User:Urashimataro/Uramse Pages/Archive03

Redirects and more

"Important Cultural Properties" (ICP) is a very useful article to have. In fact I started to expand the history section of National Treasures of Japan (NT) which is closely related to ICP. I collected statements and references (here) which I am now converting into prose here. As you can see, I only got up to 1897 1919 (with prose), and as far as I remember (did not pay attention then as I was focusing on NT then), "ICP" as a term only appeared with the 1950 law (which is still valid), while the term "NT" goes back to 1897. Since ICP are lower-grade NT, probably most of the post 1950 history section I am compiling will also apply to ICP. Protection measures for ICP are not as strict as far as I understand. I believe they can leave the country for exhibitions while NT cannot for instance. I am not sure how to organise the content after 1950 (the present law). I was thinking about leaving part of the info in the history section, mentioning shortly the various amendments and have another section detailing the present situation with information on the designation procedure, advantages/responsibilities of owners,... Please let me know what you think about this plan. PS: The collected info on my sandbox is complete (at least I don't want more) but filtered for NT. Still, most if not all of the references apply also to ICP. Of course feel free to steal from my sandbox and ask questions if something is not clear there.bamse (talk)

Completed the history section and "designation procedure" section and pasted them into National Treasures of Japan.bamse (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for not showing up yesterday. I have had a couple of busy months, and I took a day off.

You ask my opinion about your plan, but I don't really understand what it is. I am too unfamiliar with the subject. Could you be more specific?

I was also thinking about making independent articles about the various shrine styles, including in each info about tsumairi, hirairi, ken and other stuff that would always be the same. I could then shorten the section in Shinto shrine and the article Shinto architecture would be far less important. Shouldn't take more than a day. What do you think?

One last thing: I fixed an error in　the last citation in [[National Treasures of Japan]. Check the fix, please, because I am not sure I did the right thing.Urashima Tarō (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Urashima Tarō (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Now you must have lots of energy to write the Stubs to create and independent shrine style articles ;-) (Good plan!) As for my plan with National Treasures of Japan, maybe it is better if I just write and ask you for a quick look over it when I am done with it. Page 333 was correct, so I undid your edit. bamse (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent articles

I spent the morning re-checking the styles section of Shinto shrine, and did a robust job of typo fixing. (I must say I am not particularly proud of my work, in this case.) I then created nagare-zukuri, kasuga-zukuri, ishinoma-zukuri, hachiman-zukuri, hiyoshi-zukuri and irimoya-zukuri. Tomorrow will finish. BTW, thanks for your help. So far our partnership has turned out to be more useful to me than to you. I hope this will change in the future.Urashima Tarō (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good. When you finish, you might want to add Template:Main in Shinto shrine to refer to the respective main articles. I would not say that it has been more useful to you. I learned quite a bit about Shinto. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

I am happy to hear you think so. I discovered new material. It will take some time to finish the articles. Some (nagare-zukuri, for example) are no longer stubs. Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I went through the national treasure shrine list and wikilinked the style articles. Do you think that kirizuma-zukuri, ryōsage-zukuri and yosemune-zukuri deserve their own article? bamse (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Kirizuma is a gabled roof, so a link to gabled roof will be probably enough, but it may deserve a stub with a link to gabled roof. I will do that. The other styles? I don't think so, but there are plenty of other -zukuri to go around, so some kind of policy is necessary. What I will probably do is:

1. Write the last articles about ōtori-zukuri, misedana-zukuri (or make the. last a part of the Sessha, Massha article) and kirizuma

1. Paste the whole styles section that is now is in Shinto shrine into Shinto architecture. Now doing it is not only OK, but proper. Later I or you can add other styles to the list, with a redirect pointing to the relative section. That will enough, I think.

1. Cut down the Shinto shrine styles section to just the two most popular styles (nagare and kasuga) and the three pre-Buddhism styles.

Later I plan to rewrite all articles for clarity. If I had known in the beginning what I know now, I would have written them differently.

Let me know if you agree or not with my plans, and if you have ideas or proposals. BTW, do you understand this? 一間隅木入春日造型

One more thing: I hadn't noticed the article irimoya. Perhaps I should merge the two, and change one into a redirect. What do you think? Urashima Tarō (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your plans. Irimoya should be merged with irimoya-zukuri. Maybe kirizuma is not special enough to deserve its own article and a redirect will indeed do. I don't understand 一間隅木入春日造型, that's why I had left it untranslated. However JAANUS has the middle part (here): 隅木入春日造 = "hip rafter insert kasuga style" sumigi iri kasuga-zukuri. As far as I understand, the structure was first pure kasuga style with a pent roof added on one side of a gabled roof giving the impression of a hip-and-gable (irimoya) roof from the outside on one side. Later hip rafters were added to make it a hip-and-gable roof on that side also from the inside. Not sure what the "1 ken" and 型 refer to. Do you like navigation templates like this? It could be useful to navigate around all the shrine styles as well in my opinion.bamse (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Bamse. I will proceed with our plans. The template would be very useful. Can you create it? If so, please go ahead with it (if you have time).

I will create a template. Would it make sense to group or order the styles~in the template somehow (for instance ancient styles, most common styles, alphabetically, chronologically,...)? If yes, how? bamse (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think alphabetical order would be the simplest to use and understand. Chronological order would probably not work well: the three older ones would be in the same position, and their mutual relationship would not be clear anyway (I think). Urashima Tarō (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I put up a navbox-draft here. Please let me know what you think about it and if something is missing or wrong. bamse (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Navbar

The navbar is great, and I see it's easy to edit, so I can modify it myself if I need to. If you want, I can paste it in place myself tomorrow. Just two things, if I may:

• Please replace shishi with komainu. Shishi is very suspect. According to the Kōjien, it's the name of the right komainu only, and my wife says it isn't used. I would have done it myself, but the template is your private user space. I prefer to alter it after having received your permission.

• Since, according to the MoS, words in titles which are not proper names should be in the lower case, I think Mountain in 100 Japanese Mountains should be lower case. Same for Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities). Should be:

Historic monuments of ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu cities).

Urashima Tarō (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed shishi to komainu and moved the navbar to Template:Shinto architecture, so it can be used as {{Shinto architecture}} in articles. (Feel free to edit in my user space if you spot any errors.) Not sure about the spelling of the other templates. Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) is a world heritage site by that name so it could be considered a proper name (nobody seems to have complained about the spelling of the corresponding article either). Same for the mountains which are not just some random 100 mountains but a fixed expression. I am not an expert on MOS issues, so feel free to correct the titles if you think they should be in lower case. By the way, Shinto architecture looks much better now! bamse (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the template. Very good.I used and modified it today (just very minor changes).

About the expressions, you are of course right. If they are fixed expressions, they should be in capitals.

Much more work to be done on Shinto architecture, but it's already better than it was. Any suggestions for additions or changes?

Now for a while I won't write anything new, but clean up what is already there. I have already started cleaning up what I did, here and there. Urashima Tarō (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Shinto architecture

Welcome. Took like one minute to make the template. Suggestions for Shinto architecture follow:

• "Even the honden can be missing." at this point of the article it is not clear to the reader what a honden is
• hokora which appears in the gallery is not explained anywhere
• "...began to construct shrines that involved actual architect." not sure it is proper English.
• the "origin" section jumps around tenses and reads a bit rough
• "...a remnant of the gates that use to travel around the entire shrine.", travelling gates?
• "The landscape can be viewed after entering the Torri." is confusing and probably needs some explanation. I can see landscape even before entering the torii

I skipped over the "Most common shrine styles" and "Other styles" since I had a look over it before. (Let me know if something has changed there and I'll have another look.)

• I am not sure how the "Important shrines" section relates to architecture. It would better fit in the Shinto shrine article in my opinion.
• Suggestions for expansion: Have a paragraph or section on the reconstruction of shrines in regular intervals.

bamse (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Bamse. All those parts the unknown fellow wrote (from where your quotations come) will go in due course. I don't think there's much to salvage. About the section Origins, I for the time can put mine taken from Shinto Shrine, but yours from　List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) is far better. Would you mind pasting it in? I didn't do it because I know you want to take the article to featured status, so if you say no I fully understand. "Most common shrine styles" and "Other styles" have been rechecked several times by me, so I doubt there's anything urgent in there. What are you up to? Can I help you with anything? Urashima Tarō (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I pasted in the first paragraph from the list and added references in the bibliography section. Is that what you meant? It probably needs to be adapted a bit (maybe shortened at the end) for the new article. Should not be a problem with the featured candidacy I hope. Just in case I copied the fellow's text below. Feel free to remove it. Recently I expanded the National Treasures of Japan which I hope to get up to GA status. That's why I was not very active with Shinto topics. In order to see where I am with the article, I asked for a peer review and reassessment. Help with either would be great. Or just leave a couple of comments here if the peer review is too formal. I am mainly interested in suggestions on content (expansion, re-structuring of the article,...). The lead will eventually be rewritten, I am going to expand the statistics section at the end and will shuffle around pictures a bit. Other than that, the main part is final (up to suggestions). bamse (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

moved from shinto architecture - origin

In the infancy of the Shinto religion, its concept of worship was concentrated around nature. Therefore, the architectural style of the Shinto sanctuaries was mostly found in or near areas, such as waterfalls, mountains, rock formations, and caves. At these locations, believers connect to the nature where the kami was located; and therefore, become one with the divine.

Moving away from primitive Shinto sanctuaries, the Shinto religions began to construct shrines that involved actual architect. All of the shrines were made with wood that was left unpainted. The walls and roof were thatched with poles supporting them. The Shinto shrines were very small. Since it was constructed to house the deities, it was a single dwelling house. Here, the followers would present the deities with food offerings.

As other religions, such as Buddhism, began to appear in Japan, it integrated with the Shinto religion. This has also affected the Shinto shrine architecture. The shrines were now built with cement as well as wood. The once bland, unpainted wood is now brightly colored. The roofs, which are made from Hinoki bark, curves outward. The thatched roofs were now accented with chigi and katsuogi timber. The chigi timber is on the ridges of the roof, and the katsuogi timber is short and lays perpendicular to the chigi timber. However, some of the elaborate details added to the Shinto shrines came from the aristocrats as well.

Understood. Tomorrow I will be away all day. Will work again on WP the day after tomorrow, and will do what I can.Urashima Tarō (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes on NToJ

• In "Shinto shrines or were handed down" something is missing.

  Maybe bad English, but can't think of anything better at the moment. The sentence is "... (were the property of shrines) OR (were handed down)".

• Because in Japanese the expression is shinbutsu bunri, I would say "separation of Shinto and Buddhism."

  Done.

• Add in brackets the translation of haibutsu kishaku

  Done.

• properties in Japan used to be the property of = > properties in Japan used to belong to

  Changed.

• I would say "18,000 temples were closed".

  Not sure, I think some of them closed by themselves (out of impoverishment due to circumstances).

  • Point taken
• If high scholarly value is a quote, it should be between quotes, not in italics. If it is not a quote, why the italics? Same for "particularly high value from the standpoint of world culture or outstanding tresaures for the Japanese people"

  fixed, all between quotes now

• I would write "outstanding in design or building technique".

  Done.

• Shouldn't National Treasures be always capitalized, being a title? You have both lower case and upper case instances.

  No idea. I capitalized when writing specifically about the title (e.g. "designated as National Treasure") and small when using it as a synonym for certain cultural properties (e.g. "public display of national treasures").

  • I would use only capitals. Even in "public display of national treasures", the term is a proper, official name and not a nickname, so should be in capitals.

  Changed to capitals everywhere.

• "1954 amendments - In the 1954 amendment" Singular or plural?

  Changed for singular.

• You say "reorganized into four:" then mention only three categories. The new category is in a new sentence.

  There are four: "tangible cultural properties", "intangible cultural properties", "folk materials", "monuments". "Buried cultural properties" is separate.

  • Took the liberty to rephrase the sentence.

  Thanks.

• I would say: system forof "Important Intangible Cultural Properties" and "Important Tangible Folk Properties" was established.

  Don't know what is better.

• "Built environment" is unclear. Better explain.

  wikilinked Built environment, is it enough?

  • Yes.
• "new level Registered Cultural Property" is unclear. Is it "new level of protection called"?

  Not sure if I understand you here. Registered Cultural Property=new level of protection.

  • I don't know, but I don't undrstand what you are trying to say there.
• Why is "Folk Techniques" in italics when Folk Cultural Properties isn't? that is unclear to me.

  If I remember correctly, I used italics for newly introduced categories and quotes for old categories which were earlier introduced. Might be bad style, don't know. I leave it up to you or a native copy-editor to fix as is best.

• ""Registered Cultural Properties" were extended" should read "was extended" because what was extended is the category, which is singular.

  Fixed.

• "Not the least, the" should be fixed, I think. I never heard the expression and can't find it with Google.

  changed to "Not least, the". OK?

  • OK.
• I never quote Mark Shumacher because he gets his info from all kinds of places, some not really trustworthy. I have no evidence of mistakes, but he is not too discriminating when it comes to gathering ifo.

  I see. Didn't know that. I changed the image caption where the reference was used and removed the reference.

• I would use quotes for: category "castles" (城郭, jōkaku).

  Added quotes to all categories.

• "12th century late Heian period to 19th century late Edo period" is awkward. How about "the 12th century (late Heian period) to the 19th century (late Edo period)". Same for "from 6th century Asuka period to 19th century late Edo period".

  Done.

• I really would somehow isolate words that are the names of a category, for example: category "ancient documents"

  Good idea. I postpone it for later.

• "Unlike for the structures" is awkward. How about "Unlike what happens with the structures"?

  changed to "Tokyo, which has only two national treasure buildings..." but could probably still be improved.

  • OK.

I also made several uncontroversial changes. As far as ideas for expansion are concerned, I am afraid I have none. The article, insofar as I can tell, is very complete. Åkebråke's comments were a little bit nitpicking, I think. The tables are fine. The article mostly needs the attention of someone who, unlike us, is a native English speaker to see that all is kosher.

Let me ask you something (at this point I think we trust each other enough). When I check your things, I tend to change as little as I can in terms of grammar and style out of fear to offend even when I am quite sure I should modify something, but I think this attitude is not really productive. Would you mind if I took a moderately more proactive stance? If you do mind, fine, I won't. I know the National Treasures of Japan article has been created, and is therefore technically no longer yours, but I have a personal relationship with you, so I prefer to ask for your permission. Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will go through them in a moment. Of course go ahead and modify (moderately or heavily) if it improves the article. I don't claim ownership of any article and am happy if you or somebody else makes articles better. As for the native English speaker, probably Truthkeeper88, who copy-edited a couple of the national treasure lists, will do it after the holidays. (He doesn't know yet, but has always been very helpful.) I hope to finish the lead (in preparation here) and the statistics section before Christmas. bamse (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I followed almost all of your suggestions and modified the text accordingly. Sometimes I was not sure (see above). bamse (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that timelines like these could be useful for the statistics section? bamse (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)