Talk:Bigfoot in popular culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Popular Culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Assassin's Creed characters#Ratonhnhaké꞉ton|Connor]] The anchor (#Ratonhnhaké꞉ton) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

separate article for beef jerky ad[edit]

Can the Messin with Sasquatch be separated into it's own article? It's a well known thing, and I think if it has it's own aricle, it could have more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.245.187 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Cleanup[edit]

The complaint that this page is "just a bunch of loosely related trivia references" has been made repeatedly in the article for deletion. In an effort to satisfy some of the complaints, I've done a quick cleanup, removing the references that I thought were only loosely related (e.g. a single episode of a TV show). I left most of the borderline material intact. --xDanielx^Talk 08:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Looks great! – Dreadstar † 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porn vs Bigfoot[edit]

Several porn sites, etc. mention in the fiction section about people having sex with Bigfoot and are very explicit. Can this be mentioned ? One notorious site is Literotica.com/Sci_Fi and Literotica/Non_Human. This describes that kind of thing. Someone referred ME to this matter. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I killed the section as utterly useless. I don't believe every single piece of information needs 3 sources, but at the same time there has to be some information given, not just a few weasel words. If no one is prepared to give specific examples, then the section has to go. 23skidoo (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing certain items[edit]

Hi. Does anyone object to the removal of items only loosely related to Bigfoot? Some of the films, TV shows, and games are in that category. I've gone ahead and removed the most glaring examples. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the removal of items with a tenuous connection to Bigfoot. —Fiziker ^t c 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laws[edit]

I made one addition to laws, this short piece- Bigfoot in popular culture would be better combined with Bigfoot.--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 5#Bigarticle, where the splitting of this article from Bigfoot was discussed. The article was too large due to information that wasn't directly relevant. Some of that information was moved here. I also suggest you take a look at the article prior to the split. I don't see a reason to merge these articles. —Fiziker ^t c 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The page needs some background material, a brief description of what Bigfoot is would be beneficial.--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added half a sentence from Bigfoot.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television[edit]

I don't know why there's no chapter for Bigfoot on television, since there are chapters in other formats. There have been TV episodes focusing on Bigfoot ranging from The Six Million Dollar Man to iCarly. ----DanTD (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable references in "Law" section[edit]

The "Law" section cites "Pyle" and "Hunter and Dahinden" without giving dates, publication titles, places and formats of publication, or even the authors' full names. Are these real sources, or somebody's joke on Wikipedia? Plazak (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real sources, but "Hunter and Dahinden" is well out of print and I couldn't find a copy online. I've provided a full reference for Pyle and removed the sentence that cited Hunter and Dahinden. --AntediluvianBlue (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What belongs in this article?[edit]

Why is the "Research" section in this article? It seems to me that this belongs in the main "Bigfoot" article. A "popular culture" artticle should cover fictional treatments, not research. Plazak (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the main article.--Timpicerilo (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discount Armageddon by Seanan McGuire[edit]

The novel 'Discount Armageddon' by Seanan McGuire not only talks about Sasquatch, it mentions the Wikipedia page for it. Furthermore, Sasquatch's enjoy making changes to the article and seeing the human editors discuss it in the talk page section. Anywho, my point is such a meta reference in a popular author's book should be noted somewhere on -this- page. Lots42 (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bigfoot in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101121447/http://secondwindpublishing.com/DonationsToClarity.html to http://secondwindpublishing.com/DonationsToClarity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]