Talk:Taotie

.
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)

Copyvio
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)
 * Article should be rolled back to before the insertion of copyvio material from an anonymous editor, while keeping the interwiki links--Confuzion 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
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)

Peacocky
The text is irritatingly theatralic, f.ex.
 * Scholars have long been perplexed over 

and
 * The once-popular

and
 *  It is interesting that even Shang

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 ( m bork³ ) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Taotie-thegreatwall.jpg

In popular culture mishandled
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)


 * I wrote the zelda section with a source and it was still removed. It seems like every paragraph in that section was just being blanket deleted without consideration. I saw in the history someone mentioned WP:ONUS, which I think is a claim that even though its sourced, it's useless information? I don't think that applies to a pop culture section since that is exclusively about appearances in media and that's all that was in the section. If it's not important enough on the page, there's no point having a pop culture section on *any* page. I think they should be added back, or at least the ones from famous media that can be expanded upon beyond a single sentence should be returned. Pallukun (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They absolutely should be added back. It's quite disrespectful. If no one is going to come and refute what has been written here, then I'll be adding them back, and I suggest you do the same. 75.154.76.226 (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't cite any wiki as a source per WP:USERG. The only way you can get any pop culture material to stick is to cite a reliable WP:SECONDARY source. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Read everything, friend. Several other pages have "popular culture" and none of them have sources, Binksternet. Many of them have been edited recently.
 * Popular culture is here to list related content, not to be proven by documented source. This is a fact, and I think you're well aware of that. 75.154.76.226 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't help your argument by pointing to other Wikipedia articles that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia articles should follow Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Pop culture entries are perfectly fine if they are sourced from WP:SECONDARY authors. The job of the Wikipedia user is to summarize for the reader what reliable authors are saying. You should be ignoring unreliable wiki sources such as touhouwiki.net, monstermovies.fandom.com and kungfupanda.fandom.com. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then in that case, feel free to wipe those other articles.
 * To me, it sounds like you want to have the article be in a specific way without even sourcing what you are saying. Where is the proof that pop culture entries need specific sources? All you talk about is WP secondary. I understand sources are helpful, but not everything is an article that needs to be proven. Sources are sometimes self-referential.
 * The point of pop culture is to demonstrate how the entry has been used in popular culture. And requiring written articles about it is absurd, especially when the source itself is the very source. If you download Touhou 17.5 and look within the official profile of the character, her species is very well labeled as "Taotie". If we create a wikipedia article on a human being, do we need their birth certificate as proof of their gender or age? No. They are the very source itself.
 * You are being unproductive and unhelpful to this page's growth. If you think there is a problem with how pages handle pop culture, you should take it up within discussion pages that are relevant to that. 75.154.76.226 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's just no point anymore. I tried really hard with this. I've given my arguments, much of which have been ignored. The only time those people respond is when you directly go talk to them or make edits to the page, so this really shows that their interest is limited to enforcing guidelines.
 * It's just astounding to me, considering we have a very obvious page concerning common sense: WP:COMMON.
 * "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."
 * In fact, there is no rule anywhere that states that popular culture needs to be sourced. That's the fact. Take a look at the first sentence in the article of Wikipedia.
 * "Wikipedia is a free content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the use of the wiki-based editing system MediaWiki."'
 * There is no source on this. Do you know why? Because we infer common sense for something that is self-referential.
 * Factually, Wikipedia is a free content online encyclopedia.
 * As I mentioned previously, this wiki has a section on Yuuma that clearly states that she is a Taotie. This is not an attempt to source the information. This is an attempt to show that on that specific page, there is no source. Why? Because the source is self-referential. If you download the game, you will see that Yuuma's official profile states that she is a Taotie.
 * Factually, Yuuma Toutestu is a Taotie.
 * I'm fully okay with my entry being modified, simplified, or expanded upon to fit in Wikipedia's general language and the like. I have good faith; my objective was to improve the page. But deleting everything without any discussion shows genuine bad faith, particularly when the ones deleting it have no interest in improving this page- as seen by vastly ignoring my arguments here- and are only interested in reverting entries they don't agree with. 75.154.76.226 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE is in play here. The policy says "" The reader is not informed by pop culture facts of little importance, presented without context. The guideline Manual of Style/Trivia sections says "" That means trivia-filled pop culture sections are not encouraged if they are "disorganized" and "unselective". The information must be proved to be important. An extremely good way to show importance is to cite a WP:SECONDARY source talking explicitly about the fact. Wikipedia's content policy says "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
 * The material you re-added here was unsourced except for a reference to the book The Legend of Zelda: Art & Artifacts. Unfortunately, the book did not support the claim that the Zelda bronze helmet has figures that "resemble" the Taotie. Failed verification. You also included an inline link to https://en.touhouwiki.net/wiki which cannot be cited per WP:USERG: anyone can log in and change the page, creating a nightmare for reliability.
 * Wikipedia's style of online encyclopedia is more current and connected than any previous published encyclopedia. But that doesn't give us a free pass to make it into a cartoon caricature. WP:NOTPAPER says "articles must abide by the appropriate content policies", and WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but regarding its subject." Commonly known facts should be presented, but obscure bits of fictional usage or game lore should not. We have to be selective. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I wish you would have simply replied like this from the start, as this would have avoided a lot of unnecessary tension.
 * Considering the policies you're highlighted here, I do have to concede to this- not all information needs to be added. I don't fully agree with the policy itself, not even to mention that the policy themselves aren't respected in many other pages, but that's besides the point.
 * I still do maintain that a popular culture tab should be populated by examples within popular culture, as the current one, as mentioned before, makes the Taotie looks like a joke that hasn't ever been used in popular media. But I also acknowledge that this isn't a discussion for this page. 75.154.76.226 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)