The tag alias #52366 bigfoot -> sasquatch has been rejected.

Reason: These two names refer to the same creature, and both tags appear to be in use independently. I chose to use Sasquatch rather than Bigfoot simply because it’s a more specific and unique-sounding name, plus there’s an infinitesimal (but not impossible) chance that someone will mistake Bigfoot for big_feet. Maybe.

But regardless, one of these ought to be aliased to the other. They’re the same thing.

EDIT: The tag alias bigfoot -> sasquatch (forum #313367) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Bigfoot is supposed to be the name of a sasquatch that lives in the Oregon Territory region. Some of the images under Bigfoot aren't even sasquatch, but instead are Yeti.
post #2240517 post #1893972
Snowy fur is a Yeti, not a Sasquatch.

I thought Bigfoot was technically a "musk ape" or something? Cryptid hunters are fuckin' weird, man.

Wikipedia puts the two as synonymous, and as far as I know, the two are always treated as such. There are similar cryptid primate creatures reported from other areas of North America (such as the skunk ape of the southeastern US) that may be either far-ranging Sasquatch or related creatures. Considering we don't know anything about them, who can say?

As for yeti, there's allegedly three species of differing sizes. The smallest is allegedly sapient while the biggest, with a call like a gull's, is supposed to be scary, being the only "known" predator of panthers. They don't actually live up in the Himalayas, but rather in the extensive forests further down the slopes (after all, what would they eat way up there in the mountains?). Thus, they don't really have white fur (unless they were albinos).

However, popular culture typically gives yeti white fur and presents them as living in high mountainous habitats, but then popular culture often screws up traditional creatures (sparkly vampires, anyone?). Furthermore, popular culture presents yeti as basically being Asian Sasquatch when we don't know the actual taxonomy of any of these creatures (if they even exist). Arguably, there's nothing stopping a Sasquatch/bigfoot from having white fur (surely, even they could have albinos) or any guarantee that yetis actually have white fur.

Practically, as we can't use any real creatures for a reference, we could simply go with modern popular culture's interpretation of the two creatures. Thus we tag any cryptid primate with white fur and/or in a snowy environment as yeti and any forest-dwelling, non-white cryptid primate to sasquatch. Or just implicate/alias them all to cryptid_primate.

furrin_gok said:
Bigfoot is supposed to be the name of a sasquatch that lives in the Oregon Territory region. Some of the images under Bigfoot aren't even sasquatch, but instead are Yeti.
post #2240517 post #1893972
Snowy fur is a Yeti, not a Sasquatch.

If that’s the case, then the Bigfoot tag should be changed from Species to Character type. However, given that there’s no possible way to distinguish the singular Bigfoot from any other Sasquatch (I mean, does he have unique markings that other Sasquatches lack, or something? We don’t know because we’ve never really seen him clearly, if he even exists), so from a tagging point of view, there’s no difference between Sasquatch and Bigfoot. That’s why I think it ought to be aliased. At least if we’re going to continue using Bigfoot as a Species tag, that is.

That being said, common practice on this site seems to be to not have character tags at all in cases like that. Take for example the Pikachu character from the Pokémon anime. This is always tagged as a Species instead of the specific character from the show, presumably because there’s no way to distinguish that one Pikachu from any of the others that look identical to it. Unless it’s Detective_Pikachu, of course, as that one can be distinguished by his hat. Same is also true of the Digimon characters. So, again, it looks to me like the best thing to do with the Bigfoot tag, regardless of if the term refers to a species or a character, is to alias it to Sasquatch.

votp said:
I thought Bigfoot was technically a "musk ape" or something? Cryptid hunters are fuckin' weird, man.

Well, it’s hard to say what Bigfoot is if nobody’s really seen him. There are also no results for musk_ape, so I doubt using that tag at this point would have any utility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot
"Sasquatch" redirects here. For other uses, see Bigfoot (disambiguation) and Sasquatch (disambiguation).

Bigfoot, also commonly referred to as Sasquatch, in Canadian and American folklore, is an ape-like creature that is purported to inhabit the forests of North America.

...

Many regions have differentiating names for the creatures. In Canada, the name Sasquatch is widely used although often interchangeably with the name Bigfoot. The United States uses both of these names but also has numerous names and descriptions of the creatures depending on the region and area in which they are allegedly sighted. These include the Skunk ape in Florida and other southern states, Grassman in Ohio, Fouke Monster in Arkansas, Wood Booger in Virginia, the Monster of Whitehall in Whitehall, New York, Momo in Missouri, Honey Island Swamp Monster in Louisiana, Dewey Lake Monster in Michigan, Mogollon Monster in Arizona, and the Big Muddy Monster in southern Illinois. The term Wood Ape is also used by some as a means to deviate from the perceived mythical connotation of the name "Bigfoot". Other names include Bushman, Treeman, and Wildman.

I have never heard of Bigfoot being a distinct individual, I've only ever heard it used as a species interchangeably with Sasquatch. If even wikipedia redirects sasquatch to bigfoot, I don't see the point in e6 having them separate.

scaliespe said:
Well, it’s hard to say what Bigfoot is if nobody’s really seen him. There are also no results for musk_ape, so I doubt using that tag at this point would have any utility.

Offhand, I'd guess that VotP maybe, possibly, likely was trying to remember "skunk ape", the overly stinky cryptid ape from the southeastern US. I'm only guessing, of course. VotP would know what he was talking about better than I would.

Several people have downvoted this, but none of them have provided any sort of objection or reasoning behind the downvote (besides VotP, but that doesn’t really seem like a valid objection). I’m curious to know if there’s actually anything wrong with my reasoning here.

watsit said:
I have never heard of Bigfoot being a distinct individual, I've only ever heard it used as a species interchangeably with Sasquatch. If even wikipedia redirects sasquatch to bigfoot, I don't see the point in e6 having them separate.

Might be a regional thing then. It would make sense for regions to try and take legends for themselves.

I've heard Bigfoot used as both the name of an individual and a name for brown-furred cryptid apes in general. That said there's usually hardly any difference between bigfeet/skunk apes/sasquatches in the sense of people actually drawing them as different species, and most people don't care enough to differentiate them. For tagging ease they should be merged.

I'm also for implicating sasquatch and yeti to cryptid_primate. Possibly other distinct cryptid apes too, if they apply? It sounds like a good way for folks to search for both yetis and sasquatches at the same time at the very least. I'm not sure how I feel about aliasing them all to cryptid_primate, though.

furrin_gok said:
Might be a regional thing then. It would make sense for regions to try and take legends for themselves.

Being one who lives in the general region, even in the Pacific Northwest, Bigfoot is considered an easier to say and remember alternate name for the Sasquatch species. Possibly some confusion arises in that "Bigfoot" can be used as a name for any individual being discussed much in the same way we might call a particular feline "Cat" even though they're obviously only one of a number of cats.

If there are any single Bigfoot individuals who use it as a name, say in a comic or a TV show, they ought to be tagged with bigfoot_(insert_suffix_here) anyway.

posssauce said:
I'm also for implicating sasquatch and yeti to cryptid_primate. Possibly other distinct cryptid apes too, if they apply? It sounds like a good way for folks to search for both yetis and sasquatches at the same time at the very least. I'm not sure how I feel about aliasing them all to cryptid_primate, though.

This makes sense, and both should probably implicate primate regardless. However, if Sasquatch and Yeti are the only two cryptid primates, a new tag for both of them might not be worthwhile since you can just tag cryptid and primate individually, or Sasquatch and Yeti individually to get the same results. However, if there turn out to be three or more visually distinct cryptid primate species, having an umbrella tag may be useful.

The tag alias bigfoot -> sasquatch (forum #313367) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

b… but why? :c

scaliespe said:
b… but why? :c

I fucked up, sorry.
This one is good, just has other requests related to it that need to be cleaned up first.

bitwolfy said:
I fucked up, sorry.
This one is good, just has other requests related to it that need to be cleaned up first.

Oh, no worries. Carry on, then. :3