Talk:Chōchin'obake

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 15:57, May 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Mythology task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Needs More References[edit]

There is very little information about the Chōchinobake on the Internet as far as I can tell, though the earliest references I can find dates back to the 1970s, so at least there is a chance this is actual folklore and not some anime monster made up for a kid's comic book. Duende-Poetry (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, if you look at the Japanese page, there's a picture by Hokusai 1760-1849 so it's at least 100 years before that!

Imaginatorium (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with name[edit]

This (Chōchinobake) is not quite standard romanisation (any system), because it should have something (' etc) to mark the division into Chōchin and obake. Otherwise it looks like Chō-chi-no-ba-ke. I suggest Chōchin-obake is best, because these are really separate elements. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be Chōchin'obake or Chōchin-obake Peterravn (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Either one of those romanizations works for me. I'm not sure what the recommended standard is on Wikipedia. I know that both of those are accepted romanizations among the many systems that exist. Is there an official Wikipedia stance on how to write it? Osarusan (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either must be acceptable: it's a question of whether to insert a break between the two parts of the word. I think this helps a lot, and if you look at the page on Sumo terms, many of them have eminently sensible divisions (with hyphens) into parts. There cannot be an absolute rule on this, since in Japanese the problem is solved by writing 提灯おばけ where the kanji make the division clear. Unless anyone objects, I will move this to Chōchin-obake. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits April 2014[edit]

I reverted a number of edits, because they introduced more problems than they solved. Specifically:

The romanisation is Chōchin-obake, no macron on the 'o' of 'o-bake' (so-called honorific 'o'). I think the German article is simply wrong, too.
Use of nihongo template etc done the German way
Conflates two Japanese articles: ja:不落不落 ('burabura') and ja:提灯お化け ('chōchin-obake'). It is not clear if these are "the same", but they should not be treated simply as alternative names for the same thing.
Illustration from the Burabura ja article

Some of this material at least could be put back in, but I think this is an easier starting point. I am also just about to move the article back to the correct title.

Imaginatorium (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding request for citation[edit]

is it really necessary to formally cite the fact that a thing named "chochin obake" is an obake which is a chochin? that seems unreasonably pedantic even for this place tbh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.1.195 (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]