Talk:Moon rabbit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern References[edit]

In dragonball goku sent the rabbit king and his henchmen to the moon to make Marshmellow treats, and the item Hermes' Moon on gaia has the rabbit make rabbit shapped marshmellows.Yami (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The game Dark Cloud has a race of moon rabbits. The ones that live on the main planet all wear hoods, but when the player first reaches the moon one removes the hood temporarily, and one of the party members is a moon rabbit with a hover backpack.

In the game 'The Adventures of Cookie & Cream, the protagonists (who are rabbits) prevent the moon from running away by using a mortar and pestle.2607:EA00:105:1001:D7:60A4:4794:14DF (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASA transcript[edit]

Aldrin/Collins mixup? According to the NASA transcript, "LMP" refers to Aldrin (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.pdf#page=9) The dialog is between CC and LMP (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_tec.pdf#page=181) and not Collins as the article says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.191.226 (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another NASA source states that it's Collins (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/14day5-landing-prep.htm). Time for a footnote, I guess. --Cold Season (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance[edit]

The Chuci is likely the earliest _Chinese_ mention of the Moon Rabbit, but I don't know whether this predates the Jataka tale or not. I do know that the Chuci was compiled and added to in the second century by Wang Yi (see David Hawkes, _Songs of the South_, p.337), who was possibly using an earlier edition compiled by Liu Xiang two hundred years earlier (not extant) (Hawkes, p.30 ff). The oldest Chuci poem is probably the "LiSao" by Qu Yuan, who died about 278 B.C. So, just where the Moon Rabbit is mentioned in Chuci could put it anywhere from before Qu Yuan to Wang Yi's time, a span from maybe 500 BC to Wang Yi's death in A.D. 158. The Jatakas, as far as I can tell, are dated from pre-500 BC to AD 600, and I don't know where the Moon Rabbit tale fits in that timeline. We need some expertise on Indian folklore. (The upshot of all this is that we don't know whether the notion of the Moon Rabbit--that is, at least the rabbit without any medicine pounding--originates in India, in China, or independently in both cultures. I suspect China got it from India. The article, as it is now, implies the reverse.Apeman (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The moon and bahaviors of rabbits[edit]

Does the moon trigger any behavioural changes? This Moon rabbit thing is very common in some parts of the globe. Komitsuki (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Can someone create the original language redirects for this article? The requests are being rejected at WP:AFC because typing Chinese/Korean/Japanese is "unlikely" (which isn't how other CJK articles are treated, since they get their redirects created) and the associated romanizations are also getting rejected. If the romanization popped out of Bing Translate or Google Translate, you won't get it through the searchbox. Copy-and-pasting the original language term into the searchbox may also miss this article. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moon rabbit. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moon rabbit. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture[edit]

The pop culture section in this article has grown out of control - although it shouldn't just be trashed, as one exasperated editor just did. Such sections are valuable because they reflect how much of an effect the subject of the article has had on society outside of its direct influence. They can become mere trivia pits, but they serve a useful function and deserve careful editing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, the section is trash and completely against WP policies. There's a knee jerk reaction against removing big sections, but if the section is low quality, it can and should be removed. This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia should be about. Is it serious scholarship, or is to to be a place that collects nerd trivia?

This is folklore for thousands of years, yet the majority of the article ends up talking about pop culture from the last 20-30 years. That is way over detail on the recent era. WP should be timeless. Imagine if you were to open up a hypothetical WP from the year 1920, and it was obessively detailing all the pop culture references from that era?

The majority of the section has no sources. It's original research to identify it as the moon rabit of myth and add it in here. There needs to be a third party source covering this, and explaining that it is the Moon rabbit of myth. Conversely, everything on WP needs a source, thus the burden is on the people who wish to add this information. They failed. And until they are able to find a source, that information has no place on Wikipedia.

No explanation why any of this is relevant. A mere reference isn't notable. It has no impact on the topic. If it's tangential information, then it's literally by definition trivia. "Hey did you know that...?". That kind of info. That's not encyclopedic.

Wikipedia is not about compiling big lists of nerd trivia notable and only of interest to niche groups. These often obscure pop culture series. It's absurd to go to serious pages on folklore and have half or more of the page filled with pop culture trivia from anime, manga, and video games. Do you really think the Enclopedia Britanica or something would include such section? Of course not. But it's highly encyclopedic. This is niche info, not the broad info that Wikipedia aims for. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In no particular order:
We're not Encyclopedia Brittanica and not trying to be - 9/10ths of wikipedia's articles wouldn't be in the EB.
The fact that ancient folklore still resonates with popular culture is important and deserves to be part of this article. I'm sorry you don't care about anime, manga and video games (neither do I, for that matter) and think they're nerd trivia but they're major parts of life and deserve mention just as much as poetry or film do - our opinion of their inherent worth isn't important. And it would be fascinating to know what culture in 1920 regarded as important - there are academics whose careers consist largely of doing just that.
Sources are, as you said, needed to connect them with the myth(s). The fact that this section is a mess and poorly sourced is no excuse to heave the whole out; it should be improved. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xae-chan (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)added link[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moon_rabbit&oldid=1209154317"