Talk:Kodama (spirit)

Bias
I think is article has bias towards western culture. The large majority of the article talks about the place of Kodama in movies & games while very little is devoted to Kodama's place in Shinto (of which series this article is supposidly a part of).

Myth
Should it not be mentioned in the first sentence that these are mythical creatures? Satchfan 05:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is 90% of this article about anime or video games or whatever
Shouldn't there be some stuff about maybe mythological stuff instead of "In some shitty anime nobody cares about the kodama are portrayed as blah blah blah" --76.176.98.81 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What the article needs is for someone to take a little initiative and write up the mythological aspects of the kodama. The popular culture stuff should then be deleted or spun into Kodama in popular culture. -- BrianSmithson 06:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Princess Mononoke? Some shitty anime nobody cares about? Blasphemy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.253.175 (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First off I am watching it rn for the like 50th time and it is the most amazing movie ever second of all the portray the kodamas in a wonderful way there adorable little thing 208.95.214.87 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

First, Princess Mononoke isn't shit, it's a matter of opinion. It was made by a film maker who is both Japanese and is very much in touch with Japanese mythology. Maybe do some research before you go bashing stuff? I agree that there should be more emphasis on Kodama as they are in Shinto, but Princess Mononoke is grounded in Shinto, as you'd know if you'd taken time to watchi it instead of dismissing it offhand.


 * Shh, don't encourage them, next thing you know they'll go watch Pom Poko or Spirited Away and go truly apeshit. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kodamamononoke.jpg
Image:Kodamamononoke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kodama (spirit). 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/20120724002340/http://ghibli-fc.net/rabo/monoke_yo/yomitoku30.html to http://ghibli-fc.net/rabo/monoke_yo/yomitoku30.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Wars of Pop Culture Section
There's been a recent string of edit wars over the "in the pop culture" section of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty clear about avoiding letting pop culture lists turn into trivia sections. I can't see any argument in which a minor board game published in 2016 meets Wikipedia's requirements for a "good pop culture reference." See the linked page for examples.

Conversely, the editor who keeps re-adding the item keeps referring to the Princess Mononoke entry as justification that their board game should be included. If you feel that the movie should be removed, then you're welcome to make the case against it. However, it's fair to point out that Princess Mononoke was a major motion picture that was screened all over the world, and is one of the defining works of Japanese animation. It certainly fits the criteria of "good popular culture reference." In either case, that's an entirely separate argument from the one about Kodama the board game.

I am removing the entry below from the pop culture section and storing it here for now:


 * Kodama are used as a theme in Action Phase Games' 2016 card game Kodama: The Tree Spirits.

If the editor in question would like to discuss the deletion of the board game, or the deletion of Princess Mononoke from the page, let's talk about it here on the Talk page, rather than just having constant edit wars. Osarusan (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Deletions were made without explanation. I called for an explanation of why a minor appearance in a movie is superior to a game based on the subject of this article and named after it - if providing that was deemed undesirable, I called or for the whole segment to be deleted as cruft.


 * No reasoning was provided until now, and seems to be merely subjective with no citation of any Wikipedia standards as backing.


 * Additionally, the inclusion of the movie-still is in violation of Wikipedia copyright standards Wikipedia no longer allows claims of "no non-free pictures" available to be a legitimate reason to post copyrighted material.


 * Therefore it would seem that the best solution is merely to delete the whole segment to avoid the appearance of subjective definitions of what is or is not cruft.
 * --Wowaconia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Another user has reverted your deletion of the Princess Mononoke reference. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other on whether the movie should be noted or not, but I think there's a fair argument to be made for keeping it. It is undoubtedly a significant piece of art, whereas your board game is not. The question of whether or not the board game should be included on the page is independent of whether or not Princess Mononoke should be included. If you're just upset because the board game doesn't qualify as significant enough for this page, that's not a reason to delete other entries as well. The case needs to be made for each deletion/addition separately and on their own merits. Osarusan (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not even a minor character in the movie, and your claim about "significant piece of art" is purely subjective. It could just as easily be pointed out that the card game is still being produced and is an active cultural force, while the movie is now regulated to a marker of an older age in culture. If an encyclopedia article is to be viewed as striving towards objective truth, than subjective claims of what is or is not significant should be avoided and the whole segment deleted. --Wowaconia (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're being totally absurd if you're claiming that this board game is on par with Princess Mononoke in terms of cultural significance. Do you work for this board game company or something? Whether you like the film or not doesn't matter, it is a culturally significant film which had an objective global impact. Again, I don't have any particular attachment to Princess Mononoke being mentioned on this page, but your attempts to sneak this board game onto a page where it doesn't belong by deflecting onto the movie does not count as "striving towards objective truth" as you say. If you think Kodama the Board Game belongs on here, make the case for it. If you want Princess Mononoke removed from the page, make the case for it. Make a good argument, give sources as to why it belongs, get the support of other editors, etc. Osarusan (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I can understand that you feel ownership over this page and are very emotionally invested in how it looks, but there is no need to apply evil motives to people who disagree with you. I do not work for the card game company. Please dial back your anger over someone not seeing things as you do. A friend mentioned the game on social media, I looked it up and eventually came here. As the page had a cultural segment I added it. I like the film, and that is why I know kodama are not a major force within it. I didn't attempt to "sneak" anything, my editor ID is plainly visible on all my edits not some anonymous login or sock-puppet. You assign me evil intentions, accuse me of bias against a film, and then straight up lie and say I tried to "sneak this board game onto a page". If other editors changing articles on wikipedia causes this type of reaction from you, I would suggest you consider leaving the community and take up blogging where no one will alter something you are so strongly attached to.

The picture from the film used here is in violation of copyright and is likely to be deleted. The kodama are not significant enough within the movie for the film to have a stand alone segment dedicated to it on this page. Rather the page about the movie can link here if people want to learn more about kodama, that's standard practice for other films. Such as The Last Unicorn (film) not being mentioned on the page Unicorn, the page on that film merely links to the page for the mythical beast. In fact one sees that the page Princess Mononoke already has such a link to this page - eliminating any need for the segment here. ---Wowaconia (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You're reading way too much into my response if that's what you got from it. I don't feel ownership over the page and it wasn't my intention to slander you, though I can see how my words came off that way. Your other insinuations about me are not accurate either. There's no need to suggest I leave the community because I don't agree that your board game belongs here–particularly in light of the points you raise against the Princess Mononoke reference.
 * I agree that picture from the movie cannot be here. And you've made a fair argument for the removal of the movie entirely, with the Last Unicorn example and the fact that Princess Mononoke already links to this page. So I'll agree that there's no need to keep it on this page. Osarusan (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus
I don't see consensus to remove the bit about Princess Mononoke and so I would like to point out that it is significant because it is how many Westerners were introduced to "kodama" and its visual portrayal may also be how people see the spirits in their mind... And so I'm likely to reput the section in. Bod (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we had come to a consensus to remove the mention of the film. At the very I'd like to remove the part you added about the Nightwalker and plot summary. I think that's getting too far away from the subject and doesn't belong here. I'll leave the reference to the movie up for now, but I tend to agree with the points Wowaconia raised above. Osarusan (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)