Talk:List of cryptids

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cryptids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cryptozoology Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Folklore Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Megan Gibson (2011-01-14). "Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary: 10 Unforgettable Entries". TIME. Retrieved 2010-01-15. This handy guide helps you determine whether a creature's existence is still unconfirmed or discredited. Stephen Harrison (February 13, 2023). "Why Wikipedia Is So Tough on Bigfoot". Slate (magazine). Retrieved February 15, 2023. To sum up, it seems to me that the two sides of Wikipedia's Never-Ending Cryptozoological War could both stand to make some concessions. First, if a reputable publisher describes an entity as a "cryptid," then Wikipedia should classify it within its cryptid category. (Sorry, Bloodofox.) This relaxed admission standard does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia's list of cryptids needs to jump to the previous 300 entries—that doesn't really serve readers, either.

The contents of the Cryptid page were merged into List of cryptids on September 23 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2016. The result of the discussion was Snow Keep.

This article was nominated for merging with Lists of legendary creatures on 10 April 2018. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for merging with Cryptozoology on 26 August 2018. The result of the discussion was Keep.

hardly seems fair to include this and so imply that Steller and the other zoologists were pseudoscientists. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If RS say it is a cryptid, we do. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord. Steller made his observation in 1741 of what was probably a northern fur seal, as the Steller's sea ape article says. Much of what was accepted as sound science then is now considered pseudoscience. Carlstak (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moa is an actual extinct species of flightless birds with multiple subspecies. Went extinct after the arrival of Polynesians in New Zealand. Doesn’t seem like it should be on list NotherdayinParadise (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but sightings of living ones are. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UfO's are now a proven fact given the events, footage and hearings released by the US government and do not belong in the category of cryptids. 173.49.152.23 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. UFO just means that someone has not identified it. So, it has always been a proven fact. It's like "unsolved crimes". Of course they exist.
2. If you mean aliens instead of UFOs, it is still bullshit. The US government is not a reliable source.
3. UFOs are not in the list of cryptids. They are just mentioned in passing. What exactly do you want to change? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm requesting that a Cryptid be added to the list. I live in Tonawanda, New York, and many locals talk about the Crow Woman of Tonawanda. She's usually described as tall, thin, extremely pale, with long dark hair, and is completely silent. She is usually seen in wooded areas, almost always seen at night, and is either prefaced by seeing a large amount of crows, or seen with a large amount of crows. Savathûn's Bride (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need wp:rs for this to be added. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, though it's majority local folklore. It's hard to credit folklore, unfortunately. Savathûn's Bride (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you originally posted this a few days ago, I was intrigued and did some research. It's not just that I couldn't find a good source; I couldn't even find it mentioned anywhere on the internet. Searching for the literal string, this Talk page is quite literally the only place on the web that it appears. I find plenty of intersection between 'crow' and 'Tonawanda', but they are all references the tribe (not the town), and either connect to historian Matthew Crow or link to sources on First Nations tribes in general that speak of the Seneca people (including the Tonawanda) and the Crow people. If it's a local legend, it appears to be a fairly recent one. If not, perhaps you can interest a researcher in writing about her? Folklorists often get their best leads from conversations that start, "You mean you really haven't heard of...?" Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But until then, no we can't have anything about it (read wp:undue please). Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda thought that went without saying? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it did, the OP would not have asked. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to rephrase: I felt that the fact I was pointing out (1) that no one on the bloody planet had heard of it, and (2) that S Bride should really contact a folklorist if was real in any way whatsoever, and (3) that I did not in any way suggest your post was wrong, that 'it went without saying' (ie. that the only reasonable inference from what I wrote would be) that I thought the Crow Woman of Tonawanda does not belong in this encyclopaedia. I will attempt to be less subtle next time since that obviously was lost on at least one reader. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, everything's cool. We're all on the same page here, trying to build an encyclopedia. How about we let this end...lest that Leaping Loopy thing pay a visit? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fun, short read about some alleged creatures hanging out in the general area of Tonawanda (western New York state). But alas The Crow Woman is not mentioned. Perhaps she needs a better PR outfit? In any case I am not sure this single source would cut it (i.e., WP:DUE) even if "she" was mentioned, but perhaps some of the others are covered in reliable sources? The Leaping Loopy of Leicester certainly has a fabulous name. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]