Talk:Paper fortune teller

Headline text

It's not clear why the device is called a "cootie catcher", though, since the activity has nothing to do with "catching" cooties (imaginary or otherwise). --ESP 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think the name of the article should be changedWacoJacko 05:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of the term Cootie Catcher

I'm from Seattle area USA and I've never heard of these things being called "cootie catchers." We always called em "fortune tellers."

Same here, I grew up in the Northeast USA and I never heard that term for this type of toy.WacoJacko 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's always been know as cootie catchers.

-G

What do you mean all ways been known as a cootie catcher? Known where? Obviously, it sounds like there are a good amount of people who have not heard the term, so it isn't universal. It sounds more like some local term. I think the article should be moved to a more universally recognizable nameWacoJacko 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Where I'm from we've always called them fortune tellers, but once when I talked to my teacher they used to call them cootie catchers before calling them fortune tellers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.84.205 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Other countries

Wow.. I'm amazed. Cootie catchers are called 동서남북 (Dong-Seo-Nam-Buk, literally East-West-South-North) in Korea. Children use it to play, in much the same way. --Kjoonlee 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In Chinese

• 東南西北 (Dong-Nam-Xi-Bei; East-South-West-North)

There's a children's rhyme that goes with it in Taiwan:

東南西北恰北北

打破玻璃要你賠

叫你媽媽給我擦皮鞋

East-South-West-North gets angry.

You break the glass and you pay for it.

Let your mom polish my shoes.

That's all. -- Toytoy 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Name Change???

The term cootie catcher seems to be a local term. I grew up in the Northeastern USA as well as the Midwest and I know I never heard it this toy referred to as a cootie catcher(I all ways heard fortune teller). I propose that the name of the article be changed to something that more people have heard of. Also, the article does not explain why this toy is called a cootie catcher.WacoJacko 05:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because you were out of the loop we have to change the article? It;s always been know as cootie cathers.

-G

known to you? It obviously sounds like other people know this toy be other names. The term cootie catcher sounds like a local term. Also, you might want to sign your posts by putting four of these ~~

WacoJacko 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a matter of earth-shattering importance (!), so I cannot resist weighing in. A close female friend of mine (I'm male) who grew up in Tennessee in the 1960's and 1970's knew this device as a "cootie-catcher". Doing a little web searching, I found numerous references to the device by this name. Most impressive, I think, there is a published book, The Cootie Catcher Book, by Klutz, Inc. (ed.), published in 1998, ISBN-10: 1570541310, ISBN-13: 978-1570541315. It is available on amazon.com--currently (October 2007) in print. So I would say this appears to be a fairly well-known name for the device in the United States, going back at least to the 1960's. What to call the article though? I just don't see any other unique names that are well-known. Fortune teller? That seems like it deserves an entry on a disambiguation page, nothing more. "Cootie-catcher" does seem to be the only unique English designation of this sophisticated device with a long and proud heritage among the folk. (Note. I am not the anonymous user above.)--Cotinis 01:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a name change is definately in order. I've always known these as fortune tellers and origami books I've read always list them as either fortune tellers or salt cellars (apparently you can place them upside-down and put salt in the corner pockets). Cooties aren't even heard of in most of the world outside of US television which just adds to the ambiguity of the term cootie catcher.

I propose something like fortune teller (origami) or paper fortune teller. Antisora 14:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I can say it's not a cootie catcher where I grew up in Texas. Hadn't heard the name unitl Wikipedia. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We said "cootie catcher" in Arizona in the 70's. Perhaps this term is being forgotten? It's definitely not "local". Benwing (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The term has most definitely almost been forgotten. I you ask your average kid today if they've heard of a cootie catcher they'll probabally not know what it is unless they're parents told them the name cootie catcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.84.205 (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fable2 Teaser

Theres one in the Fable 2 teaser: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.37.25 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NAME CHANGE

It sounds like multiple people here are in favor of relocating this article to a new name(one that is known by more than just a few people in a local area.) I know that I am. WacoJacko 05:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one is opposed to it, I shall change the name next week to paper fortune teller (like paper plane). If you disagree please give a reason below. Antisora 13:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why it's called that

They've been Bowdlerized from their original purpose, which was children humiliating each other. If you grasp the thing with four fingers, one under each flap, you can open it two different ways by spreading your fingers either horizontally or vertically. (Practice the Vulcan salute.) These alternate spreadings look almost the same, but reveal two different sets of surfaces. Open it to reveal clean, white surfaces. Close it and open it the other way while rubbing it on the head of your victim. Show him the new surfaces, covered with drawings of grotesque little creatures. For maximal effect, don't use drawings. (From southern New Jersey Grammar schools, ca 1951.) 67.150.246.157 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Bill Gosper

"Original purpose"? Seems unlikely considering the design has probably been around as long as readily available square paper has, which is a fair bit earlier than 1951, and that the usage is generally along the lines of fortune teller or spice/salt holder outside of the US. Antisora 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill sounds like he's got the best origin so far, Cootie catchers are the term in Michigan. MMetro (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:NOT violation

Can someone explain how the visual explanation of how to make the fortune teller is not a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO? Teaching people how to make arts and crafts is not our purpose here. I'll remove it unless someone can explain what I'm missing. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't read like a construction manual. However the construction is a very notable one so I believe the article should describe how it is constructed. So really what I think should be done is to change the descriptions under the pictures. to describe the steps rather than telling people how to do it. Also the bit about cutting the end off an A4 sheet is not all that relevant. Dmcq (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq. It's written very unencyclopedically now, but we should at least include some description of its construction. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD attempt at changing the tone of the material:[2] Siawase (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds much more like an encyclopedia, thanks. That's fairly horrible in a discussion above about using it to catch creepie crawlies in people's hair ... I must try that out ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Papyromancy be merged into Paper Fortune Teller. I think that the content in the Foo article can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and the Bar article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is on a specific origami shape, with multiple uses, only some of which involve papyromancy. On the other hand, the papyromancy article (although in worse shape) is on the general concept of papyromancy, only some forms of which involve this origami shape. There is no single topic that would encompass both all forms of papyromancy and all uses of this origami shape. Therefore, unless you are proposing to entirely get rid of the badly-sourced parts of the papyromancy article leaving only the parts dealing with this shape, I don't think the merger is feasible. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see papyromancy as defined has nothing at all to do with an origami fortune teller. I think the article on papyromancy should be deleted as there is too little material on it to make an article, it is currently just a definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is a line about it in Methods of divination and unless some good source about it giving details can be found that is I believe the most there should be in Wikipedia. There just is not the same sort of sources as for reading entrails or tea leaves or palms or clouds. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Cooties

Human louse links directly to the article "human louse", which seems pretty clear. Hyacinth (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein, please talk about the article and not me. See: Wikipedia:Personal attacks and WP:Ownership. Hyacinth (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That was intended as humor, not as an attack. Your bizarre and incomprehensible phrasing "used as a pincer to play-act catching human louse such as lice" made me think of human-sized lice, and from there to Kafka. Regardless, it was a bad edit and reverting it was the correct thing to do. Your latest variation "lice or body louse" is only marginally less bad, and you have not supplied a source for your claims of the meaning of "paku-paku" in connection with this shape, which is much more likely a reference to the Pacman game than to how the Pacman game itself was named. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I think you know better, and, if you don't, you should read up on the issue. I am not up for discussion, because this is not an encyclopedia about me, and this article is not about me. It doesn't matter if your insult was a joke, it was a personal attack because it was in any way personal and not about the article in way, shape, or form. An accepted term such as "human louse" may make you think about "human lows", but what any one person thinks isn't what this article is about. Hyacinth (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "paku-paku" there is a citation to an article, and you allowed a link to a bold article title before I made an edit but only objected after. If my explanation is incorrect, why is it called "paku-paku" and what does "paku-paku" mean? Hyacinth (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I know better than to attempt humor because Wikipedia is very serious business and other editors might fail to recognize it as humor? Ok.

As for paku-paku: There is a citation for the paper fortune teller being named "paku-paku". The claim you added is that it was named paku-paku because this is a Japanese term for opening and closing one's mouth. This seems unlikely. It is more likely to me that Pacman was originally named paku-paku for the reason you gave (this is easily sourced), and that the paper fortune teller has been called paku-paku because it resembles the Pacman video game character. It was the reason for the name, added by you, that I requested a source for, not the name itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, PLEASE STOP adding wordings like "lice or louse", "human louse such as lice", "lice or body louse", etc. It is redundant. They are different words for the same thing. Repeating them doubly in the same sentence, twice in a row, again a second time, and two times, with a more specific variant and with inconsistant singular-plural, just ends up looking illiterate rather than informative. Since it appears you are over the edit-warring limit with the number of times you have done this, instead of continuing to edit-war with you myself, I am going to ask you here to please restore the original wording, both so that the article is restored to proper grammar and sense, and so that you do not fall afoul of our edit-warring policy, which could subject you to blocks if you continue. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please following the links to both cooties and body louse if you are to determine their redundancy. Why were you okay with an against policy bold title link before me, but opposed it after me (keep in mind that the link explains the similarity, but is completely unexplained without a link)? If you want to personally fight about policy I will continue to cite policy, and you'll continue to make general arguments without reference to policy, which I would not recommend. Obviously, my having not used a reversion, until you asked me to, but having modified my edits each time makes my edits in no way applicable to the three revert rule (compare stabbing someone with a trident with stabbing a person with one blade three times). Hyacinth (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Because I didn't notice that the link in the bold title was problematic earlier? If I had noticed it earlier, I would have removed it earlier. Also, compare "Using tridents to stab people three times, such as Neptune's trident". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also re your claims that "play-act catching insects such as lice, hence the 'cootie catcher' name." is somehow vague, with the given reason "Do children act out and/or believe in fictions? If they do either, why?": obviously you didn't grow up in the US or you would not even think to ask such a question. When I did, at the time I did, at kindergarten/elementary school ages, it was common for children to avoid touching certain other children (often of the opposite sex), saying that it was because they had "cooties" and that if you touched them you'd catch their cooties. This could turn into a kind of game of tag, where the person with cooties would try to touch as many people as possible. I don't think I knew at the time that this had any connection to insects, as it apparently did at an even earlier time when such infestations were more common. I only knew that it was contagious, that you wanted to avoid it, and that it was entirely pretend. Why? Because it was a tradition handed down from earlier years of children at the same schools. I suppose you could also use this paper device to protect your fingers from touching while pretending to pick at the pretend cooties on a pretend-infected child. I don't remember seeing this myself but I have very little trouble believing that it might have been common. I definitely did see the fortune-teller use of the same thing, again no doubt handed down through generations of youngsters, at an older age (pre-teen or teen). Wherever you happen to be from, did the children have no handed-down traditions of any sort? That seems unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paper fortune teller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

This short and entertaining article is carefully-written and fully-cited to good sources, so I shall have few comments to make on it.

• I was expecting to see Martin Gardner mentioned as he loved all such enjoyably metamagical objects. The British Origami Society states that the Salt Cellar / Bug Catcher / Fortune-teller is among Gardner's models. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It says he only reproduced known folds, but I added this to the history section, because it predates the other US citations I found.
    • Searching for more led me to a web page with many earlier precedents, which I used to expand this section a little. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Many thanks, that's what I had in mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• 'History' is not in chronological order. If there's no special reason why not, I'd suggest putting the second paragraph first (with a minor tweak to make the text work in that position) and merging the other two paragraphs.
  • Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• All the images appear to be correctly licensed.
• I struggled a bit with the horoscope image, but [23] does verify the main text, and the image does illustrate the layout.
• [16] names the colours and Bradley but not that it's the "Swarm" artwork. I think the claim needs an additional source.
  • Ok, I re-added a Getty Images source I was using prior to replacing it with this source.
    • Yes, that does the job.
• [7] works as a source via one of its images with caption. The last sentence in particular is verified by inspection of the image and a bit of induction. It would certainly be nice to have things sourced more explicitly, but on reflection I think this isn't a show-stopper.

• [13] verifies the claim made. I'd add that the shapes are illuminated in red and yellow to give the required effect.

• Other than that it's all good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A decorated paper fortune teller

• ... that origami fortune tellers (pictured) may have originated in Europe rather than Japan? Source: Hatori, https://books.google.com/books?id=E7LMBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA3
  • ALT1: ... that Sylvester Houédard translated a haiku into the form of a paper fortune teller? Source: Thomas, https://hdl.handle.net/1842%2F8867, p. 246
  • ALT2: ... that paper fortune tellers (pictured) have also been called cootie catchers, chatterboxes, salt cellars, and whirlybirds? Source: multiple; see article
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Campanile, Portmeirion

Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paper fortune teller; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: GA review was finished yesterday. Prose size is 4175 byte. All claims in the article have sources. They all seem to be reliable. ALT0 and ALT1 are supported by the sources. I don't have access to the sources of ALT2. WP:EARWIG shows 2 potential copyright violations. But they date back from after 2016 and the text in question is already found in the article in 2016, see [3]. I don't find ALT1 particularly interesting so I suggest we go with ALT0. If you prefer ALT2 then we would have to see what to do about the sources. A short google search seems to confirm the terms listed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: @Phlsph7 and David Eppstein: Interesting nomination and free image. No open image slots right now. On an Earwig check we have a 55.4% and I see the explanation. Bruxton (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)