Talk:List of cryptids
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of cryptids article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science. 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. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | The content of Cryptid was merged into List of cryptids on September 23 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. 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. |
Auto-archiving
Extended content |
|---|
|
The auto-archiving bot is set to archive threads here after (at least) 3 months of inactivity while leaving a minimum of 5 threads on the main page. I had increased the min. threads left to 8 and this was reverted by @JoJo Anthrax with a request to discuss. Keeping older discussions highly visible on the main Talk page has several benefits. It provides a quick way to gauge the activity level of a page and identify frequent contributors, can often answer questions or provide context that limits repeat discussions and well-meaning but ultimately controversial edits, alerts editors to issues they hadn't thought of that may improve their contributions to the article or Talk page, and makes it easier to returning editors to locate old threads that they want to reference or revisit. Obviously, there are other ways to do all this. I see a modest increase in the number of discussions kept on main as likely beneficial without bloating the page. I am very much open to other perspectives. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 18:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
|
Collapsing meta-discussion about settings on talk page archive bot. Note, this is not intended to "close" the discussion, merely condensing in the interest of making relevant, content-related discussions more visible. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Images
Can we remove or reorganize (at least some of) the images used in this article? I know this has been a controversial topic in the past. I agree with many past comments about the poor quality and limited informational value of many of these images. The Cadborosaurus image is completely inscrutable; the megalodon restoration looks like a canonical shark most readers would imagine based on the description; the hominids all look more or less the same; and many of the aquatic cryptids look like canonical lake monsters or sea serpents. The overall issue is that the table format with numerous images is not reader-friendly. It requires a great deal of scrolling and is not well adapted to mobile. The added markup for the table columns and image files also makes editing more difficult. I would suggest any of these approaches:
- A1. Remove all images from the main lists. Move selected images to a Gallery section at the end rather than include them in the main lists, prioritizing high quality and informative examples. (No images left in the lists themselves, fewer images overall in the article.)
- A2. Removing all images from the main lists and moving all current images to a gallery is an option I do not prefer but it would still make the list itself easier to read and edit. (No images left in the main lists, same number of images overall just moved to Gallery.)
- B. Include selected images at the end of each section, highlighting representative or noteworthy examples like Bigfoot and Nessie and perhaps a few distinctive members where a high quality image adds to understanding. (No images left in the lists themselves, fewer images overall.)
- C. Review the list by section and selectively keep/remove individual images—this is my least preferred approach but would be an improvement over the current state. (Fewer images left in the lists.)
| A1 | A2 | B | C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Same # or fewer images overall |  Fewer |  Same | Fewer | Fewer |
| Images retained in tables (lists) | No | No | No | Yes |
| Retained images collected in a single Gallery section | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Retained images grouped by section/subsection after each list | No | No | Yes | No |
--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 01:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC) EDITED for clarity. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 15:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Added table. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 15:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Option B — Option A2 is tempting as there are so very few images worth displaying, but I don't feel it likely that it would reach consensus. Option C opens the door to endless litigation between the delitionists and the inclusionists, something highlighted perfectly by the previous selection criteria discussions. That would normally not be a bad thing (constructive disagreement is critical to the project's success), but I think that the history of incivility on this particular Talk strips that of any positive value. Thank you for spearheading this. Ta, Bitten Peach (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I edited these for clarity and added ABC option labels, following your lead. A1, A2, and B all involve removing all images from the main list. In A1 and B, we end up with fewer images overall and the images we decide to keep are moved to a dedicated section or sections. In A2, we move every single image to the gallery, maintaining the same total # of images. I hope that makes sense. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think that C may be a good approach with some caveats. Requiring that the image be a direct depiction/alleged piece of evidence for the cryptid and it showing a unique feature of the cryptid could be better. For example, the current bigfoot image showing a still from a supposed bigfoot video is good, and the orang pendek drawing showing its diminutive stature is fantastic, but the skunk ape statue photo doesn't really add anything. As fun as the Ogopogo statue looks it also doesn't seem any different from any other 100 artistic depictions of long serpentine cryptids, so it might not be required. I don't think the list needs a ton of trimming either way but those are some ideas. Also, I do still think the Caddy carcass photo should stay if only because its fairly rare to even have an alleged photo of a cryptid specimen KanyeWestDropout (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would prioritize quality and informational value over whether it is a piece of evidence. Obviously, "quality" and "informational value" are both subjective. An image that makes sense in the article body, where additional context is provided, may not carry the same value in the list. Making it easier to peruse the list will make it easier for readers to get to the individual articles for this information. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 18:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think perhaps limiting the number of images but still keeping them in-line instead of putting them at the end may be best KanyeWestDropout (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would prioritize quality and informational value over whether it is a piece of evidence. Obviously, "quality" and "informational value" are both subjective. An image that makes sense in the article body, where additional context is provided, may not carry the same value in the list. Making it easier to peruse the list will make it easier for readers to get to the individual articles for this information. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 18:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
"List of botanical cryptids" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect List of botanical cryptids has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25 § List of botanical cryptids until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 17:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Can someone…
… please add Ipupiara? 2804:388:411E:9B72:1:0:7F06:BC29 (talk) 07:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- pt:Ipupiara (lenda) 2804:388:411E:9B72:1:0:7F06:BC29 (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- That is a town, not a cryptid. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- So far the only English-language source that may mention the ipupiara that I have found is from Rodale Press, which we cannot use. You are going to have to attract someone who reads Portuguese to write an article for the English Wikipedia before we can add it to this list. Donald Albury 19:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2025
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the Flatwoods Monster to the category of Flying Cryptids. Baileymariemoore (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
