Talk:Bigfoot

message: This should probably be addressed in the article. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:7030:FD16:87D5:8432 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is:  --Belbury (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have source for that? If so we can slap that in the article and satisfy the IP users request. GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean it is addressed in the article. I'm quoting from the History section there. Belbury (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, so it is! I did not read the words "It is" in your reply and just saw green text. I've been skimming far to much text recently, and it shows. Thanks for your patience and time letting me know! GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  18:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry! I ctrl-f'ed "etymology" but didn't find anything. Regards, 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5DBE:2F80:27B7:584 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Sasquatch 

message: While cryptozoologists are a fringe group in academia, they have been given a large platform with TV shows like Finding Bigfoot. "Finding Bigfoot ranked among Animal Planet's top rated programs throughout its run," and as this show is in the category "Cryptozoological television series," it seems that while the subculture may be "moribund" in terms of mainstream academia, the general public has a lot of interest in the topic. Bigfoot is a pop culture phenomena and of interest as a piece of folklore as far as scientific consensus is concerned. The enthusiasts for bigfoot are the ones driving the conversation, as academics really aren't that interested. I would wager that many of the views on this page are from people who are interested in Bigfoot because they heard about it on one of these shows. I think that it is therefore appropriate to address this group and their claims directly and clearly, and that it is not inappropriate emphasis to do so. GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  23:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing to add more content to the "In popular culture" section? Where else would you want to add such information, if otherwise? If you have something substantial in mind, you could write up a draft in your sandbox and link to it, so that other editors can read it and offer feedback. I can hear the incels stirring already.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more clear. Not preposing more content, I'm justifying my revert to the format of the lead. Status quo is fine. I thought I put a note for "see talk section" on its edit summary, but forgot. GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. Your revert was justified. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigfoot in Popculture 

message: I see this article was nominated for featured article status a few years ago. It looks to me like it has made tremendous progress since then. Does anyone think this could be a candidate for either good article or featured article? Of course, it might needs some work before then, but we could look at that. GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never initiated either process for any article, but I think I would support nominating this page. It has indeed made a lot of progress compared to where it was at previously. TNstingray (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't ever initiated the process either, but am learning for a few other pages. We could start by putting the page on Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines to get some fresh eyes and suggestions on it. I currently have a page being reviewed, so I can't add another right now. If someone else wanted to add this there, mentioning that we want to get it to good or FA, we could get some momentum. GeogSage  (⚔Chat?⚔)  23:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. TNstingray (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating this for Featured/good Article status? 

message: Wondering whether "bigfoot", "sasquatch", "yeti", etc., should be uncapitalized in the article, as they aren't ethnicities, nationalities, or religious groups. Largoplazo (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They are typically presented as proper nouns. TNstingray (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone making a survey of sources should distinguish contexts in which one of these terms serves as a name for what's being supposed to be a single anomaly, a unique creature like the Loch Ness monster, from contexts in which it's supposed that there are many of them, like leprechauns and elves. In other words, "A camper claims to have seen the Sasquatch last week" versus "A camper claims to have seen a sasquatch last week". Largoplazo (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It appears that there are contexts where Bigfoot singular is used as an individual cultural icon or advertising mascot. In the context of the wild, "Bigfoot" was the original proper name given to the singular culprit in the '50s, and this spelling seems to have carried over to interest in the alleged species. But we should go with the sources. Also, not that this is how we determine Wikipedia content, but the source editor underlines "bigfoot" and "sasquatch" in red indicating they are incorrect, haha. TNstingray (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these ethnic groups?