Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

"Cryptid" Redirects Here

Due to a previous merge, a search for "cryptid" redirects to this page. However, the etymology of the term and, well, everything about it is covered over at cryptozoology. There's an editor here who, for ideological reasons, demands that this article redirect to the list. He claims that the word is in use beyond cryptozoology. He is unable to provide a secondary source for this claim, instead producing synthesis and original research. This is another example of an article hijacked for pseudoscience. Are there any other users watching this page that want to weigh in on this? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually not everything about it is in cryptozoology, but must be. That's what I started discussion in the previous talk section. But it became sidetracked, tl;dr. Now,... I looked thru the previous merge and agree it did make sense at that moment. Now we have to do step 2: merge the essential content into cryptozoology article, leaving here only text necessary for the understanding of subject of the list. And Step 3 will be merciless cleaning the list. Melon heads as a subject of cryptozoology? Really? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What are you considering merging to cryptozoology? IMO, I don't see anything merge-able here. What we have that is reliable here is already at that article. :bloodofox: (talk)

Cryptid classification. It makes sense and reasonably referenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this should be about everything Cryptid-related, not cryptozoology-related. The prose could be tightened and expanded just on the subject of cryptids and the list that follows the prose. Melonheads would probably have a place here in this article as it's pretty easily sourced as a cryptid. But not in the cryptozoology article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Expanded"??? Hell, NO. "This is a list of cryptids which were a subject of notable study by cryptozoologists." – that's enough for all practical purposes. The rest is one mouse click away. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Melonheads as a subject of search by a "serious" cryptozoologist? in reliable sources? Urban legend -yes, potential animal – hmmm. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say the list need to be expanded... it is usual to have more prose. I have no idea what a serious cryptozoologist is, nor do I care. What I do care about is can we source it to being a cryptid in both cryptozoological sources and outside publications. That answer is an easy yes for outside sources. I can't say about cryptozoological sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

lol, "outside publications". this guy and his 'cryptids-but-not-cryptozoology'. Uh huh. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't help you with any vision impairment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this is an example of an outside reliable publication; while with huh, but without lol. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to see a response to Eberhart's proposed classification scheme from this venue and especially so recently. Eberhart, of course, leaves out the 'supernatural' and even 'extraterrestrial' some cryptozoologists push, but that's of course a symptom of Eberhart's apologetic book and cryptozoological prescriptivism. I think we should remove the Eberhart classification system pasted here and discuss his proposal by way of secondary sources in the body of cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

re: "it is usual to have more prose." Quite contrary, for lists is is usual to have less prose. All prose goes into the article about term listed: List of soft drinks does not speak much about soft drink. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, often lists have little prose, but they also get tagged as such to improve the prose. Two things: 1) that doesn't mean they couldn't be improved by having more prose (just like this article), and 2) This is a merged article that contains the info from "Cryptid" and from "list of cryptids", so it must also contain the full description and background of what is a cryptid. You said yourself that "List of soft drinks" is mostly just a list but it wasn't merged with Soft drink was it? Look how much information "Soft drink" has. Yes we could unmerge and recreate the "cryptid" article just like the soft drink article does but we don't really need to do that as long as we understand that this is now both those articles. It should be retitled as "Cryptids" to show that. In fact, if the info and details about Cryptids is removed from this list article then that would make the old merge agreement moot and it would have to be recreated, and that's not what we want. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The cryptid article, full of poorly referenced and apologetic material as it was, is now long gone and so is almost all of the material that was on it. It will not be returning. Meanwhile, your continued push to produce a 'cryptid article without cryptozoology' (lol) continues to be a waste of everyone's time, including your own. Inevitably, cryptid will redirect to cryptozoology, where the term is in fact handled in depth. The only reason it isn't already is because nobody wants to bother with edit warring with you. In fact, that article continues to grow to WP:GA standard while this one atrophies. This is primarily because it has no list criteria and remains entirely problematic. You're also really wasting your time with this sandbox project to replace this page ([1]). It ain't happening. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"If" the material from Cryptid is removed from here it MUST be returned to its original article. To do otherwise would be a perversion of the merge request which has really just happened. Your continued push to eliminate the material is a waste of time. It will not revert to cryptozoology, and it is clear your agreement to merge was bogus in its intent from the beginning. The sandbox was to try and cut back on the the number of entries here and make sure they were all sourced properly. This non-compromising forceful attitude is the reason you have been brought to An/I with complaints from multiple editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a policy about restoration of poorly or unsourced material: WP:PROVEIT. There also won't be any resurrection of cryptid via some kind of Lazarus policy you've invented on the fly, lol. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about sourcing and policy for the project. WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE aren't something you can opt-out of here. We're all bound to these important concepts and they exist to keep, for example, our geology articles from being dictated by flat earth theorists or, say, users like you who sneer at "global warming alarmists" and "academic editors". :bloodofox: (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It was already there and doing fine but we found a better place for it with a merge. There are also rules about merging and following it, and if you subvert the merge against the consensus that was formed you do damage to that merge. It will revert back if the info is eliminated here. The merge said nothing about elimination. And your lies that pile up don't really help the situation, but that seems to be impossible to stop. The flat earth malarkey being introduced in real science articles is completely different than what we have here. We do not want science articles infected with weird theories. They may get mentioned but that's about it. However those flat earth theories will have their own separate article away from the sciences such as Modern flat Earth societies, Myth of the flat Earth, Flat Earth, etc. That's what we have here. This isn't taking over a science article, this is it's own standalone article on the topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Articles merge, content gets challenged, poorly sourced or otherwise inappropriate content gets removed. Such is the way of the wiki. We don't reverse merges because you don't like what happened either. That said, it would admittedly be funny to see how an approach that wrong-headed would go down. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, lists are, well, lists. They have an introduction explaining the list and then the list. They're ultimately directories, after all. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems and proposals to improve this list

I think this is a good article and the problem seems to be the title and use of the word cryptids? Therefore I propose changing the title to something else with the exclusion of any contentious titles? (folklore related, pseudoscience, crypto-anything). Would Legendary creatures be a problem?

(opinion)I am excluding folklore in particular to avoid the problem of requiring only academic folklorist references. That just isn't possible in creating and maintaining good content when a wide variety of media sources are used in these topics and to exclude them in favor of folklore or scientific only, would be destructive and it is not policy here. Taken individually, belief in many of the topics could be described as fringe, but they remain as subjects whether or not the topic is "believable" or not. Scientific involvement, (mostly ruling-out true existence of these creatures), is a plus, but requiring application of WP:UNDUE or fringe, (I'm not even mentioning pseudoscience because I don't really think it applies-it is just a bullystick at this point here), or academic credentials, is actually the WP:Fringe and WP:Undue view according to my understanding of policies and guidelines. TeeVeeed (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please look into category:Fictional animals to see what kind of problems you are facing in defining of the scope of a possible list. BTW there is no reason to exclude folklore. Lists are primarily navigational aid in wikipedia, not a directory. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

All of the entities on this list, when not apparently made up out of whole cloth among cryptozoologists, are plucked from the folklore record. Folklore isn't pseudoscience, it's simply a component of culture found universally among human beings. Pseudoscience comes with its own folklore (there's even such a thing as cryptozoology folklore). Of course, the academic study of folklore is folkloristics. While they seem to have generally just ignored it (with the rest of academia), folklorists have even studied cryptozoology and its accompanying folklore (from an etic perspective, as academics do). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks. And also, legendary creatures is already taken and does not really apply to this list since they are defined a supernatural. I like this list as a navigational aid and it works well as that. Yeah—I like folklore too, but I'm having a problem with the category because of ramifications that only bonafide academic folklorists may be used for content and sourcing and until that is ironed out it may be better to avoid it? IE—calling these topics folklore creatures could open the door for policy claims that are destructive to content by excluding any and every source except academic folklorist. That is what is being stated as policy, (it is not policy), and to give the topics any more weight in folklore classification could be pushing them towards these restrictions.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

All entries should be given proper citations so as to prove their status as a cryptid otherwise they should be deleted.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I started to do that over here in my sandbox with a separate column to verify that it is specifically talked about as a "cryptid", but as usual I got sidetracked. Anyone that wants to help edit it be my guest. If I can't find any sources at all that says it's a a cryptid or perhaps even listed in a cryptozoology book, I was going to remove it. When it's finished we could move it to the main article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation and Formatting

Looking at this article, there is not a lot of citations given in this article. Each cryptid listed should be given proper citations from reliable sources (2–3 at the most). This is needed to prove the notability of each cryptid listed in the article, and we should avoid using primary sources or using the same website for different cryptids as much as possible. Hopefully this list can be improved upon in this fashion. There is also the issue of adding hoaxes and former cryptids to this article as well. They should either be given their own article or placed into their own sub-section, which again should be given proper citations.--Paleface Jack 16:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Reverted

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#What_to_do_about_List_of_cryptids?. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Ok, coming back from that discussion and trying to get back on track here...

I'm not sure if I've seen it, but have you tried proposing a merge of this list into the various Lists of legendary creatures. Most of it is likely already there. I think it would be a more persuasive argument to say that this content is redundant than to try to base your argument on how much you can't stand cryptozoology. The question to me is whether there's a sufficient distinction, and I'm not completely sure there is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I should've taken another look at the talk page before asking that... been a while. Regardless, it seems like a sensible proposal. Will have to reread the above to get a sense of what happened before. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be on to something with this. It seems to me that there's a significant amount of confusion for most readers as to what's going on with this list. I'm currently looking over those lists and seeing what I can do to improve their quality.

As for cryptozoology, it's a mischaracterization that I don't like the pseudoscience. I'm mostly indifferent about it but I can see the potential fun in it. However, when you're trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related topics, the pseudoscience becomes a major problem that needs to be address at every turn. And it's systemically everywhere on the platform. Imagine attempting to write quality geology articles for Wikipedia only to find that no geologists were involved in the project at an early date, but instead flat Earthers and Young Earth creationists had been very active on the site. You'd be encountering much the same as those of us attempting to improve Wikipedia's folklore-related coverage are now encountering. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with this list, hence it's consensus snowball keep. Bloodofox is correct that each and every entry should be sourced as having been called a cryptid, otherwise it has no business here. Does anyone own a copy of any of the various cryptozoology books? Some of these entries can be found in various newspapers and magazines, but some need further confirmation in a more detailed tribute to the folklore. The problem here is that some entries have been put in because they sound like they should be a cryptid, while no source has ever called them as such. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that we list every entity that every cryptozoologist has ever referred to as a cryptid? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's in print and can be sourced, yes. That's what this article is for, to list them here and not have them clogging up wikipedia with main articles of their own. That is consensus. But they should be sourced and this article is sorely lacking in those sources. New additions have been added, I do a cursory google search and see no sources that say cryptid, and I've deleted the new entry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(squeeze in here because of later indent making it difficult otherwise) "If it's in print and can be sourced, yes." The problem with this approach is that cryptozoology literature is not WP:RS. How about only having critters called cryptids in WP:RS? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say that on the page you listed. Sourcing is a tricky thing at wikipedia. If you are looking for names that are cryptids, published books you can buy at amazon are certainly reliable. Not academically as a science, but as much so as would be a folklore book. Most people would look at Encyclopedia Britannica and the Los Angeles Times as reliable sources but they are banned from being used as a source for spelling foreign peoples names. So it all depends on the topic. If we start using Fred's Crypto guide to add to an anatomy article on Bug Bears, it would be laughable because it's not a scientific book at all. It can't be used for that purpose. So I agree we have to be careful and that we would use others sources if possible to corroborate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was something of a confused mess, particularly about the topic of cryptozoology. However, the issue remains: there's no scope. As we have source after source demonstrating, any critter in the folklore record can be referred to by cryptozoologists as a "cryptid", rendering the scope of this article limitless and producing nothing more than a sounding board advertising fringe works and views. Each entity here also deserves a solid article of its own, regardless of what cryptozoologists think about the matter. With that in mind, what purpose does this list serve other than to inadvertently promote cryptozoology works? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What purpose? The purpose of showing readers a list of cryptids. Consensus was not to delete or redirect this article, which you ignored. There is plenty of info here, it just needs sourcing, which will weed out non-cryptid entries. I really don't think each of these creatures deserves an article of their own, but that will be decided on an individual basis, because there are always exceptions. Sports articles work the same way. We have lists of tennis referees, they don't get their own article in most cases. And some things cross over as you suggest with folklore and cryptids. We have lists of Open Era tennis records (1968 onward), lists of all tennis records (1877 onward), lists of ATP records (1990 onward). These lists have many of the same records.... so what? They simply cross over, that's no big deal since Wikipedia isn't suffering from a space issue. Here we have a list of cryptids, some of which are also used in folklore. I didn't look but do we have an article on mythical beasts from folklore? If we already have a list that includes all these same cryptid beasts, that would be different. If that were the case we could simply asterisk those creatures that are also sourced as a cryptids and have one article for both topics. But if not, this article remains by consensus, but needs proper sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nearly all of these entities are plucked from the folklore record, and nearly all of them have articles of their own. As discussed above, we have nearly identical lists about entities from the folklore record (see Lists of legendary creatures). This list is nothing more than a pseudoscientific duplicate. Wikipedia doesn't have a space issue, but it has a WP:FRINGE issue. As I've said now — repeatedly — any entity in the folklore record may be referred to by cryptozoologist as a "cryptid". Again, you're not responding to my concern raised about scope. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And I really don't care if it's science or folklorish pseudoscience. Folklore/cryptids are mostly baloney. I care about sourcing. I want to see that it is sourced somewhere as a cryptid. Now, you gave a list of legendary creatures which I had not seen, and that's helpful. If all these creatures here are in that same legendary creatures list, then you have a good point. However the lead of that list should be changed. It says "The following is a list of lists of legendary creatures, beings and entities from the folklore record. Entries consist of legendary and unique creatures, not of particularly unique individuals of a commonly known species." It should say something like "The following is a list of lists of legendary creatures, beings and entities from the folklore record, some of which are frequently called cryptids. Entries consist of legendary and unique creatures, not of particularly unique individuals of a commonly known species." Then you could redirect this article (as a duplicate) to that article as long as consensus agreed with the change. If any creature had to be merged then you would need to include all the proper merge tags. No creature here can be left off the legendary list for that to work. One thing, that list of legendary creatures is also lacking all sourcing. Just because it links to articles that have sourcing does not make it correct. Each entry should have a source that specifically uses the term legendary, folklore, or cryptid to prove it belongs on that list. The legendary list could also be expanded into table form, with pictures/drawings, to help or readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's quite well established that cryptozoology is deep in WP:FRINGE territory, and there's no reason to violate WP:UNDUE by introducing pseudoscientific terms like cryptid. Whether you believe folklore is "mostly baloney" or not, folkloristics is an academic discipline, and folklorists are what we lean on when we discuss folklore. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Without that change I could not endorse it. Whether you like it or not, the term cryptid is used in many places, dictionaries, newspapers, etc... It must be included in the lead that this gets merged to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. These are Wikipedia policies. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't apply as the snowball that ran over you said last time. These are not being presented as science facts. This article can be kept, it can be deleted, it can be merged. You tried to delete it before and failed badly. Delete is not on the table. If you merge the contents somewhere, you do not delete the contents! You merge them into another article. If that's not what you want then I suggest you not request a merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A merge is a merge. We've since developed our coverage of the topic considerably, including totally rewriting cryptozoology. We're unlikely to encounter the confusion regarding the topic that was so prevalent that time this time around. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for as that "legendary list" will need to be completely merged with all the contents of this. We don't pick and choose... we merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please review the links I've provided above regarding Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience. Additions of pseudoscience, including vocabulary, will be reverted on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Not happening with a merge. Cryptid is proved be used in mainstream media. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a section discussing this very topic for you, complete with quotes from academics: User:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology#Yes,_cryptozoology_is_a_pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This is simply proving what editor Rhododendrites said about you in his revert summary. "you've been campaigning against this page for years, including sending it to afd which resulted in snow keep. now you claim consensus on another page for redirecting, without so much as a notice on this talk page.... and then you edit war over it???" A delete disguised as a merge. Editors aren't stupid and will see right through that. In a merge we will also need to keep the section on Eberhart's classification. As you said, "Merge is a merge." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have some suggestion for improving this page? You seem intensely interested in keeping it in its current state, even to the point about getting personal and seemingly angry about it. At the end of the day, this is just Wikipedia, Fyunck. We should all be here with the goal of improving it. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions I've made in the past. It must be sourced. But to be honest, I have no problems at all with a merge as long as it truly is a merge and not a delete. That was snowball kept in the past and not under discussion. I am all for being fair and compromising, where you seem intensely interested in deleting the entire article and in making things up to prove your point. That upsets me... not being honest in your intentions while portraying something as a merge. Redirecting this page that YOU KNOW was snowball kept the last time you tried to remove it was also poor judgement on your part. That was really a controversial thing you tried and if you didn't realize it, you should have. Be fair, and compromise and usually all goes well from my side. If merged the critters that are also considered as cryptids should have asterisks and labeled as such. Those are the things that should be done in a merge, and I've done my share of merging articles or parts of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

As as been pointed out by multiple users on this page — including myself — sourcing this list would to pseudoscentific sources would violate WP:RS. We'd just be back to where we were, with the article eventually redirected, merged somewhere else, or what have you. An article without sourcing does not last on Wikipedia over time. The site has simply grown more intolerant to promoting pseudoscience over academic sources over time, and that's not likely to change. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Improving this list/article

In the coming week or so, I intend to work on this list. Specifically, I want to clean it up a bit, rewrite the article at the top (fixing the issues noted), and expand the list so as to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the lesser-known/obscure cryptids. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, I'd love to hear them.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree with removing "notable" from the lede. It's just asking to have anything ever mentioned by anyone who calls themselves a "crytozoologist" added to the list. --tronvillain (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an oversight. Thanks for coming up with better section titles, too.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I still have a problem with your changes to the lede though. The llede should summarize the body, so clearly pseudoscience should be in there. And version in there now already mentions anecdotal evidence, as well as mentioning the relevant study of folkloristics. The "their existence is hotly debated" line is overly broad, vague, and having it in the lede implies a false controversy which could be considered unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. --tronvillain (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the lede summarizes it pretty well as is. There doesn't need to be a direct mention of pseudoscience there (as it is covered in the next section). Also, folkloristics is not a related study. Cryptozoology is looking for animals that may or may not be real: people have reported seeing them, but there is no hard evidence. Folkloristics studies legends and stories. Also, the comparison between cryptozoology and biology is unfair: biologists are mainly discovering new bacteria, bugs, and other small organisms; cryptozoologists are looking for large animals. It is like apples and oranges; it also seems slightly insulting to people who do think cryptids are real.

Also, people have reported seeing hoop snakes, ridiculous as that is, so would you please add that back? And as for the "hotly debated" part, that is true. There's lots of controversy about the existence of cryptids.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tronvillain. @SilverTiger12 you have mistakenly given the most weight to the viewpoint of pop culture sources rather than scholarly and scientific sources. Cryptozoology is only "hotly debated" in non-expert sources.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. I got this info from a good book by a good author. Sadly, I left it at home, so I will have to cite it later. Although, "hotly debated" is a bit strong; would "questionable", "debated", or "debatable" be better?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor, you need to review the encyclopedia's editorial policies, starting with WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:LEAD, and WP:GEVAL. In matters of science, we go by what high quality mainstream academic and scholarly sources say. There is no "debate" or "controversy" in mainstream science about cryptozoology and cryptids, and so the encyclopedia reflects that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have read those policies, actually. And as I said, I got that info from a good book by a good, reputable author. I didn't say that it is debated in mainstream science, I said it was often debated. Which it is. And by the way, cryptozoology is not a science, which means its sources are not going to often be high-quality scholarly sources.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I won't put back hoop snakes. They aren't notable within cryptozoology - this isn't "list of any creature claimed to have been seen." --tronvillain (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

About pseudoscience and the biologists/discovery rate comparison: the statement that "cryptozoology is a pseudoscience" in the lede is a) unnecessary, as that point is made later on, and b) is only one view. The comparison is apples and oranges because, as I stated above, biologists are mostly discovering new species of bacteria, plants, bugs, and other small organisms. Cryptozoologists, on the other hand, are searching for larger animals. The comparison is also rather derogatory and insulting towards cryptozoologists, and it does not belong on the page about cryptids, instead, it should go on the cryptozoology page. If anyone has any further problems with the article, please bring them up here instead of editing, as I don't want an edit war to occur.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The lede summarizes the body, and when covering fringe topics, it's important to cover them as such.--tronvillain (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently the article implies that cryptozoologists had something to do with the identification of the okapi. Considering that zoologists identified the species in 1901, well before cryptozoology came into existence (Okapi#Etymology_and_taxonomy], and yet Heuvelmans's On the Track of Unknown Animals saw publication in 1955 and cryptozoology was coined somewhere around 1959), should we be including a note about time travel?

Similarly, there's a now a bunch of unattributed stuff about "some people" in the article and an odd half-definition of the term cryptid that seems to go out of its way to avoid the OED (the development and use of the nouns cryptozoology and cryptid are both covered in detail at Cryptozoology#Terminology,_history,_and_approach). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Good points. I made a few changes.--tronvillain (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tronvillain! :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Eberhart's definition still seems overly broad to me, which is probably why he said "By now you are probably thinking that I will include practically everything under cryptozoology" before adding his exceptions.--tronvillain (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. While Eberthart's classification appears here as if it's definitive, Eberhart is himself something of a cryptozoology apologist. His proposed classification doesn't seem to have had much — if any influence — in what appears to be a moribund subculture (most cryptozoology organizations seem to have disbanded). Unlike Eberhart, most cryptozoologists appear to be more than happy to propose that, say, chupacabras might just be some kind of gray alien. It begs the question: how prominent a position should Wikipedia award this classification scheme, if it's restricted to Eberhart's work? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

He originally suggests "the examination and evaluation of ethnographic, testimonial, and physical evidence to determine the probable identity of an animal species or variety that is either undescribed by science or that exists at a time or in a locality not recognized by a majority of experts", but proposed his expanded criteria because he wanted to include "anecdotes and folklore about creatures that belong more to mythology and the paranormal than the nuts-and-bolts world of DNA." Perhaps I should just start a new talk section on this.--tronvillain (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice: I will no longer be editing this page or any other cryptid-related pages. I did not mean to start an edit war, all I wanted was to improve this page. I am sorry if you think my contributions are worthless, erroneous, and/or biased. Goodbye.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think your contributions were worthless. Bold edits followed by reverts and talk page discussions are an important part of Wikipedia.--tronvillain (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll second Tronvillain's comments here. Don't let process get you down. After all, we need more people working to improve articles, not less! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. @SilverTiger12: I did not intend for you to feel your contributions were "worthless and/or biased". You made some editorial policy errors, but that's to be expected for someone who's only been editing here for 8 days. Do like we all did; take it slow, investigate what the encyclopedia's goals are, poke around and see how things get done, and absorb the rules of the road as you go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Cryptid and cryptids redirects here instead of cryptozoology

Although the history and use of the term cryptid are covered at cryptozoology (the term was coined by cryptozoologists after cryptozoology and is central to the pseudoscience's approach), the term now redirects to this page. Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) ([2]) claims that this must not be removed without an RfC because portions of the old cryptid article were merged into this article. However, as every wiki user knows, redirects send users to a word or phrase's most appropriate article, which in this case would undoubtedly be Wikipedia's cryptozoology article. So what's going on here? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how it could be some Pointy issue, most likely just a cock up.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the guideline for purpose of redirects, it's hard to see the argument for directing to a list rather than the primary topic.--tronvillain (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a large discussion back in 2016 that was unanimous to move the full contents of Cryptid to List of cryptids. All that information is still located at List of cryptids with an explanation of what crptids are. It fits well and I see no reason to change that. You can ask for another RfC to see if editors at List of cryptids and Crytozoology agree with you... they may. But because this has been a contentious issue I wouldn't redirect it without that consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Then objections should have been raised at the time [[3]], it was discussed. The decision was to merge with the list.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What? That's exactly what was done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that is what I am saying, a discussion was had and consensus was reached. If objections existed they should have been made at the time of the discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I agree with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that the cryptozoology article has been essentially totally rewritten since then, and that it now includes a robust etymology section, where the term cryptid is discussed in detail. Although we had a merge discussion back in 2016 and decided to merge the contents, in fact next to nothing now exists anywhere on Wikipedia from the old cryptid article (it was pretty terrible by any measure) other than Eberhart's classification, which is currently a topic of discussion here. This page also refers readers back to cryptozoology fore more information on the term and concept. Maybe we need to call a vote on the redirects — but should we do it here or at the cryptozoology talk page?

That wasn't an RfC, so there's no such thing as another RfC.--tronvillain (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Who said it was? the question was asked why was it redirected, well I answered because a discussion had been had and it was agreed to do it. No POV pushing agenda, no attempt to make a point, just good old fashioned across the board consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion now. No one is questioning that Cryptid was redirected at the time. It was unanimous. But it was just redirected again to a new location... away from the merged List of cryptids... with no discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck implied there was, when they said "You can ask for another RfC." --tronvillain (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

How about at the redirect, the page you want to alter?Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The contents of the old cryptid article is still there at the merged List of cryptid article, just as agreed to back in 2016. Editors seemed to think a fuller article was better than two smaller articles. Looking at it, there is more info on cryptids at the List of cryptids article than there is at the Cryptozoology article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO it makes sense to retain cryptids pointing to this page, and if someone really wanted the cryptozoology article that link is obvious once they arrive here. I'm more or less indifferent as to where cryptid points. Maybe very weakly inclined towards cryptozoology, I guess (but weak enough that I wouldn't !vote either way). Documentation of the merger (which was a proposed merger rather than an RfC -- though I'm not sure how much that matters) is on both pages such that the history is sufficiently retained and doesn't need to play a role in that determination. If it's controversial (and it sounds like it is), WP:RFD might be the most effective way to go, rather than an RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect change proposal

The proposal to redirect cryptid and cryptids to Wikipedia's cryptozoology article can be found here. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hephaestus Books

As seen on Wikipedia:Republishers, Hephaestus Books is not a reliable source: "Republishers are not reliable sources and not acceptable external links in articles per the verifiability policy." --tronvillain (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Man-eating trees

Being mentioned in Shuker's The Beasts That Hide from Man does not establish something as being notable within cryptozoology. In fact, he says himself "I have always preferred to pursue and highlight the little-realized plethora of lesser-known or decidedly obscure mystery beasts also on record - creatures that have often received only the briefest of mentions in the literature, and even then only in specialized, scarcely read, or largely forgotten journals, travelogues, historical accounts, and other esoteric sources." --tronvillain (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

On a quick search I can find several sources for man-eating trees/plants as being cryptids. Places like Crptomundo, Time-Life books or Mysterious Universe. But perhaps we should be more specific in this article and instead of putting it under Man-Eating trees, we make several entries and put it under Yateveo, Nubian Tree and Vampire Vine? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Several sources" — all of which are written from the emic perspective of cryptozoologists, making them all in violation of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE. Find secondary sources from academics or leave them out. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting pseudoscience, whether it's global warming denialism, gay conversion therapy, or cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. Within the topic they can be used. If used in the context of science articles they can be removed on the spot, since they have nothing to do with science. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Websites like Cryptomundo and Mysterious Universe clearly can't be considered reliable sources for anything, and Time Life: Mysteries of the Unknown is not in any sense "within cryptozoology" even if it were more than the barest of mentions of a "Nubian tree" in a fringe source. If we were going to allow Mysteries of the Unknown, apparently for "cryptids" "If someone observes a mysterious animal and someone else discredits the sighting, that doesn't count." --tronvillain (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned before, we disagree on that issue. You are going to get cryptid names from printed sources on cryptids, such as newspapers, books, magazines, websites, etc..., just as you are going to get info on things like the "Golden Fleece" in older bogus publishing on mythology. This is not a science or scientific method discussion as that train has left the station. This is simply an article on what is a cryptid and a following list of cryptids. Yes, they should be sourced as being a cryptid, otherwise how would anyone know if they are really considered a cryptid. When that is properly done, all should be well here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Timelife is a reputable source, not sure about the others.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just a list of cryptids, it's a list of cryptids notable within cryptozoology. To establish notability within a pseudoscience, there should still be standards beyond "Was this ever mentioned by anyone ever as a cryptid?" The Time-Life book is clearly a trivial mention (part of a sentence, about a fictional man-eating tree, not man-eating trees in general) and Cryptomundo is a self-published source, which leaves the Mysterious Universe piece. Does that establish something mentioned in a published source as one of a "plethora of lesser-known or decidedly obscure mystery beasts"? --tronvillain (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Since there is only one article covering all of them, perhaps the best thing to do would be to list them in the "other names" column and let the article explain the difference. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

[4], [5]. So it seems this "cryptic" predates cryptology.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, everything in the man-eating tree article predates cryptozoology... by a lot. --tronvillain (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood, this is not about them being "real", but rather they are not crypozooalogic. [6].Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Merge proposal with lists of legendary creatures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of cryptids is nothing more than a pseudoscientific content fork of lists of legendary creatures (for in-depth discussion regarding Wikipedia's cryptozoology problem and how it has negatively impacted Wikipedia's coverage of folklore material, see here). Ideally, we'd just merge in links to whatever isn't currently covered over at lists of legendary creatures, where it can be handled outside of a pseudoscientific lens. This would solve the many issues surrounding this page, including the problem of sourcing and the issue with scope. (@Rhododendrites:, who initially proposed the possibility of a merge.) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• This can work if no creature here is left behind. The sourcing will still be a problem as none of the legendary list you are proposing to merge to has a source. A link to an article is not a source. The wording will also need to be changed to include cryptids in the "lists of legendary creatures" lead. Otherwise, this is not a bad idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

As I mention above, cryptid is a pseudoscientific term (WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE). All entities on this list are creatures from the folklore record. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I read you own personal wiki essay and you are wrong on that issue. The term is not only used by cryptozoologists. A merge is to merge all aspects of this article... not to pick and choose. It can be streamlined certainly. But cryptid must be mentioned if a cryptid article is to be merged into another. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the article was authored by myself and @LuckyLouie:. I'm not sure what to tell you but to please review Wikipedia policies surrounding pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Merge as nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• No Merge – Per the author of this merge request's own words, this is a deletion disguised as a merge. He wants no mention of the term cryptid at all, and wants to pick and choose what to merge. That is not what merging is all about. The past deletion request was a snowball and the article was kept. This appears to be an end-run against that keep. A merge should include all the current content or it's not really a merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's extremely well established that the term cryptid is not used by folklorists or biologists, and is a mark of pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). This article is a pseudoscientific fork, and our coverage of cryptozoology has since improved to the point that no one is confusing it with folkloristics anymore. We'll merge what listings aren't there already and drop the fringe (WP:FRINGE). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, a delete disguised as a merge. That is a lie to those participating who think it's a merge request. It's also why the last editor who reverted your crusade wrote ""you've been campaigning against this page for years, including sending it to afd which resulted in snow keep. now you claim consensus on another page for redirecting, without so much as a notice on this talk page.... and then you edit war over it???" Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is it important that the term "cryptid" be included in the list of legendary creatures, should it be moved? The reason I floated this as a possibility in a section above is because, at a glance, it looks like this is a list of entries already included in the multiple lists of legendary creatures, and it's not clear to me what information this provides that couldn't simply be included there under a different name. It would remove e.g. lazarus taxa and phantom cats, but those articles already have their own lists which could be developed. I don't agree with bloodofox that cryptozoology should necessarily be removed/subordinate to folkloristics (after all, we cover many subjects separately when they're covered in both pop culture and academia), but in this case it would be helpful to me to understand what specifically about this list is important that the list of legendary creatures would not cover (aside from use of cryptozoology vocabulary terms... unless that's the most important thing?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

One, it would be a merge so that would include everything from this article that is not already in the legendary creatures article. That's what we do with merges. Of course there could be some streamlining and manipulation to make it work. But this is a list of cryptids and their attributes that other editors have added and researched. Unless it was to get deleted for non-notability or copyright issues, it should not go down the drain as such... Especially in a proposed merging of content. Eberhart's classification would also need to be merged as it is not in the legendary creatures article. Of course it could be a subsection or a footnote, but it should be fully merged. There are a lot of housekeeping things that must be done to protect the original writers of this article. Cryptid is a more and more common term used by the media, and if a list of crytids is to me merged it should let our readers know that it is also a list of cryptids and what beasts are actually cryptids and which are not. That is the type of thing we always have to take care of and keep in mind in tennis article mergers. At Tennis Project we also run into things like people merging an article fairly per consensus, and then a couple months later sneakily delete the info from the merged page. When that happens we either re-add it, or recreate the original article before it was merged. We would need to keep an eye out for that here. This article's contents was a snowball keep. Even a merge is iffy to succeed, but if it does then "lists of legendary creatures" and "List of cryptids" become a single combined article... not really one over the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I mean, that's not necessarily how mergers always work – they are often messy, often deal with unsourced content, often must negotiate things like weight and summary style, etc. – and the protection of the original writers of an article shouldn't really be a factor in determining something like this, but I can appreciate where you're coming from and why you're likely to be cynical of this proposal. One problem is that none of the lists of legendary creatures have any real lead to speak of, which would make it quite awkward to try to merge the lead of this article into it without immediately becoming undue weight. Ideally such a page would cover all of the noteworthy ways people talk about the subjects, contextualizing with the vocabulary of folklore, cryptozoology, etc.

Maybe it would make sense to approach this proposed merger as about whether the articles should be combined, before talking about how they should be combined. I would be perfectly fine saying that such a merger should not take place without finding consensus on what the final product will look like. I would urge you not to get hung up on specific elements of the text at this time, lest this thread start splintering tangents. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the mergers I've been involved with, you merge it all. I guess I haven't gotten into long drawn out messy mergers. But remember what seems to be asked here with this so-called merge. We have a list with prose of 35k bytes of info. The requester seems to think we can move the dozen or so examples that aren't in the legendary list and disregard 100% of the prose, pics, and the fact they are cryptids (if sourced as such) and yet call this a merge. That's a deletion in my book, and that already failed badly. I have no problem keeping an open mind on the final product but knowing what the final product looks like would determine for me whether this should be merged or not. Summary styles are always a give and take when two articles merge, that's a given, and I mentioned that fact. However you don't just keep all of one and banish the other. You work it out. Those lists "should" have leads, or at least the main list of all the letters of the alphabet should. If it would start to be undue weight, that's a red flag that it needs it's own article and shouldn't be merged in the first place. While I wouldn't get hung up on all the terms that might be in the final product, I can say that a banishment on the term cryptid, when that is the main term in the article being merged, would be frowned upon a tremendous amount. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• No Merge – Merging this with "Legendary creatures" is unnecessary and would be confusing since Cryptids and Mythological creatures are NOT the same thing. Merging it would be misleading and confusing as to which entries are cryptids and which aren't. My recommendation is to just give this article a good leaning up, with all entries given proper citations showing that they are both cryptids and notable. A merge seems a bit much and not really appropriate.--Paleface Jack 23:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, @Paleface Jack:, we'd only be bringing over the legendary creatures not already listed there. We'd be leaving the pseudoscience behind, which is the major problem with this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So technically this isn't really a merger proposal. It's more of a cleaning up proposal from what you've said. I say we keep the article, and move any entries that are of mythological creatures to their appropriate listings. Cleaning up the article just seems to make a lot more sense rather than merging the article.--Paleface Jack 17:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

We'd be merging what isn't already at that list from this list. Almost everything listed here falls into the category of "legendary creature" (creatures from the folklore record), making this list a pseudoscientific content fork of Lists of legendary creatures. There's no way to source this article with reliable sources, and it has a limitless scope. It's been tagged for years for these reasons. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• No Merge Not because these are not mythical (well it does rather depend on how you define mythological), but because if I am searching for "mythical creatures" I want ones from mythology, not ones from pop culture or pseudoscience.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, we'd be bringing over the legendary creatures not already listed there. We'd be leaving the pseudoscience behind.:bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That reads to me like a POVy value judgement. Without knowing what will (And will not) be merged I cannot give support to it. Is Nessie Mythological, what about Big Foot? Black Shuck sure, what about the Beast of Gévaudan?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If they're entities from the folklore record, they fall in the category of "legendary creatures" (legend being a folklore genre and all), which would include all the beings you've mentioned. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This does not answer my question, I gave you specific examples. And what is "the folklore record", books by amateur folk loreists, ancient records or charters? There are many Crypitids that have, alleged, folklore anticendants, yet it is often a stretch to really make them fit (an example being Nessie). So do all folklorists have to agree, or if we have a challenge to a real folklore anticendant (as in Nessie) it gets excluded?Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The examples you give all stem from the folklore record. In other words, they're all entities from folklore. The phrase folklore record is much like the phrase archaeological record — the folklore we have on record, whether that's an audio recording produced by a folklorist, a transcription, a collection of narratives, or so on. Folklore includes topics like recipes, folk songs, jokes, legends, and myth, both ancient and contemporary. Its formal study is folkloristics. As with archaeology, there are amateur folklorists, academic folklorists, folklorists who work for governments, and folklorists who work in the private sphere. In the US, schools such as the University of Oregon and the University of Indiana administer programs in folkloristics. Folklorists have produced quite a few studies on the concept of nessie and bigfoot, as well as related figures. Crucially, they don't view them as potentially 'hiding somewhere' (thus they don't use terms like cryptid), but instead consider the development and implications of folk beliefs and narratives surrounding the figures. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the "cryptids" of the list are not legendary creatures. They are extinct species, but cryptozologists and others have suggested that there are still remnant populations of them. For example, the list includes the Hokkaido wolf which was hunted to extinction in the late 19th century. There are theories of surviving populations in Sakhalin. The list also includes the ivory-billed woodpecker, whose status as an extinct animal has been disputed for over 70 years. The last known ivory-billed woodpecker died in 1944, but there have been many unconfirmed sightings over the decades. A number of expeditions have tried to locate remnant populations, with no result so far. Other entries in the list are simply remains of disputed status. The so-called MacFarlane's bear is a proposed species of bear, known only from a single, deceased sample in 1864. More recently it was suggested that the sample was either a Grizzly–polar bear hybrid (rare, but their existence was confirmed through DNA tests) or a brown bear found outside its typical range. Dimadick (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

True. Another category are animals that do exist but have allegedly been sighted in areas where they should not be, such as British big cats. The problem with "cryptids" is that it is a junk room full of beasties whose only common property is that their existence has been claimed by somebody at some time, but they are not proven to exist. That means it ranges from ancient bogiemen whose purpose was to frighten children, to blurry shadows encountered at night by Joe Schmoe last week. Assembling all of them in one group and calling that group "cryptids" is the idea of a gaggle of pseudoscientists, and the question is whether to honor their work with a list article such as this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Which would be a good point not to merge the articles. But it could still be done as long as the merged lead states it is legendary animals and cryptids (and perhaps a title change after a merge), and notes the difference in the lists. As for listing the group of cryptids it's no different than listing an even more gigantic group of legendary creatures. As long as it's sourced to something published. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"But it could still be done as long as the merged lead states it is legendary animals and cryptids" - What's next? List of legendary animals, cryptids, gods, comic superheroes, imaginary friends and races from the Star Wars franchise? No. A junk room does not become less junky if you fill it with more stuff. Legendary animals is a relatively clear-cut group which is traditionally handled by mythologists. Why dump the cryptozoologists' stuff there? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, if you don't want a merge, you don't want to merge. And you're probably right as the cryptid folks probably wouldn't want their junk room filled with mythology junk if the tables were reversed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a solid point. In this case, we just wouldn't merge these items over. Biologists cover these topics extensively, well beyond the realm of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You could roll all of those into a "List of extinct species claimed to be extant." Lumping them together with legendary creatures and creatures from modern folklore (the Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra) is strange.--tronvillain (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Do we not already have a list like that? Should presumably be easy to source with reliable biology citations. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't seem to, at least going by Lists of extinct animals.--tronvillain (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we have anything like list of animals formally considered extinct? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be Lazarus taxon.--tronvillain (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This article was created before Lists of legendary creatures (about a year before), so it is hard to see how this is a content fork.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting — so we had a list of cryptids on Wikipedia before we had a lists of legendary creatures? That says a lot — I'll add that to User:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology, as it's further indication of how cryptozoology once dominated our coverage of folklore-related topics on the site. Still, regardless of when it was created, it's a content fork (Wikipedia:Content forking), as it just replicates what is elsewhere (or should be elsewhere) in a pseudoscientific framework. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking that all this talk of merging and pseudo-science is from a sceptic's perspective. It would be nice to actually have people from WikiProject Cryptozoology sharing their thoughts on this proposed merge but It seem here that the concensus has already been decided as NO MERGE.--Paleface Jack 01:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, there's a Wikiproject Cryptozoology? *checks* Well, looks pretty quiet over there. And there's no rush to declare consensus "already decided."----tronvillain (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, but clean up the crypids - eg Japanese wolf should not be there, being neither cryptic nor legendary, just extinct. A new list of possibly-not-recently-extinct-after-all animals might be split off (but only recent extinctions, so alleged but unconfirmed Lazarus taxons). That's a very different situation. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What is your reason for opposing the merge? And do you have any suggestions for the scope of this article and how to source it? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

They are different concepts. Nobody at all thinks the "legendary" ones actually exist, and most have a long history in folklore, and often are supposed to have quasi-supernatural powers etc. This should be for ones that are claimed to exist; most do not feature in traditional folklore in fact, probably because they are recent inventions, and are not ascribed especially implausible abilities. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You're aware that an entity doesn't need to be "traditional" to fall within the category of folklore (as defined by academics), such as the chupacabra, bigfoot, and any number of lake monsters, or even rumors about wildcats in specific areas, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said "traditional folklore"! Non-academics, whose views also count, tend to count "contemporary folklore" as "journalism" or "internet crap". And not everything in folklore is "legendary" in any case. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, cryptids are not always creatures from folklore, and many creatures from folklore are not cryptids. A cryptid is a creature that has been seen (in recent times), one that a case can be made for their existence (albeit some cases are rather improbable). Same classes of cryptids, such as species or subspecies that are officially extinct but of which there are still reported sightings (such as the Zanzibar leopard, or pterosaurs), do not qualify as creatures from folklore- creatures from news stories, sure, but not folklore. I have studied both folklore and cryptozoology (among many other things), so I have a good idea of what I'm talking about here.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.