User talk:Bendono/Archives/2009/July-October

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bendono. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Insadong

Thanks for the contribution, Bendono. Are you going to continue adding to the article? I've got several sources to work through and I planned on adding to it tonight. But I'll hold off if you're going to work on it, so we don't wind up in edit-conflict. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe at a later date, but I do not really have much else to contribute at the moment. I noticed that the article needed a little help, and as one of the most famous Korean sightseeing and culturally important places tried to help a bit. I'll let you and others continue to improve it. Bendono (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's fallen victim to some odd sort of assault... Anyway, thanks, I'll do what I can on it tonight. Dekkappai (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bendono, thank you very much for the nice expansion. :) --Caspian blue 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Insadong

On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Insadong, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Suda Hachiman Shrine Mirror

Please expand your edit summary:

diff 15:26, 4 August 2009 Bendono (Undid well intentioned edit: non-standard citation style. Cite template is standard. No need or even reason to link to Google books.)

Years ago, when USer:LordAmeth complained that my citations were skeletal, I looked into the various academic citation styles which are conventionally used. As a nod to his SOAS background, I copied Timon Screech's cite style in Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns: Isaac Titsingh and Japan, 1785-1812. I am unfamiliar with the one you use; but I would not have thought the alternative I introduced was a wrong step in a wrong direction? I note that there are a variety of citation styles:

My edits to this article were insubstantial -- merely a matter of citation style; and my reasons had to do with a curious section of the article about Emperor Keitai -- see Talk:Emperor Keitai#Fringe theory?. My intention was to suggest a way to move beyond Chosun Ilbo, if possible. By creating clickable links, I'd hoped to make it more likely that common ground could evolve. In this context, the question becomes "why not?"

I'm especially troubled by that last part of your edit summary --"No need or even reason to link to Google books" ...? My first blush response was, "Where did that come from?"

Seeley's book at OCLC 21875514, see "Cite/Export" in top bar.

You said quite a bit in very few words. --Tenmei (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CITE: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another". Also WP:CIT: "editors should not change an article with a consistent citation format to another without gaining consensus". Also refer to Template:Cite book. It has a field for the OCLC if you wish to add it.

I added the Seeley citation from a real, physical book as referenced. There are many ways to access a book. That is why the reference details are given. There is no compelling reason to link every reference to Google Books as Wikipedia is not a replacement for a library. More importantly it is redundant. When you click on the ISBN, it takes you to a page which already includes the Google Book link, among many others. If you wish to add other ISBNs, though, that is fine. Regards, Bendono (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bendono -- Aha, bad form. I see. My blundering discourtesy appeared indistinguishable from crass disregard. I'm sorry. It won't happen again. I've done the same thing in other instances without appreciating the potential offense. Thanks for explaining. I'll have no trouble avoiding this cultural mis-step in future.

As for your other points: I'll need to ponder them for a while. Although I hadn't thought about it in precisely these terms, I can well imagine your real-world experiences are likely to have encouraged you to construe "redundant" as inelegant, inefficient, careless, etc. As it happens, I had set aside that kind of sensibility because it seemed unworkable. Based on my early misadventures, this appeared to be demonstrably counter-productive in our Wikipedia context. Your comment provides a good reason to revisit my presumptions ~~about this somewhat refined approach to collaborative editing~~. I took this to be one of those counter-intuitive facts-of-life which are impossible to parse.

As a general rule, I find that I'm almost always looking for new ways to incorporate deliberate redundancies in our Wikipedia venue. In fact, now that this incident forces me to confront the matter squarely, I hypothesized that this must be one of the unstated project objectives. Your words cause me to suspect that I might need to re-examine the criteria which inform perceived differences between helpful and unhelpful redundancies. --Tenmei (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese literature

Hi Bendono! I noticed your work on List of Japanese classic texts and was wondering if you could give me some tips about User:Bamse/National Treasures of Japan (writings), since I don't know much about literature genres. Basically my question is, what categories to use for the items in this list of National Treasures? The present categories ("Buddhist writings", "Books bound in the Japanese style",...) are taken from the ja-wikipedia list on National Treasures of Japan. Are they good choices for categories? Do you have suggestions for better categories or better translations? Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Shaku#Requested move

Hello there, still remember the discussion? It's getting lonely there without you! (:p) --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Opine for Fg2

You contributed to the Signpost Tip Room's discussion of Fg2's death. Several editors have decided to collaborate to get one of his favorite articles to FA status. Would you care to opine on which article we should select here? Thanks. - Draeco (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)