Talk:Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures

Parodies
--  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 04:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 百度十大神器
 * 百度十大美食
 * 百度十大神木
 * 百度十大圣地
 * 百度十大帅哥


 * I don't speak Chinese. So what are you saying? 204.52.215.13 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One, it's not directed towards you if you can't. Two, I'm saying for you to Baidu them. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 00:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Assistance required
Plenty of information written on the main four, perhaps should someone start improving sections on the other animals? Thanks, for I am very short on time and effort. Kindest regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Please contributing by adding, not replacing, if you find that a translation is poor ask beforehand, rather than simply writing a newer translation. We all need to work in a "harmonious society". Thanks. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2024

 * how do I pronounce júh 41.113.31.4 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes on Chun Ge
Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 12:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The 春 in 春哥 can also relate to "fa chun" 发春 (meaning Sexual arousal) (slang)
 * 2) Dongbei (Northeastern China) males, especially youths, are well known to use words such as 爷 and 老子 to refer to oneself; such behaviour is considered arrogant and low-level, the typical stereotype of the Dongbei male. 爷 in this context is referring to "masculinity", rather than usage as a pronoun.
 * 3) Li Yuchun is perceived to have a male appearance due to her short hair, facial features and rather deep voice.
 * Additionally, Ju Hua Can can also be understood as 菊花残, meaning "broken chrysanthemum", which would be slang for a "broken anus", referring to (possibly painful) anal sex. 残 is a homophone meaning "broken". Current translation is better, however, and if required, this one can be added as a tiny note to the end.

Other parallel meanings
Consider viewing the talk page for the Chinese Wiki article. See 卧槽马 - refers to a Chess move called 卧槽马. Possible parallels. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead
At least from the New York Times article published yesterday, it seems that the main significance of this topic is as a part of the response to internet censorship. Unless that article is misleading, I think the lead of this article should incorporate mention of that much sooner (e.g., by moving the information from the New York Times piece back near the beginning), rather than digress into the history of the meme before revealing its significance. The essence of the topic's significance should be clear to readers by the end of the first paragraph.--ragesoss (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct formatting would be a quick, simple, easy to understand one-liner introduction to orientate the article (what, who, where, when), followed by details in subsequent paragraphs. Just look through other articles. Just like a newspaper bulletin, first you have the whos and whats, then an explanation about the whats and whens, and finally the precise details. The detail added there before was unnecessary in that paragraph and made the structuring a bit awkward. Sure, its tough, but I don't want an Article for Deletion, they give me hemorrhoids, especially after all that hard work. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 06:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As of March 13, this page has been officially slashdotted. Article traffic reports 3.3k views on the same day. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Newer articles
IMPORTANT NOTE: This article discusses THE ORIGINAL TEN ARTICLES created in early 2009. DO NOT ADD ADDITIONAL PARODIES AND COPYCAT MEMES IN THE MAIN BODY. If it is NOT a part of the original ten, then it is a newly made copycat parody. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. We don't need every single responsive parody. I am already aware of n+1 new parodies on forums, and honestly they are not WP:SIGNIFICANT. Thank you for your understanding. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick comment by the original author: Pointless trivial sections make an article less credible, and if left uncontrolled, may lead to an Article for Deletion, which would not be wonderful for myself, having spent a long time writing it. Try to avoid adding every single wad of information and copycat memes if it is not absolutely required. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, referring to the "Similar articles" section and the "Fa Gai Wei", do we honestly need these? There are n+1 of these, do they all need mention? And why here? Read the article. It says 10 creatures, not 31415926535897. Steps to consider: Kindest regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove the pointless "copycat parodies". I am personally in favour of this. It has no relation to the original 10 memes from early 2009 whatsoever.
 * 2) Limit their existence. Refer to WP:NOT.
 * 3) Make your own article, don't put it here. Enough said. You can deal with your own Article for Deletion, I don't want one for myself. I personally hate arguing on AfD pages.
 * UPDATE: I have been through 3.14159GBs worth of forum pages. Apparently this "Fa Gai Wei" was never even placed on Baidu Baike, it was merely a three-minute fun fun fun on a forum that somehow became widespread. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus by 1 April 2009, the section regarding "Fa Gai Wei" will be removed as per above. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving
You can move it to Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures or Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures (Internet meme), but NOT Baidu 10 mythical creatures. It is a proper noun, and needs to be capitalized, especially as a title. Otherwise, it looks entirely uncredible, as if a (youth) wrote it, and I would not like an AfD due to that, as it has happened many times before. (Removed statement by author) (R)egards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NAME and Naming conventions (precision), Ohconfucius' moving is completely rational. And I plead you to be polite and assume good faith of other's edit. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Proper noun, it shouldn't be lowercase. Why don't you call London Bridge as London bridge? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 01:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures is a title. Similar to Ghost in the Shell (capitals), A View to a Kill (capitals), and To Be or Not to Be (capitals). This title is directly translated from 百度十大神兽, which is also a title, the title of the meme. In titles, the standard convention is to capitalize on all words except for linkage words such as in, and, or, the, and to. I don't mind you getting rid of the "(Internet meme)" part, but not the uppercase letters. The article is not literally about ten animals, it is about a meme which describes ten animals, where the title of the meme is Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Regarding 百度十大神兽, this again is a proper noun. In standard Chinese grammar, if it were a title, linkages would be used sparingly. If it were an article literally about ten animals (and not the meme), it would be 百度的十个大神兽 (compare with archaic Japanese vernacular grammar 百度の十ヶ大神兽), and so it is concluded that the same associations be used of the English article thereof. Compare with 三民主义 over 三个人民的主义, 中华民国 over 中华的民国, 东京少女 over 在东京的少女. Additionally, if this were not a proper noun, and that the title was in lowercase, that would mean that "mythical creatures" (note the lowercase) would be taken literally. Honestly, are there really these 10 animals (that they exist), and are they really mythical and magical? No, this was the title given to them by netizens, and this is how they are interpreted as a title. If I were to go to Mahler Gobi, would I be able to find some mythical creatures? No, rather, it would be the case that if I were to go online, I would be able to read about some Mythical Creatures. This is a title given to them, they are not by themselves literally mythical. Compare with Snow peas, they are literally peas, and Polar bear, they are literally bears. But The Bear (1984 film) is not a bear. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 01:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the effort you have invested in the article, I would say that I feel your actions have put my nose severely out of joint. It seems likely that English is not your first language, so I would excuse the tone you adopted. I would urge you to consider brushing up on your conditional tense, and perhaps preface your comments more often with some circumspection, adding perhaps "I feel.." or "It is my opinion that.." occasionally. That way, you would come across as less aggressive. On the subject itself, I still do not feel that capitalisation is all that necessary in the title or in the text, and the brackets -usually denoting disambiguation to internet meme - is unnecessary, but I will leave you to move it there ;-). As it seems that even the New York Times cannot decide on capitalisation for "grass-mud horse" (for example) one way or another, I'll leave your upper cases so as not to rock the boat, unless a few others agree with me, in addition to User:Sameboat. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I appear to be aggressive; it was not my intention. I am unable to move it to Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures (i.e. remove the brackets) as there is a redirect article there; I get the message that I require an administrator to do so. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 05:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your gracious apology. As you will see, I have now moved the article. I look forward to collaborating with you in future. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

JP Interwiki
Regarding the JP Interwiki, I think it should be renamed from "JP:草泥馬" to "JP:百度の四大神獣", as after a quick read through, I've seen that the article describes the entire meme, and not just the GMH. Could someone with Japanese language skills please inform the JP Wikipedia about this. Thanks. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I don't know enough Japanese to discern this, but just looking at the names for the interwiki links, it seemed like the wrong one. I'll get somebondy onto it. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked User:Hoary about it on his talk page, and he agreed that the link should be to GMH. I am removing it accordingly. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Grass Mud Horse
discussion copied from User talk:Hoary

Your assistance would be appreciated concerning ja:草泥馬, as to where exactly the interwiki links go. For me, they should logically be linked to Grass Mud Horse and zh:草泥馬, but another editor pointed out that there is some content which suggests that the JP article could have been misnamed because there are some references to the Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. Neither of our Japanese skills are of a sufficient level to solve this one. The discussion is here. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's the same thing.


 * And what a bizarre article it is. I quote:


 * 欧米では『grass－mud　horse』と呼ばれている. [...] 『草泥馬』は英語でfuck your motherという意味がある中国語を動物の名前のように同音の漢字を当てたものである.


 * which is something like:


 * In the west [literally, in Europe and (the) America(s)], it is called "grass-mud horse". [...] 草泥馬 uses for the animal hanzi that are homophones for Chinese that means what in English is "fuck your mother".


 * (1) 草, 泥, 馬 are in Japanese very humdrum characters, used for writing not only Sino-Japanese compounds but also the regular Japanese words kusa, doro, uma, respectively the commonest terms meaning grass, mud, horse. There's no need to gloss them for Japanese readers, unless perhaps it's to reassure them that in Chinese they are no different from Japanese. (Of course plenty of Sino-Japanese kanji have acquired exclusively Japanese uses, and for all I know plenty of hanzi may be used for morphemes whose meanings have changed since their export to Korea and Japan.)
 * (2) 欧米 covers a wide area. I'd be surprised if the term is "grass-mud horse" in, say, France.
 * (3) The writers of the Japanese can't bring themselves to present 肏你妈, let alone to gloss it straightforwardly in Japanese, おかあちゃんをやれ.
 * -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank, Hoary. So you're saying that the interwiki link to/from Mud Grass Horse is correct and appropriate. That being the case, I shall remove the link to/from Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. BTW, it's untranslatable in French, which is why Ive gone for fr:Cheval de l’herbe et de la boue, which is a literal translation used in one of the sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, fr:Cheval de l’herbe et de la boue indeed exists, but shouldn't it be fr:Cheval de l'herbe et de la boue [ugly apostrophe]? Not that I mind, but if somebody will object later, better fix it earlier to reduce the total amount of work. Oh, and are grass and mud separate? My own guess (unhampered by any knowledge of Chinese whatever) was that it might be grassed-over mud, or a marsh. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Many inaccuracies
As someone who frequents the Chinese internet, I find it rather inaccurate to call this phenomenon as "resistance" toward internet censorship. Its origin is simply to bypass word filters ("pr0n", "n0rp", etc), and has become popular simply because it's funny, not because of some fictitious "resistance" movement. Not to mention many of words parodied are themselves highly offensive and usually not permitted in day-to-day speech, and the others are not even censored (like sanitary napkins 卫生巾　and vaginitis 阴道炎), but simply chosen because of their semi-uncommon and relatively unpleasant nature.

And the connections to the Tiananmen Incident is simply non-existent. The source cited is irrelevant and is itself more or less of an opinion piece. It's ridiculous to think of everything that happens in China as some form of rebellion against the government or some "pro-democracy" movement. Wikipedia isn't meant for propaganda, let's keep it free of that.

Furthermore, the phrase “伟大, 光荣, 正确” is very rarely used by the Chinese media since the end of the Cultural Revolution. The CPC officially acknowledges that its made mistakes in the past, so the phrase itself does not match the official party policy. Today, the phrase is mostly used ironically, even occasionally by the mainstream media. To say that it's what the "state-run media described the Communist Party of China as" is simply wrong, or at least misleading about the amount of what can be classified as propaganda in the Chinese media. This section is also unrelated to the topic of the article, which is only on the "10 Mythical Creatures".

I've deleted both for the above reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. This should be part of the 无厘头文化，saying that it is a resistance to government is only trying to make it politically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.69.124 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Be WP:BOLD and go find some WP:RELIABLE SOURCES that are WP:VERIFIABLE that can prove otherwise; if you are successful, you can be free to do as you will provided that all information is properly sourced. By Wikipedia policy, all information must be sourced by credible sources; a number of newspapers report that the meme is more than just a 无厘头, but if you are able to take on the WP:BURDEN of sourcing your edits, go for it. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He Xie and Guan Li Yuan
I suggest that the descriptions of He Xie ("river crab" in the Cao Ni Ma section) and Guan Li Yuan ("administrators") be moved to a separate section for the "==Antagonists==", the enemies of the 10 Mythical Creatures. 118.100.122.18 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It is not our job to be classifying or sorting anything, as that would constitute WP:OR. Simply the list of ten would be enough. How more detailed and precise does one actually want to get? There are only ten elements within the subset (which in itself is its own main set, see Statistical mathematics), and the group is not that broad. Additionally, "Guan Li Yuan" is standardly considered a part of the ten regardless of sources, while "He Xie" is not. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...the Chinese Wikipedia article doesn't list Guan Li Yuan, while over here it makes 11 Mythical Creatures. Guan Li Yuan is different in which a play on the word for administrators, the symbol of censorship, while the other 10 are euphemisms of obscene phrases which netizens use as resistance toward censorship. Perhaps I suggest Guan Li Yuan be removed. 118.100.122.18 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions of Hoax Misleading
After stating that these animals are a hoax, each section goes on to state what the animal looks like and does, in a tone that suggests the animal is real. Someone linking to a section from another article or from an internet search engine could easily be mislead. This article needs to be reworked to avoid this problem, and to document the hoax rather than being a perpetrator of it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I refuse to believe that people are that stupid. Each of the sections clearly has a variant of the words "the original article/meme/hoax claims/states/writes that XYZ". Plus, most people would actually read the LEDE before reading the main body, and even if there was something odd in the body, people would be intelligent enough to notice it and head for the LEDE to see what is going on. As the original creator and main contributor of the article, I have intentionally structured the article in a way so that a reader reads the LEDE first, and then moves onto further detail below if he or she wishes. Additionally, if you see a problem, go and fix it, rather than just deleting bits of information. And I mean fix; deletion does not solve the problem, it just shows that you're trying to avoid it. You can reword the sentence so that it meets your standards. That's what contributing to Wikipedia is all about. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * QUOTE: "Someone linking to a section from another article or from an internet search engine could easily be mislead." Most of these hoaxes were created to be intentionally tongue-in-cheek, so that anyone, even the thickest of people can tell that they're fake. I mean, silk that is bulletproof, a dangerous breed of squid, do you really think that someone would not be able to query common sense and see that they're supposed to be fishy? The names alone (exact homophones of phrases such as "fuck you" and "fuck your mother") should immediately give away the fact that it is all rubbish. And each section explains the name in thorough detail, so don't argue that there's a language barrier involved. Also, I interpret your edits to be blatant WP:POINT. Your first edit was due to the fact that you falsely interpreted a sentence as WP:VANDALISM when it wasn't. When I reverted it, you made the same edit, instead of fixing it, claiming that it was confusing for the reader. Should there be any other way I should interpret this other than WP:POINT? This article has been like that since early 2009, for a whole year now, and no one has had issues regarding the way it has been written. This article has been slashdotted, this article has been mentioned in news, this article has been mentioned in technology-related blogs in China. And now, you, a junior editor has come up with this. I don't mean to imply that you are stubborn, but perhaps you could think of this alternately to how you interpret it? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, these are meant to be as they are named - Mythical Creatures. Why are the articles for Zeus, Athena and Amaterasu written in informative narration format as well? I suppose you could still use your argument that "Someone linking to a section from another article or from an internet search engine could easily be mislead.", can't you? Anyone could potentially skip the LEDE in those articles and head straight for the body, assuming it is real. Is there any other way to explain a myth, without potentially confusing the reader? I'm all eyes and ears if you do know. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Zeus was the child of Cronus and Rhea, and the youngest of his siblings. In most traditions he was married to Hera, although, at the oracle of Dodona, his consort was Dione: according to the Iliad, he is the father of Aphrodite by Dione." - Who can prove that these individuals actually existed?
 * "(Amaterasu) was born from the left eye of Izanagi as he purified himself in a river and went on to become the ruler of the Higher Celestial Plain." - is that possible in real life? being born from an eye?
 * Dangun: "A tiger and a bear prayed to Hwanung that they may become human. Upon hearing their prayers, Hwanung gave them 20 cloves of garlic and a bundle of mugwort, ordering them to eat only this sacred food and remain out of the sunlight for 100 days. The tiger gave up after about twenty days and left the cave. " - Tigers and bears can pray?
 * "Huangdi's people were then threatened by a tribe under the leadership of Chi You, who was said to have magical powers and had 81 brothers, each having 4 eyes and 8 arms wielding terrible sharp weapons in every hand." - 4 eyes and 8 arms?


 * All I see are arguments for not wanting to improve the article. "If people are that stupid its their own fault" or "other articles do it this way". Its not supposed to be presented like it is here, and that's all there is to it. It would simply take rewording paragraphs.


 * You can't just write: "The African Ivory Snake is an allusion to Samuel L Jackson's 'Snakes on a Plane'. It is white with red stripes, primarily inhabits Mogadishu, Somalia, and lives on a steady diety of mice and insects". The first line indicates that the snake is a hoax, but without prefacing, goes on to describe the snake as if it is real. The solution would be to say: "The African Ivory Snake, another of the hoaxes posted on the Hungarian Wikipedia, is a reference to Samuel L Jackson's 'Snakes on a Plane'. The original entry stated 'It is white with red stripes, primarily inhabits Mogadishu, Somalia, and lives on a steady diety of mice and insects'". Wording in this manner keeps in context with the rest of our article, and references the original text with an encyclopedic purpose. There's no reason text from another source should be directly quoted without quotation marks. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303201018/http://net.china.com.cn/ywdt/txt/2009-01/05/content_2668979.htm to http://net.china.com.cn/ywdt/txt/2009-01/05/content_2668979.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121205102854/http://net.china.com.cn:80/qzl/txt/2008-11/28/content_2604476.htm to http://net.china.com.cn/qzl/txt/2008-11/28/content_2604476.htm
 * Added tag to http://forum.powerapple.com/modules.php?name=forum&file=viewtopic&forum=30&topic=25894

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)