject as a cryptid (or uses wording that matches the this article's definition of a cryptid).

Proposed by Last1in (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

SELCRIT Discussion

Please bullet new comments, and please sign your post with ~~~~. Please use this section to talk about the criteria themselves and how they should be reworded or augmented with additional points.

• Support wording as shown above (obviously, since I posted it). Last1in (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. That seems a reasonable starting point. WP:FRIND sources are, as always, of key importance. (edit) Recognizing that "all elements of the definition in the lead paragraph" is fluid and always subject to changing WP:CONSENSUS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As all that matters is to have an inline citation to a secondary or tertiary reiliable source that refers to the subject as a cryptid. This is a list, so no we do not really need to have an article on it, and we should not be determining what is a Cryptid, that is for RS to do. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to agree with Slatersteven on this point. It's the only way to prevent chaos. Carlstak (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Oops, strike that. I think this will work. Carlstak (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support with amendment to criterion #3. We should require two or more independent, reliable sources. Inline citations may be omitted for the likes of Big Foot and Nessie where no real debate exists that they meet the definition. I will support the proposal as-is if we can't get agreement on my suggestion. The lead could be improved and I agree with JoJo Anthrax about the lead being subject to change.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Related to the concerns from both @Slatersteven and @MYCETEAE, many lists require a mainspace article because it reduces listcruft considerably. An article would never survive even a cursory AfD without multiple RS, and notability will have been argued out on that page's Talk before the list is impacted. By also requiring at least one source specifying... cryptidity, we can have a level of confidence that the list can stay focused on notable cryptids (and stay manageable with a lot less ivory-billed woodpecking on this Talk). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree and would add two things: (1) Cryptozoology is arguably the main article for this list. (2) I'm more concerned with the quality of sources than the number. Regardless of what we decide here, all entries must meet basic WP standards including, but not limited to, due weight. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, absolutely not. WP:FRIND is the only guideline we need, which states "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". All we need is appropriate coverage from WP:RS. Unfortunately, while this proposal at first glance may seem reasonable, comments produced by the nominator reveal that the user is attempting to turn this article into a cryptoozology compendium filled with the most out-there and nonsensical sources on the internet under the banner of a peculiar reading of the last line of WP:FRIND, which reads: "Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories". However, the user conveniently leaves out the rest of the sentence: "...provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources". In short, this user seems to be operating under the bad faith notion that fringe sources from cryptozoologists somehow constitute WP:RS, which is obviously not the case. Now, we have no shortage of reliable sources on the topic of cryptozoology from especially biologists and folklorists and will certainly not be shoehorning nonsense sources into this article. We do not need any "inclusion criteria" that would invite that. As for the effort to come up with some kind of reasonable "criteria" for what makes a "cryptid", I think some users here could use a reminder that cryptozoologists even consider creatures from fiction to be "cryptids"—don't try to make these pseudoscientific claims sound more reasonable than they are. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead Sentence Discussion

For the SELCRIT to be effective, the lead sentence needs to either be approved as-is or refined by consensus. Key questions:

1. Are presumed-extinct creatures that have been reported in the wild cryptids? Reliable sources differ on this point. Examples: megaladon and ivory billed woodpecker
2. Are creatures reported outside their native habitats cryptids? Example: British big cats

Please place your comments below and remember to sing your posts.

• I think that presumed-extinct creatures should be included as cryptids, and that 'roamers' should not. Reports of wild thylacines, believed extinct since death of the last male in 1936 (through, imho, criminal negligence at that Hobart Zoo), have many of the same characteristics as sightings of Bigfoot. A report of a real, extant animal showing up in an unlikely place do not have that flavour and are often just people moving critters around (like the bear in Central Park, with thanks to Mr Kennedy). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. There needs to be a higher bar for including creatures that are presumed extinct. Perhaps 2 or more (or 3 or more) reliable sources that are independent of proponents of said creature attesting to it as a cryptid. Megalodon likely qualifies but I'm less convinced that Tasmanian tiger does. I would err on the side of excluding (presumed) extinct species otherwise the list becomes unmanageable and the category meaningless. Species like the ivory-billed woodpecker whose status is disputed by mainstream authorities should be excluded. I would exclude animals reported outside their native/typical range or setting a similarly high bar. Imaginary, fictional, and mythological creatures should also be excluded or have a high bar that they are well-attested as a cryptid. "Imaginary, fictional, and mythological" includes creatures from folklore, religion, and urban legends. Paranormal, supernatural, and extraterrestrial creatures or entities (aliens, ghosts, etc.) should be excluded.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have to smile. My original proposal last year ended item 1 with, "Imaginary, fictional, and mythological creatures belong elsewhere." The problem is the conflict between the very concept of cryptid and the exclusion of the first and last of those adjectives. When you exclude your three following items, "creatures from folklore, religion, and urban legends," you end up with a self-denying list. By definition, it's not a cryptid if it doesn't fall into one of those categories.

  The concept of cryptids exists as a branch of knowledge. I think we can all agree on that. Experts in the field -- and they exists as well, even if they would not be considered reliable sources for anything outside cryptozoology -- vary on how broad the definition should be, much like experts on religion (is Jain a religion? Is Hoodoo and rootworking? Confucianism? Atheism? Science itself?) Our problem is finding a sourced definition that does not include every campfire story and big-fish-that-got-away without excluding the very concept of a cryptid. Cheers, 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Last1in (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have to smile. My original proposal last year ended item 1 with, "Imaginary, fictional, and mythological creatures belong elsewhere." Ah yes, that was a direct quote from you. I should have provided attribution.

  The concept of cryptids exists as a branch of knowledge. I think we can all agree on that. I agree it's a topic worthy of Wikipedia treatment. The definitions/boundaries suffer from being either circular or self-contradictory, or both. The category has a lot of inherent fuzziness and challenges with reliable sources. I know it when I see it is a problematic standard but that's where many of us start. The list, and the greater encyclopedic project, is best served with a conservative set of criteria. Editors can make a case and seek consensus on edge cases. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Remember to sing your posts". Should I sing it in E minor or G major? Carlstak (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I always read Talk page posts as Gregorian chants. Cheers, 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Last1in (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  They remind me of a Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention concert where Flo & Eddie would do somersaults on the stage while the band played on. Carlstak (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  For the topic of cryptids, I suggest H minor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree on the extinct species part. Something like the megalodon which is considered to be extinct by marine biologists, conservationists, and governments is eligible for this list, but species whose status is largely debated such as ivory-billed woodpecker or baiji do not belong here. IUCN still lists them as critically endangered, and both species are still given protection by the American, Cuban, and Chinese governments. I also think that the thylacine should be removed due to its ongoing revival project that is likely to be complete very soon. The project is not just a hypothetical either, real progress has been made such as development of an artificial pouch and a complete thylacine genome being sequenced. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I think a major distinction should be an alleged population vs just a random roamer. A random bear escaping a zoo isn't zoologically significant, but a small breeding population of cougars in the Eastern US or panthers in the UK would be KanyeWestDropout (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

So, a single cougar prowling Vermont woods would not be a cryptid, but a breeding population of cougars in the Green Mountains would warrant an entry in the list? I can see how that could work, but it seems to stretch 'cryptid' too far for my personal tastes. Migration or transplantation both seems natural functions that can be explained by science, unlike the yeti and mokèlé-mbèmbé (and, yes, I use that example a lot just cuz it's so fun to say). I can find sources that seem to support similar constructions of the term, but they seem outliers from what would loosely be called the mainstream science of cryptozoology. Also, how could we phrase that in a way that is concise and easily understood? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed this stretches the definition of cryptid. There needs to be a reasonable bar for inclusion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Or "do RS call them cryptids"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Are presumed-extinct creatures that have been reported in the wild cryptids? and Are creatures reported outside their native habitats cryptids? My !vote for both is no. Regarding the latter, a huge number of species (I'm thinking especially of birds) are routinely, and reliably, reported outside of their "native habitats," and including them all here would render the list meaningless. The non-native budgie visiting my feeders is not a cryptid.

The former is of course more tricky; for example, is there a well-defined distinction between extinct and presumed extinct? I am likely replicating previous discussions, but perhaps it might simply (yeah, right!) come down to a consensus-derived, operational definition of "cryptic creature" here on enWP, or at least on this page. If such is realizable - it might not be. My own definition would be heavily, if not exclusively, informed by extant WP policy: the presence or absence of WP:FRIND source(s) that explicitly identify a species/creature - extinct, presumed extinct, or otherwise - as a cryptid. If no RS identify the physically established and characterized Plesiosaur as cryptid, I would not support its inclusion here. But plenty of sources identify Nessie as a cryptid, so I would support its inclusion, regardless of sourced (but non-physically established and characterized) speculation about it being a plesiosaur. Perhaps that's a bit of a cop-out, but how else can this page exist without it becoming visible from space? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about WP:FRIND and sources like Skeptical Inquirer or Snopes. Sources like this devote a lot of article space to cataloguing fringe claims for the purpose of debunking or fact-checking. While they may be reliable for an article on a given cryptid, are they enough to establish notability? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my concern: Sources aimed associated with the skeptics movement or aimed at general debunking often cover pretty obscure, outlier claims for the purposes of educating and entertaining the target audience. Their bar for covering a topic may be lower than Wikipedia's standards for notability. Used alone, a single Skeptical Inquirer article profiling an obscure cryptozoology proponent or a single Snopes entry about a chain email hoax from 2002 is perhaps not a high enough bar for inclusion especially for edge cases, even if the content of said coverage is considered reliable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestion for lead sentence: The lead sentence currently is: Cryptids are animals that cryptozoologists believe may exist somewhere in the wild, but whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science. I would change "disputed or unsubstantiated" to "rejected by scientific authorities" or "rejected by scientific consensus" or something less ambiguous. Animals whose extinction status or present habitat range is "disputed" within the scientific community or among different authorities should not be included.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Myceteae above. Basically, list entries need to be sourced to WP:FRIND sources. Skeptical Inquirer or Snopes, or academics like Loxton, Prothero, etc. There are way too many pop culture articles online that treat the topic with WP:SENSATIONALism for the purpose of attracting readership. Even old established reliable sources are increasingly guilty of this, so it makes sense to be quite selective when deciding if something is notable or not. I also agree with the lead sentence suggested by Myceteae. Animals whose extinction status are "disputed" within zoology are not classified as cryptids by the scientific community. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we may want to exercise some caution with over-reliance on SI, Snopes, and similar sources. My stance is not firm. I tried to clarify here. We're basically in agreement. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to check, but my impression is that scientific skeptic sources like SI aren't focused on obscure examples that haven't gotten any notability, but rather on reacting to and analyzing notable examples. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are focused on obscure examples but they do sometimes cover them. I used to be immersed in a lot of scientific skepticism media—mostly podcasts but also blogs, newsletters, and sites like SI—and I learned about a whole lot of pseudoscience that I would never have encountered elsewhere. A single SI article profiling an obscure proponent who believes fairies are real and describes them as cryptids (made up example) would not warrant inclusion here because it doesn't align with typical coverage of cryptozoology or fairies. The issues with thunderbird discussed here are a real example. Sources like SI and Snopes.com need to be evaluated on the content and considered in terms of notability and due weight (all sources, really). I'm not maligning these sources—I quite like them—but since their "beat" potentially includes every weird fringe statement out there, a single article from such sources may not alone establish a given creature as a cryptid. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Did a little checking. I did see one SI article that referred to Slenderman as a cryptid, so I agree we wouldn't want to base any notability on that outlier. But that article seemed to be an exception, as most other articles deal with more classically notable cryptids. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

When i saw this discussion popping up on my watchlist i looked at the Thunderbird entry cited to SI here. It does discuss some 'cryptozoology', but i see using that source as a little dishonest. The source is telling me this is a creature from mythology which some call a 'cryptid'. I don't know that any entries in the list are cryptids, they are something else: creatures from mythology, folklore, urban legends, etc. which have been categorized as cryptids by some. That categorization really has no valid basis and removes a lot of valuable information for the reader. If we collected all the good reliable sources which mention cryptozoology in relation to a creature, and summarized those sources and put them in a list, what would that list tell us?

Some mixed feelings on this list tho. I once found a cryptid bestiary pretty useful but that one had some bibliography with each entry and helped to track down where the creature actually came from. Some kind of annotated list which can say in the entry what the creature is and where it comes from might be useful for readers. That would be quite a bit of work tho and still a honeypot for bad editing. fiveby(zero) 14:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Thunderbird entry caught my eye, too. I read the SI article and had the same impression as you. It discusses one or two proponents who have tried to recast thunderbirds as cryptids and pretty much dismisses this framing. Cryptozoology is the "hook" that makes this of interest to SI readers. The other reference is a sponsored Atlas Obscura "article" here. Thunderbird should be removed due to poor sourcing. I've hesitated because of the current discussion on SELCRIT. In my search for definitions of cryptid I actually stumbled across one other mention of thunderbird as a cryptid here but this passing mention is even weaker than the other references and not an authoritative source on the matter. You also have to wonder about citogenesis with such examples.

Sources like SI should be used with some caution, at least. Editors must evaluate the content to determine if the coverage really warrants inclusion on this list. (Really, this is true of all sources.) An SI or Snopes.com entry summarizing extensive coverage of a given cryptid could be a great reference. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed thunderbird from the list. One source explaining why it's not a cryptid despite a few proponents trying to reclassify it and one sponsored post from the Illinois tourism bureau clearly do not meet general WP standards for reliability and due weight, regardless of the outcome of this general discussion. Before removing, I read the archived discussions containing "thunderbird" and found no clear argument or consensus to include this. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed per hasty response above. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If Slenderman is considered a cryptid, does that mean that similar fictional characters like the Great Pumpkin or Siren Head are cryptids? There are many similar sources that refer to them as cryptids with "sightings." Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, and this is the problem. Some WP:PROFRINGE cryptid proponents cast an extremely wide net and include "creatures" or "beings" from folklore, urban legends, and religion as "cryptids." These are typically outliers that stretch the boundary of "cryptid" beyond more widely used definitions. Sources like Skeptical Inquirer and Snopes.com that are devoted to scientific skepticism, combatting pseudoscience, or general "debunking" will sometimes address these obscure, outlier claims. Such sources are certainly independent and may *generally* be reliable but they also cast a wide net, covering and responding to all manner of bizarre claims. Isolated coverage by one of these sources may not provide sufficient evidence that a given "creature" is generally regarded as a cryptid and citing such coverage may give undue weight to such a characterization. We should not blacklist these sources but we should consider individual articles/entries in the wider context of a given creature. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree with this, there are plenty of cryptids which haven't been rejected by scientific authorities because scientists simply haven't discussed them KanyeWestDropout (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I can see your point. Is there an adjustment that addresses both our concerns? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If biologists aren't covering something cryptozoologists conisder a "cryptid", that's because folklorists have covered it. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific approach to both biology and folklore studies. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with a list which had all entries go something like this:

• Thunderbird — a mythological bird-like spirit in North American indigenous peoples' history and culture. Frequently depicted in the art, songs, and oral histories of many Pacific Northwest Coast cultures, but is also found in various forms among some peoples of the American Southwest, US East Coast, Great Lakes, and Great Plains.

Just cut-and-pasted that from the article lead and i see there are some {{cn}}'s in there. But if all the entries were like that would you view it as an appropriate list? fiveby(zero) 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose this, especially at this juncture. I don't see what problem this solves. This adds a lot of content to the article that is also likely to be debated. The chosen example is illustrative. I oppose thunderbird's inclusion on this list. Neither the excerpted summary nor the linked main article support its categorization as a "cryptid." This doesn't add any clarity for readers or editors when the category "cryptid" is poorly defined. Let's focus on the definition and inclusion criteria first. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, it's a pro-FRINGE and un-encylopedic approach, just trying to provide something useful along the way when it's seems like this list must exist because it's "notable". fiveby(zero) 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

it's a pro-FRINGE and un-encylopedic approach Precisely. 🎯 I'm kicking around my own ideas of how to add or reorganize the content. A lot of them are related to the current SELCRIT and lead sentence discussion. I've held off because these ideas aren't fully formed and I realize they are mostly interventions to undertake in the event that we land on shaky criteria/definition. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The thunderbird is a difficult issue in cryptozoology. It's essentially used as a word for "giant cryptid bird sightings", which have received some notable attention, but the Wikipedia page doesn't reflect that. The connection between the thunderbird legend and giant bird sightings in the US is also somewhat spurious, I know some native people refer to cryptid birds as thunderbirds but the thunderbird seems more folkloric/mythological in nature. KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Most creatures from folklore don’t belong on this list, though there may be exceptional cases. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Another way to think about the list is like this. If someone twisted your arm and demanded that you go research cryptids because they are 'notable', what would you want to see here to help you. I'd first squawk at having to do it, but if i really had to i would want to see the creatures often called cryptids from folklore and mythology here, organized that way and telling me the real origin. As is the list is completely useless, it collects sources about the subject but the way it presents them only adds misinformation and excludes all the good info from the sources. If that's all that can be accomplished here: an incomplete list of creatures called cryptids, which mostly adds bad information and excludes the good then it should just go away. fiveby(zero) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to imagine, I can describe my real-world relationship to this list. I come here, not under duress, as a skeptical non-believer who finds cryptozoology interesting and appreciates Wikipedia's treatment of many pseudoscientific and fringe topics. I have my own sort of gestalt sense of what cryptids are. I hope to find a clearer definition and a list that makes sense in light of said definition. The lead could be improved but I actually think it's OK. It could be improved by acknowledging that the definition and boundaries are fuzzy. This could be 1–4 sentences. Many lists and categories on WP explicitly state that they may never satisfy a given reader's (or editor's) standard of completeness. Usually this is because the list is "dynamic" but it would be reasonable to also highlight this in reference to the sometimes contested definition/boundaries of the topic.

The list itself is bloated and unwieldy. Especially when viewed on mobile. I was surprised not to see Big Foot listed under "terrestrial" until I scrolled down to the "hominid" subsection. Every time I look at this list I find entries that surprise me—"creatures" or whatever that I do not think of as cryptids. In such cases, the main articles often don't clear things up and outside citations, when present, are often questionable. Thylacines and thunderbirds are representative examples. I would accept some surprises if they were more clearly aligned with the definition and main article on a given "cryptid." --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and am very impressed with your edits to the article. I think, moving forwards better vetting of sources and claims will be needed before adding things. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vetting def needs to be prioritized, whether or not we adopt criteria requiring a single inline citation or ten. Issues with due weight abound, among others. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda a touchy topic. I have my own sort of views on the subject but I tend to not let my edits dictate that. As for working on these and other articles, I have been mainly focused on expanding film articles presently (That Texas Chain Saw Massacre expansion is a daunting task). Keep up the great work. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how to put this into wikipedia rules but cryptids should both have actual sightings (which would keep most folkloric animals off of the list) and be non-paranormal/legendary in nature KanyeWestDropout (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

According to who? Where are theser prescriptive parameters coming from? Not from cryptozoology itself, where even creatures from fiction can be considered "cryptids" (like the case of The Monster of "Partridge Creek"). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That worries me as well. Not least of the problems is actual sightings. If there are confirmed (e.g. actual) sightings, then it is by definition not a cryptid. It would be like a list of miracles only containing ones that were proven; if you can prove it, it's not a miracle. If it's actual, it's not a cryptid. As for keeping folkloric animals off of the list, folklore is literally defined thusly: 'folklore is a collection of traditional beliefs, legends, and culture shared by a group of people'. If Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie and Champ are not precisely within that definition, then I'm not sure what would be. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

None of what you're saying matters: Cryptids are whatever cryptozoologists say they are, and that includes material from fiction above. There is no criteria. You're prescribing criteria as you go along. Stick to WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see below. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thylacine revival

In the past few weeks, significant progress has been made by Colossal Biosciences and University of Melbourne in reviving the thylacine through genome editing of the fat-tailed dunnart with the "new" thylacines likely being born in the near future. I know that the thylacine is listed here due to a reliable source citing it as a cryptid, but can context be added to the entry such as "Original thylacine population" or "Surviving thylacine population?" Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence because we don't have a uniform approach to handling presumed extinct animals on this list. I could be OK with "Surviving thylacine population" in this case. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we cross that bridge when we get there and other scientists write about it KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I put "Surviving/original thylacine population" as the entry and added a note for clarification on the entry referring to the alleged sightings of a surviving population of the "original" thylacines, not the species as a whole. I suppose that further discussion of the thylacine on this list in relation to its ongoing de-extinction project will happen once Colossal and University of Melbourne have live thylacines. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I updated "Megalodon" to "Megalodon (surviving population)". I did not make a change to the thylacine entry. I would prefer consistency but I know you gave this lots of thought and I don't feel strongly enough to enforce a standard unilaterally. I went back and forth and landed on "Megalodon (surviving population)" because I think it looks better as part of the alphabetical list. (I know that contradicts my original comment in support of "Surviving thylacine population".) There are certainly lots of issues with thylacine specifically and with the presumed extinct category generally. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I decided to update it too for consistency. The note that I put stating that there is an ongoing de-extinction project to revive the species, but the entry on this list refers to the alleged sightings of surviving original populations in Australia and Papua New Guinea. We will for sure return to this discussion when Colossal and University of Melbourne have the "new" thylacines. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Minhocão

Minhocão, listed under § Terrestrial, has a [citation needed] tag. I read the main article Minhocão (legendary creature) and this does appear to meet the reasonable definition of cryptid. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of the cited sources in the main article. Does anyone have access to the British Newspaper Archive? I could make a free account but thought I'd check with other editors first. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in On the Track quite a bit, but I can't find any mentions of it being a cryptid outside of cryptozoological sources. The book The Cryptopedia: A Dictionary of the Weird, Strange & Downright Bizarre mentions it as being a cryptid if that works KanyeWestDropout (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Based solely on reading the article and those sources I can find easily, I'd think that it ticks all the boxes of a reasonable 'cryptid' definition: believed to exist in the wild; long, local history; unexplained but with various potential explanations (none of which are definitive); described by credulous naturalists in publications that should have known better; reports over a long period of time claiming physical specimens; etc. The Cryptopedia designation of 'cryptid' would certainly seal the deal. Then again, that implicates the discussion above of a SELCRIT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

These are fringe sources and fail WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As noted above and several times in this and archived discussions: Objections about use of "fringe sources" are explicitly and specifically rebutted by the Fringe guideline itself: Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories… This entire article describes fringe theories, and we unambiguously state that fact in this article's lede with phrases like: Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and rejected by the scientific community, and cryptozoology subculture rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express hostility to mainstream science. Attempting to use peer-reviewed, mainstream journals to discuss fringe concepts is no different that using only science texts to describe religion. Cryptozoology is an area of human knowledge that is valuable to the encyclopaedia, even if most people (including me) consider it bollocks. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This is so wrong that it reveals that you have a poor footing not only in Wikipedia policy but also the humanities as a whole. As I said above, the full quote is: "Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources". Cryptozoologists are not reliable sources on their beliefs or history, as we outright have WP:RS saying, and Cryptozoology is about as WP:FRINGE as it gets. Additionally, we have no shortage of WP:RS on this topic, namely from biologists and folklorists, and these are the sources we use, not "Cryptopedia" or some other random cryptozoology website or book. We use the works of religious studies scholars and related fields, like philologists, to write about religion, not adherents. Now, I strongly encourage you to become familiar with a basic concept from the social sciences, emic and etic, and this is a notioce that any addition of fringe sources will be reverted on sight and any further attempts to inject fringe sources into the article will lead to immediate escalation to WP:RSN. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not need to be insulted nor told that None of what [I'm] saying matters. While you are lecturing on wikipolicy, you might want to take a detour through WP:CIVIL. Thank you and have a nice day. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myceteae, can you please shepherd the SELCRIT discussion? Even though I will no longer be participating in this topic, I think it is important that this article, like all List articles, have a valid SELCRIT. I look forward to seeing the article that you build, and I fully expect it to be excellent. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to try to move the SELCRIT discussion forward for now. We had near-unanimous support for your proposed SELCRIT as written, with robust discussion about implementation and interpretation moving forward. Thank you, @Last1in, for jumping back in to get this done! I have removed several entries with poor sourcing but I don't feel strongly about minhocão. I'm leaving it for now. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

And this is a pretty good example of why it is "so wrong". Using the fringe sources in this manner obscures the valuable information which could be provided to the reader. Looks like there might by some solid sources in Portuguese: Schiedeck, Gustavo; et al. (x) (2010). "Aspectos Culturais Associados às Minhocas no Brasil". Acta Zoológica Mexicana. Which is a discussion of the etymology of 'worm' or 'earthworm' in Portuguese and o mito do minhocão [the minhocão myth]. Or in English:

The earthworm hoax [described earlier] could not have occurred had it not been rendered plausible by the local culture. Laredo is situated on the US-Mexican border, and many residents hail from Central and South America, which are rife with tales of giant earthworm-like creatures. Just like many people believe in the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, south of the border there is a widespread belief in giant worms that dwell in lakes and ponds. In Nicaragua they are known as sierpe; in other regions, they are referred to as Surubin-Rei. In Brazil they are the minhocão (literally ‘giant earthworm’), and any mysterious trench or burrow may be attributed to their presence, as are sinkholes. Tales of these creatures may have inspired the popular 1990 film Tremors, where carnivorous earthworms dubbed Graboids terrorize a small Nevada town. The popularity of the film inspired several sequels.

— Baloh, Robert W; Bartholomew, Robert E. (2020). "A Short History of Spider, Insect, and Worm Scares". Havana Syndrome.

(which happens to cite my go-to fringe cryptozoology source Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures) No way the WP text should say this is a 'cryptid' and "legendary creature" is probably off the mark also. The misleading text in the current article is due to prioritizing the fringe and 19th century sources above those which have good reliable information. I read the WP:FRINGE guideline here as saying no more than something along the lines of: oh by the way, some people might call this myth a 'cryptid' and go looking for such a real creature might be included in an article. fiveby(zero) 22:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering academic sources (as far as I have seen) do not treat fringe theories in detail. Wikipiedia's pinhole of acceptable sources for this topic is, shall we say, limited, it is hard to say. I know it is a touchy subject and I am always fascinated by both arguments (for / against) unfortunately guidelines are a tricky and sometimes frustrating thing. I don't know if this particular one has enough detail or sources to be included sadly. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see sourcing and agreeing on a definition of cryptid as big challenges here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed minhocão.[1] Discussion here reveals concerns about the quality of the references in the main article and additional sources that call the cryptid classification into question. Additionally, consensus from recent SELCRIT discussion was to require at least one [quality] inline citation, which this entry was lacking. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of quality of references in the main article, the wild man or little people (mythology) Nittaewo really needs some clean-up. Struggling to find anything useful here tho. Trying to get Gregory Forth's Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia . fiveby(zero) 11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I detest these entries which could be a cultural reference to a real people. I see Chuchunya on the list which seems to have been deleted and redirected to Yeti. There's a prominent Russian ethnographer who states without any seeming doubt that this is a reference to the Chukchi people. fiveby(zero) 13:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Could be" is not enough incentive. Mythology is its own thing and sometimes real life animals appear in it. Happens.

Paleface Jack (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Which ethnographer? KanyeWestDropout (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, many of the main articles have issues. Trying to make improvements to this list opens up a can of worms. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is the original Dover demon sketch not allowed on this list?

A few weeks ago, I edited the page to replace the Krita or MS Paint drawing of the Dover demon with the original sketch of the Dover demon, but a bot removed it for copyright reasons. Why is the original sketch allowed on the Dover demon's individual page, but not on this list? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why any of these images should be on the list. Each of these entries is complicated, often without any "cannon" description. Presented without context, these images as presented here are misleading and presented without context. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

These images show the entity how it is described by the people that have seen it, and in the case of surviving megalodons and thylacines, reconstructions based on fossils and a real limage of a living thylacine prior to its original extinction. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. These images come from all sorts of sources, including random internet artist, and typically bear little resemblance to what the sources actually say. They're often promoting false narratives about the topic. This only contributes to a Pokemón-like approach to these entities from fiction and folklore, and extinct animals. We need to take a hard look at any images included here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To answer you question see File:Dover_Demon_sketch_by_Bill_Bartlett,_1977.jpg and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The bot probably removed it because there is no fair use rationale for this article. fiveby(zero) 12:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So, fair use rationale has to be applied to this article in order to use the image? I am not at all familiar with Wikipedia's copyright and fair use rules and policies. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm well versed in this policy, either, but my initial impression is that this image may fail on several counts, including: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't think an image adds critical information here, especially when there are other concerns about the file and the main article is available to provide interested readers with more detail. As for the reliability and notability concerns, thylacine and megalodon do not have these problems because the appearance of the now-extinct animals is documented or reconstructed in reliable sources. Other entries like Big Foot and Nessie have a much more substantial volume of published descriptions. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Barmanou

Should this entry be removed due to lack of a source or good source similar to the Malagasy hippo, giant moa, Zanzibar leopard, thunderbird, and minhocão? The individual page for Barmanou even has a request for better sourcing from 2013. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)