Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology: edit · history · watch · refresh

Contents

[edit] watchlist

i can generate a list of all wikiproject cryptozoology articles every week though it won't list the category they are in--Java7837 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also it will number them--Java7837 01:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this ok?--Java7837 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) any one tell me the name for the red light face transformation used by mediums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.20.53 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interested

As I have recently acquired the Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology by Michael Newton, I would like to participate in this project. An infobox is needed, but I took a look at how to create one and it is very complicated. My suggestion would be as follows:

  • Color - black (to indicate their hidden nature)
  • Name
  • Image - We may be able to use images under fair use id they are low-res
  • Other names
  • Status
  • Location
  • Size
  • Description (type)

For right now, I am going to update the current articles as much as possible, before creating new ones. --Joelmills 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Sounds good. Perhaps we should include the creature's diet (if known) and whether or not it is believed to be dangerous? (also, only if known)

I might go update some of the articles, too. Oh, and I think the list of cryptids should be by type, not alphabetically. That makes more sense. Perhaps using the following classes, or something similar: -Humanoid -Aquatic -Quadrupedal -Flying -Whatever else seems necessary

It's a pretty big project, getting all the articles to conform to a project's standards. I don't really know where to start. But we'll just take it slow and look for more contributors, eh?

Thanks --PunkRock911 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Ok I've made a basic Infobox, heres the link to the actual page, it needs more editing but I figured we should actually get a start on it. Template:Infobox_Cryptid, I didn't know what fields we needed but I took a stab at it. I've never made one before but I wanted to try Philbuck222 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel

Why has Ariel (The Little Mermaid) been given a banner from this project? She is fictional. Totnesmartin 19:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One, she is a mermaid, and mermaids in general are within the scope of this project, fictional or not. On that basis, it is rather likely that at least some of the details regarding her that might deserve to be mentioned in the article might be best known by members of a group which deals explicitly with that subject. Note that I said some, not all, details, and am only thinking that they might be mentioned in some cases, not that they would take over the article. In fact, all articles in the Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids are being tagged with this project's banner on that basis. Also, all such articles will eventually be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology/Articles page, where they can be more regularly monitored for improvement, vandalism, and other changes by a wider variety of editors. (Right now I'm working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Articles page, but will be creating this project's page as soon as I'm done.) Also, by making it easier for a broader number of editors will at least somewhat regularly be interested in the article, it makes it more likely that the article will be improved in a NPOV fashion. I hope that answers your question. Badbilltucker 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The fake taxobox

I originally posted this on the Bigfoot talk page, but here seems like a better place:

Each Wikipedia page on a particular species has a taxobox on the upper-right side of the page (for example wolf). The use of a fake taxobox on the Bigfoot page is at best disingenuous. We have a responsibility to avoid misleading readers. A casual reader who is unfamiliar with Bigfoot will get the wrong impression from the fake taxobox, which suggests that Bigfoot has a categorization like any other species. Furthermore, there is nothing which immediately suggests that the given picture may just be a guy in a gorilla suit, as opposed to, say, a picture of an actual wolf on the wolf page.

Also, nobody has a right to claim that Bigfoot is a hominid. Since no specimen has ever been found, for all we know Bigfoot could be filled with jellyfish guts, which would give it a different classification. Thus the use of the word 'hominid' further misleads the reader by the giving the appearance of legitimacy via the (undeserved) use of a scientific word.

Of course, this applies to all such hypothetical animals; I'm not singling out Bigfoot.

Please, be honest and don't mislead readers by "emulating" a taxobox. Thank you. Xerxesnine 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chickcharnie

Hi, anyone willing to set up that page? Possibly, it could be a redirect to Tyto pollens, as the case is fairly clear here. But there needs to be more on the origin and history of the Chickcharnie tale in any case (e.g. who came up with it, where was it first documented, status in modern times etc). Dysmorodrepanis 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Hello I have a probablem on adding material on the mermaid article, they keep deleting my material. This is what I wrote about the article and tell me if I should put it back on or not,

"The chance of mermaids existing is low, but there has been reports tales from first-hand witnesses generally describe mermaids who don't talk at all, who have green,black,brown, or blond hair, and are beautiful.If mermaids exist it would be hard to catch one due to their intelligence, for science has never managed to get a dead body despite the fact that mermaids are supposed to love hanging about near shore, where capture should be easy and their dead bodies would probably wash onto the beach. If they did exist they would be attacked constantly against underwater predators like sharks, and would probably be living inside sunken ships,if the sunken ship is explored then they would have hidden in the ships closets." --Ender_Wiiggin 09:29, 13 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

There's an edit war at Mermaid (cryptozoology). If anyone wants to throw a bucket of water over the factions, they're welcome. Totnesmartin 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles with several banners

Just came across a banner which contains several other banners here - could we adopt this format for such over-bannered pages as Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster etc? Totnesmartin 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cryptids

I've proposed that the list in Cryptid be split. This is what it would look like. Any comments or suggestions? Totnesmartin 16:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant animal

There was a merge that I felt was concluded too hastily and for the wrong reasons, so I undid the redirect. Now they want to open a discussion, and I feel that this is of interest to the cryptozoology community since most of the content that can't be added to Megafauna (the article it had gotten redirected to) from Giant animal was cryptozoology-related or mytholology-related. Thanks, and I hope to see your input. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion debate

The category under consideration for deletion is Category:Giant animals, which should be of interest to people in this WikiProject. I'm refraining since I created the category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon article discussion

A relevant discussion is going on at Talk:Dragon#External_links. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

Does the project include things like Phoenixes and faeries? There wasn't one of those boxes on its talk page, so I wasn't sure. Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cc, if you're into crypto stuff, try Bennu and drop me a line if you're interested in keeping the eyes peeled and/or to make Ardea bennuides a section there (taxobox n stuff - no need to make own article yet). FWIW, the Banggai Crow, guess you heard of it... if you want to work on that one day, drop me a note, willya? TIA! And finally, cryptids-wise - and that goes out to all - the "Zululand black bird cryptid" Kondlo (or something), I have seen the one-odd Web page mentioning it briefly and that might just be a corvid (though probably not). Took few prelim notes on it, but didn't get any further.
BTW avian cryptozoology is seriously underworked. Look at Late Quaternary prehistoric birds, we have LOTS most of you probably never heard of! Dysmorodrepanis 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Could this: {{Infobox Paranormalcreatures}} work? Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loch Ness Monster anagram

I'm trying to find a source for the origin of the joke anagram "Monster Hoax by sir Peter S" - unfortunately my books don't mention it, and websites either name "the London papers" or Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn. Any answers? Totnesmartin 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beast of Dean

i've been trying to create an article on the beast of dean. is mentioned on the list of cryptids and on answers.com (although they obviously get their info from here. there is NO- thats right ZERO mention of the animal anywere else as far as ive been able to search. the only non-wikipedia influenced mention to the animal is on an Unexplained Mysteries.com's fourum (see it [[1]]) if anyone has any information whatsoever please dont hesitate to tell me. thanks-Ryan shell 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's no information about it, then how do you know there even is a Beast of Dean? Where is Dean, even? (I'm guessing the Forest of Dean, but it might not be.) The name might have been added to the list as a joke, or after reading the local paper. You might have to trawl through the edit history and ask whoever originally wrote it in. Totnesmartin 09:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
From the Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: "Alien big cat sightings have emerged from the Forest of Dean in Gloucester, England, since the early 1990s." It goes on to say that most witnesses describe it as a "black panther". Most sightings are near highways, but no definitive evidence has been found. A six foot long black wild boar was hit by a vehicle and killed on Dec. 5, 2002 on A40 near Over, causing speculation that this may have been the beast. of Dean. In turn the encyclopedia gives as references:
  1. "Beast' experts combine" Gloucestershire Echo Feb 17, 2000
  2. "Could death crash boar end theories?" The Citizen Dec 7, 2002
  3. "New 'Forest beast' sightings" [2]
Hope this helps. Here's the encyclopedia citation if you need it:

Newton, Michael (2005). "Beast of Dean". Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide. McFarland & Company, Inc.. 49. ISBN 0-7864-2036-7. 

--Joelmills 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legendary creatures infobox

The categories in the infobox for paranormal creatures didn't fit with most legendary (mythological) creatures, so I made an infobox specifically for those: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Legendarycreatures

Feel free to change it. Here's an example of its use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentaurFunkynusayri 15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question of scope...

Just passing through to ask a question... Is it within this project's scope to include articles that deal with the cryptids in fiction, or extremely tangentially?

The reason I ask is that I've come across articles that seem odd to be included:

Siren (DC Comics): Dealing with the comic book character (a fictional mermaid).

Aquaman and related articles: Dealing with comic book characters (various types of fictional Atlanteans).

Namor: Again dealing with a comic book character (a fictional human/Atlantean hybrid).

Tsunami (Marvel Comics): An imprint (line) used by the comic book company, and it's only cryptid linkage being that one the comics published under the imprint was named for, and prominently featured Namor.

I was wondering if like articles should have the project tag added, or if these cases should have it removed.

Thanks

- J Greb 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the characters, probably. Particularly with this field, whether a given cryptid is real or not if often an open question anyway. Also, if and when we devlop the appropriate articles lists, as I hope to do, I think many/most agree that an article included on a list is itself relevant to the project making the list. Regarding the Tsunami imprint, I think that must have been a mistake. Many of these articles had been included in the Fictional Atlanteans categories, and that made them relevant. Sorry for taking so long to respond here, but I'm trying to help all the projects on the WP:PROJDIR/PR page know what their FAs, GAs, DYKs, and release version articles are, and that pretty much means doing assessments for all of them right now. I'm hoping I can come back to more active involvement as soon as this gets done. John Carter 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert review: Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aponard de Thevet

Does anyone have information about the Aponard of (de?) Thevet, the cryptobird of Ascension Island? Dysmorodrepanis 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perro mudo

The "mute dog" of the Taíno of Hispaniola and perhaps other islands could deserve an article Taíno Dog. Some claimed it to be a raccoon, but the Taíno were pretty obviously depicting them as dogs. I don't know whether material evidence exists; it is extremely hard to come across any good sources, sources that don't just mention their existence. Dysmorodrepanis 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cubacyon transversidens may be a junior synonym of the Taíno dog - or indeed the correct scientific name. I don't think enough is known about the Taíno animals to unequivocally state that they were indeed the same species as our dogs. Dysmorodrepanis 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chupacabra found?

I am not part of this project I just wanted to let you guys know that the Chupacabra may have been found in a town near San Antonio. Rgoodermote 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Status

How exactly is status worked out. I think a clear set of criteria needs to be set for each of these. DurinsBane87 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you meen status as in stub, featured etc class, there's a table in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology/Assessment - Whatever best fits the article you're thinking of is the one to go for. Are you volunteering your services? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avius cani

Considering that this is pretty far from being my speciality, I thought I'd drop the Avius cani article by you. By any standard it does seem "out there" - with no google results other than a single wiki copy page. The single claimed reference, also without google results (both with and without correct spelling of "British"), is "unpublished". As said, cryptids is pretty far from my knowledge base, so I thought I'd bring it to this group, as you presumable would be better able to judge the "genuine cryptid" versus "entirely made up for wiki cryptid". If entirely made up for wiki, I'd recommend a member of this group forward it to WP:AfD. Rabo3 (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up your act!

Guys, the articles you monitor are in serious shambles. Many of them claim that there is "PROOF!!!" of the various cryptid's existence even though the very classification of the beast as a cryptid makes this impossible. There are a lot of weasel wordings in many of the articles that I looked at monitored by this group and there seems to be a general POV-push toward accommodating fringe viewpoints that these things have existence as physical beings when there is none to zero evidence for this. You all need to be more diligent in upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because if you are not, you will find yourselves as hounded as Wikipedia: WikiProject Paranormal currently is. Consider this a friendly warning to shape up your articles or get ready for a lot of headaches about sourcing, NPOV, and crackpottery. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See my notice of this problem at WP:FTN#Cryptids. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not help out with referencing, and removing weasel words? I know you are generally a deletionist but you've done some good work on paranormal articles in the past back when I was more active in that project. I'm so glad to see you still have an interest in keeping such articles balanced. It's really much more constructive to help shepherd the needed changes than to give vague warnings to a project about future "headaches" if they don't do as you suggest. Although your predictions are most likely correc, some editors might take that post as a threat which helps nobody. I'm fairly certain that you're after the same thing this young project is - better articles and more articles that are are of better quality. If you are looking for some topics in need of a good skeptical eye, I have a few I can point you towards that are not of this project but fall within your areas of concern. I'd sure appreciate the aid since my time is more limited. tell ya what, I've leave you message on your talk page. I just poked my head in to say nice to see a familiar face!LiPollis (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start a to-do list at the top of this page in a couple of days to give indicators as to what articles within the scope of this project need specific work done on them. I also hope to be done with the bleeding directory in a few days, and will hopefully at that time be able to be a bit more actively involved myself. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beast of dean (re-make)

I've re-created the article on the beast of dean after it was deleted for the third time. it the most recent time was because an IP address added a lot of unverified claims and made the article seem like a hoax. I look at all of the first two discussions and it seems that the writing style of the IP is on both of the other two articles. so, could someone help me keep an eye on this page from both IP adresses and anyone who wants to re-delete this article? Thanks, Ryan shell (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles needing cleanup

We now have a list of articles which have been tagged by this project with one or more cleanup tags at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology/Cleanup listing. Please feel free to do any work you can to address the existing problems there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup listing, feedback

Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.

On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?

Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)