Talk:Popotan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePopotan has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 4, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 29, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Priority Scale[edit]

Per the new video game priority scale I have re-rated the article for that section as mid per it's impact on sub-culture outside the country of origin, ie Japan. I have not undid Juhachi's lowering of the priority for anime and manga related articles since the impact was related to the game. I am posting per the current peer review Cloud is doing and the recent lowering of the article's prioirty by Juhachi.じんない 04:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

I'm not going to do a GA review because I don't know japanese and most of the sources are japanese, however I did a once over and noticed a blogspot source. Blogs are unreliable and in this case the only way you could use it as a source would be to prove the author was the creator of popotan or a published and acknowledged expert in the field of video games.--Crossmr (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am invoking WP:IAR because of the specific case that Caramelldansen is notable, its impact on subculture around the globe and the resurrection of a band has been noted, the information is lost on 4chan forever because purges their pages in a manner than cannot be recovered, the origins themselve are important for Wikipedia's statement of being an encyclopedia because of the afore mentioned notability. Finally if a scholarly paper were done that person would almost certainly go about it in a similar fashion.
If it weren't for the notability of the impact Caramelldansen] has had on subculture of Japan and anime/manga fandom, i'd say it is should be removed, but this is imo a clear reason with have IAR.
WP:V does say blogs a generally not acceptable, not always and IMO this is one of those cases where removing it does more harm to Wikipedia because of real-world information of origins of a highly notable internet meme that has influenced real life, including to the point of being noted enough to put into anime itself and, as stated before, revive a band that had disbanded, who the bandmembers have commented on the phenomia as well.
Finally note that none of the blogs claim anything themselves and have Ryuakuu's blog has done research and does use reference all his claims.じんない 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you invoke IAR, then you're using it wrong. If you want to invoke IAR then I could just invoke IAR as well and remove it. Invoking IAR solves nothing. the notability of the third party subject is irrelevant. Notability doesn't make them authoritative on another subject. Bill gates is quite a notable individual, but his opinions on cellular regeneration are completely irrelevant to an article on it. He's not a published expert in that field. The author flat-out admits his writings on the blog are original research and in fact content he submitted to wikipedia and as removed as such. They're completely unreliable and fail WP:V & WP:RS in both the spirit and letter of the law. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth and its not wikipedias place to preserve unreliable information that might otherwise be lost.--Crossmr (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However removing it harms the purpose of Wikipedia. That is the main reason because knowledge of the origin of a notable phenomena which is largely accepted as true (again this would require citing vast amounts of blogs and forums, and i realize is just truth there), is important information for one doing research into the subject.じんない 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't harm wikipedia. I'll repeat this once again: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. You can't use IAR to get around this. If all you can source are blogs and forums, its is not verifiable and shouldn't be in the article. Essentially you're violating WP:OR by using an unreliable source to try and further your argument that this is something that is true, but can't point to a reliable source to support that. If you can't point to a primary source from the subject (developer or publisher) or a reliable third party source, it can't be in the article. An independent reader cannot verify this fact and we can't ask them to take your word on it that this particular blog is "really true" and an accurate portrayal.--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already pointed to the primary source - the intro itself, which does have a publishing date.じんない 02:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using one reliable source for part of something does not give you license to use unreliable sources for the rest of it. The only supporting citation for this text Although others have attached this loop to other songs, those attempts did not have the same impact. Even so, there were some early attempts to parody it with the first notable instance being November 2, 2005. Later, in the first half of 2006, the loop was put to the aforementioned song and posted 4chan where it spread as a popular internet meme; is the unreliable source. Unless you can provide a reliable citation that supports that text it can't be there. Even if you can find another reliable source the blogspot source still needs to be removed. The fact that his text was removed from wikipedia for being reliable source and not added back in makes me think there are no reliable sources to support this text.--Crossmr (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For that i could use caramelldansen.com as a WP:SPS#Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves to claim that it claims that caramelldansen is the original.じんない 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about Popotan, not Carmelldansen. Self-published/primary sources can only be used in articles about themselves except in the case of published experts in the field.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what that says and you know it. It says they can be used on themselves as well, especially on articles about themselves. This isn't an article about the site, but it is used especially about the site.じんない 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out below, I don't believe the carmelldansen website is a primary source on carmelldansen. It appears to be a fansite or hobbyist site. The problem with internet memes is that there are often no primary sources because they grow out of use on forums and blogs. The claims being made are about the meme and you will never find a primary source on that that doesn't involve original research (analyzing those forum and blog posts and trying to put forth a conclusion based on that). I see nothing on that website that indicates any editorial staff, assertions of fact checking or a reputation for fact checking, and other things required for a source to be a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to this, citation 76 does not appear to work. Clicking the link just gives me a string of random characters in my browser [1] (firefox 3) and a website cannot be displayed (IE 7).--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All i can find for replacing this one are youtube, livejournal and flickr sites, all of which fail reliability so you can put a dead link note by that one.じんない 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this should be able to replace it as it was linked from this site which is listed on Otokan's website, for fan reports, which does have oversight staff to make certain anything submitted would be from their convention.じんない 03:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry who is undead tiger? GaiaOnline might have oversight staff, but what is their function? Are they just responding to reports of bad journals and deleting them on objectionable content or are they fact checking users journals for content before they're posted? Citation 76 was supporting the statement about the dance appearing all over the world. That's a bold assertion to make on two videos. Now admittedly I can't understand the japanese newscaster in the youtube link so someone would have to translate what she's saying, but with that statement we'd have to make sure she's actually commenting on how the dance is a world-wide phenomenon at conventions and not just commenting on it being done at the convention in the video in japan.--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Gaia online that is verifying the authentic -- it is Otakon and their staff. They should be experts when it comes to knowing what happened at their own convention irreguardless of who posts the content. Gaia Online is just the site being linked. As for the video, it is asserting it is a phenomia in Japan. The other links are to assert that it is a phenomia in the anime/manga sub-culture outside Japan as Otakon is the largest US convention for anime/manga and showing up there is would thus show a sign of notability itself.じんない 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I follow it now. So Gaia online has verified that the links provided in the user blog were actually from the convention. Yes that is fine, but it doesn't support the claim that it is a world-wide phenomenon. If you want to make that kind of conclusion you actually need a reliable source stating that, not analyzing various online videos to say "Yes we say it here, we saw it there, etc". I don't think this particular video would really do anything to support that statement or improve this particular article. This is covered under WP:OR. Was the 404 link a news report or something that was commenting on this being a phenomenon outside of Japan?--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As claimed below, I can cite the band's author quoting on the phenomia and having heard about it.
Jorge Vasconcelo

Did the "Caramelldansen" Internet Phenonomen inspire you and the other members of Caramell to return to the Bubblegum dance scene and write more music?

Not really, we ended the band many years ago and it would be a little difficult for the girls and for us to perform and sing the songs in the new high-pitched style hehe. But for me and Juha the whole thing make us definitely wanna write and make some new bubblegum songs. =)

Even if the site is not notable, the director of the band is since their CD has been talked about on the news.じんない 09:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but notable isn't authoritative. Even if this was authoritative, it still doesn't support the text about the dance being performed around the world, the interviewer refers to it as an internet phenomenon. I think we're getting way off point here. This is an article about popotan. You have some reliable sources that tie the two together between carmelldansen and popotan. Just include what can be sourced to reliable sources and leave the finer details to carmelldansen article. We can source that its an internet phenomenon and that they're obsessed with it in japan. That's sufficient for a comment about the widespread nature of what came from this.--Crossmr (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I have simplified that section. I added the review, but removed the blog and the carmelldansen site. I also removed the phrase "around the world".じんない 12:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the Japanese sources but the rest of the English language sources appear reasonable to me.--Crossmr (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can always run them through a translator or ask at the WP:VN, WP:ANIME or WP:JAPAN for help if you have questions on the use of any.じんない 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can cite an interview from a member of the band commenting on the phenomena as well if that's not enough.じんない 09:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well citation 74 doesn't remotely support the text its being used to support. [2] The dance, known today as the "Uma Uma Dance" is still often referred to as the "Popotan Dance This is a user uploaded video they could have called it anything. It doesn't remotely support the claim that this is often referred to as that. It just supports the claim that a user on the daily motion website uploaded a video and titled it that. Not remotely reliable or notable.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have concerns about citation 71, the Carmelldansen website. This appears to be a fan website and not an official website produced by the band who made the song. As such its just another self-published source and not usuable for citation in this article (or any article).--Crossmr (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could use Bubblegum Dancner. While it is a SPS, it does appear to be linked to by Disco Warp Records and indie record label, so he would therefore qualify as an expert in the field of eurodance, which Carmelldansen is.じんない 04:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being connected to a record company doesn't make someone an expert. This is just a link of a links section. In order for someone to be an expert they need to be either cited as such (e.g. newspaper/magazine/scholarly articles citing his website as authoritative) or the author has to be published as an expert on the subject (maybe he regularly writes a column for a reliable source on the subject of internet memes).--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On whether "Popotans" are just dandelions or not...[edit]

I'm going to copy-paste the following post from my talk page so we can discuss it here. Fyrius (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted your recent edit. The line which you described the three sisters reason for traveling. As the anime clearly states that the name for the items are "Popotan" and the reviewers at most comment that they appear to be dandelions says they are searching for dandelions and not "popotan" would be sythesis.陣内Jinnai 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the anime quite explicitly states that "Popotan" is just a funny word for "dandelion" they insist on using.
In the first episode, Daichi asks the sisters: "What's a popotan?" Mii then points to a field of flowers and says, "That's a popotan." Daichi replies, "But, that's a dandelion (tanpopo)..." After Mii insists that it's a "popotan", Ai explicitly remarks: "We call the dandelions popotan."
I've been watching the Triad fan sub, but I wouldn't expect another translation to make this much less clear-cut. Still, I would invite you to watch this scene again in the translation you watched (it's about halfway the episode, 11 minutes from the start in my copy) to check if the text is any less clear on it there.
(Of course, ideally we would need someone fluent in Japanese to help us out, so if any is reading this, their aid would be very much appreciated. I see you speak Japanese at level one, Jinnai, but if I think of how much I suck at the languages I would consider myself a level one in, I'm not sure if you're proficient enough to tell exactly what the original text of that scene says.)
Peace out. Fyrius (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 11:36 minutes from the start. (Because I'm nothing if not a nitpicker.)

It's this part.Fyrius (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looking back on my discs it does appear they do say that they are dandelions, but only after Daichi asks the rhetorical question. They also later insist on calling them Popotan throughout the series and its only that one mention that the word dandelion (or in Geneon's subtitle Tanpopo) come up. The dubbed version has Ai's remark also phrases to "It's our special name for this very special flower." So it could be seen as a pet name. However, as mentioned only one instance is the dandelion/tanpopo brought up.陣内Jinnai 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you contend that popotans may not be normal dandelions?

I'd presume that only one mention is enough. It's normal in pretty much any kind of medium to introduce unknown terms only once and use them without further reminders from that point on.

And I do believe the one mention we have is pretty clear-cut. At the very least, Daichi could not tell the difference between dandelions and "popotans", and nobody mentioned there is any difference. Only Mii seems to insist that "they're not tanpopo", but that seemed to be more about terminology (he's "saying it wrong") than about classification.

If that doesn't settle the issue, we're going to need a native speaker. Fyrius (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other uses when Ai or the others use the term. I think the most important is that Ai treats them as an indivisuals and refers to them as "Popotan" which and when she asks, she seems to not be corrected. Keith I believe mentions the name as well.
tanpopo does distinquish between native and non-native dandilions for Japan, although it's not clear the Popotan anime does. I don't want to introduce original research into the article, but they may be distinquishing it along those lines or others.陣内Jinnai 19:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Has anyone ever heard of a correlation between "popotan" and the french word "popotin" [3], which is a (cute/childish/slang) word for butt? When I first heard of Popotan I immediately thought of it being a phonetic transcription of the french word. Additionally, the production company does have a french word in its name. Then again the title is rendered in hiragana and dandelions do not have much to do with butts. ... Buriaku (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Sensation[edit]

hey, i was reading on the whole thing about the itnernet sensation, and i have to say, the references are quite vague. Some of it is barely related to caramelldansen. I tihnk it's best we removed whatever original research lies in there.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity[edit]

What happened to Ai, Mai and Mii's parents?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Popotan. 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:

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) 06:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Popotan&oldid=1203104475"