Talk:Sea monster

san francisco bay

Everytime I try to post the san francisco bay cryptid,someone rv's the link!--Poodleman 04:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was one of those who reverted your addition, which I did because it was unsourced. If you can provide a reliable source for this creature in San Francisco Bay being "currently reported", then I don't see any problem with it being mentioned. But without any sources, it is at best original research (which goes against Wikipedia policy) and is indistinguishable to an external observer from someone adding thigns they've made up to the article. -- AJR | Talk 13:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find a reliable source for the cryptid...I will not post another cryptid without reliable info--Poodleman 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the meaning of this?

"Tropical cyclones such as hurricanes or typhoons may also be another possible origin of the sea monsters". --Againme (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Seiche"

The first section below the TOC gives a link as one possibility being seiches. The link goes to an article on standing waves, but that article's hatnotes mention the term is also used for cuttlefish and Bobtail squid. As all the others in the list on this page are animals, to which one should this article link? Morgan Riley (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it means the standing wave. I've seen seiches (as in the standing waves) proposed as an explanation for the Loch Ness Monster (by creating odd-lookign ripples that people mistake for a monster). Our article mentions them, but doesn't have a source for the claim. Conversely, cuttlefish and bobtail squid are tiny, so couldn't be mistaken for a monster (unless someone is proposing giant version). As such, I've split that sentance into "animals" and "natural phenomena" (and stuck a tag on the whole thing as none of them were sourced. 62.172.108.24 (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible source of vandalism

Uncyclowikia's how-to page has "See Wikipedia's Monster Edit Page" followed by "Edit Wikipedia's Sea monster Page". The humor comes from permuting the words, but I wonder how many of the unconstructive edits from the last couple weeks came from there. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have boldly removed the link myself except that the (Uncyclopedia) page is protected. (BTW: You don't have to type the "c:" manually when using the wikia: prefix here. You probably meant wikia:uncyclopedia:Help:HowTo#Advanced Editing Tips) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the same link exists on the "new" Uncyclopedia, which isn't hosted on Wikia (and has no interwiki prefix here for good reason). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Coverage: Move to Aquatic monster?

Hello folks. Recently I've been trying to clean up lake monster but I've noticed in issue in how we're dividing these entities. Right now we have the aforementioned article and this one but, of course, monsters appear in the folklore record as dwelling in any type of body of water, regardless of its salinity or mineral content. Some beings are associated with specific bodies of water, like a specific lake or river, but I can't see why we're dividing them up between sea and lake, terms which are sometimes semantically blurry in common use.

Wouldn't aquatic monster be better for just handling all of this? It would certainly make using secondary sources and including entities that are thought to dwell in rivers or fjords, for example.

If no one has any objections, I'll work toward putting together aquatic monster so that we can discuss, well, monsters that dwell in bodies of water. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Tullimonstrum (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not very encyclopedic

"The definition of a "monster" is subjective, and some sea monsters may have been based on scientifically accepted creatures such as whales and types of giant and colossal squid." Sorry? I didn't know whales and larger squids can be considered "monsters" based on opinion. How about stating that some of the "monsters" may have just been animals. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Move Great Fish to Older Examples?

Not sure on common etiquette, but given its a religious story, and a lot of the other examples in In Fiction are expressly fiction and not scripture, along with Leviathan, another Abrahamic story being in Older Examples, should we not move Great Fish there? AstralAttorney (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstralAttorney, by common etiquette I guess you mean how Wikipedia works - which is a complex question but Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle may apply. Or asking on the talk page is often ideal, which you have done, thanks.

About the change, I think Jonah's story is a very common example of a great fish so moving it from Fiction to Examples looks ok to me. There isn't an "Older Examples" section currently, just "Older reports". Moving Jonah's great fish there could be problematic. Commander Keane (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane I had just meant Examples rather than Older Examples, I just got a little text-tied. My fault, sorry, but yeah, it seems strange to keep it in fiction rather than examples, when, again, Leviathan is in Examples. AstralAttorney (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@AstralAttorney, done. I thought you might be text-tied but I wanted to double check. I think with things like this in the future you can bold as suggested above :-) Commander Keane (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)