User talk:Urashimataro/Archive04

Twelve Heavenly Generals

Thanks for fixing Twelve Heavenly Generals. I've been waiting for a reply from the Tibet portal (none yet) to see if the generals are known in Tibetan Buddhism. From what I read they only seem to be really popular in Japan, though they were imported from China. The generals appear in the Yakushi-sutra but I have no idea how this sutra is related to any of the branches of Buddhism. User:Peter jackson suggested to write "East Asian Buddhism" if the twelve generals are not known in Tibetan Buddhism. bamse (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution I found (the vaguest I could think of) should do. We don't know if the Twelve are present only in East Asia, because there's more than Tibet in West Asia. There's Buddhism of different denominations here and there, if I am not wrong. UrashimaTarō (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility

I wonder if your developing fluency in Japanese Sign Language might be helped by looking into Seeing Voices?

オリバー・サックス (1996). 『手話の世界へ』（Seeing Voices 1989年). 10-ISBN 4-79-492525-5; 13-ISBN 978-4-794-92525-1; OCLC 47318724)
Sacks, Oliver W. (1989). Seeing Voices: A Journey Into the World of the Deaf. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10-ISBN 0-520-06083-0; 13-ISBN 978-0-520-06083-8; OCLC 19455916
_____. (1990). Vedere voci. Un viaggio nel mondo dei sordi. (tr. Carla Sborgi). Milano : Adelphi Edizioni. 10-ISBN 8-845-90753-8; 13-ISBN 978-8-845-90753-1; OCLC 43274425

A mere suggestion? No need for follow-up. --Tenmei (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tenmei, thanks for recommending me "Seeing Voices". It's an excellent book and, in fact, the reason I am studying sign language. Before reading it I was, more than uninterested, unaware of the deaf and their problems. I was also unaware that there was a Japanese translation: I will buy it for my deaf teacher (we always have two, one hearing who interprets, and one deaf who teaches), a wonderful person called Ms Tanaka. Have you read other books by Sacks? They are all equally delightful. Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kō brothers

The article Kō brothers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Topic already addressed at Kō no Moronao and Kō no Moroyasu.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bdb484 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi urashimataro, been a while. I was wondering if you could help clarify something for me, seeing as how you're much more knowledgeable about Buddhism than I am. Sometimes, when I'm converting infoboxes from JP Wiki for temples, I run across 聖徳宗 (shōtoku-shū) under the denomination field. After a bit of searching I can't really find any information on this denomination. I can only assume it has something to do with Prince Shōtoku. I was wondering if it's a sect, or school belonging to a sect? Would it be correct to write "Shōtoku-shū", "Shōtoku sect" or just "Shōtoku" in the infobox? Thanks for your help. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AM, how have you been? Alas, I have never heard of and know nothing about Shōtoku-shū ... I have found however an article in Japanese Wikipedia on the subject that seems to say you're right. Also found this:

The Horyuji, principal temple of the Shotoku sect, comprises 45 buildings, erected between the Asuka and Momoyama periods, 17 of which are classified as "major national treasures". The temple complex is divided into two parts - the To-in or Higashi-no-in (the eastern part), with 14 buildings, and the Sai-in or Nishi-no-in (the western part), with 31 buildings.

The article confirms that indeed the sect takes its name from the prince. I think that just "Shōtoku" next to denomination would be best. Take care. Urashima Tarō (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Thanks (: ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 10:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Urashimataro. You have new messages at Takashi Ueki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

URASHIMATARO IS ON VACATION

Please note that I will be away from the 13th to the 25th of August, so I won't be able to check my talk page on a daily basis. I will check it, however. Just give me two or three days. Urashima Tarō (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions?

Please review the second paragraph at Jōwa (Muromachi period) and Kōan (Muromachi period). Is there a way to explain this background information more clearly? Are more details or more specific citations necessary in this context?

I plan to replicate these few sentences in articles about each Nanboku-chō period nengō. As you might guess, this is only a rough-draft element in a long-term project; and I look forward to an open-ended evolution beyond such deliberately redundant prose.

By this time next year, I may be overly optimistic in anticipating further differentiation between Northern Court (Hanku-chō) and Southern Court (Nan-chō) nengō? Alternately, I might guess that the development of other Nanboku-chō articles will diminish the presumed need for this kind of overview? --Tenmei (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will check the articles soon (I am traveling through Germany right now). I have been working on the Ashikagas and on the Nanboku-chō period article, and plan to do more (I am writing an article on the Kannō incident to replace that horrible section of the article). I also would like to see more differentiation between the two courts, and will work on that too. Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've now added the same text to each of the 8 articles about Nanchō nengō (Engen through Genchū) and to each of the 18 articles about Hokuchō nengō (Shōkei through Meitoku). Also, this text-block is incorporated into related articles, e.g., Southern Court, Northern Court, Nanboku-chō period. Given the current state of Wikipedia's articles about this period of Japanese history, the mirrored explanatory text seems arguably justified. At the same time, I look forward to a future when the replicated text is cut down to a few sentences because the overview articles are more fully developed.

My opinions about this aspect of editing aren't fully developed. On one hand, I'm sure that the navbox at the bottom of each Japanese era name article is a enhancement; and I'm comfortable with multiple re-postings of the Kyoto-Yoshino map which was initially created for fr:Époque Nanboku-chō. On the other hand, I just don't like what I've done and I can't explicitly explain why. Over the coming months, it's possible that a better strategy might occur to you. I want to make it very clear from the outset that I'm open to any suggestions, comments or other ideas .... --Tenmei (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The navbar is, of course, a great improvement, as is the map. It provides an important visual clue to the situation at the time. About the articles, my opinion is that, for the time being, something is better than nothing. In other words, I think we first should be creating all indispensable articles for the period with a minimum of content, as you have been doing with the Kannō Incident, the Northern Court and the Southern Court. There will be later time to develop them, but they must be there to create a backbone the readers can use and on which we can build. What you did in the case of the Nanboku-chō article was also indispensable: the article contains a lot of good stuff, but it needs a lot of work. I have been fixing it for months. I think what you have done so far is the right thing, even if the material needs to be expanded in the future. I am looking forward to writing the Kannō incident article developing what you have done.

The Nanboku-cho era is an extremely interesting period, and there's a lot (I would say most) to be done. I am still in Europe without my books, so I cannot do much, but I will do more as soon as I am back in two weeks. In the meanwhile, let me know if you need anything specific. We can collaborate, and I am also open to any suggestion. In time, ideas will come out. You are a much more experienced editor than I, and I am not an historian like you, but I am sure I can contribute something.

Another thing: The material in Nanboku-chō period - The Kannō Incident and the resurgence of the Southern Court in the 1350’s is interesting. Do you think it can be used in the Kannō Incident article, in the spirit of temporarily plugging holes? By the way, I realized today that I had something like five dates wrong in the Kannō Incident section of the Ashikaga Tadayoshi article. Couldn't believe it, but there they were. They are OK now. Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiheiki

Hello. Last year you asked me about reading Taiheiki. I hope that you have made some progress in that goal. Not directly related, but I recently came across 太平記の時代 by Nitta Ichirō. I did a fair bit of tachiyomi and it is a fairly good book. Well written, focused, and easy to read. Just letting you know if that is still a topic of interest for you. Regards, Bendono (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bendono. It's always good to hear from you. Thanks for the tip: I will buy the book as soon as I am back in Japan. Since recently I have done little but write about the Ashikaga, yet I am still far from being able to read easily the Taiheiki, I am sure it will be a valuable addition to my library. Take care. Urashima Tarō (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjas!

Hi Urashima Tarō, as the first person to ever talk to me on Wikipedia, I invite you to feast your eyes on the new ninja article I wrote. It's the biggest work I've done on Wikipedia so far (: ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent (and monumental) work. The article is far better than it was. If I believed in the usefulness of assessing articles I would propose it for GA status. I was also pleased to see two images that come from me (the komuso and Nicolao's portrait of Nobunaga).Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thanks for those images. I was worried I wouldn't be able to find a photo of a komuso, but thankfully there was the one (and only one!) you uploaded. (: ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons file

I've transferred the file, and it's now available here. To be honest I've had problems moving pictures from Wikipedia to commons before, and if I remember correctly I usually had to just download the pic myself, and re-upload it like it was a new file. This time though, the "CommonsHelper" tool worked for me, and all the licensing, author info etc was included in the summary text. All I had to do was save the pic to my computer and select it in the "browse". Hope this helps. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I couldn't help but notice your mention above about reading the Taiheiki. When you get a chance to do that, could you perhaps take a quick look at the Hino Kumawaka I created? Most of the information there comes from the Taiheiki, and I'm afraid I might have put things out of context because I've never read the whole thing. I would appreciate it if you could look it over in the future. Thanks in advance. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 10:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AM. Thanks for doing the job. From what you say I also got an idea of what I did wrong. About the Taiheiki, I cannot read it well and I don't have a copy in English, so I cannot really help, although I will take a look at the article. Take care. Urashima Tarō (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some time later: Managed to transfer some files. The process is very cumbersome, isn't it?

Urashima Tarō (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shinto Shrines.

I have been working on Shinto topics now for about 6 months and I really appreciate your article. There is a lack of knowledge of how to deal with these topics on WP, but your writing looks well sourced and balanced. Thanks! Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Urashimataro. You have new messages at Urashimataro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, Takashi. Thanks for the message, particularly because in describing my article you used the two adjectives which are dearest to my heart: well-sourced and balanced. About your own efforts, I wanted to say: unfortunately the subject of Shinto is a hot potato because lots of people have strong feelings about it, but nonetheless know little (and, even more important, in practice care little) about the subject.

You probably know I supported you in your effort to change Shinto shrine naming rules. I knew it wouldn't work, and that's why I had never tried to have the rules changed myself, but I felt I shouldn't leave you alone to face the music. The naming thing is an irritant, but it's not that big a deal: the first time it's mentioned one can always write a shrine's name as Yasukuni Shrine (靖国神社, Yasukuni Jinja), then use Jinja (that's what I do). Not ideal, but better than nothing. In general I try to work while letting sleeping dogs lie, if you see what I mean. Do what you must without attracting attention.

BTW, what's that talkback template about? Urashima Tarō (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]