Talk:Hanafuda

During play,

when a card is drawn from the deck, it is placed on the table face up. If this is not done, how will the players know which card to match it with?

I play the Korean variant of the game with subtle difference in play and scoring, so perhaps in the Japanese variant, the card is placed face down. -- 68.206.99.145 05:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Hanafuda

Saw a cleanup request for Hanafuda, and did a major rewrite on the history of Japanese card games, hopefully enough of one that pages for other, less popular card games can simply be linked to this one.

Thoughts? Dace K 20:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Name

I recently acquired a hanafuda deck, but the name on the box is Kwa-do. this site seems to refer to it as Hwa-t'u, Godori, GoStop, and Ha-to. Apparently, this game is known by many names. --Jsnow 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The name depends on the country where the cards are sold. But actually "GoStop" is the name of a game, not a name for the type of cards. This may be the case with other names you quoted. 203.217.22.128 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rules

... Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure the 'rules' section is entirely accurate. All the sites I've visited detailing koi-koi (including the linked Sloperama and Nintendo of Japan's site) play 8 cards per player, 8 on the field. The current rules listing (7 per player, 6 on the field) seems to be the dealing rules for hachi-hachi, with I'm not as familiar with. I guess I'll leave this for a few days so that maybe someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll edit this article with (what I understand to be the correct) koi-koi rules before long if no one voices any objections. I'm thinking a seperate rules listing for each of koi-koi and hachi-hachi? --71.124.58.37 06:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's verifiably wrong, then go in and change it. --Atkinson 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese or Korean cards in picture?

The picture in this article once had the caption, "Korean Hwatu cards," and it was changed to "Japanese Hanafuda cards," with the comment from the editor, "Korean cards look a little different." Now, these look identical to the Korean cards I've played with in real life and online. Also, when I search for pictures of Hanafuda cards, I get pictures that look a lot different from these while the pictures of Hwatu cards look exactly like this, or quite similar. If nobody tells me different, I'm going to change the caption back. Better still would be to find unprotected scans of verified Japanese Hanafuda cards, which I haven't got.--Atkinson 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's strange... the deck I have looks like the picture in the article, and I got them from Japan. Although it's kinda funny how that Wisteria card is upside down. ^^ --Cael 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone solved the problem by deleting the picture. 203.217.22.128 00:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The writing on the banners in the current set of images is in Japanese. The Korean versions would and do have Korean, specifically Hangul, writing. Note also that two cards from the Korean version are missing from the image. Why was Hwatu merged into this article? JimCubb (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we have some pictures

I am looking for interesting card designs and found this linked from the main "playing card" entry. You mention that the card designs are different, but you don't show any examples of these designs. I did find some examples through the links, but it would be nice if there were some examples of the cards displayed in the table in the Game Play - Cards section. I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure about the ownership of the images (or which are which :) ).

--Martin lester 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Tag

Please see WP:NOT for clarfication of why I added the tag to the rules section, especially WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #4: Instruction Manuals. The Kinslayer 11:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Half a month late, but here goes. I find it odd that a section describing the rules of play would be considered unencyclopedic. The way I see it, it's a definition of rules, which isn't quite an instruction manual. That is, it's not telling how to operate some object to achieve some desired effect (thus an instruction manual), and neither does it attempt to teach strategy (thus a tutorial/game guide/etc.). Besides that, entries in Wikipedia for specific other card games (such as the many variants of poker) have sections describing rules of play. They should, too: people who don't know how to play should be able to read the rules of play, which is really the most important part. An encyclopedia article about a simple game without such basic and crucial information is very lacking, I'd say. -Cael 09:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Found the relevent bit I was referring to at WP:NOT: While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

Looking at that, and then looking at was in the article, it did seem to pretty much be 'how to play' section. Links to different versions of the rules would be fine I'm sure, but telling people step-by-step how to play anything (cards games, computer games, board games etc etc) is definitly covered by WP:NOT meaning it shouldn't be in the article (as far as I see it anyway!) The Kinslayer 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I think by saying that the rules aren't official could open a problem with WP:OR as well (just pointing it out, nothing more though!) The Kinslayer 12:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Cael. This article seems to me to be very similar to the one for UNO ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNO_%28game%29 ) and other entries for card games 70.230.243.92 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • To be honest I agree when it's put like that. I'll remove the tag, otherwise I'd have to say the same about Uno. The Kinslayer 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note about Korean cards

They are slightly different... the number of them, how they are played and the jokers tend to amount to more than the Japanese version. I have a link for reference... --66.215.18.156 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided is excellent. It matches my deck, and the style of play I played in Korea. 67.174.157.126 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)--

Which begs the question of why Hwatu redirects here rather than having its own article. JimCubb (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hanafuda, Hanafura, Hanapua

I am not 100% sure about this but i believe that in Japan this game is called Hanafura and in Hawaii, Hanapua. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.244.34.93 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

-- I learned the game in Hawaii when I was working as an aviation electronic tech during night shifts with local hires (mostly Okinawan Japanese). During breaks in the lunch room I saw these guys animatedly playing a card game with stiff little brown rectangular cards. I got to asking them what kind of game they were playing and they told me it was "Hanafuta", and volunteered to teach me the game if I wanted to join them. I did, and they did. Afterwards I also played the game with my ranching relatives on the Big Island of Hawaii. They told me that they played it often with their friends; they were very familiar with how to play the game, and they too called it "Hanafuta". Now being curious about the subject of whether the game is called "Hanafuda", "Hanafuta", "Hanafura" or the Hawaiian "Hanapua", I used my old friend "Google Translate" [translate.google.com] to tell me which of those Japanese "Romaji" words it thought was the most correct English translation. After a number of iterations between Japanese, Korean, Hawaiian, and English the answers my translator tutor gave me were this: Japanese "Hanafuda" means "flower card", with a notation that it is a noun referring to "floral playing cards"; "Hanafuta" translates as "flower cover" with no additional notes. And the only difference between the two versions is that two Japanese Kanji characters (also shown by my friend Google) for "-da" and a single Chinese glyph for "-ta". My old friend had no definitions at all for either "Hanafura" or Hawaiian "Hanapua"; this is its usual way of telling me that it couldn't find those two words in any of its rather extensive Japanese, Korean, and Hawaiian dictionaries. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Koi Koi rules

It seems that the rules to koi koi are off in a few places here. Although the rules do seem to vary from place to place, it seems that in the standard Japanese game of koi koi, calling koi-koi and getting another yaku does not double the score as stated. It only doubles if the opponent beats you to the punch. The only thing calling koi-koi does is allow you to score more points, not double your score. This seems to hold true in most video game console or computer versions of the game, along with being confirmed in other rule sites.

Also, another important rule that was left out is that the your score can be doubled if you get more than 7 points in a round. Obakedake 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosutop

Gosutop (Go-stop/[Gostope]) should be added to one of the lists of games played with hanafuda. It is the largest game played in Korea that uses the Hadafuda (or Hwatu) cards. Please consider adding it to this article. The Korean article for Gosutop is: ko:고스톱. Amphitere 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo Request

I removed the photo request because the current photo seems to fulfill the request. If I am wrong, please revert. --Torsodog^Talk 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T HUATU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.219.155 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rules clarification request

The rules section (hiki paragraph) mentions use of a "storm card" but this term is not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.66.25 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Confettis

What is the meanig of the confettis on some cards (for example on january ribbon) ? Nojhan (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

November/December swapped

I have swapped the entries for the cards for November and December around. Rainman/Willow is November; and Phoenix/Paulownia is December (also, credits on the final month).

This is verifiable from a scan of the rules (in Japanese) that you can see at http://www.heyrick.co.uk/blog/images/20110729koikoi_rules_two.jpeg

These rules are from an official Nintendo Hanafuda deck purchased in Japan in 2010.

HeyRick1973 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Update - I've found where the November/December swap originates. It's the Korean form of Hanafuda (with extra Joker cards not found in Japanese versions); as described at http://www.sloperama.com/gostop/cards.html

HeyRick1973 (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lacking of 2 pictures of cards?

There are 48 cards but only 46 pictures in the "card" part. It lacks 1 of January and 1 of March. The march one is a 20 point card. Why are they missing? I found the picture in the source code pack of PySolFC (http://pysolfc.sourceforge.net). It's a GPL software. Is it OK to upload them? Inufuusen (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the 2 pictures were deleted due to copyright violation. Does it mean GPL is not enough for the pictures? Inufuusen (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Game rules Section

I was reading the article and it had a section on the game rules. I think it should be dropped as presumably the links to the games in the games section each contain the rules to those games. I will take it out in two weeks if no one objects to it.

Catzilla4 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Catzilla4

Yes, there is a Rules section. Please specify what other section of this article you believe already contains this information. Are you referring to the Variants section or the External links section? I see no reason to remove the Rules section. — Myasuda (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the games in "Variants" section (with the possible exception of Hachi which just links to this page) contain the rules to each of the games. I was thinking that since those were there, it should be removed from here. Maybe given the fact that Hachi links here, those are the rules for it. To me, for consistency, the rules for each game should be in the game's article. Catzilla4 (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Catzilla4

This article just lists the vanilla version of Hanafuda rules, and that's fine. The "variants" use the same deck, but describe different games. That's why those articles need to specify their own special rules. — Myasuda (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While I still disagree, I can see your point. To me, it would be a bit like having rules to Western playing cards, which doesn't work as the rules for example War, Poker, and Crazy Eights are too different to generalize much. As a result, I will leave it in for now unless I find there are games played with Hanafuda have rules wildly different from the ones described.Catzilla4 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Catzilla4

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Hanafuda 1-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 1-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 1-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 1-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 10-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 10-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 10-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 10-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 11-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 11-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 11-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 11-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 12-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 12-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 12-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 12-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 2-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 2-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 2-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 2-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 3-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 3-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 3-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 3-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 4-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 4-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 4-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 4-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 5-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 5-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 5-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 5-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 6-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 6-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 6-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 6-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 7-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 7-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 7-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 7-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 8-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 8-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 8-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 8-4.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 9-1.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 9-2.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 9-3.svg (discussion)
• Hanafuda 9-4.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hanafuda b1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Kintengu 01c.png
• Kintengu 01d.png
• Kintengu 01h.png
• Kintengu 01s.png
• Kintengu 02c.png
• Kintengu 02d.png
• Kintengu 02h.png
• Kintengu 02s.png
• Kintengu 03c.png
• Kintengu 03d.png
• Kintengu 03h.png
• Kintengu 03s.png
• Kintengu 04c.png
• Kintengu 04d.png
• Kintengu 04h.png
• Kintengu 04s.png
• Kintengu 05c.png
• Kintengu 05d.png
• Kintengu 05h.png
• Kintengu 05s.png
• Kintengu 06c.png
• Kintengu 06d.png
• Kintengu 06h.png
• Kintengu 06s.png
• Kintengu 07c.png
• Kintengu 07d.png
• Kintengu 07h.png
• Kintengu 07s.png
• Kintengu 08c.png
• Kintengu 08d.png
• Kintengu 08h.png
• Kintengu 08s.png
• Kintengu 09c.png
• Kintengu 09d.png
• Kintengu 09h.png
• Kintengu 09s.png
• Kintengu 10c.png
• Kintengu 10d.png
• Kintengu 10h.png
• Kintengu 10s.png
• Kintengu 11c.png
• Kintengu 11d.png
• Kintengu 11h.png
• Kintengu 11s.png
• Kintengu 12c.png
• Kintengu 12d.png
• Kintengu 12h.png
• Kintengu 12s.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• The eighth month hanafuda cards.png
• The eleventh month hanafuda cards.png
• The fifth month hanafuda cards.png
• The first month hanafuda cards.png
• The fourth month hanafuda cards.png
• The ninth month hanafuda cards.png
• The second month hanafuda cards.png
• The seventh month hanafuda cards.png
• The sixth month hanafuda cards.png
• The tenth month hanafuda cards.png
• The third month hanafuda cards.png
• The twelfth month hanafuda cards.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Tanjiro Kamodos Ear rings

Tanjiro the main Character of Demon slayer wears ear rings that look like the playing cards they are made out of glass with what looks like an ocean or a hill with a sun set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.196.26 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Card Art & Coloration

A change was made by an IP user that altered all the card art on the page to be closer to Nintendo’s own color scheme on their hanafuda. As the person who made the art, I feel like I should give some information as to why I did it the way I did, and I think this change is worth discussing, especially when considering the various card image removal (as seen above on the Talk page). I think the best practice is to represent hanafuda as a whole, which is wide, varied, and can be so many different styles and colors. By changing their color scheme back toward the darker Nintendo color scheme, it ceases to be representative of other hanafuda, and starts to relate more to Nintendo than any other manufacturer, I also think there’s a smaller chance that anyone will take issue with them and want to remove them if they are more different. Lastly, as there are extra suits that were created with additional colors by other manufacturers, creating a color scheme that belongs to no manufacturer but instead is suited for the concept allows these to look good with the rest. Ultimately, I think it’s in the best interest of the page and educating others that the card art does not look too close to any particular manufacturer, just as the “standard 52 card deck” images on Wikipedia look nothing like any manufacturer’s actual cards. Louie Mantia (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

makes sense to me. Just change it back. – ishwar  (speak) 03:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not talking about Nintendo's Hanafuda. The green color used for pine trees and other parts of the Hanafuda is unique to Matsui Tengu-do, and no other manufacturer uses it. I strongly feel that you should use images of typical Hanafuda, not the Hanafuda that Louie Mantia personally finds most attractive.　sukejo (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your claim about the usage of colour green is not accurate. To name just two: Tamura Shogundo and Suzuki Tengudo both have green in their Hanafuda designs. There are countless more examples, both modern and vintage.

Personally I think it's a good idea to represent Hanafuda in as generic a way as possible, so not using a specific colour scheme like the Nintendo one. Much like Playing cards are best represented generically rather than, say, using a Bicycle deck. There is much more to Hanafuda than that seen through a Nintendo lens. Thinking that green is unique to one set of Hanafuda could be considered proof that your view of Hanafuda is too narrow. —Flicky1984 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Suzuki Tengu-do is not a real manufacturer of Hanafuda. It is an anonymous individual who is ripping off Matsui Tengu-do's design on a hobby level. I also think that a general design is preferable to a specific manufacturer's design. The green design is, after all, a design that has only been used by a specific manufacturer, not general. If you think that the black design is "Nintendo's design", it could be said you are showing your own narrow and uninformed view of Hanafuda (However, I don't think this is the best way to go about the discussion.). The black design is the general design used by all hanafuda makers, even Matsui Tengu-do: [1]. sukejo (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This reply (along with your other posts and removal of information without discussion) clearly identifies a personal bias about what you consider consider “real,” as if you are purporting to be the single authority of hanafuda. You have placed the word hanafuda in quotes to indicate your disdain for hanafuda you dislike and even went to far as to say one manufacturer is not a “real manufacturer” because you consider them a hobbyist.

You have now made several assertions about the supposed objectivity of what hanafuda is and isn’t while merely presenting your opinion. This concerns me because you have also made several accusations and (from my perspective) given them in a rather aggressive tone, while somehow accusing another user of having a "superior officer style” tone in the same breath as “It is not desirable to insult other editors.”

You’ve issued warnings, threats, and posted notices on a few pages, all which appear to be based on your feelings rather than facts. Louie Mantia (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s clear that the cards on this page are unmistakable as hanafuda regardless of color. As it has already been pointed out, several manufacturers use the color green in their hanafuda, both currently produced decks and historical decks. While the most-prominent manufacturers (Nintendo, Oishi Tengudo) use fewer colors, a broader range of color is commonly found in many other decks. I think this discussion about color raises a great point about what might be missing in this article: a visual depiction of the variety of hanafuda that exists. Not just in color, but in style. Louie Mantia (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Suzuki Tengu-do is only a hobby level individual, as I told Flicky1984 before. Tamura Shogun-do used to make something similar to Matsui Tengu-do's design, but their main line is black: [2]. When it comes to Hanafuda using the green design, none of the others are in Japan. However, the Hanafuda produced by Louie Mantia himself certainly uses green instead of black, doesn't it? [3] I would like to remind you again. If there is a WP:COI (which he hasn't admitted yet, so if it's not, I apologize), I would like to ask you to stop editing further.sukejo (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, who is and isn’t considered a “real” manufacturer is not decided by you. Also, it only takes perusing the Japan Playing Card Museum website to find several instances of green in hanafuda over the years, if you only care to look. It should be clear that neither Tamura Shogundo or Matsui Tengudo were the first to use green.

You can keep making accusations of supposed conflicts of interest, but so far all you’ve managed to accuse me of is using attributes of hanafuda (the color green?) that have existed before and are well documented. I’m not sure how that matters at all. Louie Mantia (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to say that I regret that my tone of voice, which Louie Mantia describes as "aggressive," came across as such. I'm sorry that it came across that way. I tried to be careful and write in polite language, but I'm using the help of automatic translation, so I'm not sure if that might have changed my tone. On the other hand, I have the impression that Louie Mantia is the one who is being aggressive, but I would like to get to the point, because discussing it will not help the discussion. I also appreciate and thank Louie Mantia for providing free Hanafuda material for Wikipedia. I would however appreciate it if you would stop calling me "threatening" you. It is highly regrettable. Proposing to take an issue through Wikipedia conflict resolving process can not be considered a WP:THREAT.

I don't mean to make fun of Suzuki Tengu-do at all, but a guy who has been posting to Twitter since last year, without disclosing his own name, company's name, address, or anything else, and not actually selling his Hanafuda anywhere, is on the same level as a "manufacturer" who only printed playing cards on Kickstarter in one shot　(This is not an indirect criticism of Louie Mantia, just an example). Of course, there is no mention of this "Suzuki Tengu-do" among reliable sources, not even on Japanplayingcardmuseum.com. When I call this hobby level, I am not making fun of it. If you look at his Twitter page [4], you can clearly see that he does this on his own as a side job, and only occasionally, and currently is not selling anything. That he choses to call himself "Suzuki Tengu-do" or "Kyoto Tengu-do" does not mean he is notable like other Tengu-do in Kyoto and actually I feel he is parasitisic of their reputation. I think it's an insult to the manufacturers to compare them with professional manufacturers that have been around for decades or centuries. To be honest, I didn't think this would be a point of contention at all. It shouldn't be a situation where you have to say something hostile like "Thankfully, who is and isn't considered a "real" manufacturer is not decided by you". Clearly he is not noteworthy.

Japanplayingcardmuseum.com is not a reliable source, so I don't know what kind of choice they are making, but even so I wondered how Louie Mantia could look at the scans on that site and say, "The black design is from Nintendo". Among the 80 Hanafuda scans, there are two Hanafuda that use green color in a way that is similar to the green Matsui Tengu-do design that Louie Mantia is pushing. Two "Late Musashi": [5][6]

There is another similar that is not a Hanafuda deck but copy from a book illustration. I think there were 3-4 other ones that used green in a very different naturalistically drawn way.

On the site there are however an astonishing 70+ Hanafuda cards from different manufacturers with black designs, including 4 decks from Matsui Tengu-do, which Louie Mantia still elects to call "Nintendo design".

This means that

(1) it is completely wrong to call the black design "Nintendo design" and

(2) Even if we exclude Nintendo and Oishi Tengu-do and many, many others, there is no mistaking the black color as the absolutively representative design of Hanafuda.

It's the same thing with green clubs in Western playing cards: four-color decks exist, but are they representative of Western playing cards, or would those colors be appropriate for the Wikipedia playing card template? No, of course not.

Don't you think so? If you don't think so, I would certainly like to know why.sukejo (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Once again, you have shown a disdain for information that does not match your view. You have decided what is and isn’t notable, real, or reliable. There’s no reason to believe Japanplayingcardmuseum.com is an unreliable source, so I’m unsure why you made that claim. Simply saying it doesn’t make it true. ~~~~ Louie Mantia (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are getting emotional and don't seem to be able to wrap your head around my arguments at all. I don't take any information lightly, and I wonder how well you understand Japanese, Louie Mantia. To be honest, I'm surprised that someone who doesn't understand Japanese would say "you don't understand as well as I do" about the reliability of a Japanese source. First, let me describe Japanplayingcardmuseum.com. "There's no reason to believe Japanplayingcardmuseum.com is an unreliable source" you told me. Louie Mantia seems to be stating that a reliable source is as if it is abstract. It appears to be. WP:RS, what do you think after reading it? First of all, there is no actual museum that calls itself "Japan Playing Card Museum" or "Nihon Karuta Bunka-kan" in Japanese, at least not in Japan. It seems that they just use that name as the name of their website. Next, there is no About page, which was available in the old version of the WebArchive, but even there, there is no information about the publisher or even the name of the owner of the site. The only thing I could find was a "Director" (館長) signature on everything. Needless to say, an unnamed "Director" (館長) of a non-existent museum is not something that would meet the requirements of WP:RS.

However, I put aside the question of whether or not Japanplayingcardmuseum.com is a reliable source (it is not actually important) and proceeded to discuss the case of even if it is RS, but you did not respond to that question. I argued that calling the black design "Nintendo design" is deceptive, and that the black design is clearly the most common and representative design by far, even if you look at the non-RS source provided by Louie Mantia.

It seems responding to that was not convenient and it was easier to just say that I am showing disdain.sukejo (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This website is from Takashi Ebashi, a researcher and author of “Hanafuda,” a book published in 2014. Inside this book, you’ll find lots of information about hanafuda (including photos from his collection). His website is a digital source for much of his knowledge and research since the book was published. He’s also written a book on Mahjong. The word “museum” is used non-literally, as a digital museum of historical hanafuda and other karuta.

This website absolutely does have an About page, with Ebashi’s name clearly listed. And beneath his name, there is a list of events related to his research.

(As a side note, I’m not sure why you’ve put words in my mouth. I didn’t say you don’t understand anything as well as I do. I said that you have made claims about which things are and aren’t reputable or which manufacturers are and aren’t real or which hanafuda is and isn’t notable or significant based on your own point of view.)

Louie Mantia (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional Suits

An IP user removed some content about additional suited cards saying the information was poorly sourced and undue focus was placed on these cards for only appearing in a single deck. If there’s a problem with the citation, I think that’s a great question to ask and to discuss on the Talk page here or ask for additional citations. I don’t think their inclusion is a problem, nor do I think undue attention is being given to them, nor are they the only decks that featured additional suits or even these specific suits. I think this is an issue that should be discussed before removal.

I worry that Nintendo hanafuda are often thought to be the basis for what hanafuda is and isn’t, and I think viewing hanafuda that way excludes a lot of information about this type of playing cards. This page is not specifically about 48-card hanafuda decks, is it? It’s about hanafuda, which has many different versions, styles, and additional cards. Perhaps the page should have additional information about older hana awase decks that contained far more than 12 or 14 suits. It would help others to understand the origin of modern hanafuda, and might give context for “additional” suits that were added later. Louie Mantia (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you the same person as Louie Mantia, who is producing your own 14-month "Hanafuda" deck commercially? kickstarter.com/projects/juniorcards/junior-hanafuda　If so, you have a private Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest with commercial nature, and if it is pointed out on the admin bulletin board, it can just be an indefinite ban on editing. I recommend that you act cautiously here. On top of that, I think there are two problems. 1) This image has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license, even though it is based on a copyrighted deck that is clearly not free. This is more of a Wikimedia Commons issue, but if a vote is taken at Wikimedia Commons, I think this image will be removed soon. 2) Where are the sources to show that these additional suits are really noteworthy? Nothing can be done with an expired Geocities link.　sukejo (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope I'm OK in adding to this conversation even though the questions were for somebody else. My name is Matt Sephton: I've been active on Wikipedia since 2006, and I've been following the sale of Hanafuda cards since 2007. I also run the Hanafuda Discord out of which the independent Fuda Wiki has sprung, both aim to document Japanese cards. I'm wary of any Wikipedia:New_account that champions removal of information.

Vintage 14-month decks by Matsui Tengudo the former, pre-eminent manufacturer of hand-made Hanafuda are frequently for sale privately via online auctions in Japan and sell for very high prices. I say this to show their noteworthy from that perspective. Given the nature of Hanafuda being Japanese that is not surprising. The Junior deck is simply one of numerous modern 14-month decks, and is not referenced directly in the Hanafuda article. I would say that mentioning the 14-month design change is the same as mentioning one of the design changes documented in the Playing card article. ref/cites can be found with a little time, no question in my mind. —Flicky1984 (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I would like to ask you not to play the superior officer style. This is not an argument about whether one of us has a long history of editing Wikipedia or liking Hanafuda. It is not desirable to insult other editors. Since I can't seem to get anywhere with people who start discussions with the default stance of "you don't understand Hanafuda", I'll just go to Wikimedia Commons and request removal.sukejo (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m left a little puzzled after reading this message because what you are upset about seems to be the behavior you are exhibiting: a “superior officer style” tone and “insulting other editors.” You’re making threats toward other editors and clearly declaring you’ll seek out other methods of getting your way when you cannot reach consensus with other editors (which is how conflicts are resolved on Wikipedia). Louie Mantia (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I only described myself and my situation so as to not be anonymous. Wikipedia process encourages interactions, and with that experience and time comes more credibility and responsibility. Any user, new or experienced, that throws around accusations and retaliatory threats is not to be taken seriously. That's just not a civil way to behave. —Flicky1984 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It was my fault for saying, "I can't argue with these guys anymore. I apologize for that. It is true that I was offended by the way Flicky1984 was arguing. In English, it was "pull rank". I don't think that's appropriate for Wikipedia. However, I think it is the policy of Wikimedia Commons to request the removal of images that are not copyright free, and I don't think it is "threatening" to do so, and I don't think the debate here should determine whether to remove them or not. That makes me want to question Flicky1984's intentions in saying that I am not to be taken seriously. If you think you're asking people not to follow your policy, it's not a very convincing way to ask.sukejo (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about conflicts of interest should happen on users’ talk pages rather than article talk pages. If this discussion is to continue, I recommend moving it to my talk page. Conflicts of interest on Wikipedia specifically refer to using Wikipedia articles as a method of self-promotion, which is clearly not happening here.

About the information itself, it is visually separated into a separate section with other kinds of extra cards. This helps to contextualize extra cards separate from the cards found in a deck most people consider “standard.” Of course decks exist that contain jokers or ads, or even blank cards. So too exist other decks (separate from Matsui Tengudo) that contain additional suits, like in hana-trump hybrid decks and even older hana-awase decks.

I think the issue is that extra playable cards are not otherwise discussed in this article, and perhaps some attention could be paid to fix that. The history section of the article quickly skips through hana awase decks which contained around double the cards found in standard hanafuda today. Louie Mantia (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at your talk page. Blank page, wasn't it? I see from your changelog that you had a problem with WP:COI in another article before. [7] You conveniently removed that note, too, because it was your talk page, right? I think I got the true meaning of the instruction to talk on your talk page.sukejo (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

An accusation is not a conviction. Merely stating that you think there is a conflict of interest doesn’t make it so. I directed you to make your claim on my Talk page because that’s where the Conflict of Interest article you continue to link to says to voice that concern. Louie Mantia (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have made a request to remove a copyright violation. Here it is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Copyrighted_Hanafuda_Trace However, even if these images are removed, I don't think anyone is discussing whether or not the very rare 13- and 14-month hanafuda statements should be included in the policy. Louie Mantia said, "If there’s a problem with the citation, I think that’s a great question to ask and to discuss on the Talk page here or ask for additional citations." But no one has been providing additional citations, right? At this point, all we have is one Geocities with broken links. Are you saying that you still follow WP:RS? Or is it that I'm a newer user than Flicky1984 and Louie Mantia, so I don't need to take what I say seriously?sukejo (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia is edited by consensus, but right now, only 1 out of 3 people in this discussion believe this should be changed. That’s not consensus. You may continue to make arguments that these are “very rare” but make no argument against significance. I think you’re conflating the concept of rarity with insignificance. I don’t wish to argue further, because the cases against removal of this information have been clearly stated. You are making decisive actions despite not reaching consensus for your actions. Louie Mantia (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on policies like WP:VERIFIABILITY. Louie Mantia claims that there is "significance", but how can it be verified? Don't call your friends and then sit back and enjoy "consensus". Simply prove the significance with a reliable source. sukejo (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)