Talk:List of cryptids

Oklahoma octopus

I reverted the addition of Oklahoma Octopus to the list, mistakenly thinking it was sourced to the article List of Lost Tapes episodes. @American Truth: pointed out that he had cited a report from an NPR station. However, the cited report is skeptical about the authenticity of the Oklahoma Octopus, noting various discrepancies in the stories about it, and states that the legend only became popular after it was featured in an episode of the Lost Tapes series, which the NPR article calls a pseudo-documentary. My contention is that the Oklahoma Octopus is an urban legend, not a cryptid. Donald Albury 18:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @AmericanTruth: after typo. Donald Albury 18:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing so apologies if there are any formatting or courtesy mistakes with my response. I would argue with all due respect for the inclusion of this creature and others with similar situations. I would argue there is no clear distinction between cryptids and urban legends. Is it not true that most if not all cryptids are urban legends? Is mothman not an urban legend? Is the Loveland frogman not an urban legend? I would argue that any animal or animal like creature that is an urban legend said to be real in folklore but not recognized as a real species by science would inherently be a cryptid. Dubious media whether it be shows like "Lost Tapes" or old newspaper articles are also the origin point of many if not most cryptids. We're talking about a pseudoscience here after all it makes sense the origin or popularization point for a lot of these things would be pseudoscientific media. Even things demonstrated to be outright hoaxes are often considered cryptids within cryptid communities and publicizations. Perhaps the list could use some sort of categorization based on plausibility but that would be difficult to do in practice. Anyway I think the Oklahoma Octopus warrants inclusion based on the above factors. AmericanTruth (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:List of cryptids/Archive 10#Selection Criteria for List of Cryptids for a rather lengthy discussion last year on criteria for inclusion of entries in the article. While the discussion did not reach a definitive conclusion, I think there is significant opposition to including urban legends in the list. I will also note that Wikipedia does not have an article about the Oklahoma Octopus, with only a single sentence in the Lake Thunderbird article cited to the radio station in Oklahoma. Donald Albury 19:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I read through the article and it doesn't seem like anything definitive was really decided. What criteria if any does the current list use to approve new cryptid entries? If it's a requirement for the creature to already have its own dedicated wikipedia page I guess the Oklahoma Octopus would be ineligible by default at the current moment but I'd argue a page for it should be made anyway though I personally don't have the time or knowledge to do it at this moment. But for the purposes of this article what criteria if any does the current list use to approve new cryptid entries? AmericanTruth (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I would very much like to know that as well, so I'll bold the relevant question: what criteria if any does the current list use? Without agreement on that, it seems both arbitrary and unencyclopedic to say yea or nay to any entry, even the Oklahoma Octopus. Bitten Peach (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright given that no one ever responded to this I'll pitch this. If a candidate creature for this list has been described by at least one generally trustworthy source (such as a local newspaper/media outlet) as a cryptid and has generally been reported on elsewhere (cryptid websites, wikis, travel blogs, youtube channels etc) it should be eligible for inclusion on the list. This method would maximize encyclopedic inclusiveness of all creatures considered to be cryptids while blocking those creatures/monsters/whatever from other outside categories (creepypastas, broader mythology, general fiction, non-cryptid urban legend etc) and those that lack notability, from inclusion. Under this framework Oklahoma Octopus would be fair game for inclusion. I'll leave this thread up for a day or two if no one tells me not to I'll add back the Oklahoma Octopus and we can all use this standard going forward. AmericanTruth (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, even if the source says "but it's a load of Dingoes kidenys". This is not about real myths or real animals; they do not (therefore) have to be real or believable, just reported. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Donald Albury 18:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the Oklahoma octopus, along with several other entries that were not linked to articles. Pinging @AmericanTruth @Bitten Peach @Donald Albury @Slatersteven, since this is an old thread that went stale months ago. Limiting the list to entries that are linked to an article has been the accepted approach for as long as I've been active on this page. You asked what our selection criteria are. Officially, we don't have any, as you can see from the discussion linked above. It's a bit of a mess! Instead we resort to case-by-case determinations and WP:EDITCON. In practice, we do tend to adhere more or less to the criteria that were discussed in 2024 once an entry has been challenged. That is, a linked article and at least one (preferably more) high quality source unambiguously describing the creature as a "cryptid". The KGUO source is pretty good, although it also casts doubt on the idea that this was well-known as a cryptid until fairly recently. Expanding the list to include (purported) cryptids without a Wikipedia article would be a significant departure from longstanding WP:EDITCON. This list, and the "cryptid" category generally, has significant and longstanding challenges with definitions and criteria. Limiting entries to wiki-notable subjects with articles helps to reign it in and provide (reasonably) high quality information and not an endless list of everything that has ever been called a cryptid. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

As its a list we do need articles, but we still need coverage by RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean "do not need articles", which I know has been your position in the past. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I left out the not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

And I was all happy that you'd switched to the "yes" camp. :-) Bitten Peach (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Only now seeing this. I thought this was settled. I'd argue the Oklahoma Octopus works for the list. The KGUO source should be good enough to keep the Oklahoma Octopus up. I'd argue a more representative list is better than an underinclusive one. Oklahoma Octopus should have a Wikipedia article anyway I'd write it myself if I had the bandwidth but I sadly do not. AmericanTruth (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Snallygaster

The snallygaster, a reptile/dragon-like bird from Virginia, originates in the blue ridge mountains and is described by early settlers. Mymomsaysimspecial (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this thing (see the Wikipedia policy WP:RS to learn what qualifies as a reliable source)? If so, please share them here, whereat you and other editors can discuss it and, perhaps, your desired content can be included in the article. If there are no such sources the snallygaster won't be included. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

And read wp:or, the source has to say it is a cryptid, and not (for example) a character in a game. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm now suspecting that it might be a legitimate (so to speak) entry for this page. See, of all things, Snallygaster. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

From what I have read, it is a fearsome critter, and not a cryptid. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Snallygasters have feelings too, you know. Carlstak (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Van Meter Visitor

In the town of Van Meter Iowa there is a well known cryptid known as the Van Meter visitor, it supposedly was spotted by multiple people and resembled a bat-pterosaur with a light on its head. They also have a cast of supposedly the creatures footprint. I was wondering if it should be added to the list, it may fall under the thunderbird category but there are cryptids that fall under the Yeti category on here and have their own section. ~2026-70547-1 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion/merger discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town

The article Cryptid town has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town. An editor has suggested partial merger of content from Cryptid town into Cryptozoology as an alternative to deletion. Please join the discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptid town to weigh in. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"List of relicts" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of relicts 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/2026 April 13 § List of relicts until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relict hominid

Relict hominid exists as a redirect to List of cryptids#Hominid. Like so many things in this arena, the term relict hominid is poorly defined. It has sometimes been used by cryptozoologists but usage appears broader and may refer to wild men, the "missing link", some of the entries listed at apeman, and others. The Ukrainian forest diety Chuhaister is even described as a "relict hominid" in the infobox. I think we should delete this redirect since the meaning of this term is vague. But if we were to keep it, we should confirm that hominid cryptid is the primary meaning, add a well-sourced definition, and bold relict hominid after the section heading, in accordance with MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:RSURPRISE. Rather than proceed directly to WP:RFD, I'm starting here to see if other editors think this belongs and can find a suitable definition to include in support of keeping this redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Relict hominid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relict hominid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relict hominid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Rougarou

In Louisiana there is the Rougarou, originally called the Loup Garou. ~2026-28007-21 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Loup garou is French for Werewolf. See also Loup-garou (disambiguation). Donald Albury 17:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

"Shrimpy" Notability

Haven't been through the archives yet, but my gut feeling is that Strange Magazine likely doesn't meet WP:RS criteria and may be considered a WP:FRINGE source. The second source appears to be a local paper doing a local interest piece. The paper even notes "The story is a fairly obscure one outside of certain circles of cryptid aficionados." Not a ringing endorsement for notability, particularly when compared to the major news outlets and published works being cited for the others in the semi/aquatic section. Additionally, all other entries (excepting the Kandahar Giant, which may also lack notability) have their own articles. Should this be removed? --Crimson Bleeding SouIIs (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed Shrimpy. The Strange Magazine source is a first-person account, described as: The following are alleged firsthand experiences with the stranger side of life. None of the following extraordinary experiences have been investigated -- they are reproduced here as raw data, to be analyzed by some and enjoyed by others. Peak unreliability! The Kitsap Sun article basically describes all the reasons this is not notable and not suitable for inclusion. It confirms that the Strange Mag article is the only documented account, that this "cryptid" is largely unknown, and that the most basic facts of the story do not check out. This is basically one guy's pet project to make Shrimpy happen. Inclusion here is arguably promotional for his website and other endeavors. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)