Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Probable hoax article

I've identified the article Atmospheric beast as a probable hoax. The article seems to have nothing to do with Cryptozoology, but rather be an invented term and an invented concept created on the base of a diversity of science speculations about macroscopic life in the atmosphere of Jovian Planets. The speculations are real and from Carl Sagan and others, but the article invents a concept nowhere else to be found. Be warned that some WP:fringe continually tries to link up Atmospheric beast to everywhere fitting, but hide it under a link renaming pattern. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Fortean vs. Cryptozoology

As a science nerd, I think that there should be a distinction between what is classed as Cryptozoology and as Fortean. Cryptozoology regards hidden species who might exist according to established biology, for example otherwise presumably extinct species, such as the Thylacine, or Ropen, or for that part some "big sea monster" such as the Loch Ness one, explaining it to be a dinosaur, fish, lizard or whatever. On the other hand, Fortean monstra like the Critters of Trevor James Constable, presuming exotic physics to be real. Cryptozoology can serve science by researching species that ordinary science don't dare to for the ridicule of colleagues, some of those species really existant. Forteanism can serve science only by being inspiration to the SciFi literature that science nerds read on spare time, by providing "backwards thinking". Said: Rursus ☻ 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cameroon Flashlight Frog

Does anyone have some good sources to help create an article on the Cameroon flashlight frog? I have had trouble finding references, and maybe I am looking in the wrong direction. StevePrutz (talk)

Humanzee

People may want to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanzee.
Kww (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Active?

Is this project still active? seems awful quiet. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I will be merging this project tonight (British time) unless anyone objects. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OBJECTION RAISED - Cryptozoology doesn't just deal with paranormal creatures, it also deals with the possibility of creatures which may or may not exist in the future, by experimentation or otherwise, such as a Humanzee - this does not fall under the paranormal. This project remains active, and indeed, came in only a fortnight to 3 weeks ago when it dealt with my nomination on AfD of the Humanzee article. Do not merge this project. I will raise an RfC for people to deal with this. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait on the RfC outcome. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merger of Cryptozoology project into Paranormal project

Keeping in mind the differences between this project and the Paranormal project, in that Cryptozoology doesn't always deal with paranormal creatures, but also hybrids and genetic work, do you consider a merge of the two projects to be useful? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It would be helpful if you added a (visible) explanation of the question to this section. However, fundamentally a WikiProject is a social group. If the members want to work together, they will. If they don't, they won't. Forcible mergers have no value here. Members of a practically inactive project need to decide whether they'd rather struggle in isolation or join the other group. There's no universally correct answer here. Perhaps the actual members of this project would be willing to state their personal preferences? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - doing that now. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I proposed the merge as I felt that there was no community, and that people clicking on the wikiproject box on article talkpages would come to an inactive project. I proposed it a few weeks ago and have had two comments - one for, one against. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this project should be merged with WP Paranormal; although it overlaps to a certain extent, on the whole cryptids aren't considered to be paranormal.

I do agree that there is no sense of a WP Cryptozoology community but think that more work can be done to achieve that. Most of my edits are to do with WP Mesoamerica where there is a sense of community, helped by article watchlists on the project page. To this end I've lifted the talkpage watchlist code from there and pasted it into the project page here, with changes. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get the code to produce a list of actual article pages, due to my own lack of knowledge. If anyone else knows how to do this, it would be extremely helpful. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Cryptids

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Double-nosed Andean tiger hound. Hoax?

Okay, cryptozoology fans -- time to strut your stuff. We have an article Double-nosed Andean tiger hound. Seems to me that that's very likely a hoax. (Article cites a BBC photo of a dog with a "double" nose, but I've never heard of a "double-nosed" breed.)
Anybody have any reliable sources pro or con? (As always, please add any material to the article - don't just discuss here.) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracking through Pachon Navarro it looks as if split-nosed would be a better description - a band of normal fur dividing the black area surrounding the nostrils. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Help, image needed!

Yo cryptozoologists, I need an image to illustrate the Meinong's jungle article. Is there any image of a jungle-like collection of cryptids that I could use? Any help appreciated, the skomorokh 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Flying monkeys in Tennessee, USA

Believe it or not, we have an article Harpeth Hills Flying Monkey Marathon which claims that

"mythical Harpeth Hills Flying Monkeys ... are reported to live in Percy and Edwin Warner Parks in Nashville [ Tennessee, USA]. According to the legend, the flying monkeys, named the after the geologic region where they reside, are an endangered species and are only rarely seen by humans."

This is complete crap, right? Made up only to advertise this race? Anybody want to do anything with this? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO related entities article at AfD

The List of alleged UFO related entities article is being discussed as an Article for Deletion if anyone cares to comment or to change the article to address the concerns raised by other editors. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

angels article

I am hopelessly lost. I am looking for the proper place on Wikipedia to request someone expand the article on angels, specifically filling in the blanks about secular angels in Western culture. The fact that this page is missing any mention of the popularly secular view of angels (as in "mommy died and went to heaven and now she's an angel") is a gross oversight. This would be a particularly interesting inclusion to contrast it from the proper Christian dogma on angels (in which angels are not deceased human beings, but a different type of being altogether) given popular Western culture's tendency to confuse the two. I'd put it in myself, but I'm not sure how to go about the research. Minaker (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You can try puting a request in at Wikiproject Mythology or Wikiproject Paranormal but probably the best place would be the talk page of the article itself. I have one or two very good references myself, if I ever find time to get around to it... Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)