Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

List of cryptids merge request?

Since the merge request was put in the wrong place I'm not sure how valid any kind of a merge would be but at the very least this article should have been at the head of the class as far as being notified. Incredible that it wasn't until now. It seems way too large a list to merge into cryptozoology to me, and this is a complete merge, not a deletion, but perhaps others who frequent this list have changed their minds on the subject since the last deletion and merge requests, or perhaps the new merge placement is better suited. No matter which way you swing on the subject please note that there is a merge request at:

• merge request Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5#Merger_proposal

All participants are welcome. I'll do my best to let all the editors from the last two discussions know about the merge request (other than those already in the discussion). For help the last two discussions are at:

• Deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cryptids
• Merge request Talk:List_of_cryptids/Archive_4#Merge_proposal_with_lists_of_legendary_creatures

@Michig, The Soldier of Peace, Andrew Davidson, Lugnuts, Clpo13, Dimadick, David Gerard, Bornloser07, Rhododendrites, Paleface Jack, Hob Gadling, Johnbod, and SilverTiger12:

I hope this helps with any oversight. happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:MERGEPROP, the correct place for a merge request is the talk page of the target page for the proposed merger, not the source page. Also, this page was notified, by the merge tag added on the same day as the merge was proposed. --tronvillain (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected on placement. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As the initiator of the merger proposal, I would like to clarify that, in regards to it seeming "way too large a list to merge into cryptozoology", I do not think that that should be done. I think that the list should be limited to a section within the Cryptozoology article, and that it should be significantly shortened. Only cryptids with multiple, independent, verifiable sources supporting their status as cryptids should be listed there. –Matthew - (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit of a problem with the snowball keep and the fact we merged Cryptid into here to begin with. I agree that we should be using inline sourcing, perhaps in another column, to make sure that multiple cryptozoology books and news sources say these creatures are in the cryptozoology sphere of influence. In fact I proposed that awhile back. We've had to delete many new entries because editors try to add them with no sourcing. I do think that most of the current entries can be sourced as cryptozoological/cryptids, they just haven't been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to those mysterious WP:RS-compliant sources you keep teasing but have yet to produce! :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've produced plenty, you justdontlikeit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources likes https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/cryptozoological/ or Dave's Cryptid Emporium or whatever website you've dug up don't meet WP:RS, much less WP:FRIND, as you're keenly aware at this point. As you know, you can only expect them to be removed when added. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course I would expect "you" to delete them. But as you know you've been told by administrators that books on Cryptozoology are perfectly acceptable for sources of cryptids, just not for science. So you can expect them to be re-added if you remove published sources. This is the type of thing that we call bias against the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I recall a fairly recent thread where numerous editors, including administrators, told you exactly the opposite when you attempted to use cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org as a source. And here it is. So where exactly is this "told by administrators" thread, again? I must have missed it. The reality is that, as you saw there, you'd be hard pressed to find a group of admins that would give you the go-ahead to use sites like genesispark.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

Partridge Creek monster 184.14.199.206 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you want done?Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCedros (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Megalania - Giant Australian Monitor Lizard

Left out of list of Cryptids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CF:8100:A654:881B:1B2F:6547:CEA2 (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to add - Megalania has been extinct for ~50,000 years. --Bahudhara (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass edits

Can users please not add (or remove) thousands of words at a time. it makes it very hard to judge the merits of an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I get that you’re a proponent of the psuedosciencd and all, but you’re aware that WP:PROVEIT requires you to source unreferenced additions you restore. As a result, I’m again asking you to revert the “thousands of words” of unreferenced WP:PROFRINGE material you’re repeatedly adding to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask you to AGF, I have asked that wall of text edits are not made so we can make a proper evaluation. That is not being a proponent for anything (other them maybe courtesy), and I have not repeatedly added “thousands of words”, I reinserted it twice (as it was removed without discussion). And you did not ask me to remove it at any point, you just took it upon yourself to remove it without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In the future, before lunging at that revert button after seeing my user name, I suggest you take the time to review the article’s edit history. Nobody has to discuss removing unreferenced fringe stuff. You’re well aware of this fact. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favour of trimming the list, but I'll point out that this appears to have simply been a reorganization, not a "wave of unreferenced or poorly referenced additions." Unreferenced or poorly referenced they may be, and many of them may be worth removing, but they were already on the list. --tronvillain (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Which is another reason why I do not like wall of text edits (whoever makes them, and from what ever side of a debate). It makes it hard to tell what is being added, removed, moved or reworded.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I had to open the actual pages on either end of the diff and go through the list item by item to compare, but I'm pretty sure nothing was actually added. --tronvillain (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet the edit summery says it is 4,534 words larger now. So something was removed by Bloody.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's bytes, not words. The difference seems to purely be a function of the reorganization. --tronvillain (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a hell of a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Doing it another way, copying "list" section into Word gives 2057 words versus 1993, or a difference of 64. The new headings take care of 18 or so of those, tweaks to Megaladon is another eight, which leaves 48 words somewhere - probably tweaks to descriptions or other names. --tronvillain (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

One byte usually equals one character. As I said the edit is way too large to judge what was done. The edit summery implied removal, not moval.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary implied that, but if you actually go through the list, all it did was undo the rearrangements that started with the 13,034 byte addition which was gradually whittled down by subsequent edits to the 4-5k range, which was then reverted to before the addition. As you say, huge edits make it hard to judge what was going on. I think the rearrangement mostly works. --tronvillain (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What is odd is that my revert removed something that Bloodys revert added, the Trinity Alps giant salamander. So it seems to have been rather more then just a rearrangement.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the salamander was on the list before the rearrangement.--tronvillain (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Which adds to the confusion as all I did was revert this "rearrangement".15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No, bloodofox reverted the rearrangement - you restored it. --tronvillain (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

OK so I reverted his revert, that makes no difference to the basic point. What he did was more then just a re-reordering. It dopes not matter who started this "not just re-ordering" what matters is that this was (form the start) more then just a re-ordering, material was being added, removed (and god knows what else besides).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's what's worrying you, you should be reverting to before the 13,034 byte initial rearrangement. It's possible something slipped through the cracks (like the salamander) during Leo1pard's rearrangement, but as I said, going through the list by hand I'm pretty sure it's mostly still there.--tronvillain (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have done had I caught it, but there were edits made after it and it was only the last that showed up on the alters. And I do not have roll back privileges. That (as I said) is why I did not address this to any one user.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivory-billed woodpecker

The Ivory-billed woodpecker was recently removed because it is "real". My understanding is that the list also includes sightings of real animals thought to be extinct or outside their known range, such as alleged cougar populations in the Eastern United States. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That was my understanding too.Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's literally one of the examples in Eiberhart's criteria, so if we're still using that for the list, that removal should probably be reverted. --tronvillain (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right about that, of course. However, it's pretty awkward that we're still using this criteria given that it's entirely Eberhart's invention. As we've all discussed plenty of times, Eberhart's classification scheme is restricted to his own writings on the topic. I guess what we'll do depends on the outcome of the merge proposal above — any idea why that hasn't closed yet? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't been a month yet, but someone might actually have to request closure if we want a third party to look at it. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers --tronvillain (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

And its now two months and still open.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, bloodofox said yesterday they'd request admin closure. --tronvillain (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

talk pages

Edits to this page should be discussed at this page, not at any others.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

After the merge discussion

OK, so the merge discussion is over, and the guidance there is not to merge unless the list dwindles to 5 or 6. However the closer supported deleting unsourced inclusions on the list. I think it's fair to give people a couple of days to get sources for the purported cryptids on this list, but after that I think the time will have come to begin cutting the cruft. Get your sources in here folks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, it needs more then a couple of days. Tag any unsourced claims and then give a reasonable time to respond.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That RFC went on for months and people were talking about unsourced claims from day 1. There's been plenty of opportunity for improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A discussion on an articles talk page is irrelevant to another articles. News users may turn up, other users may not be currently active who may return, still others may not have participated in that discussion who may want to add sources here. I did not take the closure to be a crate blacnche to start removing material. I also note that many of the linked articles call the creatures Cryptids, which generally (therefore) would not require separate sourcing. Two days is not enough, tag it wait and them start to remove. That is the correct procedure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to remove from the list of terrestrial cryptids: 1) Andean wolf: either a domestic dog or a maned wolf; 2) Mountain fennec, apparently a local name for a fennec; 3) Eastern cougar, an extinct cougar population; 4) Maltese tiger, either a rare colour morph of a tiger, or a made-up story; and perhaps also 5) Onza, a misidentified jaguar or jaguarundi. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe people need to start looking for sources, and not just nominating.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Also start to read parent articles, the Maltese tiger is classed as a cryptid in our article on it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just why I say tag and wait, of the four listed two now have sources, one link to a page that calls it a Cryptid, and that took how many minutes? We have to examine each case individually to make it easy to check (for example) each parent article. This takes time when you have so many entries. Nor is it a task one person should have to carry out. So no entry whose parent article includes reference to it being a cryptid should even be tagged (as per the usual practice). So I would ask that before taging (or nominating) check the parent article to see if it is regarded as a cryptid, it will save others a lot of work checking what you should have done.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Like anywhere else on the site, all sources must abide by WP:RS. Since this is a pseudoscience we're talking about, that threshold is particularly high. Additionally, Wikipedia has a wide variety of policies and guidelines about sourcing, including WP:PROVEIT: If it doesn't have a source, take it out. Now. The burden is on whoever re-adds the material to cite it. That couldn't be anymore explicit.

Speaking of wasting the time of others, please don't link dump URLs like you did here: Provide citations. In fact, I've only looked at one of the references you've provided so far, and it doesn't even use the word cryptid to describe the creature ([1], instead using the evident neologism "crypto-animal"). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking through other URLs you've added, I'm seeing transparent WP:RS violations like this. Seriously? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ohh come on, really you are going to argue semantics? What the hell is a "crypto-animal" going to be other then a "cryptozoological animal"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is why it needs to be done one at a time, so we can discus what sources there are.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It also takes time to format sources correctly, and just being raw urls is not really a valid reason for deleting them (rather then improving them). Maybe if two day limits were not imposed we could take that time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Slater, I've interacted with you elsewhere and I'm certain that you know that under no circumstances would sources like this be acceptable. Additionally, a bunch of content farm listicles and pseudoscience proponents don't reliable sources make (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, etc.). There are reliable sources we can pull from, such as publications by Donald Prothero, but it's never OK to dump a bunch of bad source URLs on an article and then expect someone else to tidy them up later. Really, it just doesn't result in productive discourse nor improve the article. I'll pull some stuff from Prothero today. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, as The Gnome makes clear, please refrain from adding material that violates WP:FRIND. In other words, please refrain from adding material from cryptozoologists, ufologists, or Young Earth creationist sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here it may do, as this is a page about what people think a pseudo science is, that does not mean they are right. I see no reason why what criminologists believe cannot be included here, is that not what this is about, what they believe (and not its veracity). I would not expect to have to only be given two days to check all of this, I have been, so maybe we should do as I ask and give users weeks or months to sort this out. And no this is new, as now this is (in effect) an attempt to merge the page by deletion (again).Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Even outside of WP:FRINGE articles, self-published sources are inappropriate. You know this. I know you know this.Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that self-published works are not appropriate, but published works are fine, even if from cryptozoologists. They should not be a first choice however. And a couple days is ridiculous... there's a lot here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll start taking a look through. If the main article for the entry in the list has any robust sourcing it should be pretty simple to add something to the listing. If there are not reliable sources in the main article then maybe this will instigate some clean up. Also, placing a time limit of like two days is arbitrary, impractical, and clearly (in my opinion) a non-starter. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's either an arbitrary time limit as a courtesy or immediate. See, for example, WP:PROVEIT. We've been down this road many times before now and this sudden desire to source the article is not a ticket to leave it eternally unreferenced. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly no suggesting we let it languish. The "sudden desire to source it" is an excellent chance to trim the fat. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Just some clarity on what the concensus is would be nice because I don't want to have a bunch of edits reverted because a lot of these entries are not going to have sufficient sourcing in the time frame you're imposing. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How about moving the controversial items to the Talk page? Then we have a stock of clear cases in the article, and those who want the controversial cases in the article can take their time to look for good sources. When people agree that there are good sources for an item, it can be moved back. There will still be discussions, but no edit war. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are two examples currently in the article:

• Used as a source in the article, but no mention of the word "cryptid"
• Again, used in the article but no mention of the word "cryptid"

I get that there's a great desire to make the article seem referenced by some users watching this page, particularly proponents of the pseudoscience, but false references are not a solution. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• With regard to the idea that the time limit I proposed is arbitrary, it is, entirely, and was proposed as a courtesy rather than just going in and cutting anything that wasn't referenced to a reliable source immediately. This discussion was ongoing since August. If sources exist there has been ample opportunity to include them. And even if something is deleted, there's nothing to prevent it from being re-inserted later, with an appropriate citation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really as we have wasted huge amounts of timer over the merger, whether or not X is an RS, Christ whether or not the source has to actually say Cryptid, or whether we can use sources that use other related terms (that are referring to cryptozoologocal animals). The "avoid merger" requirement is new, and unusual (as I said [[wp:list] does not require us to source entries that have wikilinked articles).Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that some of those entities, such as Globster are not mythological animals but rather natural phenomena that sometimes confuse people. So calling them a cryptid without a source saying they're a cryptid is questionable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So then we need to waste huge amounts of time finding sources that use a specific word, when we have other sources saying "crypto animal" or "cryptozoological creature" or any number of related terms.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Examples (just for the Globster) [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. Are these sufficient to include Globster in the list, or are they not good enough because they do not use the term "cryptid"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't find an independent, reliable source that discusses the subculture considering it to be a "cryptid"? Then that's a clear sign that it shouldn't be included. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it is a clear sign they do not always use the same word, its quite common.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said this is why we need more time, sudden injections of new criteria for what counts as a source. For a start we need to decide if we can only use sources that say Crytptid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So until it is cleared up by community consensus what sources we can use nothing should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Anything can be removed from this list at any time that isn't reliably sourced, just like anywhere else. See WP:PROVEIT. Unreferenced materially here currently remains solely out of courtesy. :bloodofox: (talk)

(edit conflict)@Slatersteven:You know that's not how it works. And frankly, the absence of a clear definition of what is meant by "cryptid" is part of how we got into the mess with fringe nonsense like this. Is a cryptid:

1. A organism of unknown taxonomy? (This would categorize many bacteria as cryptids)
2. A macroorganism of unknown taxonomy? (This would preclude most of the mythological creatures as there's no evidence Nessie is in fact a macroorganism rather than a story)
3. A proposed mythological creature? (This would definitely preclude things like globsters)
4. Whatever nonsense a random bigfoot hunter decides counts as a cryptid? (WP:PROFRINGE says no)
5. Something else? Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What has this to do with it being a requirement for a source to use it? In fact if anything the fact it is not clearly defined means we should not be using it as an indicator for inclusion. So what should we use (and maybe this is why the article remains largely unsourced, we do not even have an agreement on what counts as a Cryptid. So until we have clear (and consensus built) inclusion criteria no material should be removed. Lets start to actually improve this list.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If we don't have a working definition of a cryptid supported by reliable sources we have to use an ad-hoc definition supported by reliable sources. Which means, yes, the source needs to say, "this thing is considered a cryptid." Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather the (say) "cryptozooalogiocal"? or "crypto-animal"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Cryptid" Coined in 1982

This is a reminder that the term cryptid was coined by a cryptozoologist in 1982 (Cryptozoology#cite_note-4). Please don't add sources that predate this coinage. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We're gonna be wiping out a large portion of this list based on what I'm finding in a lot of these articles. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we add notes as we go through to keep track of what's been looked at and vetted? There is a lot of stuff here and it's going to be hard to keep track of who has checked out what. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We have to make sure these creatures are either said to be a "cryptid" or written about/studied by cryptozoologists. If they aren't even mentioned as such in cryptozoology books or magazines/newspapers then they have no business being here on this list. This is a list of cryptids that are sourced as such. However if the cryptid source is there but sparse, certainly you can add another source that goes into more detail about the beast. I suggest an extra column for sourcing such as this. It's easier to see what has and hasn't been sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have asked about this at RSN, I cannot think how this can be even a valid idea. Its like saying that you cannot use a source saying "aeroplane" on the article about "Aircraft" as they are not the same word.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's because the word cryptid instills a pseudoscientific approach to a topic. Cryptozoologists often discuss entities they don't consider to be "cryptids". If you're having trouble finding a source that, at bare minimum, isn't independent, reliable, and doesn't discuss how a cryptozoologist considers something to be a "cryptid", then you might as well strike it form the list and move on, because it isn't notable enough for inclusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it means they have not used that one word, they may call is a "crypto-animal" (what does that mean if not its a cryptozooalogical beastie?), they may well say "this list of Cryptozoological beasties". Maybe they do often discus creature they do not consider cryptids, but if they make it clear they are talking about a Cryptozoological beasties then we should not reject that based upon their not using a word "that as far as I know" has no official status as an official term.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about fringe topics here, and there's a lot of disagreement in this subculture. If a cryptozoologist is intentionally avoiding the term cryptid for some reason, then it might be worth finding and explanation as to why that is, but if not, then we shouldn't be making any assumptions about what's going on. This isn't exactly a subculture where science is highly valued, just the projecting the impression of science. Again, this is a list of cryptids. Let's stick to that. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Err we are not talking about cryptozoologists but RS that are commenting on cryptozoology, and they may well not use a poorly defined term (assuming they even know it). If an RS says "and among the animals cryptozoologists claim exits are..." how is that not a source for those creatures being creators deemed by cryptozoologist cryptozoological? Unless we are using cryptozoological sources it does not matter why they are not using the term.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As for the Williams source (for readers, here's a link), again, we don't know why he used , but he's obviously avoiding the term "cryptid". Who knows. Look, it's not hard to find academics discussing this stuff, but most of this is extremely non-notable, even among cryptozoologists. If you cant'f find an explicit, independent, non-questionable source, just consider it non-notable and move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because he is talking about animals (and not say plants), but that is irrelevant. It is clear he is talking about creaturesa that are part of cryptozoology (else he would not use the term Crypto). The issue is imposing semantic restrictions on the Use of RS. The fact that a given term is not used by RS does not mean it is not notable, just they have not chosen to use that specific term. I would argue "crypto-animals" is explicitly referring to cryptozoologogical creatures, else he would have used another term such as mythological or undiscovered.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that we can even have this redundant and circular discussion says it all: This is too murky. Just find a better source or move on, please. If it's notable, they should be plentiful. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

False Sources and Non-Independent Sources

Folks, I'm seeing a lot of sources added here that don't make mention of the word "cryptid". Please ensure that the source meets WP:FRIND and explicitly says that cryptozoologists refer to the monster or whatever as a "cryptid".

Additionally, I'm seeing a lot of sources from media entities that do not mention that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, often repeating talking points provided to them by cryptozoologists as fact. This seems like an issue with WP:FRIND to me. Any serious independent secondary source would make this quite explicit. We're going to need to get some clarity on this moving forward. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reinsertion of False and Non-Independent Sources

Today I've removed a bunch of sources that either made no mention of the word "cryptid" or violated WP:FRIND. However, a few notable examples currently remain:

• No mention of the word "cryptid"
• Again, no mention of the word "cryptid")

These items remain because @Fyunck(click): has repeatedly reinserted them. Now, normally it'd be enough to simply mention this in an edit summary, but this has resulted in little more than what appears to be feigned ignorance (reversions: 1, 2). Polite attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have met with the user simply reverting my addition ([5]) and an attempt by the user at badgering me with a template on my talk page ([6]). I refuse to edit war, so the sources currently remain.

This behavior is in direct opposition to the merge result decision (Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive 5#Merger_proposal—put simply, provide WP:RS/WP:FRIND-meeting source item or remove it and go from there). More generally, this isn't how to build an article on Wikipedia and, in fact, I'm having trouble interpreting this as anything more than disruption for disruption's sake. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above... there is no problem with sources that don't say anything about cryptids as long as they are accompanied by sources that do talk about cryptids or cryptozoology. I did just that. You on the other hand have reverted 5x today and I did not report it as I probably should have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Planting false sources in an apparent attempt to make the list appear referenced is certainly a new one by me. Rather than threaten, I suggest you open an admin thread. I refuse to edit war with you, but I’ll give you credit: faking sources is the funniest tactic I’ve seen in the pseudoscience wiki-world yet! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this one of those cases in which people remove sources with allegations about them that contradict evidence? Leo1pard (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 07:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Care to rephrase that? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Take this book as an example. You implied that it is 'self-published', 'unreliable' or that it doesn't use the word 'cryptid'. Let's take a closer look:

1) The book does mention the word 'cryptid'

2) It was published by Simon & Schuster, an American publishing company which published 2,000 titles annually under 35 different imprints, as of 2006.

How can you say that this is 'unreliable' or 'self-publication'? Leo1pard (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 06:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please review the edit summary. As you can see, I didn’t say that. The issue with this source is that it’s an obvious WP:FRIND violation. The author, George Eberhart, is a cryptozoologist. I make this clear in the edit summary. I also removed self-published stuff and items that do not contain the word "cryptid". This I also make clear in the summary. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

And as others have said, that is perfectly fine for a cryptozoology non-science topic. You use Tolkien books about Balrogs, Ghost books about ghosts, mythology books about mythology, and cryptozoology books about cryptids. If any of these topics tried to be scientific they would all be pseudosciences. If published cryptozoology books talk about a creature we should be able to use it here. Stop trying to say otherwise just because you hate the topic as much as Taylor Swift hates her ex's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you've got an issue with WP:FRIND, WP:FRINGE, and more generally WP:RS, I suggest you take it up with the talk page there. Meanwhile, we'll be moving forward with the merge proposal resolution, which includes removing false sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you did imply that, and you're talking about the wrong author. This book was not authored by George Eberhard, but by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, both of whom are cryptozoologists. My suspicion that this was one of those cases in which people remove sources with allegations about them that contradict evidence was proved right. Leo1pard (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 07:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you take a look at that edit summary. Eberhart's book was one of the items I removed and mentioned int he edit summary. Coleman and Clark's book is also a WP:FRIND violation, although I didn't call them out by name. Anyone can see that it's not self-published, but it's certainly pseudoscience. If you have complaints about WP:FRIND, please take them to the talk page there. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If we were talking science then yes... but we aren't. Just like Ghosts, Balrogs, Hobbits, Mythology, etc... we use fantasy books on those subjects to help source things that have no science in them. That's common at wikipedia. Just don't use them for anything science related. Each of the entries here needs at least one source that talks of cryptozoology study or cryptids. If it has that source, other sources that better describe the fantasy beast can also be used. But it must have a cryptozoological source to be listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you want to lobby to use material from pseudoscience proponents, you're in the wrong place: use the talk page at WP:RS. Young Earth creationists, ufologists, ghost hunters, and every other pseudoscience advocate out there has tried this tactic to get their sources on the site since the invention of Wikipedia. You also wouldn't be the first cryptozoologist proponent to give it a go (or climate change 'skeptic', for that matter!). Go for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, your edit warring and reverting multiple people got this started. Your bullying tactics (and again your snide remarks) may scare off many editors who want to add sourcing, but I'm not one of them to take your beat-down tactics anymore. Take your hatred of everything crypto-related somewhere else. Please stop it. Maybe you should start a topic called "List of Cryptids: Require Sources? Can't Find Any? Fake 'Em!"... oh wait, I see you did already. I could actually care less about crypto-whatevers and really came here the first time when I noticed your treatment of other editors. All I care about is fairness in how we handle of all these fantasy articles, whether it's mythology, folklore, ghosts, cryptids or whatever. Make sure no one confuses them with real science, and source them to make sure either newspapers, magazines, or books list them as cryptozoology specimens. That's what this article is about... fantasy creatures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Here we go with this again. Again, please take it to WP:RS and see what they have to say about it. Our directive here is clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It sure is clear for the rest of us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Frind means we cannot give them undue prominence or prominence over main stream views, not that we cannot include them. Nor can we say (or imply) what they say is true. None of these edits violates that. We make it clear from the off that this is fringe pseudoscience and this is only what cryptozoologists think. I really cannot understand for the life of me the objection to this. Of course we are going to have to use cryptozoologists views of what they think, that does not mean we endorse them (hell I shall make it clear in the lead if you really are so afraid readers will think that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's stick to WP:FRINGE guidelines. Please find some independent sources or consider it non-notable enough to not include it. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability is about articles not article content. Tne issue here is what can we include.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and it's not like there aren't enough sources to have a lot of information on cryptids. Leo1pard (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 18:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there are plenty of Young Earth creationists resources and sites like Bob's Cryptid Emporium or whatever. However, we need quality sources, and if they're lacking, then just pull it. There's no need to waste time wrangling around WP:RS when it's obvious we lack reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that there aren't WP:RS, you're showing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Leo1pard (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I get that you're a cryptozoologist and unhappy about all this discussion about pseudoscience and whatnot, but you're going to need to engage in conversation regarding policy and guidelines rather than leaning into claims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT over and over if you're going to contribute to discussion in any meaningful way. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How many times are you going to dodge questions like what Slatersteven and Tronvillain asked you? Leo1pard (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep it in one place, please. We're all discussing this topic below. I expect pushback from cryptozoologists on the site now and then, but I ask that you at least try to keep your attacks in one place. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I said before to take this book as an example. You implied that it is 'self-published', 'unreliable' or that it doesn't use the word 'cryptid'. Let's take a closer look:

1) The book does mention the word 'cryptid'

2) It was published by Simon & Schuster, an American publishing company which published 2,000 titles annually under 35 different imprints, as of 2006.

3) It was authored by 2 other cryptozoologists.

Again, how can you say that this is 'unreliable' or a 'self-publication'? Leo1pard (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

[7]. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not self-published, but it's clearly from a proponent of fringe theories. There needs to be something more than simply being mentioned by a cryptozoologist to establish "this is a cryptid" for something that by reliable sources is simply folklore or legend. For example, Abominable Science clearly establishes Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, sea serpents, and Mokele Mbembe as notable cryptids. Looking at Heuvelman and Sanderson's work, an obvious criteria is that it be an animal someone seriously suggests (or possibly suggested in the past) might one day be found. --tronvillain (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Again it seems that the merge close does not say we cannot use Cryptozoologocal works.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum heads-up

Greetings, everyone. An addendum to the closing decision has been posted up in the talk page of "Cryptozoology." It should clarify a few points about the way ahead. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Eberhart's classification

If we are using his classification as an example of what might be a cryptid how can we not allow the uses of him as a source for what is a cryptid?Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We should, and likewise for other cryptozoologists like Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, the more cryptozoologists there are whose works on this subject have been published, the greater the WP:Notability that can be demonstrated. Leo1pard (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Eberhart's classification system appears to only be used by Eberhart. This is definitely undue emphasis on Eberhart's apologetic approach to the subculture on the verge of promotional and is not particularly notable, either. Unless you can find discussion about its employment in the subculture, then it needs to go.

As for other sources, these primary sources are not by any stretch reliable, and present the pseudoscience in the most promotional manner possible. They also don't agree on fundamental aspects. In fact, what qualifies as a cryptid is not universally acknowledged in the subculture, nor is even use of the word itself in some cases. Because there's no foundation in science nor any sort of institutional support, one cryptozoologist's "cryptid" might just be another cryptozoologist's alien. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the justification for using Eberhart's criteria for the list doesn't ever seem to have been established, which is why we have things that are in no reasonable sense described as "cryptids" included on the list, like the ivory billed woodpecker. Even under his criteria, inclusion of subjects like hellhounds and black dogs is unjustified, since no one seems to be seriously suggesting that "might involve a real dog or wolf, or a mystery canid." --tronvillain (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Why then is it given such prominence?Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering the above, do we all agree that it should go? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I said that it should be used, not gone. You're the only one here who's saying that it should be gone, like you're the only one here who's saying that sources like that of Eberhart are unreliable, which is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Leo1pard (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC); edited 19:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's that whole WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE thing that we discuss above and all. And the fact that nobody seems to be using the classification system but Eberhart, an apologetic cryptozoologist. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that Eberhart is not the only guy here, and how many times are you going to dodge questions like those of Slatersteven and Tronvillain? Leo1pard (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Exactly what are you talking about? We're all wondering why on earth Eberhart's classification scheme is front and center—or appears at all on this list—at the moment. It appears that you're currently the exception. I will again ask you to read a little closer before posting. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Tronvillain asked you why Eberhart's classification is given such prominence. Please, no more dodging, either answer this properly, or don't say anything improper. Leo1pard (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm saying it should be gone. Why should the criteria of a promoter of fringe be the criteria for a Wikipedia list, often despite the lack of reliable sources establishing inclusion? Looking back, it was given such prominence because it was on the merged cryptid page and provided criteria to a list that didn't actually have any. --tronvillain (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, why is it given such prominence? Possibly because there weren't originally any criteria for inclusion at all? I'll have to look back. --tronvillain (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would concur, as I've implied elsewhere. If a definition for a cryptid can not be found in a source that meets WP:FRINGE reliability standards, we should not be using one that does not meet those standards as a basis for the list. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

so I was WP:BOLD about it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So, @Fyunck(click): has restored the Eberhart section ([8]), which I've reverted and asked him to take his case here. His comments make for interesting reading, and include some textbook original research (WP:OR): "Though it does not specifically follow cryptozoologist George M. Eberhart's classification method, that classification is given here as a general guideline that other cryptozoologists have used." ([9]) However, he provides no evidence that anyone but Eberhart has used his classification method (an issue we discuss above, and he does not bother to address).

Second, he claims that "This is only one basis, and it was merged from an article that was not to be deleted. It can be reworded or we can bring the article 'cryptid' back". ([10])

The user hath decreed that nothing from a prior merger may be deleted, or else all prior mergers are invalid! Who knew. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. But when this was 80% of the previous article that by consensus was not to be deleted, but instead merged, then we have an issue if you want to sort of backdoor a deletion of that material. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Where are you finding this mystery policy that anything from a merge must remain indefinitely in an article? I can only imagine what Wikipedia would look like were this something you hadn't plucked out of the ether. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He has now restored cryptid in protest despite old merge discussion and consensus ([11], talk page: Talk:Cryptid#Discussion_of_possible_merge_to_List_of_cryptids). Yikes! Any guidance, @The Gnome:? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was to keep or merge the work done by others.... never to delete. I have no qualms about it being removed from this article, though I still think it best if it is all in one place. However consensus was to keep the material that you just deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

2016 consensus was universally to merge the article, Talk:Cryptid#Discussion_of_possible_merge_to_List_of_cryptids which anyone can read. I suggest you revert your rather juvenile act of protest and move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop trying to bully me.... this is simply common sense. By your removal it was no longer merged, so the merge becomes a lie on the Cryptid talk page. I don't care where it sits, but it was to be merged not deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing in cryptid that isn't already at cryptozoology, except for Eberhart's criteria. What exactly the justification is for a word for word duplication of one author's criteria doesn't ever seem to have been established. Given that it's an exact duplication of the beginning of each entry, we may need to request revdel as I did over there (perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like pretty clear infringement to me). --tronvillain (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So the below seems to indicate we can use Eberhart as a source for creatures to be included on this list.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As other users have noted on that thread, this RfC does not establish Eberhart or any other cryptozoologist as a reliable source over WP:FRIND, WP:FRINGE, or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I am not sure community pages count as RS, I am with Bloodfox now in that some of this souricing is getting a bit iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You know, of all the sourcing, I'm thinking about agreeing with you on the Canvey Island Monster. Other than the community page this one is very vague about its cryptid properties. Even the weird site at Stranger Dimensions isn't sure what to make of it. That is certainly one I wouldn't miss on the list. I don't own any books on the subject so have no idea what books like "Cryptozoology A To Z" or "Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide" have to say about it. Maybe a local library has some copies but I don't think I have the time to check. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Unreferenced entries removed

Please feel free to re-insert only with a WP:RS which meets WP:PROFRINGE requirements. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Article and Involved Editors Topic of ANI

This is a notification that this article and many editors who regularly engage with it are currently the topic of a discussion at an ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bloodofox. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving Forward: Unsourced Entries, Poor Sources, and Pseudoscience Proponents

I've just added several citations from Loxton and Prothero, which is currently the only solid source employed in the article. We can mine this source further, particularly to replace the very poor media citations. The reality is that cryptozoologists focus on a handful of monsters form the folklore record over and over, often as an extension of Young Earth creationism, but there's more we can pull from Loxton and Prothero.

Remember, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Many of these media citations either seem to come from listicle-quality articles that appear to have taken their information from old versions of Wikipedia articles (back when they fully embraced and promoted the pseudoscience), or they simply parrot cryptozoologists and make no mention of the subculture's pseudoscientific status.

But first and foremost, it's high time that the unreferenced entries need to go immediately so we can focus on discussion regarding the references that are currently in place and see if we can replace all the non-Loxton and Prothero stuff with a decent source. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Firstly yes the RFC did say that, the closer of the RFC made that clear. Secondly, there is no policy that says we cannot use third party RS (your requirement) just because they do not say the Sea is wet. And policy makes it clear you cannot second guess sources. Now you want to challenge a source, take it to RSN. If you are going to remove RS because you do not like it then there is no one any material should be removed, until you stop removing sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've pulled the unreferenced entries. Given the fondness of users to attempt to use self-published, Young Earth creationist, and all sorts of other hard WP:RS violations, I think we've got WP:FRINGE for good reason. It's also a pretty good time to highlight that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the pseudoscience sources fall anywhere near that, and these media sources currently used also appear to be a hard fail here as well, as they're uncritically parroting information from pseudoscience proponents. I'll take another look at the media sources employed here and see what needs to go to RSN. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow....a blanket deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck, consider this a request for you to self-revert your restoration of unreferenced items along with your removal of reliable sources (diff). As my last reminder to you on this topic, the RfC was clear that unreferenced items were to be removed from the list ("every listed item must be properly sourced"), and Wikipedia guidelines state that anything challenged must only be returned with a reliable source (e.g. WP:PROVEIT). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

At least one was sourced, you may not agree it is an RS but that does not make it unsourced. I also stated I was opposed to this before you did it, so get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The RfC couldn't be more clear on this topic. I get that you and Fyunck are big proponents of this topic, and all, but you're going to need to approach this topic with some level of self-control. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was clear, including about how cryrptozooalgical sources can be used (as the closer made clear). And it did not say that material could be removed that was sourced to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So respect the RfC and remove the unreferenced material. Enough coordination with Fyunck here. We'll talk about the quality of the sources you're bringing to the table after. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So respect the RS and allow us to use Eberhart according to the clarification made by the closer of the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You're well aware that WP:RS makes it obvious that Eberhart isn't OK, not to mention consensus at the RfC talk page, which wouldn't matter anyway. Delete the unsourced entries and we'll talk about the rest. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Then take that up with the closer, but do not try and cherry pick an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. In other words: 'Either let us use this cryptozoology book or we'll revert-war these unreferenced items forever!' :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No "take that up with the closer", you do not get the wikilawyer "OBEY RFC!" and then get to ignore the parts you do not like. If you do not agree with the clarification explain it to the closer, and ask him to reopen the RFC as you disagree with the closing rationale.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm asking you to not only acknowledge the RfC's statement that all content must be reliably sourced and reminding you of WP:PROVEIT, which is an entirely separate matter here, and something you're well aware of. While you and your pal Fyunck here never miss a chance to chime in and defend the oppressed cryptozoologists of the world and demand their works appear as reliable sources on the site, you're well aware that it also has a long history of fending off attempts at pseudoscience hijacking, which is exactly why WP:RS exists. Consensus in the closing was that Eberhart's book remains unacceptable: Eberhart is still a cryptozoologist, cryptozoology is still a pseudoscience, and WP:RS still exists. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as the RFC makes clear, we are not prohibited form using Fringe sources. We just have to use them with care, and lay of the comments about users. As I said if you have an issue with the RFC closing findings take it up with the closer, but untill you allow us to use sources allowed for by the RFC do not use the RFC as a justification for your actions.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This is true. To establish whether a creature is called a cryptid by media or cryptozoologists, those sources are fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I get that you two are eager to get Ted's Cryptid Zoo, Young Earth creationism, and anti-global warming "alarmist" sources on this article as soon as possible, but it simply ain't happening, folks. Again, WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We did not close the RFC with "The use of primary sources, therefore, is not forbidden at all; one might say it's unavoidable - as unavoidable as quoting from any text by astrologers or alchemists in the aforementioned context.".Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And whether it's a fantastical Crytid zoo or fantastical Tolkien zoo like Balrogs, Hobbits, Orcs, Noldor or Ents, the topic is fun and able to be sourced. You seem to think if it ain't science we can't have it here. That's wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Teaming up and coordinating wasn't the best idea, guys. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

odWe are not, if you have an accusation to make take it to ANI, this is about the article, not us.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

More bloody lies coming from this heap... it must be easier than telling the truth for him. Bloodofox being bloodofox I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ghost deer

I removed this entry because Ghost deer was deleted and redirected to White stag, which is an entirely different topic even though they share the same name. "Ghost deer" referred to a specific myth from northern California regarding deer that were purportedly impervious to bullets and able to disappear. Since this story is no longer covered on Wikipedia, it should not appear in this list. White stag is about real, albino deer that are sometimes said to carry magical powers but are certainly not cryptids. –dlthewave ☎ 15:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is true, as far as I am aware lists do not have to be lists of subjects on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In general that is true, but I believe there is a consensus that this particular list should be restricted to notable cryptids (otherwise it gets swamped with hoaxes, jokes and tall tales), and the existence of a Wikipedia article is a reasonable proxy for notability. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd then that was not the case for keeping items, but rather they are sourced to RS here. If the inclusion criteria is RS have called them Cryptids then that should be the inclusion criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems kind of strange. By that logic another editor could create another article that contains a list of all cryptids, notable or not. Just like we have many lists of things such as List of Nirvana concerts, List of Ramones concerts, and the grand-daddy of all lists List of minor planets: 90001–91000 which has over 500,000 non-notable entries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS applies everywhere, folks. Like it says on the article, it's a core guideline. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

RS is very context oriented. A reliable source for one thing is an unreliable source for another. Cryptozoologists are a reliable source for what is a cryptid, since it is a word they invented. Tolkien is a reliable source for Hobbits since he invented them, but he also had beavers in his stories...he's not a reliable source for beaver anatomy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's been formally discussed but the status quo seems to be notable cryptids (those with articles) only. A reliable source would also be needed to support its status as a cryptid as opposed to, say, a mythological being. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Images

As a matter of standard practice, we should not include "own work" impressions of cryptids other than by noted authorities (if any such have uploaded them). Naive drawings of nonexistent creatures by random editors cannot possibly be considered encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that user generated content should not be used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to see how it is not WP:OR, really. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on who the user might be. Fro example if the Surgeon posted his drawing of Nessie that might (whilst OR) be admissible as a noted eye witness example. On the other hand a drawing by "just another user" based upon their own interpretation of eye witness accounts would fail.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, and the same goes for all cryptid articles. Images should follow roughly the same sourcing requirements as text. I removed some of the more horrendous "Microsoft Paint" style drawings and photographs of real-life animals, but even the more sophisticated ones such as Mothman constitute OR. Also, this. –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What about sculptures? I see the photo of the Ogopogo sculpture was removed, even though a sculpture of the Elwetritsch was retained, despite the Ogopogo having more validity than the Elwetritsch, which is stated to be a hoax. --Auric talk 17:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

User created work is rather different from work created off Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)