Talk:List of cryptids

; Archives
	March 2006 - June 2008; ;

Cryptozoology Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal Start‑class

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cryptid that should be on the list

stucie (an irish lake monster) should be on the list of cryptids i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.173.227 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo and known extinct animals

why is the dodo here? it should be removed along with other known extinct animals, exculding presumed exticnt animals.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cryptid???

I found the video here = [1]. Looks like a shark.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Status" and Organization

The intro to the page states that; "All animals on this page are marked as one of the following", but few of the classifications outlined are used in the list itself. Furthermore, several classifications (under the "status" column) appear to simply be made up by individual editors who added them, without referring to the overall organization the page is supposed to have.

If this sentence in the intro is supposed to refer to the "status" column, then this needs to be made more clear, and the categories need to be cleaned up. JWAbrams (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot entry

Someone is altering the Bigfoot listing here to "Verified" (apparently believing the information yet to be released on the 2008 body find of a proposed bigfoot specimen.) I changed it to "Unverified" as the press conference is to come at 12 - 1pm PDT. Whomever is jumping the gun, please stop until we have a definite and verifiable consensus as to what it is that has been located (if anything). 192.44.136.113 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackalopes misclassified

Jackalopes belong to a category not used: Joke. Jackalopes are imaginary animals described by jokesters to the gullible people of this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.113.107 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Haggis similarly misclassified

This is also just a joke, an occasional gentle leg-pull of tourists. It has never constituted a serious attempt at a "hoax". Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dragons

i really wasnt trying to be silly in adding dragons as "unconfirmed," i just meant, so many cultures around the world have been writing about seeing dragons and stuff before even knowing about each other, I just think it's too big to be a coincidence Arisedrew (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the words "good faith" in the edit comment means that he didn't think that you were trying to be silly.

Dragons in different parts of the world are very different - that they're all translated into English as dragon doesn't mean very much. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Crypids of Colorado (unofficial) and Cryptid explamations for Champ (semi-official)

Look this isnt in official Cryptozoology but a cryptid is an animal not known to science but has been reported:
Me and my father have seen many amazing animals, i've seen a Cockroach that was 3x its size, the botoom half was 4x its size and there were 8 legs, 2 were small and it flew. I've also seen Flies with red and yellow bottoms. I saw a falcon with sickly green talons, head and body feathers the color of a humans skin, a bright yellow beek and the wings looked just like Monarch Buttefly wings, so thus i call it the Monarch Butterfly. My dad saw on the ground what looked like a Golden cross beetween a Porcupine and a Crested Gibbon with soft fur lying on the ground. And out of the corner of his eye well trying to rescue of a boat, he saw a big splash that was to thick for a fish, which leads me to think it was a lake dolphin.
Also Champ, possible exlpamations that are indeed Cryptids are lake Dolphins, Belugas and even Elephants! (ex. Mansi Photograph looks alot like a lake elephent) So... i'm just wondering if any of this goes in the list. 75.166.16.54 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statuses

Whereas the page says "each animal is marked with one of the following [statuses]", in fact very few of them are marked with one of the specified statuses. So, either remove the list of statuses or update each animal with one of the specifed statuses. 90.198.230.156 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just about to suggest this. I propose we update each animal, because it IS a good list of statuses, and would help to better organize the page. Gotiki (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montauk Monster

I don't think it's been confirmed yet. 189.158.145.189 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has, identity unconfirmed weather its a dog, turtle, racoon, mutant, new animal or even Demon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.209.61 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery?

Would this list benefit from a gallery link of some kind? I came here hoping to find one myself. Is this doable? Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I was going to say it wasn't a good idea, but I thought about it a bit, and I'm thinking now that it is a theoretically good idea. Most, if not all of the cryptids have a link to their corresponding articles, and each of those should have an image. But a lot of them don't have images, for various reasons. I'm thinking that such a gallery wouldn't be very useful, since it would most likely not have an image for each cryptid. However, if you're willing to find or create enough accurate-to-description images that can be used legally, I say knock yourself out. And, beyond that, add those images to the corresponding article for each cryptid. Gotiki (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of Loving land lords and living llamas!

Okay, so i see Flying Jellyfish and Flashlight Frog on this page, i mean its OBVIOUSLY just the cryptids from The Secret Saturdays, and yet i thought "if there here then Fiskerton, Komodo, Zon, and the Firecracker beetle deserve to be here to" and yet the were deleted, so i just wanna know why they were and not the Flyers and Flashlights! 71.218.209.61 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Flying Jellyfish is fictional go ahead and delete it. There's enough clutter from a Google search that it's not immediately obvious that Flying Jellyfish is not a genuine (if implausible) cryptid, and the description of it as possibly a misperceived bird presents it as such. (IIRC, I marked it as citation needed.)

Google does find some mention of a Cameroon Flashlight Frog as a cryptid. It's not clear whether it has any meaningful support, but a bioluminescent frog is not obviously impossible. Maybe it should have been deleted, but it wasn't obviously wrong, and I thought that WP:AGF applied. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look the Flashlight frog is just a cartoon cryptid/character. Im ganna delete them 71.218.201.179 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an invasion of the Flyers and the Flashlights...AGAIN! We need to know who's making the edits and block him from this article, and P.S. since when does Wikipedia look at good faith instead of only suddled down truth? 75.166.17.142 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, WP:AGF has been around since 2004. Gotiki (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That dosent make ANY sense WHAT SO EVER! As long as i've been on Wikipedia and expressing my right to edit Wikipedia always un-edited my edits if they werent 100% true. 75.166.17.142 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts

Why are "ghosts" listed here? I don't see how they fit in. I mean, aren't they more spiritual than biological? I was about to just delete the entry, but I figure I should maybe suggest it first and wait a bit. I'll be watching for a response, and if I don't get one within a week, I'll delete it. Gotiki (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a creature that no scientists have found but alot of people have seen them, and P.S. i believe in ghosts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.17.142 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe in them, too, but they're not really cryptids, right? I mean, they're the undead, not living things. I think it doesn't quite fit in with the theme of the list, which is biological creatures, rather than mere paranormal or supernatural phenomena. Gotiki (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know Gotiki, i think you may be right know that i think about it twice, maybe there should be a whole new page of Spiritual Cryptids eh? 75.166.17.142 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cleaning up article

there are a lot of creatures that don't belong here like mythical creatures and ghosts. This article needs a serious cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.183 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts need to go somewhere else yes, but Mythological creatures used to be Cryptids, so there listed here. 75.166.17.142 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes

I would like to suggest a few changes to this article/list. 1) We should remove all mythological creatures, with the exception of those that are known to be claimed to exist by cryptozoologists. For example, Griffin would go, but others might stay on a case-by-case basis. 2) We should change the status "Presumed Extinct" to "Extinct", with a note in the description to the effect that cryptozoologists believe that a relict population exists. Referring to an extinct species as anything other than extinct is a way of placing undue weight towards cryptozoological claims. 3) In application, there is little difference between the categories of "Local Legend," "Urban Legend," "Folklore," and "Unconfirmed." In fact, "Unconfirmed" is essentially synonymous with "Cryptid." I think that the status categories should be changed to simply "Unconfirmed," "Debunked (or Hoax, or Discredited, or a new, similar term)," "Extinct," and "Confirmed (or Verified)." It is worth noting that there really aren't many animals which fall into this last category. Discussion is welcome. If no one objects, I will begin making these changes soon. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, there are now five possible statuses: Unconfirmed; Verified - [animal name]; Discredited - [explanation]; Proposed [animal name]; and Extinct. I think that "extinct" is the most problematic, since as far as cryptozoologists are concerned, the issue of interest is if these animals are not extinct, so this status should really be "Unconfirmed," as in "their continued existence is unconfirmed." Any suggestions? ClovisPt (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moose-pig (aka Beast of Dean) appears to be a genuine, if obscure, cryptid. I checked it out with Google when it was first added. But skimming again, it sounds as if the early 19th century creature (moosepig) is not the same as the modern sitings (Beast of Dean). Lavateraguy (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to sort that out and add Moose-pig back in, that's fine with me. I went ahead and made most of the changes I mentioned above - we'll see what happens to this article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were agreed that verified and extinct species are to be listed elsewhere, separately, or not at all, then it would make sense to consider the "status" more as notes, in the case that some explanation were proffered. I'm not sure that outright discrediting is possible due to the black swan problem. Many Loch Ness Monster sightings are proven hoaxes, but there's still no way to know if there ever was such a creature in historical times. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why creatures claimed not to be extinct make this list at all. There is always the possibility that such a creature is not really extinct; the difference is that some get more hype than others. Plus they are an entirely different category in the first place because they did actually exist at one time. Otherwise creatures that were once said to be extinct but are now known to be extant, such as the coelacanth, would have to be marked as verified. What a bizarre implication! The status would leave one to believe that the coelacanth was though to be myth until it was discovered, but in fact Scientists always knew the coelacanth to have existed. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this the more I'm confused. The pages on cryptids and cryptozoology claim that these include the search for living members of species presumed to be extinct. So theoretically speaking, what's going to happen when it's possible to bring species out of extinction (if that hasn't already happened) or to genetically engineer those that have only ever existed in the imagination? I wouldn't think it makes sense to count those as confirmed. Whether a creature is a cryptid depends on whether it existed at the time it was claimed to exist. So then it may make sense to note how far back a legend or a hoax can be traced. On the other hand, every creature discovered in modern times was at one time claimed to exist only by one or very few men until it was verified by others. What's being juggled here are modern inventions, modern claims of legendary creatures, legends that are no longer taken seriously, and modern claims of creatures that are known to have existed. What a terrible mixture! 67.9.175.207 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giant squid

[Edited] I'm confused as this has been on the list off and on and in various places, and at the same time there have been debates about what should be on the list, with Triceratops9 a year ago deleting anything that was marked confirmed. If that's what everyone agrees should be done then fine, but right now the page seems to accept not only the debunked foolery but also the embarrassingly undebunked. There is even more confusion as to whether this is synonymous with the Kraken. Was the giant squid ever believed not to be in existence, or does that only apply to larger sea creatures? Perhaps the giant squid, as a species inferred from the evidence, had always been known to exist and just never been seen alive until recently. Based on how it is listed on the page I would presume the latter. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, this just demonstrates how fuzzy or gray the line really is. Whether the creature has been discredited depends on exactly what one means by "giant squid". Truly gigantic creatures are not likely to have ever existed. The Kraken of sea myths are unconfirmed. Giant squid are a fact, but how large they can get nobody really knows.

There are two completely separate issues at play here. First, the category of the cryptid is based on whether it is understood to have ever existed before. A creature is either entirely unconfirmed or just unconfirmed as existing in the present. Second, how unconfirmed are the reports? Is it believed to be an outright hoax, a hyperbole, or a modern possibility, or is there some other explanation? The first issue is more black and white, and it makes little sense to mix the two categories. The second does not lend itself to classification so easily. 67.9.175.207 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]