Talk:Cryptozoology
I suppose this should be retitled "Cryptobiological travel"? Such a long, complex-sounding name. Is there a way to improve it? "Places with legendary creatures"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Added a few things that come to mind but struggling to think how to bring this even to outline status. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest the 'legend' listings such as the Lambton Worm is not a relevant listing here, since it is definitely a legend and no-one is suggesting it is possibly hiding out somewhere... How about animals that people do claim exist (however outlandish) such as the w:Jackalope or recently extinct animals such as the w:Thylacine that some people claim could still be hiding? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was not suggesting the Worm or any of the entries are creature that could be seen, just thinking of locations people could visit that are associated with creature myths. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about theme parks or statues of creature, such as dragons in Wales, Gnomes in Denmark or even Smurfs in France? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was not suggesting the Worm or any of the entries are creature that could be seen, just thinking of locations people could visit that are associated with creature myths. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest the 'legend' listings such as the Lambton Worm is not a relevant listing here, since it is definitely a legend and no-one is suggesting it is possibly hiding out somewhere... How about animals that people do claim exist (however outlandish) such as the w:Jackalope or recently extinct animals such as the w:Thylacine that some people claim could still be hiding? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- To me, dragons, gnomes and smurfs are not really for this article and might belong in an article such as Mythical Creatures . The Loch Ness monster is a good one because of the (very) remote possibility you could spot it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I propose to make a distinction between animals that you have a very remote chance of seeing (i.e. Loch Ness Monster) that should be listed here, and plainly mythical beasts (such as dragons, pixes etc) that are just legends not be included. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Name (again)[edit]
If we are not going to change the name of the article to a longer form/description, why don't we use the more usual Cryptozoology, as we don't include crypto-plants anyway? Vidimian (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agree --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- The other alternative is to include crypto-plants. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a possibility, however low, to see (or at least there are claimants to witness) these yetis, lake monsters, and what not, but barring the unknown, extreme depths of the rain forests, almost no one has come around saying they really saw man eating plants (maybe because they were eaten by them?). And since plants are not mobile unlike animals, and yet no one dared to take a picture or footage of them, I think we can confidently exclude those. If there is any location "known" for its crypto-plants, though, I'm okay with adding it as a destination. (Wikipedia gives Latin America as one, but that's too large to be considered a destination.) Vidimian (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think we have consensus of sorts. Last call for comment before renaming? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
What about crypto-fungi? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Should this (and paranormal tourism with it) be axed?[edit]
Quite frankly there's no there there, so to speak. When dealing with more established tales of things that are hard to verify we at least have shrines temples and churches to point to. But with this and the related "paranormal", all we have to point to are scamsters and a tourist industry built on them (e.g. Loch Ness and surroundings) which if anything should be dealt with at their respective location articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on your own personal feeling towards the subject rather than its applicability to travel. I'd say that it is a valid topic, but not one that 'strongly' serves the traveler well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
