Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kitsune

Kitsune

Self-nomination. I've been working extensively on this article over the last two months. It's now thoroughly referenced, comprehensive, and, I hope, covers the topic in depth but not excessively so. I like to think it's also well-written. It's recently received a peer review and passed a Good Article nomination, and I've further improved it based on suggestions made by reviewers in both cases. Shimeru 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose – 1. needs a thorough copyedit. 2. Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox – Am not sure about the scope of this article. It seems to be how foxes are perceived to be in Japanese culture. Could the scope be made clearer in the lead? It seems to be an article on a humble fox called a kitsune. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you be any more specific on either point? I'd be glad to try, but this does not give me anything to work with. Shimeru 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • :Ok here goes: 1. Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox. (the first statement is choppy. Is it a direct translation of the word fox? If so, why a translation into Japanese? What's special about it? The first sentence has to define the scope of the article. (eg Dürer's Rhinoceros is the name commonly given to a woodcut created by German painter and printmaker Albrecht Dürer in 1515). 2. In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai -- No I have no idea what yokai means, so I have to click the link. Instead giver the reader some context --> In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai or spirits. This should be done throughout the article where words not native to English have some context. The same applies to Lafcadio Hearn. Who is he? Add his occupation (author) 3. Are these foxes unique to Japan? 4. Kitsune are commonly portrayed as lovers. These love stories usually involve a young human male and a kitsune who takes the form of a woman. -- choppy text, could be merged. 4. ==Origins of fox myths== needs to come much higher in the article. 5. Eastern sense? 6. For more details on kitsune appearances in specific contemporary works, see Kitsune in popular culture. -- duplicate link in section. Hope that was enough to start you off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ::I think so, thank you. I've made an attempt to address the lead and explain more context for the Japanese words and for individuals in general. Also moved the origins and etymology to immediately follow the lead, which I'd been considering in any case. I haven't yet dont a full pass over all sections; I want to see first whether the new lead is the sort of thing you had in mind, rather than risk making the entire thing much worse. Shimeru 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • :::Yeah, that's exactly what I was looking for. I'll link my vote to BrianSmithson's, and as soon as he changes it, mine will too. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the title needs changed or the opening needs changed as I was confused as to whether this article is to be about the Fox in Japanese Folklore (or Kitsune in Japanese Folklore), or a biological article on the Kitsune. Rlevse 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Rlverse. Either the article needs to be moved, or the first paragraph rewritten (or both) to make the topic of this article clear. Raul654 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • While I appreciate the feedback, "kitsune" is the most common specific term both in English and Japanese, and should be the title of the article, if I understand our guidelines correctly. ("Fox spirit" may be more common in English, but that has the problem of also being the translation used for similar creatures from Chinese and other non-Japanese folklore.) I did rewrite the lead. Thanks for the additional editing pass on it. Shimeru 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The article looks much better now than it did 2 hours ago. I have a question though = For example, kitsune were thought to employ their foxfire to lead travelers astray - what exactly is a foxfire? Raul654 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's the fire produced by kitsune, as mentioned in the sections on their powers and "star balls." I've repeated the context there, since it is a little further down the article, and the topic is somewhat obscure to most non-Japanese audiences. Also want to say that I appreciate your work on the article. Shimeru 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see. Ok, that answers my question. I support - this is a good article. Raul654 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree about the title. The term kitsune is popular among anime and manga fans, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), this article should be at Foxes in Japanese folklore. — BrianSmithson 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I'm a huge supporter of the use english convention (I helped write it), in this particular case, now that the intro makes it clear that this is a mythology article, I think kitsune is the appropriate article title. Articles should be located at the most specific (preferably succinct) name possible, and in this case kitsune is both more specific and succinct than 'Foxes in Japanse mythology'. Raul654 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Respectfully disagree -- although I do see the argument, this would create consistency issues with numerous other Japanese folklore (and culture) articles. Would we end up moving Tanuki to Raccoon dogs in Japanese folklore, Yuki-onna to Snow woman (Japanese folklore), Yurei to Ghosts in Japanese folklore, Oni (folklore) to Ogres in Japanese folklore, Tengu to Birdlike demons in Japanese folklore, Ninja to Assassins in Japanese culture, and dozens more, based on transliteration? I'd much prefer leaving these articles at their Japanese names, since that name is usually the common term used when discussing them in English. I think these articles are examples of cases where common names and precision (per other naming conventions) are more important than use of English words. Shimeru 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I take your point, but I would still prefer Foxes in Japanese folklore (and Raccoon dogs in Japanese folklore, for that matter). Foxes and raccoon dogs exist in English-speaking countries and have English names; things like Yuki-onna and tengu do not (and ninja is a widely adopted term in English that would appear in virtually any standard dictionary). Wikipedia has a serious problem with Japan exclusivism, where editors try to create articles with non-English titles where those terms are not widely known in the English-speaking world and where the Use English guideline would seem to indicate against their use (the worst example I can think of is the horridly named Seiyū, which should be at voice acting in Japan). That said, I won't oppose the article based on the name. — BrianSmithson 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only read the opening so far, and I agree. I thought I was going to get an article on Japanese foxes. When the folklore started, I asumed this was just an aside. Then I realised this whole article was going to be about folklore. That needs to be made clear in the first sentence by removing the scientific names. What about a sentence along the lines of that which begins Reynard: "Reynard the fox, also known as Renard, Renart, Reinard, Reinecke, Reinhardus, Reynardt, and by many other spelling variations, is a trickster figure whose tale is told in a number of anthropomorphic fables from medieval Europe". qp10qp 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I've come to:

In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai. In this context, the word kitsune is often translated as "fox spirit." However, this does not mean that a kitsune is not a living creature, nor that a kitsune is a creature different from a fox. Because the word spirit is used in its Eastern sense, reflecting a state of knowledge or enlightenment, any fox who lives for a sufficiently long time may gain the supernatural power of the kitsune.

The second sentence depends on the first, and so I don't understand. What context? Then it says that this doesn't mean that a kitsune is a creature different from a fox. But having been told that a kitsune may have up to nine tails, I'm afraid I already assumed that a kitsune in folklore is a different creature to a fox, even if the name is the same. The word "supernatural" here surely means that the kitsune of folklore is a different creature from the natural fox. It is normal in all cultures to make folkloric creatures out of animals.

qp10qp 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote some of the text, including the above-quoted section, to try to make the intent clearer: within the context of folklore, there is no difference between an "ordinary" fox and a kitsune. All foxes have the potential for supernatural power. May need to revise further for the sake of clarity; will think about how that might best be done. Shimeru 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs better linking. For example, "Print by Kuniyoshi Ichiyusai." is not linked, nor is "Blacksmith Munechika (end of the 10th century), helped by Inari and her fox spirits, forging the blade ko-kitsune-maru ("Little fox"). This legend is the subject of a noh drama." (The blacksmith is not linked nor is the play itself). On a more general note, I'd like to see more quoting from source texts: the Hearn quote is good, but more would be better, particularly illustrative instances from folk tales or religious texts. --Gwern (contribs) 18:12 10 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Well, the reason for at least part of that was that some of those articles don't exist yet (Munechika, the play). I redlinked them, though, since that's preferred, and also linked a few other things (including Kuniyoshi). Added a couple more direct quotes, too; I was thinking about doing more, but I don't want to tilt the other way and duplicate too much from the sources. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see a folktale quote illustrating? Shimeru 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I may be too demanding, but I see a FA as the centerpiece of an ecology or network of articles in the particular subject area, so it bothers me if articles that should be linked are not linked just because people are afraid of the red links or don't want to start stubs on them. As for quotes, I'd like to see more about the discovery of the fox ("And then he noticed a tail sticking out of the woman's robe...") and their powers.
    • In general, I'd like more pictures - for example, one of the most famous woodprints in Hiroshige's 100 Famous Views of Edo was an illustration of a legend that all the foxes in a particular province would rendezvous one night a year to receive their orders - and more contemporary mentions; Neil Gaiman's Sandman: The Dream Hunters is an interesting contemporary use of Kitsune, even if you don't want to use any of Yoshitaka Amano's artwork. --Gwern (contribs) 17:32 13 December 2006 (GMT)
      • I wouldn't call it "too demanding." The only problem I'm running into regarding it is that there's now a separate objection on the grounds of having too many wikilinks. I suppose it's a case of competing philosophies, but it does make it difficult to address. Anyway, the quotes should be quite easy; I'll get those into place by tomorrow. More images would be easy enough, though I want to stay away from anything copyrighted; I'll see whether I can find Hiroshige's print, since I think I know the one you mean. Contemporary mentions are in the daughter article, Kitsune in popular culture, although there are no images there yet and it's essentially an annotated list. Shimeru 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok then. If you can't find Hiroshige's print, tell me - I can interlibrary loan it (my copy of 100 Famous Places is currently inaccessible, so it'd take a while for me to get it and scan it). I didn't notice the Kitsune in popular culture article; but the description isn't totally accurate - it's not just fantasy authors who use them. Even excluding Jade Empire for example, I remember seeing examples in regular non-fantasy fiction. (Don't ask me which works specifically though!) Also, Nihon Ryakki is both important and in the introduction and should definitely have at least a stub. --Gwern (contribs) 03:30 14 December 2006 (GMT)
          • Found and incorporated an image of the print. Agree about Nihon Ryakki, but I know literally nothing about it aside from that it's one of the oldest Japanese books of records -- I'll need to find more sources on that. (There are none online, aside from a JSTOR article, which I can't access from home.) Could possibly take a while, but it shouldn't be hard, since I'm looking for sources for the various noh and kabuki plays' articles anyway. You've seen kitsune referenced outside of fantasy? That's surprising. Perhaps "Western authors of fiction," then. Shimeru 08:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I've started a stub on the Nihon Ryakki - it's actually not that old. I managed to find one footnote in a JSTOR article which dated it to 1596, but I couldn't copy over the kanji. If you could...? --Gwern (contribs) 23:49 14 December 2006 (GMT)
              • Perhaps I misconstrued from my source (Nozaki, which does have poor translation in areas). The records in the Nihon Ryakki, though, go back far further than that date; Nozaki quotes entries from as early as 803. Possibly what was meant wasn't "one of the oldest books of records" (as written), but "one of the books of the oldest records"? Entirely speculation on my part, though; I'll continue searching for sources. Will see whether I can copy the kanji over.Fg2 already has. Shimeru 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
                • The latter was my interpretation - I don't know what Ryakki translates to, but Nihon is apparently 'Records' or 'Chronicles', and those are not necessarily (in fact, you would expect them not to be) even relatively contemporary with the recorded events. Which is not to say that a Chronicle written or compiled 700 years after the putative event is likely to be accurate or very truthful... --Gwern (contribs) 03:52 15 December 2006 (GMT)

• Support: Now that the opening is clear and the premise framing the article is established, I see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured article. What more does one need to know about this subject? Encyclopedically, nothing, I suspect. Congratulations to Shimeru and the article's editors for a cleanly written, well-organised introduction to the subject. (A small point: I would like to see the fox photo removed or shifted down the page because the information that real foxes live in Japan isn't particularly arresting, to be replaced by a mythological depiction, for example the Prince Hanzoku one; the article could do with a couple more such, I think, if any are to be had.) qp10qp 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I've brought in a few more images from the Commons, and rearranged the ones that were already there. Fairly certain I could find another few if necessary, since creatures of folklore were a common subject of woodblock prints. Shimeru 00:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My objections have been addressed. A couple of further comments: Perhaps move some of the images to the left for some visual variety. I think the lead could be beefed up a bit, but it's not too important. I still advocate a move to a different title. But good work. --- BrianSmithson 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Oppose for now. I think this is a good piece, and it will probably make it through to featured on this nomination if the author continues to respond to comments here. Still, here are my concerns:
  • The structure is a bit disorganized. For example, the ability to assume human form is covered under both "Yokai" and "Physical characteristics". Likewise, several sections are quite stubby and should probably be merged. I'd suggest the following restructure: "Origins and etymology" (merge two sections), "Characteristics" (to include "Yokai", "Physical characteristics", "Powers", "'Star Balls'", and "Kitsunetsuki"), and "Portrayal" (which should merge in the information from "In fiction").
    • I think this has mostly be cleared up, however there are still a few issues. First, the "Origins of fox myths" section is a bit all over the place. We're told about China, Japan, China, Korea, India, all three, China, Korea, all three again, Japan . . . . Some rewriting is necessary, I think, to present the conflicting opinions. It seems these are that kitsune ultimately derive from Indian sources but spread to Japan; that they are native to Japan; and that they are native to Japan, but that they were influenced by Chinese and Korean stories that ultimately derive from India. Is this right?
      • Somewhat. There are really only two sides: one says that the concept is entirely imported, though it may have later developed in separate directions; the other says that the concept existed within Japan, and the myths that were imported modified and were modified by the purported original Japanese tales. It's agreed that, to some extent, there was importation. I've done a quick rewrite on that section to try to make that more clear and avoid the interruption in flow. Shimeru 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article needs a good copy edit; there's a lot of confusing and redundant language. I'll try to help out in this area, but I'd like to wait until the structure issues are addressed.
    • I've got the marked up printout. I'll try to do the revisions tonight.
  • Watch the scare quotes and be careful that when using words as words to use italics rather than quotation marks per WP:MOS.
  • The article currently mixes BC/AD and BCE/CE date terminology. This should be changed to consistently reflect the earliest style used on the article.
  • There's currently a mixture of past and present tense when describing kitsune beliefs, and this is quite confusing in places. For example, under "Kitsunetsuki", we're told that "Exorcism, often performed at an Inari shrine, induced a fox to leave its possessed host." However, we're later told that "Stories of fox possession are still known to appear . . . ." So do people no longer believe this or do they?
  • The "Other meanings" section seems to be simple trivia. The first two items should be merged into the body of the article, and the last four removed entirely (or placed at a disambiguation page if necessary). The fact that someone who looks like a fox is called kitsune or that there's a game called kitsune-ken in Japanese has nothing to do with fox spirits in Japanese folklore.
  • The "Etymology" section talks about fox-wives, but this is well before the concept of kitsune being able to assume human form has been introduced. Either clarify or move the example.
  • Watch the RPG/anime-speak. I have no idea if the author is an roleplayer or likes anime and manga, but words like "powers" read strangely to me in this context. Perhaps "magical abilities" or something would work better? This is mostly just a minor quibble though.
• Like I said, it's good work. It just needs some reorganization and copy editing and it will be good to go. — BrianSmithson 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Shuffled the text and categories around a bit to try to produce something more organized. Most of those sections were originally subsections; I'm not quite sure how that changed. I've eliminated a few of them, and changed others back to subsections. I think some of these are helpful ("Characteristics" is a wall of text without at least "Kitsunetsuki" in there). Dates are straightened out, and I've basically eliminated the word "powers." I'm not sure where to merge the information from "other meanings" -- there doesn't seem to be a good place to digress to discuss udon and soba. I could probably work up a short section on the weddings, but I'm not sure how much more there is to say. Will think about that a bit more. Article should be ready for copyediting, though, if you like. Shimeru 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking good. I've struck through some objections and elaborated on others. I have a couple of new concerns, though, from my second read-through:
      • Should the Chinese picture be moved to the origins section, since it is not an actual Japanese example?
      • There's quite a bit of weasely language. "It is a matter of debate", "Some scholars have suggested", "some sources say", etc. Can these be replaced with names of specific people? "Scholars such as So-and-So have suggested . . . ."
      • The web references need information about when the URL was last accessed. I think this applies to the Gutenberg text, since those are still being checked for transciption errors in some cases.
      • Regarding the "Other uses", I think I can spot main-article homes for three of the items, and I will attempt to move them there when I do the copy edit. Recommend deletion of the band and record label though, or if they're notable, a disambiguation page. As for the facial type, is it thought that such people have kitsune blood or are more likely targets for kitsune possession? If so, the section can be merged in with "Kitsunetsuki". If no, I recommend deletion, as it's simple trivia.
    • Sorry for being long-winded. -- 210.239.12.84 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (User:BrianSmithson, who was involuntarily logged out somehow)
      • • Got the dates in there (rechecked most of them, but left the date on the Project Gutenberg text, since I don't see any way of being sure that it hasn't changed, and I used it fairly extensively). No idea whether the band and record label are notable; searching doesn't turn up much, so I removed them. The facial type... well, I know of at least one folktale offhand that states that a transformed fox had this facial structure; it's in either Hearn or Nozaki, I don't remember offhand. Doesn't seem terribly important, but it's an interesting side note. Finally, I moved the image as you suggested and added a few specifics about the scholars. Shimeru 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that "it is a matter of debate" is weasely language in this context; quite the contrary: it is an unequivocal statement of fact. By all means ask for examples from the debate, but it will still be a debate. It is good article-writing to note matters of debate, and, in my opinion, it is often better to reference secondary sources that say something is a matter of debate than to try to recreate the debate by quoting the various scholars, since Wikipedia is a tertiary medium.

It is perfectly good practice to use terms such as "it is a matter for debate" or "some scholars say" if you follow those points with references to books or articles which summarise or quote the debate and the scholars, as this section of the article impeccably does. In fact, one scholar's summary of the debate is used to end the section — rather elegantly, in my opinion: "Inari scholar Karen Smyers has noted that the idea of the fox as seductress and the connection of the fox myths to Buddhism were introduced into Japanese folklore through similar Chinese stories, but she also maintains that some fox stories contain elements unique to Japan." qp10qp 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean on the phrase "It is a matter of debate", but disagree with the eloquence. The whole section is confusing and needs to better identify and present the two or three conflicting schools of thought. -- BrianSmithson 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Okay, my remaining objections remain un-struck through above. In addition, some more weaselly language that should be cleaned up:
      • "another classifies kitsune according to their supernatural powers." Is it possible to elaborate on this? It's pretty vague.
      • "some sources say that a fox will only grow . . . . " Can we say which sources? Or provide an example? (If these sources are folk tales, I remove the objection.)
      • "In the late 19th century, one doctor noted . . . . " Do we have a name for him?
      • "There is speculation as to whether. . . . " Who speculates about this?
      • Currently, we have two cites in the lead that give information not repeated in the body. This information should be repeated in the body somewhere, and the cites should be migrated to these mentions.
    • I think we're getting very close now. — BrianSmithson 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (Added another item at 13:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

I think I've addressed all of the above. In most cases, it only took the addition of a word or two, or changing one word to another. (The sources of your second point, for instance, were folktales, and I changed the word accordingly.) Also added a brief explanation of the marriage in the etymology section; I don't believe moving the example would be a good solution, since it's there to illustrate the folk etymology. If it's still too confusing, though, it could fit beneath 'Wives and Lovers' -- in fact, that's where it used to be, before the restructuring. That layout, though, doesn't make as much sense with 'Etymology' at the top of the article instead of following 'Portrayal.' Shimeru 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object — Needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples of why.
  • Tell me, why are simple chronological items linked? For example, 4th century is really useful: it talks of Armenia, Constantine I, Saint Augustine of Hippo, in fact, a whole host of early Christian characters .... And why are dictionary terms linked, such as "skull", "magical", "shadow" and "dogs"?
  • "This etymology is acknowledged as false, but it remains widely known.7" — Odd.
  • "all foxes who live for a sufficiently long time may gain supernatural abilities" — "All" and "may"?
  • "Supernatural abilities commonly attributed to the kitsune include, in addition to shapeshifting, possession, the generation of fire or lightning from their tails or the ability to breathe fire (known as kitsune-bi, literally fox-fire), manifestation in dreams, flight, the ability to become invisible, and the creation illusions so elaborate as to be almost indistinguishable from reality." What's supernatural about appearing in dreams? "Flight" looks stubby in this list. Isn't it an ability too? "Creation illusions"?

Tony 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply Well, taking these in order:
    • Context for further reading. Go ahead and unlink them if you feel they shouldn't be linked, but considering a previous objection was that there weren't enough wikilinks, this seems like a no-win situation.

No thanks, you delink them. Wikilink only where the reader is led to focused, useful information. Avoid linking common words.

But you're the one saying some of these links are not focused or useful. Personally, I would consider "magic" relevant to a discussion of magical creatures. I've unlinked the ones I feel aren't relevant, as well as the dates.

• • • Odd? Maybe, but it's a perfectly true statement. It's a folk etymology: it's false, it's known to be false, and it's a widespread story anyway. I cited the source, so you can double-check it if you like.

No, I'm only concerned with the language. I think a stronger contrastive than "but" is requred here. Perhaps ", despite its being widely known"; but there's tension between "acknowledged" and "known". See if you can reword to avoid that.

Done.

• • • Yes, that is correct. I assume you're objecting to the word "may." Its omission changes the meaning of the full sentence, but I'm reasonably certain, based on the folklore, that it would remain true, so I've made the change.

No, remove "all" and retain "may". Tony 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Will sleep on it. I think that might make it less clear, since the point of the paragraph is that all foxes are believed to have this potential. They have only to live long enough. (This is a common theme in Japanese folklore.) Shimeru 08:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Was more worried about over-repetition of "the ability to," but I moved flight toward the front so it won't look so out of place. I honestly don't know what to say about "What's supernatural about appearing in dreams?" -- I've never gone visiting other people's dreams, have you? And I added the missing "of," thanks.
  • I understand BrianSmithson has a copyedit in progress. Hopefully that will help; I think I might be too close to the prose to see some of the issues that are being mentioned. Shimeru 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead starts confusing: 'kistune, or foxes' - so are they real foxes or is the same word used for both foxes and those spirtis? A read can easily be confused. The article also seem list heavy near the end, and there are tiny paragraps which is not a good style.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure it's the latter - Kitsune in one context can refer to real foxes, an in others it can refer to the mythological ones. Raul654 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • True. Had changed the opening statement because it was felt that stating "Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox" was misleading. Have made the definition a parenthetical instead of comma-offset in an attempt to address. In Japanese the word is used for both real and folkloric foxes; in English, it refers to the folklore. Will attempt to clarify further tomorrow, when I have more time. Shimeru 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, kitsune has both those meanings. The primary meaning of kitsune is simply "fox" (the mammals) and the other meanings discussed in the article are all secondary. This article does not include the primary meaning in its contents; it only contains secondary meanings. It should be retitled to match its contents. An article with the title "Kitsune" that's about foxes in Japanese culture is like an article with the title "moon" that's about a display of bare buttocks. Or an article named "Star" that's about the typographical symbol.
    • During Peer Review, I suggested the title "Foxes in Japanese folklore." I avoided the word kitsune because I advocate choosing English titles. In fact, that's the only suggestion I made during Peer Review, because I think it's a great article! With an appropriate title, it'll have my support. Fg2 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The difference between this article and your examples is that, in this case, the secondary meaning is not divorced from the primary meaning. (In fact, when the word is used in English, the "secondary" meaning is the primary meaning.) It's more akin to an article like Cygnus, which discusses the secondary meaning -- the constellation -- along with the primary. But in this case, there's no need to discuss the primary Japanese meaning, since we have Fox. If there's concensus for a move, I suppose that's fine, but I do think kitsune is both the more appropriate and the more consistent (relative to other Japan-related articles) title. Shimeru 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Now I'm confused. In English, the only meaning of Cygnus listed in m-w.com is the constellation. It's not in OED. So of course the Wikipedia article with that title is on the constellation; there's no other meaning. By contrast, "kitsune" is not an English word, even though it has been used in some works translated into English. It's not in m-w.com or OED. The only citation in Britannica Online is Kitsune, with a capital K, used as a proper name (like Reynard). It doesn't have an article of its own; it's in a single article on a related topic. Maybe some day it will become English, and maybe even soon, but it isn't now. So I remain convinced that the article title "Kitsune" does not indicate the contents. Fg2 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Of course there's another meaning. The constellations (in Western tradition, at least) are derived from Greek mythology. I am also not convinced by the proposition that the title, simply by virtue of being non-English, does not indicate the contents. It's a particularly interesting case in that what you cite as the secondary definition was the primary definition of the word -- although the modern usage should take precedence over the archaic. In any case... as I said, I won't contest if there's consensus for a move, although I don't favor one. (And, I admit, I don't look forward to the prospect of moving all those other articles.) Shimeru 01:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support now, much better.Rlevse 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've just staggered image formatting. Additionally should there be a See also section for this article.--ZayZayEM 03:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)