Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[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)
[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)
