Talk:Namazu

Moving Links and Names

On the List of legendary creatures from Japan page there was a single external link after Namazu's name, added after the fact, which seemed more appropriate here. Also, on that page at least, it is referred to as Jishin-namazu. Duende-Poetry (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Catfish versus catfish

I think the name of the Japanese giant catfish that supposedly causes earthquakes is Ōnamazu (大鯰) not just namazu (鯰), which is the name for the ordinary (real) catfish. This is corroborated by the Japanese equivalent of this Wikipedia page here: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E9%AF%B0. I guess this means that this article should be renamed. AlanSiegrist (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the example on the French version of this page, I just added Ōnamazu (大鯰) as an alternate name. This might suffice without changing the name of the page. I think the association between the ordinary catfish (namazu) and earthquakes is well-established in the Japanese psyche, so just Namazu also implies the mythical giant catfish and earthquakes too. AlanSiegrist (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RedChocobo's joking around?

Pretty sure that the voice file shouldn't be here. But I guess having one's better than none? SoreThumb (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is my voice. If I were joking around I think I'd do something a little funnier than reading what is actually on the page. RedChocobo 08:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is your normal voice, why do you feel the need to apologize for it? Commandur (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing against in the WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia guidelines that states that speakers have to have a Mid-Western accent; all there are general instructions to try to maintain as clear pronunciation as possible. I don't see any issue with this audio being on the page just because the originator has an atypical voice; he's reading the page as it was written at the time of upload. --68.106.244.246 (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, multiple different users over many months have removed the audio file, simply because most people can see that the article was not read in good faith. Instead, the user is trying to make a mockery of SpokenWikipedia and has chosen a relatively obscure article in order to get his kicks -- Wikipedia is not a place to "have fun"; it is a free, educational resource. His accent is not "atypical" -- it is completely fake and, therefore, completely unacceptable. He should re-read the article in his actual voice if he wants to contribute.68.224.232.34 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly does it state that Spoken Wikipedia requires a standard accent? Do you have any proof or evidence / are capable of demonstrating which guidelines this is exactly violating? Regardless of how the speaker sounds (and I have in fact known people who have very unusual ways of speaking due to accident, malady, or deformity), I literally see no indications that this is violating the "good faith" requirements with how it was presented. It covers the article as it was at the recorded date in totality, without exclusion. That the speaker has an atypical accent hardly violates this. Are English speakers from outside the US not allowed to participate? How about people with defects? Injuries? Absolutely nowhere in the Spoken Wikipedia guidelines does it say that such people are disallowed from participating, other than requirements on clarity and quality, which this meets. Can you indicate exactly what guidelines this entry is violating, and cite it as is expected as part of the Spoken Wikipedia project? Simply removing audio because of distaste for how the speaker sounds reeks of potential bad faith itself (or a misplaced understanding of general Spoken Wikipedia requirements). That several users have removed the audio in the fact of several users undoing such removal doesn't indicate much at all. 70.171.211.18 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to play the "Where's the restriction?" game with you. You know, as well as many others who have removed the recording on numerous occasions, that the individual who posted the recording did not read the article in a way that would edify users of Wikipedia; as I stated before, they chose this particular article to upload a joke recording in order to make a mockery of and abuse SpokenWikipedia. IT WAS NOT UPLOADED IN GOOD FAITH TO ASSIST PEOPLE WHO ARE VISION-IMPAIRED! PERIOD! Yes, that other users have removed the recording -- as well as saw fit to create this section of the talk page to talk about it at all -- is ample proof that they were not as excited as you are about the quality of the recording. In fact, I urge you to actually listen to the recording itself: the user is not merely reading the article in that ridiculous voice; he is also making comments about the article that are completely unnecessary. In order for people to respect Wikipedia as an educational website, it is paramount that recordings marring a page like this one be removed. If the user would like to upload a "properly read" recording of the article, they are free to do so. And by "properly read", that would not preclude users with non-American English accents; it does preclude, however, users reading the article in fake voices and adding commentary. I believe that is entirely reasonable.68.224.232.34 (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the audio has in fact even been reviewed already as part of Spoken Wikipedia's formal review process for audio submissions. So it was already formally OK'd by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. I undid the removal of the audio. Any further vandalization and the page will be reported up the chain for restriction. 70.171.211.18 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I undid your undoing of my removal of the audio because the audio is inappropriate. It is not vandalism to remove a recording that is inappropriate. Again, that user -- or anyone else -- is encouraged to re-record the recording read in his proper, normal voice WITHOUT the addition of unnecessary commentary. Apparently you are one of the few individuals who believe that the recording was "funny" (which it is not -- proof of your sad, puerile humor); it will continue to be removed if re-added.68.224.232.34 (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Namazu recording has NOT yet been reviewed [[1]] and, as such, has not been "approved". Please submit the audio file for review if you believe that Wikipedia would allow it to be on the page. I can guarantee it will be unapproved if this site has any plans on continuing to be an educational tool in the near future.68.224.232.34 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Audio no longer matches text on page

Audio file no longer matches the text on the page and has been removed due to confusion. Also, the voice is screechy with uneven pitch / intonation, is assuredly "put on", and contains unnecessary commentary, thus having no use to vision-impaired users of the website.68.224.232.34 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

River Monsters

The Namazu was featured in an episode of River Monsters, "Cold-Blooded Horror". The episode even offers the explanation of catfish sensing impending seismic activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.73.77 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)