This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2009–2011

About interwiki links

FYI

– Links were fixed.

Since the intewiki links originally put on the article all refer to Raccoon Dog, I removed all of them and placed a Japanese Wikipedia link: ja:ホンドタヌキ.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Tanooki Suit

Resolved

– There was clearly no consensus to delete the reference.

Moved from Talk:Tanuki

There seems to have been quite an edit-war of people adding the videogame Super Mario Bros. and the Miyazaki Anime Pom-Poko as pop-cultural references. Both these qualify far more for the term pop-culture than the Tom Robbins novel remaining in the article. I propose to either allow those references, or get rid of the section completely to avoid further edit-wars (and restore a bit of common sense). 217.94.255.153 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the anime "Ponpoko", it is already mentioned in the Folklore section. The duplicate should be avoided. As for Tanuki suit in Mario, it's just a gadget only in Super Mario Bros. 3. It's not even a minor character. It should be at least a protagonist of a novel/game/film/anime. The suit is a very minor trivia. No, I don't think it's acceptable. Oda Mari (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivia so "minor" that gamers nearly rioted with excitement when they heard the Tanuki suit was coming back in this year's Mario game. That tail was the stinkin' box art to both the games it's appeared in; it's significant. CaptHayfever (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Tanooki Suit from Super Mario Bros. 3 should definitely be included in Popular Culture, it's more famous and influential than anything else currently written there. I demand a reason as to why it's being omitted, otherwise I'll simply keep adding it in. And Oda Mari, get over your own personal bias. ExecuteRobot --Don't mess with the ROBOT (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I remove it because there is no Tanuki suit article at en WP. It just an item in two games in the Mario series, not even a character. I'm glad as a native ja speaker that you enjoy Japanese games, but not everyone in the world plays the games and has no interest in them. Those who do not play the games may have heard of the Mario games, but not the suit. It is just an item. And why only Tanuki suit? what about other items? Are they mentioned in linked articles? As far as I checked, there were none. To think the suit is notable and important is your bias. Sorry, but it's only a trivia. Oda Mari (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Super Mario Bros. 3 is such a well-known video game that it largely introduced tanukis to American pop culture through the Tanooki Suit. I know I and many others never would have even known about tanukis if not for SMB3. There's no reason it has to be a living "character" like you said since the in-game representation plays such a prominent role. Your argument is invalid, not "everyone in the world" cares about Beast Wars Neo or Villa Incognito either. Again, you're the only one with objection to this, and I think you need to swallow your pride. Either SMB3 is included or we abolish the entire category, however right now you're the only one who is being recalcitrant.--Don't mess with the ROBOT (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposed

Resolved

– Merge completed 21 December 2011

I really don't see a need for this article and Tanuki to be separate, unless you want to sort the pages and make a Tanuki in Japanese folklore page to cover the animals in myth as opposed to the facts regarding the actual mammal. --98.196.46.238 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can sort of see the argument for keeping them separate, but they are both on the same topic, and since they're both pretty short at the moment I think keeping them separate a bit pointless. I'm in favour of a merge. –Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, They are both on the same topic. I am also in favor of making a "Tanuki in Japanese folklore" article. 206.248.167.220 (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

as long as you put a reference to both things on the page i don't see a problem with combining the pages.--65.34.28.178 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

They should be merged, but Tanuki should be the name of the article as it seems to be a common name even in the west for the animal since most westerners know about it because of Japanese culture and such (Mario 3, Super Mario 3D Land, anime, etc). ScienceApe (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope; for organisms we always use the official ICBN/ICNZ common name in English. If you disagree with that convention, you'll need to take it up at WT:BIOLOGY. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the articles should either be merged or the current Tanuki article should be renamed to "Tanuki in folklore" or something similar. Since both articles are relatively short, however, I think merging would be the better option. As for which is the more common name "tanuki" does get significantly more google results (4,500,000) than "japanese raccoon dog" (437,000) or even just "raccoon dog" (1,590,000), however if someone can find a more reliable source than google results that would be better. It should be noted that these results aren't just because of the Mario series as the Mario series spells it "tanooki" which has 1,670,000 results.Flygongengar (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is not only about tanuki in folklore, nor is the other one. They're both about the same animal generally, ergo they have to merge, since there's not enough content to support a split per WP:SUMMARY. Working on it now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why merging tanuki was really stupid

Hundreds of Wikipedia internal links, over 5 million Google Internet hits (even not countring the Japanese), over 25,000 Google Books entries in English. There was no absolutely reason to do anything with it in first place, it's like if someone merged kitsune with fox (I hope I just didn't give someone another idiotic idea). Or to maybe give you a better graps of how damn stupid it was, it was like to merge werewolf with wolf - why would anyone think a popular mythological being / folklore-popculture concept should be discussed in a biology article is just totally beyond me. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The deletion was an accident by an admin; it has been fixed. No links are broken. There was clear consensus to merge. Tanuki are not humans that turn into raccoon dogs (i.e., something different from raccoon dogs, thus needed a separate article); they're simply raccoon dogs as treated in folklore. You had more than 4 months to object to a merge, since the merge was proposed. If Kitsune had been as short, undeveloped and improperly sourced as Tanuki, it certainly would have been merged as a "Folklore" section into Red fox (or into Vulpes vulpes japonica more specifically, if the subspecies article already existed, which is probably should). As it stands, Kitsune is a well-developed enough article with so many subsections and so much detail that a split per WP:SUMMARY is clearly warranted. That might be the case with Tanuki some day, but the folkloric info so far is quite poor from an encyclopedic perspective. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "Tanuki are not humans that turn into raccoon dogs", but only because it's the other way round (ie: Tanuki are turning into humans, and everything else for that matter including inanimate objects), and it's not just folklore (mythology, actually), it's the modern popculture too. But I see you're such a real expert on the subject, right? Yes it's showing.

And no, I didn't have "more than 4 months to object to a merge". Nor 1 month, nor 1 second. Because all I've got was a red link for "tanuki" on another article, and I guess my notice must got lost lost in the mail or something. So I'm doing it... right now. You know?

And what, you have up to over 5 million (FIVE MILLION) websites and over 25,000 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND) books readily available as potential sources (and that's not even counting the Japanese sources - and you could even cite the very same sources as the Japanese Wikipedia did!), and still you failed to "develop an article"? Wow, you guys are sooo good, really impressive. But maybe you should ask this guy(s) who did kitsune to do this one too, if you people couldn't do it yourselves for "more than 4 months" some really strange reason?

Oh, and... the article Japanese raccoon dog has only 7 references, and yet most of them, and most of the content, were apparently imported from tanuki. You clearly failed to develop it, so now you've got to merge Japanese raccoon dog right now into tanuki. (No, I'mbeing sarcastic. There should be two articles.) --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of YELLING AT PEOPLE IN ALL-CAPS, why not source the article better, including plugging the stark, gaping holes in the mythological/folkloric and pop-culture material you seem to feel is so important, so that it is as well-developed as kitsune and propose a split when there's that much material? That would be a lot more productive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only person on Wikipedia who still can "develop an article"? But okay, I could do it if there's such a unfortunate state of affairs. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tanuki pottery statue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tanuki pottery statue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tanuki pottery statue.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Split the bake-danuki sections into Bake-danuki

In according with the page on Japanese wikipedia, the name of the youkai is "bake-danuki" and is a separate subject from its regular animal. Thus, I propose that it be split.--A (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be split again, but just back to Tanuki again. The name Bake-danuki is not well known in the English world, just like how Kitsune is preferred over Kyuubi no Kitsune. --WikiDonn (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would actually favor moving Kitsune since it means nothing more than "fox." Not to "Kyuubi no Kitsune" since that means "nine-taled fox," but to Youko, since it is about youkai foxes, not plain foxes. It is at least what the Japanese Wikipedia has its page at. (Refer to Talk:Kitsune#Actual meaning of 'Kitsune'). Of course, that is a different matter.--User:The Scarlet Letter posting as New questions? 13:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have ceased. The articles were recently merged and I can see no good reason to split again at the moment. Therefore, I am removing the tag. Op47 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

what's with the scrotums?

There is no explanation for this, and the only photo that implies the animal actually has these extraordinarily large testicles is a taxidermy product (which could very well have been modified). Do these animals actually exhibit this? If not, does anyone happen to know why they are illustrated with them? draeath (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It used to explain that, but the numpty two posts above you nuked it. Isn't he a silly? Silly numpty and his nuking. 82.24.93.170 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Conservation

"This species is rarely seen in the U.S" lol what the hell does that have to do with tanuki conservation? Silly 'Mericans, making everything everything about themselves. 82.24.93.170 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nuking the Pop Cult Section

Those who have no first-hand experience with Japan and its folklores may think that listing things that vaguely resemble tanuki in anime and manga are somehow important, but it isn't. None of that stuff is even referenced in the first place, and it also gives undue weight to things that are essentially trivia. Once you read actual books and do some actual research that actual stand to academic inquiry, and actually take Japanese mythology seriously, then those are the kinds of things that would go in this article. Anything else should be dropped kicked and deleted. (Paraphrased from User:Duende-Poetry's comments)--A (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a bold move to completely wipe this section. I took the liberty of reinstating one single part of that section, as I could find it no other place in the article(s). As Pompoko is really both about the animal and the Japanese myth, it's well worth its mention in the last part of the lead.--Paracel63 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

the tanuki is a prevalent theme in japanese popular culture & just because you do not find this important does not mean it is not. the Lion article mentions the Lion King, the Rabbit article mentions Bugs Bunny, and likewise I think this article should have at least a sentence covering some of the more significant appearances of tanuki in media. Pom Poko & Super Mario would be enough. Sengokucannon (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Shall We Gather at the River?

Can anyone, probably a Japanese speaker, cite that this Western hymn tune was adopted (in 1937?) as music for a popular children's song. It has been removed as "unlikely" ("unlikely" is now apparently RS), even though a moment's searching for both will show their similarities.

A country that was infested with Western Christian missionaries (although 1937 is quite late for them) and where Christmas is now celebrated at KFC - that's somewhere where it's hardly "unlikely" for hymn tunes to be adopted for other purposes. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

'"unlikely" is now apparently RS' - The burden of proof is on those favoring inclusion, not on those favoring removal.

'a moment's searching for both will show their similarities' - That's WP: Original research, and besides, the two tunes being similar doesn't necessarily mean one was directly adapted from the other.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese raccoon dog. 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/20080625021140/http://www.canids.org/PUBLICAT/CNDNEWS2/racoondg.htm to http://www.canids.org/PUBLICAT/CNDNEWS2/racoondg.htm

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) 11:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)