Jump to content

Talk:List of legendary creatures from Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Itsamu-Na

[edit]

The only sources I can find for this in Japanese indicate this is a katakanization, then re-romanization of the Mayan founder spirit Itzamna, and therefore not a Japanese mythological creature.--Ben Applegate 08:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Chinese Folklore?

[edit]

Instead of deleting the information I am simply moving them here. While both articles claim that there are Japanese versions of these Chinese legends neither actually provides references or sources:

  • Hakutaku - the wise Bai Ze beast of China, who reported on the attributes of demons. [note: article doesn't actually say this is part of it's Japanese function, rather it simply describes it as having a lot of eyeballs, no references or sources]
  • Hōkō - a dog-like tree spirit from China. [no references or sources]

If anyone has references to help improve these two articles that would be wonderful. Cheers! Duende-Poetry (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It seems that someone is simply reinserting deadlinks for pages that have yet to be written. I thought the lists on the talk page was where we were putting such links instead of the article itself? Am I wrong? Is it better to have a shorter list with links that work or a longer list full of deadlinks that might, or might not, ever get written? Just curious before I start working on this page. Thanks! Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Important Edits Letter A

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter B

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter C

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter D

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter E

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter F

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter G

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter H

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter I

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter J

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter K

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter L

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter M

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter N

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter O

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter R

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter S

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter T

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter U

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter Y

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Important Edits Letter Z

[edit]

The following dead links need references and/or citations from qualified sources:

Modern and Unreferenced Should Equal Deleted

[edit]

I understand that for many people -- many sheltered people, people who mean well but due to a failed education system have yet to learn how to cite or reference or even separate all the nonsense Rumiko Takahashi has made up over the years from actual academic research -- and who are only are exposed to anime and manga as the source for all their information about Japan ... then trying to have an actual conversation about mythological creatures from Japan and finding, instead, that editors can't seem to separate anything and everything found in Sailor Moon and InuYasha and every other comic book marketed and sold to 13 year old boys is, how do we say this? problematic? idiotic? an insult to Japanese culture and research? It's like saying all your knowledge on the USSR came directly from the movie Red Dawn, or Red Heat. So where do I even begin with this list? Yes, there are a billion links here (as if that somehow excuses not citing anything), but most seem to go to orphan articles that are equally unsourced, unreferenced and highly problematic. Again, this is the problem with Wikipedia's policies: for anyone who actually cares about fixing this page we now have to pain-stakingly go, link by link, looking to see which are actual referenced articles and which are poorly made up bulls*it, and yet all this could have been solved in the beginning if Wiki's "anyone with 2 braincells can write whatever the hell they want here and the burden falls on those of us who've passed English 101 to fix it all" policy. Because as a bushiness model, Wiki fails, but as a way to abuse their volunteer help, why not! Duende-Poetry (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Obakemono Project?

[edit]

So ... this is what exactly? Because a HUGE amount of these links go to articles whose only source is the Obakemono Project, which seems, as far as I can tell, not to have any, you know, actual research attached to it. Just saying, before I start deleting ... it gets a bit tiring, people, trying to see what has actual historical Japanese relevance and what got put here by some 13 year old because it once appeared in an InuYasha episode. Duende-Poetry (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spook Changed To Spirit

[edit]

The word spook to indicate a supernatural entity is, at best, a curious choice. I changed it to spirit, cheers! Duende-Poetry (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akago

[edit]

Should the Akago be in here if it only links to an inuyasha article?

Hmm, Akago in the manga and anime series InuYasha is definitely a yōkai. However, in the aspect of folklore, Akago should not be added to the list. He is just one of many fictional characters who are just introduced to the public in year 2000 and around. He is TOO young to be listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shigerello (talkcontribs) 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Wikipedia Yōkai list

[edit]

I think people need to be a little more choosy about adding things from this list. I think whoever wrote it got a little overzealous in including everything that could possibly be considered a yōkai, including a lot of things that are so extremely obscure there isn't really any information about them on the internet, and iffy things like historical figures with supernatural legends associated with them, or like dōsojin, roadside stone markers that are supposed to house protective kami, but which don't really fall into the "legendary creature" category unless you want to be extremely loose with the definition.

It is horrendously thorough, though, so it might be good to use it to double-check entries from Encyclopedia Mythica, to make sure things like "Yofune Nushi" and "Uwibami" (which don't even seem to exist on the Japanese-speaking internet) don't get re-added. Kotengu 23:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent creatures?

[edit]

Are the Biwa-bokuboku on this list and the Biwa-yanagi the same? Pfhreak (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I know some yōkais, I know no yōkai known as Biwa-yanagi. I Googled this one with katakana and possible kanji translations, but to no avail. So I believe Biwa-yanagi is mistakenly referred... Shigerello (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biwa-bokuboku is the form of Biwa-yanagi created by Toriyama Sekien for one of his yōkai books. Then again, even biwa-yanagi is probably a fictional (rather than legendary) tsukumogami creation. Very few distinct tsukumogami appear in folk tales and fairy tales. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Chris G.[reply]

Wrong Reference!

[edit]

Cho Hakkai in the Japanese yōkai list is not a Japanese yōkai. You know, historically, he only appeared in the classic Chinese novel Journey to the West. So I suggest we should remove Cho Hakkai from the list. What would you say? Shigerello (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omukade a monster?

[edit]

I've looked all over online but can't find any information on this "monster" centipede--only pictures of a real "giant" centipede which does live in the mountains but apparently never exceeds 12 inches. Is there any real proof that there is a monstrous centipede by that name, or is this just a misinterpretation on somebody's part? 97.104.210.67 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is indeed a Japanese Monster which is from the tale of Fujiwara no Hidesato, the creature also "apparently falls under a type of henge" that can actually take on a human appearance as well, but I have not able to locate a exact source for that as of yet whether this is true. I think the issue is that this yokai is poorly sourced, and I have taken a look at the article on here which has very little information compared to outside of the wikipedia page. The details is out there, but nobody has bothered to implement the already available information.74.124.163.114 (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folktale

[edit]

I just deleted a "creature" as it is a folktale, and the monster from the folktale is on this page as well. It was a hyperlink to it and the small discription on the side even said it was just a folktale, not an actual creature 77.101.246.75 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should Gozu and Mezu be on this article

[edit]

cause if you look up about them their is no information linking them to Japanese mythology or folklore only Chinese.--Jasonz2z (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gozu and Mezu has roots in Chinese Mythology, but both these creatures eventually were imported into Japanese-Buddhist Religion. I would say for future additions that are considered imported yokai that it should be separated into a different list or at least make note it falls under a shared mythology.74.124.163.114 (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kotahi-Manawa Bradford and the Kōtahi fiasco

[edit]

The article "This 19-year-old Kiwi farmer accidentally became a character in a US board game" explains how the made-up entry "Kōtahi" (named after a New Zealand teenager) was added 7 September 2016, and persisted undetected for so long that games company CMON Limited picked it to be a monster in a forthcoming board game. The perils of beginning and ending your research on Wikipedia! It was finally deleted only yesterday, after being exposed on Twitter. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More effort needed for yokai Folklore

[edit]

I think it is a big shame that a good chunk of the yokai is currently still only exclusive to the Japanese List that has yet to make an Transition to the English List for quite a number of years now, it is hard enough for non-Japanese speakers to research the more obscure ones. I hope there will be more support to update this legendary creature list sometime in the near future, and some of us don't have to rely on Google Machine translation that requires a lot of extra work than needed to be able to figure out what exactly certain articles are about.74.124.163.114 (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]