Talk:Baku (mythology)

message: I put all the comments I've been making into a single coherent article, including most (but not all) of the original article plus a bunch of new material, like references.
As you've figured out, if you've read any of this, I'm not a Wikipedian, and don't know much at all about the mechanics of editing. I'm a subject matter expert. So, a question -- what do I do next? Go into the article, highlight everything, delete it, and paste in the revision?
Timothy Perper 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with the help of Twooars, I've made the changes in the article. It still needs a few fix-ups, but they're trivial. The links all worked when I just tested them. Timothy Perper 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a revision of the Baku (spirit) article 

message: Someone recently added something to the article that is inaccurate, and I corrected the error. I also clarified the referencing, since this person said that tapir-like baku appeared in anime but not manga even though the article already cited two examples from manga. Now it's very clear that tapir-like baku appear in manga. I hope it's clear... (sigh) I wish people would read articles before they "correct" them and add mistakes (sigh).
I also fixed up = wikified some of the references. The entry still needs more citations.
Timothy Perper 22:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected a mistake and clarified the references 

message: Hakase Mizuki 2007. Ba_ku. Los Angeles, CA: TokyoPop..
Yes, the underscore is correct. The title is Ba_ku.
Timothy Perper 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a reference to a manga with a baku 

message: From the article introduction:
:"The Japanese term baku has two current meanings, referring to both the traditional dream-devouring creature and to the zoological tapir (e.g., the Malaysian tapir). In Korean, the term is maek (Hangul: 맥, Hanja: 貊). In recent years, there have been changes in how the baku is depicted."
Ok, so what exactly does maek refer to? The folkloric beast or tapir, the animal? It's difficult to tell from the way the thing is phrased now (I suppose the beast from folklore is meant, but I honestly have no way of being certain). Furthermore, why does the Korean counterpart have to be here? No notability is proven. I'm not saying the article needs to be purged of the Korean equivalent, but I do have a problem with the kind of hit-and-run aproach this sentence seems to have been inserted with - there doesn't seem to be much rationale in having the sentence in there, besides: "Koreans have one too !!1!". If maek is a notable beast in Korean folklore (again, I'm assuming it's folklore we're speaking here), let's have an expanded view of this Korean counterpart, and maybe a section on how it passed from the mainland to Japan. If not, I don't see much point in this particular non sequitor sentence in the introduction. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I disagree. If you want to remove the reference to maek I won't stop you. I don't know anything at all about them, and can't add anything to the article about maek. As I remember, it was something that the original article had in it, and it remained after I did some editing a while ago. So we agree about this. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just googled maek and "dreameater" and got a bunch of websites quoting this Wiki article. So someone who knows more than I do will have to step in here. However, the lack of a reference to the Korean term or concept means that we have another reason to remove it -- original research. I think I'll let this sit a few days and let other people comment if they want to. Then I'll take out the maek sentence. Thanks for bringing this up, TomorrowTime -- good catch. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Good questions, but I have no idea at all. The "maek" word was in the article when I made some edits on the page a while ago, and I just left it. Whaddya say we just remove it? Timothy Perper (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just removed the sentence mentioning maek. It seems irrelevant to the main point of the article (which is about Japanese baku) and lacks any source or description of the kind TomorrowTime discussed above. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean counterpart 

message: A while ago, I had flagged a sentence as needing a reference. No one added one and I was not able to find a reliable source that Drowzee from Pokemon was a tapir. In fact, I found a reliable source that said Drowzee was an elephant.
: http://books.google.com/books?id=6txO1UzgOmEC&pg=PA38&dq=drowzee&hl=en&ei=yxGWTt-ME6Hd0QGRwOG6Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=drowzee&f=false
"Improving Writing at KS2 getting it right for the boys and girls" by Kirklees Children & Young People Service, page 38.
So out it goes. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also deleted a dead link and repaired an out-of-date link. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Unreferenced Opinion

message: Here's a cute little mess. Drowzee is a dream-devouring creature from Pokemon who looks like a cross between a tapir and an elephant. For some time (over the years since 2007-2008), a large variety of mostly anonymous people have added unreferenced sentences about Drowzee to the Baku article. That's fine with me --  IF  -- we had some reliable sources for Drowzee's identity or heritage. I found one source, which sounds authoritative -- the so-called "Pokedex" (for "Pokemon Index") -- which lists all the Pokemon characters, including #096, Drowzee. Problem is that the source is the Pokemon wiki, which goes by the name of Bulbapedia (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Drowzee_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29) which is user generated and hence not reliable by Wikipedia standards even if it's quoting material that's part of the TV show. I haven't found any other sources, except one that says that Drowzee is an elephant. So I'm going to leave it out until either I stumble on a reliable source or someone else does. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reliable source for Drowzee, so I added it with the reference. It's to the Pokemon website itself, making it as reliable as we can expect. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Drowzee

message: the pokemons Musharna and  Munna, and baku is the personal summon of Danzō Shimura.88.91.186.130 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs reliable sources for these statements before they can be added. Otherwise, who knows? Timothy Perper (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  some more popculture uses of this spirit 

message: The "modern representations" section is a mess to look at, and it constantly gets filled by well-meaning people inserting walls of text on the latest manga character who is based on a baku or even just ever so slightly resembles it. It's essentially become a "pop culture list" and is already longer than the actual article itself (let alone the couple of massive edits that I've undone recently referencing this or that character. Is there something we can do to improve this section so it doesn't become a magnet for a million minor references with no paragraph flow at all?
If we include every time a baku is referenced in pop culture, this page will be miles long and have no really useful information on it. That's why I've been deleting new material added to that section that doesn't have a significant cultural impact. If I've undone your edit, I meant no offense. I really don't like to mess with other people's edits, but there has to be a point where we protect the integrity of page over any pride its readers may have. These references should go on the Wikipedia page for those individual mangas or manga character, mentioning that there is a character based on a baku; not vice-versa (linking to every single manga/video game character from this page). Osarusan (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I get that the "in popular culture" sections are generally useless trivia, but this is a perfect example of how they can often contain useful and relevant information. This article should mention drowzee/pokemon in some way. It is relevant information to the topic at hand. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What's useful or relevant about including pokemon information on the baku page? It's neither. Pokemon on the whole may be a cultural phenomenon, but Drowzee is not a majorly important element of Pokemon nor significant on its own. We don't put lists of movies that include elephants in the background on the Elephant page, so why would we include minor pop culture figures that are slightly based on a folkloric creature on its page? The connection just isn't strong; and to the extent that there is a connection, it's entirely one way. Drowzee is based on a baku, but the baku has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Drowzee. There's no value in including lists of bird-like pokemon on the Bird page, or lists of dog-like pokemon on the Dog page. So why would we include a baku-like pokemon on the Baku page? It's not relevant or valuable information. Osarusan (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not an abundance of Baku-like pokemon. Your comparisons are moot. A japanese cultural phenomenon bears mention as modern interpretation or use of Baku mythology. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it were a major character like Pikachu you might have an argument. But it's not. Drowzee is not a cultural phenomenon by any measure. Go post a link to Pikachu on the page for Mouse and see what kind of reaction that gets you. It doesn't belong. It's an irrelevant pop culture reference, and the reference is only one-way. Keep the insignificant anime references off of this page please. Osarusan (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not insignificant or irrelevant. The cultural phenomenon is Pokémon, not Drowzee, and Drowzee has been featured in a prominent enough role within the franchise to qualify according to WP:POPCULTURE. Not sure what a "one-way" reference is, this is how references work. Please reread the relevant guidelines. This article fails to inform if it does not include any reference to modern interpretation and usage of the mythology. I understand that there is no reason to include a list of every reference, and this is not what I'm advocating for, but simply removing every single one instead of cleaning up the section is not the right approach. This is a detriment to Wikipedia. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  This has been discussed ad nauseum already. See guidelines WP:TRIVIA or the essays WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:POPCULTURE. Pokemon links do not belong here. Osarusan (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah it keeps getting brought up because you're wrong. Please review WP:POPCULTURE and WP:POPCULTURE, as well as WP:TRIVIA. This absolutely belongs here and you clearly have a conflict of interest. Additionally, upon review of the edit history for this page, you are in violation of WP:3RR. Please refrain from further removal of this content. 73.145.175.54 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what conflict of interest you think I have, but please bring another editor in on this if you think I'm acting inappropriately. You continue to re-add the same material over and over again. There's at least one other user in this discussion in agreement with me, while you are the only person who has voiced an opinion to the contrary. The same rules are followed on every other folklore page as well. Touhou video game cruft and pokemon are not relevant to this page about folklore. The relevant Wikipedia guidelines have been supplied earlier in the thread, please review them. Also please review the 3RR rule which you posted, as it very clearly states what it is and does not apply to anything I did. You don't need to take this personally or make this into an edit war. Osarusan (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture References