Implicating bigfoot → cryptid
Link to implication

Reason:

Bigfoot is a well known American cryptid.

Related cryptid implications:

• ahool → cryptid (tag is currently empty but I'm uploading a few pics soon)
• ahool → bat
• bunyip → cryptid (tag is currently empty but I'm uploading a few pics soon)
• carbuncle → cryptid
• chupacabra → cryptid
• dover demon → cryptid
• fiskerton phantom → cryptid
• flatwoods monster → cryptid
• flatwoods monster → alien
• hopkinsville goblin → cryptid
• hopkinsville goblin → alien
• jersey devil → cryptid
• loch ness monster → cryptid
• mapinguari → cryptid (empty tag)
• mokele-mbembe → cryptid (tag is currently empty but I'm uploading a few pics soon)
• mokele-mbembe → sauropod
• mothman → cryptid
• roc → cryptid (tag is currently empty but I'm uploading a few pics soon)
• roc → avian
• tatzelwurm → cryptid (tag is currently empty but I'm uploading a few pics soon)
• tatzelwurm → feline
• tatzelwurm → dragon
• thunderbird → cryptid
• thunderbird → avian
• tsuchinoko → cryptid
• wolpertinger → cryptid
• yeti → cryptid
• zaratan → cryptid
• zaratan → turtle

Related cryptid character/oc implications:

• crystal beast ruby carbuncle → carbuncle
• crystal beast ruby carbuncle → yu-gi-oh
• charlie (we bare bears) → bigfoot
• digimon
• mojyamon → yeti
• wendigomon → wendigo
• fiskerton → fiskerton phantom
• nessie → loch ness monster
• noko (yo-kai watch) → tsuchinoko
• pokemon
• abomasnow → yeti
• carbink → carbuncle
• diancie → carbuncle
• mega diancie → carbuncle
• dunsparce → tsuchinoko
• espeon → carbuncle
• sableye → hopkinsville goblin
• torterra → world turtle
• zapdos → thunderbird
• puzzle & dragons
• blue carbuncle → carbuncle
• earth light carbuncle → carbuncle
• green carbuncle → carbuncle
• mars light carbuncle → carbuncle
• mercury light carbuncle → carbuncle
• moonlight carbuncle → carbuncle
• red carbuncle → carbuncle
• ruby carbuncle → carbuncle
• sunlight carbuncle → carbuncle
• topaz carbuncle → carbuncle
• skips → yeti
• yeta → yeti
• yeti princess → yeti

Related debunked cryptid/folklore/mythological implications:

• jackalope → rabbit
• wolpertinger → wings
• world turtle → turtle

Related cryptid aliases:

• abominable snowman → yeti
• bachi-hebi → tsuchinoko
• braxton county monster → flatwoods monster
• el chupacabra → chupacabra
• goat-sucker → chupacabra
• hopkinsville goblins → hopkinsville goblin
• leeds devil → jersey devil
• phantom of flatwoods → flatwoods monster
• sasquatch → bigfoot

Your thoughts on any of these?

EDIT: The tag implication bigfoot -> cryptid (forum #234146) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

A quick Google search doesn't make cryptid sound like a useful tag. A definition of "an animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti" makes something like 95% of our species tags fall under that.

NotMeNotYou said:
A quick Google search doesn't make cryptid sound like a useful tag. A definition of "an animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti" makes something like 95% of our species tags fall under that.

I think you missed the "whose existence or survival is disputed" part...no one is disputing the existence of sparkledogs, and there's no Discovery Channel show where people stumble around the woods after dark looking for a Pikachu (insert obvious Pokemon Go joke here). So no, 95% of species on this site do not match the definition of a cryptid.

Personally I think it's an awesome idea...but we should definitely start small...do the obvious ones first like bigfoot and loch_ness_monster, and think carefully over whether we should include things like Pokemon.

Also -1 to all pokémon and digimon on based implications. They are not tagged to specific base species.

-Nessie -> loch_ness_monster should also be a alias not a implication as both are one and the same creature.

-1 for jackalope and world turtle, we don't tag unique species as part of their base; unicorns, pegasi, and winged_unicorns are to not be tagged as horses/ponies, and these examples universally apply for species.

Ruku said:
Also -1 to all pokémon and digimon on based implications. They are not tagged to specific base species.

Siral_Exan said:
-1 for jackalope and world turtle, we don't tag unique species as part of their base; unicorns, pegasi, and winged_unicorns are to not be tagged as horses/ponies, and these examples universally apply for species.

noted. my apologies

Dyrone said:
Personally I think it's an awesome idea...but we should definitely start small...do the obvious ones first like bigfoot and loch_ness_monster, and think carefully over whether we should include things like Pokemon.

yeah it might be better to start small, with the more well known cryptids like the yeti, loch ness, etc etc

I thought Jackalopes were proven to be real. I guess I just read too many comics and quests that use them.

Furrin_Gok said:
I thought Jackalopes were proven to be real. I guess I just read too many comics and quests that use them.

Nah, jackalopes are mythological BUT they may have been based on sightings of real life rabbits afflicted by the shope papilloma virus, which makes them grow cancerous keratin growths on their bodies, mostly on their heads

Seems too ambiguous to be useful.
Even dragons, unicorns, pegasi, centaurs, vampires, dwarves, elves, naga, and gryphons are sometimes considered cryptids.

Would probably be better to use the *_mythology tags instead. Though some tags would be rather marginal, such as akhlut -> inuit_mythology.

Genjar said:
Seems too ambiguous to be useful.
Even dragons, unicorns, pegasi, centaurs, vampires, dwarves, elves, naga, and gryphons are sometimes considered cryptids.

I think in modern times all those creatures you listed have been thoroughly debunked and a relegated to the realm of fantasy. I seriously doubt anyone except the craziest of the crazies considers them cryptids now. You can even look at Wikipedia's list of cryptids and you'll find none of the creatures you've listed.

Genjar said:
Would probably be better to use the *_mythology tags instead. Though some tags would be rather marginal, such as akhlut -> inuit_mythology.

You said it yourself...too many "marginal" tags leading to tag bloat. Also creatures like Bigfoot are seen all around the world...I doubt you can attribute them to a single mythology.

Dyrone said:
Also creatures like Bigfoot are seen all around the world...I doubt you can attribute them to a single mythology.

I almost want to take that as a legitimate challenge because I am a huge mythology nerd...

@Genjar, folklore is a better word for all that is listed, unlike mythology which can fit some of them. It's also shorter, if taken into account. The primary difference is mythology is really fucking old, and includes gods and actions godly; folklore is more grounded on human belief instead of "god did it". This is very specific, the listed fall under folklore, yet they can also fall under mythologies (just a bit more vague as such).

Dyrone said:
I seriously doubt anyone except the craziest of the crazies considers them cryptids now. You can even look at Wikipedia's list of cryptids and you'll find none of the creatures you've listed.

Vampire is listed as cryptid in wikipedia. And everything that I listed was from the Cryptid Wiki.

Considering how many books there are about 'natural history of dragons' and such, it's not that uncommon to call them cryptids.

Siral_Exan said:
@Genjar, folklore is a better word for all that is listed, unlike mythology which can fit some of them.

Good point, many cryptids are too modern to be considered mythological. Such as Mothman, Yeti, even the Jersey Devil.

Siral_Exan said:
I almost want to take that as a legitimate challenge because I am a huge mythology nerd...

@Genjar, folklore is a better word for all that is listed, unlike mythology which can fit some of them. It's also shorter, if taken into account. The primary difference is mythology is really fucking old, and includes gods and actions godly; folklore is more grounded on human belief instead of "god did it". This is very specific, the listed fall under folklore, yet they can also fall under mythologies (just a bit more vague as such).

now that you mention it, folklore would be a pretty good tag for this kind of thing

If folklore becomes a thing then we'll need to implicate a lot of things to it. Fairy, dragon, gryphon, satyr, minotaur, bogeyman...

BlueDingo said:
If folklore becomes a thing then we'll need to implicate a lot of things to it. Fairy, dragon, gryphon, satyr, minotaur, bogeyman...

... wow, you seriously missed the context. Folklore is supposed to be much more recent, and is driven by human belief instead of mythos. Literally everything you listed are mythological creatures, medieval era and beyond; they may have been folklore way back then, but they ain't anymore! Save the Bogeyman, whom's origin I have no idea. He was never in my field of expertise.

Now, if you don't mind, you would need to prove that they are still recent examples by including named entities, you can't say they belong in folklore. I mean, do people even search for minotaurs?!

Siral_Exan said:
they may have been folklore way back then, but they ain't anymore!

So folklore status has an expiration date now?

BlueDingo said:
So folklore status has an expiration date now?

Yes, actually, I'm glad you asked because I ranted about this due to you. Folklores ascend to mythology dependent on variables, so given 100k years, should all folklore be dropped suddenly but previously recorded in decipherable language, they change into a mythology. It may be so soon as 1k years, should science kick into overtime, but folklore ages as its believers age, but should believers stop believing long enough, they become a localized mythology.

New in American mythology, the Bigfoot. Watch in your VR room, we're going oldschool and are gonna track them down!