User talk:Osarusan

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Job E 6 00:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining deletion

I regret that my small edit at Echizen Province caused you any concerns. I have responded to your edit summary here by adding cite support here about the Matsudaira clan of Echizen.

Also, please notice the "needs citation" tag at the end of the 1st paragraph of the Meiji period section. The analysis is likely correct, and I do almost recall having read something like this; however, without any supporting citations, it is hard to distinguish it from original research. The paragraph presents a plausible explanation for what happened during the transitional period between the Edo period and the modern period of Japanese history, but is it really neccessary? Is it helpful? With cite support, maybe yes. Without cite support, no -- probably not. This is the reason I removed it; and this is also why anyone else might have questions.

Does this help you understand what I did and why? --Ansei (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I was just curious about it disappearing and I thought it might have been an accidental deletion. I agree with your assessment, and I'll defer to your judgment if you feel it's better to remove it until a citation can be provided. Thank you for your explanation and your work on helping make the Echizen Domain page better. :) Osarusan (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Osarusan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Osarusan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point...

It's mythology, it's inherently 'popular', it's called folklore for a reason, at this rate the article is so tiny and devoid of any information... -- Menti fisto 03:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that anime and pop culture are not folklore. If you want to add links to Nurarihyon from the Nurarihyon no Mago page, that's totally appropriate. It's not appropriate to add links to every single pop culture reference on that page though. See Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content for examples of good and bad pop culture references. Listing every appearance in anime is certainly an example of bad pop culture references. Osarusan (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That says that only passing mentions isn't appropriate, this is an entire series made on this subject. -- Menti fisto 10:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. There are countless examples of such things that don't warrant mentions on various Wikipedia pages. Nurarihyon no Mago is a series based on the folklore, not the other way around. It has no influence on the folklore. If the folklore is significant to the series, then links to the folklore page belong on the series' page, not vice versa. It's a never ending battle trying to keep the anime fanboy cruft off of the Japanese folklore pages, because almost every day someone adds a new list of trivial anime/manga references to this page or that. Removing the In popular culture" sections is the best solution, because they add very little value to begin with, and they mainly serve as lightning rods for trivia lists. Osarusan (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you prefer there to be as little information as possible? -- Menti fisto 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be childish. That's clearly not what I said. I prefer the information to be relevant and quality, not just lists of anime references. If you're upset because you can't list your favorite anime on a folklore page, I'll direct you once again to Wikipedia's examples of good and bad pop culture references. It's quite clearly stated, and it's a policy that is used across most folklore and mythology related pages. Superfluous pop culture trivia is discouraged. If it's culturally significant and it influences the folklore in some way, then it goes on the page. Otherwise, keep it on its own page and link to the folklore from there. Osarusan (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clearly stated because there isn't even a section for myths, and it's not across most such pages as most other yokai articles do have them, so unless your full-time job for the next year is removing them... I've asked on the talk page at any rate so we could see what others think. -- Menti fisto 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already linked the guidelines for pop culture trivia twice. Read the "Good and bad popular culture references" section if you haven't done so yet. And if you look at the other yokai and Japanese folklore pages, you'll see that I and other editors have left numerous notes in the pages and on the talk pages requesting users specifically not to add lists of anime/manga references and other pop culture trivia. The reason you see pop culture lists on some of the other pages is because users are adding them daily, and it's like a game of whack-a-mole to keep those pages from drowning in references to anime. And time that could be spent cleaning them up is instead spent in stupid arguments like this one. They do not belong on the folklore pages. You should link from the pages for those anime/mange to the folklore pages, not vice versa. Osarusan (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and closest it relates to this is "There is no encyclopedic interest in a famous historical figure being featured prominently in someone's self-published webcomic." But it's not history, not self-published, and not a webcomic. At what point do we not include modern references? Should we stop at, maybe 19th century authors? Or perhaps only during the century it originated? As myths these really have no beginning or end, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia where information is extensive and interlinked, also that page is an essay guide, not official policy. Would you also support removing all mythological pages and host everything on Wikia or such? From this mindset even books can't be mentioned in an encyclopedia if they're written on old myths... -- Menti fisto 13:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous hyperbole. But I will say this: Pop culture references can be acceptable when they are of major significance, which is why you see GeGeGe no Kitaro on a number of Japanese folklore pages, as well as other globally significant works like Princess Mononoke. Nurarihyon is not a myth as you keep saying; it is a very minor bit of folklore. And Nurarihyon no Mago is not a global phenomenon or a major work by any measure. I'm happy that you're passionate about it and it has made you interested in folklore, but it still does not belong on the page at all, as the only relation it has is that the character in the show is loosely based on this very vague bit of folklore. It's the same reason we don't list things like Castlevania, Hotel Transylvania, or Monster Squad on the page for Dracula. Those may be big works, but they're not globally or culturally significant enough to go on the Dracula page. Instead, we link to the Dracula page from those pages. It's the same reason we can mention Lord of the Rings on the Elf page, but we don't mention the Keebler elves or the countless minor anime shows that feaeture elves in main roles. Listing anime references adds absolutely nothing of value, and if anything risks devaluing the original idea by diluting it with intellectual property that is only vaguely or superficially related to the original concept. Anime and manga are not folklore, and there is value in keeping them separated where they overlap. Osarusan (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula_in_popular_culture#Games - it is actually listed. But really, what makes folklore? Isn't it just stories over time? What makes something globally significant? PM didn't win an Oscar, so I guess it's not that, but perhaps you list it due to coming from a studio that does have one? Is Kitaro there because of its age and current popularity? Who decides this, isn't it arbitrary (or what you call hyperbole)? If a myth is already vague why make it even more so? Do you agree that page is an essay and not policy? -- Menti fisto 05:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point. Dracula_in_popular_culture is it's own page. The pop culture references to Dracula are a separate page, not on the actual page for Dracula. I'd fully support something along the lines of Japanese_folklore_in_popular_culture if you wanted to make that. But anime/manga references don't belong on those pages unless they are majorly significant. You're asking where the line is between what is significant or not, and it's hard to tell exactly where it is. And it's different for many properties. But clearly the Keebler elves fall below that line while Legolas falls above it. I've had the Princess Mononoke discussion before, which is ironic when people can't agree if that movie is significant enough to be listed, yet they want their own favorite project listed. Princess Mononoke is hands down more influential culturally than Nura: Rise of the Yokai. But I won't stop you from removing any references to Princess Mononoke from the folklore pages if you feel they are too pop culture-y (I haven't added any myself, but I haven't bothered taking them down either). It did win Academy Awards, by the way, and became the highest grossing Japanese film when it was released, so there's something to say about its significance. If you don't understand why Kitaro is there then I don't think you're in a position to be advocating for Nurarihyon no Mago at all. It is a very minor property, relatively speaking, and is only very loosely based on folklore. It does not contribute to folklore, and only borrows from it. It does not belong on a folklore page, and it has been removed numerous times by editors other than myself from the Nurarihyon page and other pages. Just make a link from the manga's page to the folklore page and please just let it rest. Osarusan (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Osarusan. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Content

Why are you removing content arbitrarily, such as on the Nuppeppō page under "unsourced trivia" but leaving other there. The section is called "Reference sin Japanese culture" and the item you have removed is a reference from Japanese culture. Are you a person who doesn't count video games as art and culture, or is it because the anime/manga/film references you have left are from the 1960s and that some how makes them superior? Please help me to understand the inconsistency. --13:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.59.176 (talk)

I reverted your edit because it was a trivial pop culture reference, and because it was unsourced. See both of those pages for clarification as to why those kind of edits are frequently reverted. Osarusan (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't explain why you leave the existing ones, which are also trivial and unsourced. --100.6.59.176 (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left them because I reverted your edit. Since you agree that it was trivial and unsourced, you have your answer. Better to focus on improving your edits rather than complaining that other peoples' edits aren't being removed. Osarusan (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the other bits. Note, I strongly disagree with the Wikipedia elite's hatred and exclusion of such content, but at least be consistent in its erasure. --16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you're telling me this. I can see the edit you made. Take care to source your edits in the future and you'll run into fewer problems with "the Wikipedia elite." Osarusan (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]