FANDOM


  • Hi guys, my name is Afif, I'm one of the original admin here (still an admin btw) but inactive since three years ago, I'm not planning to edit or contribute more, I just found this website on my old search history. Looks like this wiki is still active and new article added each week, but from what I can see, some parts of the wiki are overlooked and not changed at all since I left.

    1. There is no new navboxes like this Template:NavFearsomeCritters <--- this is my creation BTW, it's so bad, but it works, it's the only navboxes on this wiki I think

    2. The image slide on the main page wasn't changed at all, if you have no idea how to edit this, then here it is Template:Mp-w, let's discuss what improvement can be made, suggest an image and short sentence, only four images can be added to the slider.

      Loading editor
    • Hi Afif,

      I agree, more navboxes should be created.  I also think that sources should be added to articles on the Wiki. 

      By the way, next month, Cryptid Wiki will have its tenth aniversory, and it would be great if you could be there for that, due to your significant impact on this Wiki!  

        Loading editor
    • oh wow, tenth year already? cool

        Loading editor
    • Yeah man!

        Loading editor
    • Woah, ten years...... I've only been here a few months, but still. Wow

        Loading editor
    • DalySkywalker wrote:
      Woah, ten years...... I've only been here a few months, but still. Wow

      Yeah, its been here for a decade almost!

        Loading editor
    • Afif Brika wrote:
      Hi guys, my name is Afif, I'm one of the original admin here (still an admin btw) but inactive since three years ago, I'm not planning to edit or contribute more, I just found this website on my old search history. Looks like this wiki is still active and new article added each week, but from what I can see, some parts of the wiki are overlooked and not changed at all since I left.

      1. There is no new navboxes like this Template:NavFearsomeCritters <--- this is my creation BTW, it's so bad, but it works, it's the only navboxes on this wiki I think

      2. The image slide on the main page wasn't changed at all, if you have no idea how to edit this, then here it is Template:Mp-w, let's discuss what improvement can be made, suggest an image and short sentence, only four images can be added to the slider.

      I noticed that someone changed the policy on the category sightings from "category is only about specific sightings" to "

      for cryptids with modern sightings."  



      This basically rendered category:sightings as completely redundant to category:cryprids, going completely against the consensus of what category:sightings was supposed to be when it was first created. Category sightings should be cleaned up so only notable sightings, such as the Patterson–Gimlin Footage, make-up the contents of this category.

        Loading editor
    • I've done it. There don't seem to be very pages specifically about sightings, though.

        Loading editor
    • Also, I'm gathering up a record of all the pages that use copy-pasted text, alongside the original sources of the text. I'm not sure how long it'll take.

        Loading editor
    • Bradypus Tamias wrote:
      Also, I'm gathering up a record of all the pages that use copy-pasted text, alongside the original sources of the text. I'm not sure how long it'll take.

      Thanks. I also added a few categories to category:articles for deletion that need to be removed from pages.

        Loading editor
    • Was it agreed that Category:Unknown Diet should be removed?

        Loading editor
    • YES.

        Loading editor
    • Good. Any other categories that should be removed?

      And what about Category:Lagomorphs and Category:Rabbit/Rabbit-Like? One of them should be fused into the other, but which?

        Loading editor
    • lagomorphs is cooler, considering we have feline instead of cat-like or ursine instead of bear-like

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • I am guessing that the bigfoot one is for all sasquatch type creatures like Yeren, Orang Pendek, and Yeti. Sasquatch is for the North American Bigfoot and Hairy Humanoids are for just humanoid cryptids that are hairy.

        Loading editor
    • The Sasquatch category needs to be deleted.

        Loading editor
    • already deleted, thanks

        Loading editor
    • Can we get the North America category or North America (Minus Mexico or Caribean) deleted(sorry for my spelling) since we don't need both. Also I thought you meant the article for Sasquatch at first.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, I agree. "North America Minus Mexico and Caribean" HAS to be deleted. Keep "North America", though.

        Loading editor
    • DinoHunter1105 wrote:
      Can we get the North America category or North America (Minus Mexico or Caribean) deleted(sorry for my spelling) since we don't need both.

      Also I thought you meant the article for Sasquatch at first.

      Sure. North America should be used instead

        Loading editor
    • hold on guys, are you sure about that? if you look at each category pages

      North america (minus mexico&caribbean) is a larger, much older, and has an image of north american map on it

      North America is I believe a much recent category made by newer member of this wiki, that's why it has far fewer article on it

      I need another agreement from you

        Loading editor
    • Yes, North america (minus mexico&caribbean) is the original category, but it does not make sense to disclude Mexico and the Caribbean.

        Loading editor
    • There is a precedent for classing Mexico and the Caribbean as Central, not North, America within cryptozoological circles. The cryptid checklists by Bernard Heuvelmans and Karl Shuker split the Americas into "North America (Nearctic Region)" and "Central and South America (Neotropical Region)," the latter of which includes Mexican and Caribbean cryptids.

        Loading editor
    • I think we should just rename "North America Minus Mexico and Carribean" to "North America", and then delete the other NA category.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think you can do that, since renaming the category won't change the category that's listed on the pages - if you rename "NA (MMaC)" to "NA," then "NA (MMaC)" will still be the category on all the pages, it'll just redirect to the new category when you click it.

      In fact, I've just tried it with a test page, and apparently categories can't even be renamed, so it wouldn't even redirect. However, adding a redirect to the superseded category page itself would work.

        Loading editor
    • That could work, I guess.

      I just dont feel that NA category should exclude mexico and carribean.

        Loading editor
    • Hey bradypus, have you tried the "replace" function on the mass categorization tools? look at the wiki activity, you can see that i've replaced a lot of categories, for example :

      https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Runan-shah

      i've replaced the mermaid category into merperson, and category that appear on the articles was automatically turned into merperson without me doing anything

        Loading editor
    • I assumed that Dalyskywalker was talking about keeping the original category but changing its name, just like one would rename an article instead of creating a new one with the name they want. From what I can tell, using the "replace" tool removes the original category and replaces it with a new one, it doesn't rename it. This doesn't bother me in the slightest, though.

        Loading editor
    • @Afif could you not delete the Beast Of Bolton page again?

        Loading editor
    • Is there a category for ocean dwelling cryptids? Because if not, we should add one

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • I see

        Loading editor
    • How about a "City dweller category, which could include Indrid Cold, Fresno Nightcrawler, Mothman, Chupacabra, etc.

        Loading editor
    • "Urban" or "Urban cryptids" would be a good name for such a category.

        Loading editor
    • I agree

        Loading editor
    • I've made the category and added it to a handful of pages, but I'm not too well-up on these sorts of cryptids: I prefer those reported from wild regions. Do you know of any more urban cryptids?

      American Hyena might seem like a strange page to have added to this category, but I know of at least one recent sighting in a city.

        Loading editor
    • My friend I know many, such as:

      The Snallygaster -Sighted in several german immigrant towns in the 1800's

      The Fresno Nightcrawler-Sighted in the surburban area of Fresno, California

      El Chupacabra -Seen in multiple rural villages across the south

      Indrid Cold-Spotted in the bustling streets of West Virginia

      Goatman -seen underneath a bridge and while the town of Alton stil stood

      Mothman-Seen flying around the area of Point Pleasant and Chicago

      Men in Black -Seen knocking on the doors across the world

      and many others.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, this DOES sound like a good idea, but from now on, could we not add any more categories until we finish deleting all the unnecessary ones?

        Loading editor
    • Which categories still need to be removed?

        Loading editor
    • I haven't gone through all of them yet.

      Currently, Im working through the Alien category and Africa category, to make sure all of the pages actually fall under the category.

        Loading editor
    • Brilliant

        Loading editor
    • I've removed the "Possibly Carnivorous" category, since the category itself had already been deleted but not removed from the pages. Since it was a pretty big category, I've saved the list of articles that were in it, just in case it wasn't supposed to be removed.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, sounds good.

        Loading editor
    • Just to let everyone know, there was this user (User:Magicalcreaturebiologist) who removed articles for deletion category from pages.  This user has been globally blocked, though these pages need to be remarked for deletion.

        Loading editor
    • Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

      I think we just need to rollback all the pages he's edited.

        Loading editor
    • So Undead, Unusual Looking, and Genuses should be deleted then?

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, all those titles make me want to laugh.

        Loading editor
    • Done. Again, in case the deletion is contested, I've made a record of all the pages formerly in these categories. I'll do the same for all the categories I delete without a wide consensus from now on.

        Loading editor
    • i got first rank in the achievement guys, wow this automatic tools is totally useful. As you can see i've removed around four articles and many categories, all of them u can see in

      https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Log

        Loading editor
    • I think articles are a bigger deal than categories. When it comes to articles, we should discuss their deletion before making a final decision.

        Loading editor
    • cool, then restore them, I love the shenango dog boy and reed city gas demon article, it's the best article ever, it's sad that you let me delete it

        Loading editor
    • Afif Brika wrote:
      i got first rank in the achievement guys

      On the subject of achievement rankings: I have just replaced the content of the Community Messages with a template displaying the same exact same content, Template:Community Corner. This doesn't change the look of it, but it does mean that we can now update the achievement rankings without making a "community messages have been updated" message pop up for every user.

        Loading editor
    • I've created a bot to use when doing mass editing now, to avoid clogging up Recent Changes or getting too many achievements, so if there's anything more mass editing/categorising/removal that needs to be done (and I'm sure there is), please tell me.

        Loading editor
    • maybe try stopping misinformation like the one on Basilosaurus, that would be a start, next try to get everyone togeather, as a wikipedian, I know what community is to me, maybe try to have friendly discussions with the higher ups and more experinced editors, I have noted a few. 

      The last one is use sources, I have noticed many articles dont use or dont have the right sources, maybe with my skills with wikipedia, I could try here.

      Do you agree?

        Loading editor
    • @Greyideas Sure, articles should be sourced.  Good contributions would be greatly appreciated. 

        Loading editor
    • AmazingAncientWorld wrote:
      @Greyideas Sure, articles should be sourced.  Good contributions would be greatly appreciated. 

      yup 

        Loading editor
    • Hey, first-time poster, but I've been lurking for a while. 

      On the topic of tags, maybe a "Mythological" tag would be helpful for creatures that come from various mythologies? It'd differentiate them from some of the more modern cryptids.

      Also, the "List of Cryptids" page has a lot of dead links, cryptids listed twice under different names, redirects, and is missing several popular cryptids like Ningen. I could go in and fix some of those issues if the mods want me to?

        Loading editor
    • Mmmbugssssssssss wrote:
      Hey, first-time poster, but I've been lurking for a while. 

      On the topic of tags, maybe a "Mythological" tag would be helpful for creatures that come from various mythologies? It'd differentiate them from some of the more modern cryptids.

      Also, the "List of Cryptids" page has a lot of dead links, cryptids listed twice under different names, redirects, and is missing several popular cryptids like Ningen. I could go in and fix some of those issues if the mods want me to?

      Good idea, try to see how you can implment that, I have made one article recently from those dead links, Im working on a seprete article which I hope will be the longest and most researched on this entire wiki, so while i am doing that you can go do the other, as a wikipedian as well, if you need help with sources, I will be glad to help.

        Loading editor
    • The category No Modern Sightings (no sightings after 1551–1558, the publication of Gesner's Historia Animalium, the first work of modern zoology) should include all mythological creatures, but the category has been misused by editors who've misinterpreted its purpose. I believe the reason there's no category solely for mythological creatures is that they may be difficult to define as purely mythological: for example, centaurs appear in myth, but the ancient writers also described them as real creatures that really existed in the world. A category for creatures which appear in myth and have never been sighted may be useful, though.

      The reason for List of Cryptids' poor quality is because - I believe - it was originally simply copypasted from Wikipedia. Feel free to add any cryptids which you notice are missing.

      Also, there needs to be a decision about these categories: Category:Carnivore or Category:Carnivorous, which one should be deleted? And should one of these two categories, Category:Carnivora / Category:Carnivorans, be kept, or should they both be deleted, since cryptids by definition have not been taxonomically classified?

        Loading editor
    • Mmmbugssssssssss wrote:
      Hey, first-time poster, but I've been lurking for a while. 

      On the topic of tags, maybe a "Mythological" tag would be helpful for creatures that come from various mythologies? It'd differentiate them from some of the more modern cryptids.

      Also, the "List of Cryptids" page has a lot of dead links, cryptids listed twice under different names, redirects, and is missing several popular cryptids like Ningen. I could go in and fix some of those issues if the mods want me to?


      @User:Mmmbugssssssssss I disagree. Most cryptids have potential links with regional folklore relating to where they were sighted; some of these legends go as far back as mythology from antiquity.

      In the past, users began to post many articles about mythological creatures; many of which appeared to have no relation to cryptozoology and may never have been sighted.

      There is a common misconception that anything from folklore can be interpreted as Cryptids; this has led to users on Wikipedia to claim erroneously that anything from folklore can be subsequently considered a Cryptid, which has in turn resulted in the removal of Cryptozoological content from that site. We do not want to reinforce those claims by having too much focus on creatures that scarcely fit the definition of cryptids.

      Also, having too much focus on mythology will result in a loss of focus on what cryptozoology is truly about: the study of hidden creatures that could potentially exist.

      There really shouldn't be categories like 'Cryptids from _ religion' or likewise 'Cryptids from _ mythology' as these distract from the notion that cryptids are supposed to be organisms yet to be discovered.

      AmazingAncientWorld (talk) 09:05, July 25, 2019 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • @User:Bradypus Tamias For now keep the category Category:Carnivore and delete the rest; I will have to look into this.

        Loading editor
    • @User:AmazingAncientWorld I've removed Carnivorous, Carnivora, and Carnivorans, and have recorded the contents of the latter two categories, so if it's decided to bring one of them back, it won't be a problem.

      And I have to agree with your comment that it's alleged sightings - or at least the insistence that something is a real animal and not just part of myth - that makes a cryptid. Purely mythological animals may or may not have a place on the wiki, depending on its intended scope (I've seen animal mythology and zoomorphic gods mentioned in a number of cryptozoological works), but either way they shouldn't be classified as cryptids themselves.

        Loading editor
    • Bradypus Tamias wrote:
      @User:AmazingAncientWorld I've removed Carnivorous, Carnivora, and Carnivorans, and have recorded the contents of the latter two categories, so if it's decided to bring one of them back, it won't be a problem.

      And I have to agree with your comment that it's alleged sightings - or at least the insistence that something is a real animal and not just part of myth - that makes a cryptid. Purely mythological animals may or may not have a place on the wiki, depending on its intended scope (I've seen animal mythology and zoomorphic gods mentioned in a number of cryptozoological works), but either way they shouldn't be classified as cryptids themselves.

      are you sure we want to do that

        Loading editor
    • @User:Greyideas Do what?

        Loading editor
    • Bradypus Tamias wrote:
      @User:Greyideas Do what?

      remove carnivora, I mean its a big categorie

        Loading editor
    • Well, I suppose it'll be debated soon, and if it's decided to bring the category back, I have recorded all the pages which were in the category, so it will be very easy to restore it. But I'm not sure that any of the taxonomic categories really belong here, since the majority of cryptids have of course not been classified. It's all speculation on the part of editors.

        Loading editor
    • Bradypus Tamias wrote:
      Well, I suppose it'll be debated soon, and if it's decided to bring the category back, I have recorded all the pages which were in the category, so it will be very easy to restore it. But I'm not sure that any of the taxonomic categories really belong here, since the majority of cryptids have of course not been classified. It's all speculation on the part of editorsah 
      ah okay
      Kasai rex by xiphactinus-d8aj46g

      Okay great

        Loading editor
    • I agree more modern sightings and direct links to cryptozoology should be required, but there are a lot of articles that are only related to mythology. Should those pages be removed if they're just related to mythology or just be tagged as purely mythological?

        Loading editor
    • I think that mythological creatures should be tagged under:

      Mythological

      Paranormal Cryptids

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • so in conclusion ghost still belong in this wiki right? I mean, as an example we don't have cryptozoologic culture in Indonesia, most of the "true" cryptid like Orang pendek, veo, etc. were researched by foreigner like Karl Shuker. I remind everybody that cryptozoology isn't a true science, it's all subjective, i'm sorry but i'm annoyed by "cryptozoologist" that decide what is a cryptid or not, what is a cryptid anyway? where is the proof that bigfoot or yeti are "undiscovered species", they fit the definition of a ghost if you ask me, even though they're shaped like upright gorilla. If you ask any Indonesian, they're more likely to see and recognize ghost like Kuntilanak, pocong , genderuwo (i've seen this), kuyang or wewe gombel than orang pendek or veo. In this wiki i've already added demonic creature like banaspati and babi ngepet, and I plan to add more Indonesian ghost in the future. Ask karl shuker if he knows about demonic humanoid called genderuwo, even though Indonesian call it a ghost, they're as cryptozoologic as a bigfoot

      And i'm not referring to specific user on this wiki, i just talking generally, especially cryptozoologist outside this wiki

        Loading editor
    • We can include ghosts to an extent, yes. Human-like ghosts are allowed, or any other paranormal creature, but when it comes to ghosts of people or urban legends such as Bandage Man or Mummies, that's when certain things should be excluded.

        Loading editor
    • Afif Brika wrote:
      so in conclusion ghost still belong in this wiki right? I mean, as an example we don't have cryptozoologic culture in Indonesia, most of the "true" cryptid like Orang pendek, veo, etc. were researched by foreigner like Karl Shuker. I remind everybody that cryptozoology isn't a true science, it's all subjective, i'm sorry but i'm annoyed by "cryptozoologist" that decide what is a cryptid or not, what is a cryptid anyway? where is the proof that bigfoot or yeti are "undiscovered species", they fit the definition of a ghost if you ask me, even though they're shaped like upright gorilla. If you ask any Indonesian, they're more likely to see and recognize ghost like Kuntilanak, pocong , genderuwo (i've seen this), kuyang or wewe gombel than orang pendek or veo. In this wiki i've already added demonic creature like banaspati and babi ngepet, and I plan to add more Indonesian ghost in the future. Ask karl shuker if he knows about demonic humanoid called genderuwo, even though Indonesian call it a ghost, they're as cryptozoologic as a bigfoot

      And i'm not referring to specific user on this wiki, i just talking generally, especially cryptozoologist outside this wiki

      Yes it does, this is a pseudoscience.

        Loading editor
    • @User:Afif Brika @User:DalySkywalker   Crytptid wiki is a place to celebrate all reported creatures from human culture.  Although we should prioritize creatures that are still sighted today, I am in no way for the removal of creatures sighted in antiquity.

      Almost all cryptids are connected to local legends from throughout the world that were intended to be respected by those who spoke of them. Nowadays, there is little regard for them in the so-called modern outlook, however, here in Cryptid Wiki our goal is to celebrate culture and its integrity.

      @User:Afif Brika Creatures that have been linked to or believed as ghosts/spirits are allowed on this wiki, although the focus is more on the creatures than how or whether they are ghosts or not.

      @User:DalySkywalker I believe only creatures without modern sightings that do not appear to have sightings should be removed; as you said, many people of antiquity believed in these creatures, and while this site is not about believing in creatures, it is about showing more regard and respect to these legends than what is currently done by much of the institutions that review them today.

        Loading editor
    • AmazingAncientWorld is it okay if i do analysis sections where look into cryptids and check their authentictity and also can I clear up misinformation?

        Loading editor
    • Greyideas wrote: AmazingAncientWorld is it okay if i do analysis sections where look into cryptids and check their authentictity and also can I clear up misinformation?

      Sure, as long as they are accurate.

        Loading editor
    • AmazingAncientWorld wrote:

      Greyideas wrote: AmazingAncientWorld is it okay if i do analysis sections where look into cryptids and check their authentictity and also can I clear up misinformation?

      Sure, as long as they are accurate.

      Oh dont worry, Im in contact with a couple of biologists and a cryptozoologist who is also a nauturalist so its fine and I have my sources

        Loading editor
    • Remember that analyses should be simply neutral reiterations of published theories and opinions, not the theories and opinions of editors. I believe that original research is against the rules.

        Loading editor
    • Bradypus Tamias wrote:
      Remember that analyses should be simply neutral reiterations of published theories and opinions, not the theories and opinions of editors. I believe that original research is against the rules.

      sure

        Loading editor
    • @DalySkywalker At least half of the articles without Modern Sightings probably don't have sightings; these may have to be removed depending on what is decided.

        Loading editor
    • IMO even creatures without sightings should be included.

        Loading editor
    • DalySkywalker wrote:
      IMO even creatures without sightings should be included.

      I know, but sightings are very important to cryptozoology.

        Loading editor
    • Anyway, Cryptid Wiki is now 10 Years old; Aussie made a blog about it!

      https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Australopithecusman/10_Years_of_Cryptid_Wiki!

        Loading editor
    • By the way AAW, you and Australopithecusman are the most knowledgeable of the admin, to celebrate this wiki maybe you both can start fix this page Cryptid Wiki (Website)

      or just remove the stub template if you felt that it's enough

        Loading editor
    • I don't know about "most knowledgeable", but I can give it a try.  :)

        Loading editor
    • considering that User:IDSpaugh is blocked, we should check his contribution, i have noted few pages that i think need to be deleted, but need approval from y'all Canine Chupacabra , Florida Sea Serpents, i have deleted them but for some reason dalyskywalker restore it. I have already deleted Reed City Gas Demon, Giant North American Bear , and Shenango Dog Boy. All made by him/her

        Loading editor
    • "Canine Chupacabra" is just the same as one of the two types of chupacabra discussed on the original page (I believe you noted this when you deleted it the first time), so I would wholeheartedly support its deletion - unless it's decided to split the canine information on the original article off into "Canine Chupacabra".

      The "Florida Sea Serpents" were featured on MonsterQuest, so they probably belong here.

      The "Shenango Dog Boy" also seems to have been a genuine cryptid.

        Loading editor
    • As Afif has pointed out to me, Category:Chupacabra is in a very confusing state, and is almost being considered for deletion, so some more input would be appreciated. For example, how exactly is "Chupacabra" being used here? It seems like a wastebasket term.

      Category:Carnivorous_Aquatic-based_Cryptids is also being considered.

        Loading editor
    • Delete both.

        Loading editor
    • Afif Brika wrote:
      considering that User:IDSpaugh is blocked, we should check his contribution, i have noted few pages that i think need to be deleted, but need approval from y'all Canine Chupacabra , Florida Sea Serpents, i have deleted them but for some reason dalyskywalker restore it. I have already deleted Reed City Gas Demon, Giant North American Bear , and Shenango Dog Boy. All made by him/her

      I dont remember restoring those articles. 

        Loading editor
    • Hey, can we either add credit to all the uncredited art pieces or remove them? Scrolling through most galleries there's a bunch of uncredited art pieces, and that really should be credited.

        Loading editor
    • @Mmmbugssssssssss  This has been already started to some degree; epsecially with some critical images.  

      We think should focus on getting permission for images featured prominently first, and maybe restrict galleries to only a few pages or only allow content that has permission for them (from what I've noticed, galleries encourage lots of undocumented images to be uploaded).

      Obviously, if an artist complains an image should be deleted.

      There should be a disclaimer that artists reminding them to let us know if they want their image removed.

        Loading editor
    • What are everyone's thoughts on this rewrite of the Nandi bear article I've just written up? I feel like it's much too long, is there anything that anyone thinkgs should be cut out of it? And is it rude of me to rewrite an entire article instead of just editing and improving the text that's already there?

      A note on the images I've used:

      • I've searched in vain for the artist of the lead image; it's so widespread on the internet that I doubt the artist's name can ever be found. Even using Google Image's search-by-date tools, the very earliest instance of the image doesn't give the name.
      • The B/W image is public domain, and appears on Wikimedia Commons.
      • I've found the name of the chalicothere image's creator, and included it.
      • All the images I've uploaded for the article are public domain except for Philippe Coudray's black honey badger.

      I chose the Nandi bear because it's probably the only major cryptid for which I have access to all the sources covering it, mainly because it hasn't been reported in decades.

        Loading editor
    • Looks great! But, I think the notes for the images you used should be put in Sources, and "Similiar Cryptids" should be renamed to "See Also".

      The rewrite should be used to replace the article right away.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks. I've taken your advice and added an images section to the source+renamed the similar cryptids section, and have now replaced the original text of the article. Luckily, looking at it there, it doesn't seem so long as it did before.

        Loading editor
    • Nice.

      I think I'll go update the layout I made now.

        Loading editor
    • I've also added a sightings map, do you think that's alright? It's pretty useless on this article, because most Nandi bear sightings don't have precise locations (the river mentioned in the first sighting is untraceable, so the 1905 sighting is not on the map), and the land is all farmland or urbanised now anyway. But maps might be useful for cryptids with more, and more precisely-located, sightings.

      I've been working on a complete cryptozoological sightings map off-and-on using Google Earth for some time, so there are some cryptids I could make better maps for.

        Loading editor
    • That's a good idea. We should have Sightings Maps for all the cryptids on the wiki!

        Loading editor
    • One problem I know will occur is that, for some reason, wiki maps wreak havoc with any references used above them. It's a little difficult to explain: here is an example I just made. I know the articles don't currently use inline references, but if it's decided they should, we'll have to think of a way of fixing this problem.

      In any case, my full cryptid map currently includes the following cryptids, all of which I can create wiki maps for (though some of them do not have pages, and some may not warrant individual maps). Since I'm intending to rewrite or heavily edit a number of pages in the vein of my Nandi bear rewrite soon (if everyone's alright with that!), I'd prefer to create and add the maps during the rewriting, instead of right now. Here are the cryptids I have coordinates for - some have only the general location (no less specific than province or county), whilst some are specific down to a few yards.

      Click to see list:
      • Abasambo
      • Abyssal rainbow gar
      • Amikuk
      • Arctotherium
      • Auli (of the Horn of Africa, not Russia)
      • Aypa
      • Bali djaki
      • Boneless
      • Booger bear
      • Bunyip
      • Cave cow
      • Coje ya menia
      • Con rit
      • De Loys' ape
      • Dientudo
      • Dilali
      • Dingonek
      • Earth hound
      • Emela-ntouka
      • Entzaeia-yawa
      • Esakar-paki
      • Ethiopian vampire bat
      • Fantasma de los riscos
      • Father-of-all-the-turtles
      • Five-lined constellation fish
      • Gambo
      • Gassingram
      • Gazeka
      • Giant dragonfish
      • Patagonian ground sloth
      • Glowing mudskipper
      • Hadjel
      • Iemisch
      • Ipupiara
      • Kida harara (Karitiana mapinguari)
      • Lake Colhue Huapi monster
      • Lau
      • Loch Ness monster
      • Long-necked sea serpent
      • Lukwata
      • Maipolina
      • Many-finned sea serpent
      • Many-humped sea serpent
      • Mapinguari
      • Marine saurian
      • Mary River gavial
      • Merhorse
      • Milne
      • Minhocao
      • Mokele-mbembe
      • Mourou-ngou
      • Murung River bear
      • Nandi bear
      • Ngoroli
      • Nikaseenithulooyee
      • Nyokodoing
      • Pallid sailfin
      • Pama-yawa
      • Queensland tiger (no less than 19 of them)
      • Ruby Valley monsters
      • Saapaim
      • Sachamama
      • Sapo de loma
      • Saytoechin (beaver-eater)
      • Segamai
      • Shiashia-yawa
      • Sisemite
      • Steller's sea ape
      • Super-eel
      • Super-otter
      • Tatu-aruiap
      • Three-starred anglerfish
      • Tigre dantero
      • Tigre de montagne
      • Tizheruk
      • Tompondrano
      • Tratratratra
      • Trolak wildman
      • Tsere-yawa
      • Tshenkutshen
      • Ujea
      • Urayuli
      • Urchow
      • Veo
      • Waheela
      • Walrus dog
      • Wanjilanko
      • Waracabra tiger
      • Warrigal
      • Wobo
      • Yaquaru
      • Yeho


      I think any attempt to create a map of this sort for Bigfoot sightings would have to be a (well-monitored) community effort. Perhaps a large map could also be made for the lake monsters page, labelling (obviously) all the lakes with monsters reported from them.

        Loading editor
    • Could the Carmel Area Creature and Fresno Nightcrawler pages be either separated entirely or condensed into one? It seems unnecessary to have a description of the Carmel Area Creature on the page for Fresno Nightcrawlers and a separate page for the Carmel Area Creature. Maybe we can just link the Carmel Area Creature page on the Fresno Nightcrawler page?

        Loading editor
    • I think the Carmel Area Creature page and Fresno Nightcrawler page are fine the way they are.

        Loading editor
    • I've also added a poll to the Nandi bear article, based on the m-m one, but I've placed it at the side of the sources list, because I thought it looked odd stretched across the whole page. What does everyone think about adding polls to other large pages (alongside the maps)?

        Loading editor
    • yeah we need polls to large pages

        Loading editor
    • What do you think of

      That's a lot of category for esentially a same thing, i propose either merge them into Spirit category or create Paranormal/Supernatural Being category.

      Why i'm asking by the way? because i want to add spirit or ghost which is yet to be represented at the navigation on the top of this wiki

        Loading editor
    • And a category for all the definitely supernatural pages is a good idea, especially as the distinctions between spirits and demons and ghosts is pretty arbitrary. Most of the pages in the jinn category (okapi?!) also are not jinn, unless the term "jinn" is simply being used here to mean spirit.

        Loading editor
    • we've got two admin votes, we don't need the others. Use your bot to merge it into Supernatural Being, we can just rename it at anytime if anybody have a problem

        Loading editor
    • I've merged "Jinn," "Spirit," "Ghilan," and "Shapeshifter" into Supernatural. I simply removed the "Ghosts" category, because it had already been deleted, as its contents were the same as "Spirit".

      I'm not sure about the Demon category, though. Its contents are either already represented in the other merged categories, or just aren't supernatural, so I've kept it as it is for now.

        Loading editor
    • Yep, merge all those categories.

        Loading editor
    • what is the definition of "Demon" anyway? what is a demon or not is subjective, I'd say just delete it, its content should belong to either supernatural or non-supernatural, we don't need another category

        Loading editor
    • Demon has been removed: all supernatural articles are now in the category of the same name, which I'll go through to make sure there are no inappropriate-categorised articles.

        Loading editor
    • You know what happened to Spirit Category?

        Loading editor
    • Cryptids Boy wrote: You know what happened to Spirit Category?

      If you're talking about the category, then it's been removed after the above discussion, replaced with Supernatural.

        Loading editor
    • Ok thanks

        Loading editor
    • Hey cryptids boy, where did you get your images from?

        Loading editor
    • Oh actually this images came from in Deviantart.

        Loading editor
    • And also I copy it

        Loading editor
    • credit the creator please, if you didn't do it yet. Put their name on the article

        Loading editor
    • Creatures and Beings of China Folklore and Lower Mythology  hey guys, this article looks like a blog not a wiki, but the content are interesting, maybe we can keep it but somebody please wikify it

        Loading editor
    • Nah, I think that should be deleted. However, I also think it should be converted to a blog post, or left on the article-creators wall (So they don't lose all their hard work)

        Loading editor
    • The user who created that page was blocked for repeatedly copypasting text from other websites into articles here. That, combined with the blog-like style of the article, makes me suspect that it's copypasted, though nothing comes up on Google when I try searching quotes from the article.

      UPDATE : Looks like it's from DeviantArt, but the original has been removed.

        Loading editor
    • I've added the Candidates For Deletion category to the page. However, before it is deleted, I think we should copy and paste the article onto the creator's wall (So they dont lose their hard work), along with a notice that the page has been deleted.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.