![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Put info about both the motif and mythological creature into the same article for now-- Confuzion 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, but I corrected the Totestu -> Totetsu typo. I'm really certain of this, as hits on Google for the 2 are 20 vs 20000 and there is no such syllable as stu in Japanese.
I see double headed eagle in the bronze vessel. It is a common sign used in Turks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.167.238.111 (
talk)
18:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The text of the article was copied, uncited, from The Path of Beauty: A Study of Chinese Aesthetics by Li Zehou. The full text of the excerpt used to create the article can be found here: http://www.think-ink.net/guide/taotieh.htm mordicai. 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've heard that (and seen) that some ancient south/central american designs are similar to the taotie, could someone with knowledge expand on this in the article - I believe that archaelogist interpret this as representing some continuation of culture/common descent of the two. FengRail ( talk) 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The text is irritatingly theatralic, f.ex.
and
and
and this reflects that the text is taken from an outside source not properly encyclopedized, so no editor here is actually responsible for the nauseating emotionalities, but still the attitudes s*ck! ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Recently, some people have taken a liking in deleting everything within the "In Popular Culture" for reasons as absurd as "rmv unsourced, poorly sourced and irrelevant entries", without even consulting or using the Talk page.
This is handled in an extremely unprofessional way, with any being removed simply on a whim over several edits, until only one remain; one that is valid because it is "sourced". This is absurd.
We'll take Yuuma Toutetsu from the Touhou Project series.
Not only is her species labeled as Taotie within this very wiki, it is also labeled within The Touhou wiki itself.
Quoted: Yuuma is a taotie, a creature in Chinese mythology known for their extreme gluttony. Taotie are also referred to as one of the "Four Evil Creatures of the World" in Chinese mythology, and the taotie in particular may serve as a reference to the mythological figure Chi You, one of the three legendary founding fathers of China. In China today, Chi You is worshipped as the god of war.
Removing it for being "poorly sourced or irrelevant" is plain absurd, especially when considering that multiple pages of this wiki has those sorts of references.
Satori (folklore). Yuki-onna. Tengu. Kappa (folklore). Hashihime. Rokurokubi.
Many of those were edited fairly recently, without any changes to their "popular media" section. Saying it is irrelevant when it's been done on several other pages is absurd. All of them have Touhou references and most of them have no "source". Because the topic itself is the source.
It's also not unsourced. Adding a simple piece of media to a popular tab that is confirmed in many ways should not require a magazine as a source. Wikipedia and the Touhou Wiki are both credible sources of the game that confirms that Yuuma Toutetsu is a Taotie. I shouldn't have to write an article about her being a Taotie to have it added here.
Wikipedia is free for all to edit, and I believe we should be respectful of people's work, and to not delete them for arbitrary and uneducated responses. Please help this Wikipedia grow without elitism. Information that is relevant to a subject is helpful; removing relevant information is useless. The popular culture tab of this article makes this mythology creature look like a joke that hasn't been used in any media at all, when this is, in fact, false.
If you want to help this article, research on the subject at hand (particularly the popular media in question, such as Yuuma, confirmed to be a Taotie) instead of deleting it and citing drivel of it being "unsourced and irrelevant". 75.154.76.226 ( talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Put info about both the motif and mythological creature into the same article for now-- Confuzion 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, but I corrected the Totestu -> Totetsu typo. I'm really certain of this, as hits on Google for the 2 are 20 vs 20000 and there is no such syllable as stu in Japanese.
I see double headed eagle in the bronze vessel. It is a common sign used in Turks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.167.238.111 (
talk)
18:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The text of the article was copied, uncited, from The Path of Beauty: A Study of Chinese Aesthetics by Li Zehou. The full text of the excerpt used to create the article can be found here: http://www.think-ink.net/guide/taotieh.htm mordicai. 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've heard that (and seen) that some ancient south/central american designs are similar to the taotie, could someone with knowledge expand on this in the article - I believe that archaelogist interpret this as representing some continuation of culture/common descent of the two. FengRail ( talk) 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The text is irritatingly theatralic, f.ex.
and
and
and this reflects that the text is taken from an outside source not properly encyclopedized, so no editor here is actually responsible for the nauseating emotionalities, but still the attitudes s*ck! ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Recently, some people have taken a liking in deleting everything within the "In Popular Culture" for reasons as absurd as "rmv unsourced, poorly sourced and irrelevant entries", without even consulting or using the Talk page.
This is handled in an extremely unprofessional way, with any being removed simply on a whim over several edits, until only one remain; one that is valid because it is "sourced". This is absurd.
We'll take Yuuma Toutetsu from the Touhou Project series.
Not only is her species labeled as Taotie within this very wiki, it is also labeled within The Touhou wiki itself.
Quoted: Yuuma is a taotie, a creature in Chinese mythology known for their extreme gluttony. Taotie are also referred to as one of the "Four Evil Creatures of the World" in Chinese mythology, and the taotie in particular may serve as a reference to the mythological figure Chi You, one of the three legendary founding fathers of China. In China today, Chi You is worshipped as the god of war.
Removing it for being "poorly sourced or irrelevant" is plain absurd, especially when considering that multiple pages of this wiki has those sorts of references.
Satori (folklore). Yuki-onna. Tengu. Kappa (folklore). Hashihime. Rokurokubi.
Many of those were edited fairly recently, without any changes to their "popular media" section. Saying it is irrelevant when it's been done on several other pages is absurd. All of them have Touhou references and most of them have no "source". Because the topic itself is the source.
It's also not unsourced. Adding a simple piece of media to a popular tab that is confirmed in many ways should not require a magazine as a source. Wikipedia and the Touhou Wiki are both credible sources of the game that confirms that Yuuma Toutetsu is a Taotie. I shouldn't have to write an article about her being a Taotie to have it added here.
Wikipedia is free for all to edit, and I believe we should be respectful of people's work, and to not delete them for arbitrary and uneducated responses. Please help this Wikipedia grow without elitism. Information that is relevant to a subject is helpful; removing relevant information is useless. The popular culture tab of this article makes this mythology creature look like a joke that hasn't been used in any media at all, when this is, in fact, false.
If you want to help this article, research on the subject at hand (particularly the popular media in question, such as Yuuma, confirmed to be a Taotie) instead of deleting it and citing drivel of it being "unsourced and irrelevant". 75.154.76.226 ( talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)