Talk:Yūrei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Globalisation[edit]

Somebody just put a globalise tag on the article. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit silly? We're talking a Japanese phenomenon here - how do you globalise it? What exactly would that look like? TomorrowTime (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Yurei are pretty specific to Japanese mythology...I think the tag is inappropriate. Anyone against removing it?MightyAtom (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yank it, sez I. — Dulcem (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, removed. Removed the references tag too, since there is a reference (multiple references and direct citations would be an improvement, but it's not worth a big warning sign). — Gwalla | Talk 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitaikakushi[edit]

Japanese wikipedia says it's called "天冠" or "三角頭巾." No source could be found in Japanese google search results on "額隠" being the thing that yurei wear. --61.198.215.134 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Zashiki-warashi[edit]

The "Media" section mentions in xxxHolic there is a zashiki-warashi, which is not a ghost at all but a type of youkai monster. I was under the impression that in order to be a yuurei, one must have died? Eleraama (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No Footnotes[edit]

I'm adding a "No footnotes" tag to this article because despite the fact that it list multiple references, there are no in-line citations. These are important so we can determine the reliability of the statements made in the article. Someone who is a regular editor of this article or who has a knowledge of the topic or sources should go through and add in-line citations using the "ref" tags or parenthetical citations (aka "Harvard style"). I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to this, but I am a big believer that Wikipedia can and should be taken seriously, and formatting the articles so that they meet certain academic standards. This article isn't poorly written in a semantic sense, but it could do with some formatting. Also, I would be happier with more peer-reviewed sources, but that's just me, so I won't nit-pick that issue. Arekusu (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)