User talk:Tadakuni/Talk page from 15 Sept. to 31 Dec. 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RE: Shimazu Nariakira[edit]

Hi! I went to LordAmeth's talk page to leave a message and just saw your post and compared the article in ja and en and added seemingly the more popular name. Because the article name is oyura sodo in ja WP. Unfortunately I do not know much about him but I am willing to help if I can. Whatever. BTW, what kanji do you use for your name? 忠邦? 忠国? Oda Mari 05:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

織田殿- Thanks for your prompt response. Hm...might an initial translation of the Japanese wiki article be a good start? That's what I did for his "enemy" Zusho Hirosato-- just translated the Japanese wiki as a start. Next time I'm at the big research university in town, I'll look at print resources on Nariakira, though. Oh, and I use the kanji of Mizuno Izumi-no-kami's name, so it's 忠邦. 忝い!-Tadakuni 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Sensu[edit]

WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
For starting a vast collection of articles on feudal domains and daimyo.

Fg2 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm...speechless. Thank you...I'll do my best to continue working on them. 忝い! -Tadakuni 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I thought it was vandalism my bad thanks for pointing it out--AFUSCO 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes[edit]

I quite like your recent edit of the Tokugawa Tsunayoshi succession box -- good idea. In general, one of the aspects of Wikipedia which interests me is the extent to which succession boxes are far more effective than I'd anticipated. I wonder if I might suggest a quick look at Tokugawa Yoshinobu's succession boxes in an unexpected context created by comparison with those of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies. You may agree with me that these stacked succession boxes present a concise overview of an Aussie's career path -- especially useful for those who know little about Australian politics.

For me, the colours are problematic, but they are plausibly useful in ways I haven't fully considered yet. Are you aware that there is a group who focus particularly on a range of issues having to do with Succession boxes? There appears to be an on-going discussion about colour-coding across the breadth of articles to be found in en:Wikipedia. I myself have no views on this subject, but I am mulling it over in the back of my mind. At this point, I'm only offering you a heads-up ... along with the deserved acknowledment of your having taken a tentative step in the right direction. --Ooperhoofd 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ooperhoofd, and thanks for your comment. Actually, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies' stack of succession boxes, when compared to those of Tokugawa Yoshinobu, give me something of an idea-- perhaps dividing succession boxes into similar categories for Japanese figures might be appropriate? This would especially be good, say, in the case of people who held senior offices in the Tokugawa Shogunate-- for instance, say, someone who might have been Osaka Castle warden, as well as Rōjū, while at the same time being lord of thus-and-such domain. Succession boxes in general are something that I've come to like very much, especially because they allow for a concise understanding of the individual's place in the inheritance of a domain or title-- and God knows the daimyo articles on Wikipedia need cleanup of just that sort. I'll try to track down the group you mentioned, that discusses the succession boxes, and see what's going on there. Again, thanks for the feedback, and do keep up the good work. -Tadakuni 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization: The work of this group is interesting, even though I am not myself drawn to join in at this point. I did ask the following question in the SBS WikiProject talk/forum ... (in anticipation of something we both might want to tackle in the future?):

Exceptions to standardization? My guess is that there are some plausible and well-informed reasons for those cases in which standardization is not the best choice.

My question becomes relevant in that context: Will someone please give me one example in which an understandable interest in standardization was not sufficient to overcome the reasons for a specific non-standard succession box? One would hope that there would have been more than one illustrative example ...? --Ooperhoofd 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your question to be, 'Are there examples where the standard succession box is not the best choice.' There is a long-standing disagreement about which article should be linked to from U.S. representative's boxes (discussion here: Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox) . For example, should New Hampshire representatives' boxes link to United States Congressional Delegations from New Hampshire or List of United States Representatives from New Hampshire? I happen to like the former, since all of these articles for all of the states are fully populated. Another editor very much would like it to be the latter, expecting the articles to become populated once many articles link to them. If the Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox gets changed, I was contemplating creating an alternate standard for some states, which admittedly wouldn't be ideal.--Appraiser 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standardization of succession boxes is something we try to do to fit all needs. Quite often we find exceptions to the rule, but when that occurs, we either bring it up here to discuss, or find some easy and manageable solution that attempts to correct it. Personally, I have run across numerous templates that are not in this series and cannot easily be corrected to work with it. In those cases, I try to convert everything I can in the code and leave or customize the rest to work with the format established. This was everything that has been standardized is standardized, leaving only the code that we currently have no standards for. As you can tell from the templates page, there are many templates in this series and many that are not. Some of the members including myself are attempting to remove as many of the older (and often very complex) templates to this simpler format. However, some templates such as those for the Canadian parliament are not even undergoing review currently until the current problems are resolved due to their advanced codings.
I hope this somewhat answers your question. Was there anything specific you were wondering about?
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that I have myself been removing such templates for quite some time, and have adopted a specific format for both Representatives and Senators, samples of which one can find in the succession boxes for the United States Presidents. My versions look essentially the same as the old ones, with some redundant text having been removed. Link modifications can be performed on these newer, simplified templates much easier, as editing a template is a very different thing indeed from simply editing pages. Waltham, The Duke of 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut me some slack here, please: I'm the one who initially asked about exceptions to standardization, and now I'm going to try to sketch a bit of the rationale behind that query. In a way, I hesitated to post any question in the first place for fear of arousing anyone's too eager interest -- but now I have no choice but to deal with any unanticipated consequences.

My concern is focused on pre-Meji Japanese history. I'm persuaded that the succession boxes for Emperors of Japan and Japanese era names are fine the way they are -- for now; but they could become better, more useful, more focused ....

In January 2008, I'd like to begin to work with others in a process of possibly improving the format somewhat, but I'm too wrapped up in another on-going project to take time to do more than mull it over for the next few months. I tend to do things slowly; and hence my beginning now with a rather open-ended question ....

For today, I'm unalterably convinced that the nature of the pre-Meiji Japanese monarchy requires that its succession boxes be handled in a slightly different way than the evolving Wikipedia standards for other sovereigns, but I don't know whether my current views are necessarily the best foundation for going forward. A stubborn certainty today may become flexible in the face of a compelling argument which changes my mind. What I want to do in the next few months is to try to figure out a way to walk with more assurance along a fine line -- to think through the issues a little better. When the gestalt is a little bit better refined, I plan to consult with others who are similarly interested, as for example in the case of the following corollaries:

Please understand: For right now, I'll personally resist any precipitous changes -- even to the point of engaging in an impossible edit war, if necessary. But surely it doesn't have to come to that...? My problem here is that I don't know how to modulate my prose so that it comes across as firm, direct, reasonable -- but not too overly assertive so that my words are perceived as aggressive, alarming, confrontational. Do you see my point?

This is, for better or worse, naught but a beginning; and now I've raised questions.

Simple, ordinary courtesy now requires me to explain a little bit of what I was thinking. I hope this comes across as saying enough without saying too much. --Ooperhoofd 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an Honourable Memeber (sic) of Sarcasm Society, I am tempted to attempt to do anything but cut you some slack and, noting that you have come here practically looking for examples to support your point and for advise on how to better phrase your suggestions, simply refer you to the Association of Members' Advocates.
But I am kinder than that. Even though you seem to be demonstrating possessive tendencies over a series of articles, something that if frowned upon in Wikipedia (although not necessarily in SBS, hehe).
Anyway, Ooperhoofd, there are some priorities here. The first and foremost thing that must be considered when editing succession boxes is to standardise the boxes along each particular succession chain. Standardising succession chains themselves comes after that (but not far away). The templates should at any event be the same in every chain, namely the succession templates family documented in Template:S-start, and only a few details are supposed to change from chain to chain (note that some additional parameters may be added to the templates as new special and sufficiently widespread elements are found).
Now, what I want you to do is kindly tell me what exactly the requirements of Japanese Emperor succession boxes are (as well as the other ones you have in mind), and we can eventually (and without any hurry) reach a mutually acceptable solution that will both conform to the guidelines (which are not set in stone anyway, and have yet to specifically take any oriental titles into account) and fulfil the needs of the succession chains in question. And when we do find that solution we may even leave the specific chains for you to manage at a later time. They are pretty long, and we have enough on our plates already, so there is no particular reason to rush.
What say you? Waltham, The Duke of 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a graceful blend of wit, wisdom and whimsy. The jolly tone of your prose is a delightful and welcome surprise.

To better understand what will need to remain, for now, a series of unasked questions, please consider the following:

  • Emperors of Japan: The pre-Meiji Japanese emperors often abdicated in favor of an infant or child, so that what is called cloistered rule becomes an essential feature of a given time period. This pattern was mirrored during the Kamakura shogunate and the Ashikaga shogunate, when the de-facto military governments were ostensibly headed by a generalissimo shogun. There were times when the shogun was, in fact, a strong man -- and in other periods, the shogun would have been naught but a figurehead with real power exercised by others. The complex politics of Japanese history suggest that some modification to the current succession boxes would be appropriate, but this is no simple matter. As I tried to explain above, I'm still in the process of parsing my own thinking about what needs to be done; and I'm not yet at the point of suggesting a tentative hypothesis about what to do or how to proceed.
  • List of Emperors of Japan: The traditional order of succession was re-evaluated in the Meiji period. After 1870, imperial scholars determined that during what is called the Nanboku-chō period, some of the emperors who had long been accepted as sovereigns were to be retroactively re-classified as pretenders; and those who had been understood to have been naught but unlucky or misguided members of the kuge were re-classified as true emperors.

In the context of just these two difficult constructs, can you begin to see how issues like these -- and others -- would complicate any process of thinking through the alternatives which are implicit in any modification of imperial succession boxes?

As it happens, I myself am not especially interested in the Japanese imperial chronology. Rather, I'm only examining this subject because of its inextricable relationship to Japanese era names or nengō ... which I suspect becomes much more than you really want to know at this point.

In summary, my initial question here on this talk page was in fact straight-forward. I was trying to figure out how to begin the process of thinking about succession boxes in a more organized way. I am not ready to tackle the range of problems which may adhere. I don't have an adequate gestalt. This is just a matter of sticking a toe in the water, so to speak.

Expressed differently, I'm not ready to put as-yet-inchoate thoughts into the form of more specific questions -- not today or tomorrow or next month .... But maybe by the time 2008 rolls around, my appreciation of this topic will have matured. Do you better understand? Or does this approach to a problem still seem too vague?

In this instance, I'm persuaded that straightforward ≠ simple.--Ooperhoofd 15:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for apprising me of this discussion, Ooperhoofd. Perhaps letting the idea simmer for awhile would be best...after all, as you said, you're busy until early 2008; perhaps at that time it will be appropriate to approach the issue with full force and attention. -Tadakuni 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5[edit]

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I tend to keep an eye on someone when they seem to be specifically here to cause trouble.[edit]

Normally, I should have reverted that within a minute, but I'm somewhat preoccupied. HalfShadow 19:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions[edit]

Hello. Thanks for all of your hard work. It's appreciated. I have two suggestions:

  • When moving pages due to missing macrons, I suggest giving the reason as "Per WP:MOS-JA" (or something similar). There are a number of individuals who oppose diacritics who may oppose your move without a strong enough reason. This should minimize such opportunities. (Make sure that you are familiar with the contents of the document first.)
  • Wikipedia category sorting is very primitive and does not take diacritics into account. Thus, a sort key needs to be input manually without diacritics. This can easily be done with {{DEFAULTSORT}}.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards. Bendono 04:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

忝い. -Tadakuni 06:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect of Hirosaki han[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hirosaki han, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hirosaki han is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hirosaki han, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamba or Tanba?[edit]

Some months ago you asked an impossible question -- something about why is there a Tamba province and a Tanba province? Or maybe it was something about why there is no standardized romanji? I dunno. Can't remember ....

To me, the value of the question was in its implicit invitation to attempt to address a variety of issues which are inextricably inter-related but largely unexpressed. Yours was an excellent question -- positioned somewhere just outside an unfinished wall in a garden of zen koans.

In that same context, I have a question for you: As you know, Japanese hand saws are designed so that the cutting action is engaged on the pull stroke. Western hand saws are designed in exactly the opposite fashion. The cutting action is achieved by applying power on the push stroke. Why is that? How did that come to be?

I offer this question as a gesture of thanks for your recent edit to an obscure nengō -- Shōhō, 1644-1648.

Let me explain: At this point, I really need to spend more time working on the the French Wikipedia. In my experience, the English Wikipedia is over-populated with overly-argumentative, uncongenial fellows who thoughtlessly deplete my finite reserves of patience and good will. For me, the francophone Wikipedia is like a vacation. I'm just wanting to finish creating and populating Japanese era name-templates with a minimal data set so that each page can arguably stand on its own as a plausible stub. To be unduly blunt, this means that I want to see more than just a single sentence or a single data-entry for each of the several template sections. My thinking is this: If I massage each article so that it is unremarkable and a bit dull, then -- maybe -- I will have created something which is sufficiently beyond reproach that it can be ignored for a while.

In other words, I'm thinking that then I can set aside a task which has become more onerous than I would have thought for reasons I hadn't adequately anticipated. I share this unsolicited introspection as a way of explaining my response to a very modest edit.

What else can I say: Thanks. You did good. You could not have known that I was complaining to myself at the very moment you were inputting an eerie catalog of deaths:

I was whining to myself that I'll have disengage from the Titsingh translation of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran in order to populate the Shōhō "events" data-set more fully, or else someone will complain and it will just be more of what I'm loathe to endure ad nauseam.

The timing of your edit was exquisite. I laughed -- which is always a welcome response to whining, complaining, and bad temper. You couldn't have known that a trivial edit would produce unanticipated feedback; but there you have it.

Ya just gotta accept that sometimes we all do something good without trying too hard.

You did good--Ooperhoofd 06:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooperhoofd- Thanks for your message. I'm not quite familiar with the issue regarding saws that you brought up, but I'll let you know if I find anything...come to think of it, somewhere in my books I have a book on Edo-period tools...
As for the Tamba question, my question was about if the Wiki article should be "Tamba," when there's no sole "m" in the Japanese syllabary-- if you look at the Japanese article, it's spelled "Tanba." I've figured that it's written with an M by some people because they want to make it easier to say in English, though it's not proper transliteration.
Your commitment to populating the nengo articles has inspired me to populate articles on the Kyoto Shoshidai, by the way. I can only put up stubs now, but before long I hope to perhaps have even a little more, when the chance presents itself to make the trek out to one of the big research libraries in my vicinity.
At any rate, thanks for your question, and keep up the good work. -Tadakuni 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homorganic consonants: I might have something more on-point in terms of that Tamba vs. Tanba question? A friend lent me a book about, among other things, the relationship between iki and Martin Heidegger; and, as so often happens, I read the translator's preface while waiting for a bus. I smiled when I encountered this passage:

The modified Hepburn romanization system is used throughout for Japanese words. Unlike the standard system, the "n" is maintained even when followed by homorganic consonants (e.g., shinbun, not shimbun).<ref.>Nara, Hiroshi. (2004). The Structure of Detachment: the Aesthetic Vision of Kuki Shūzō with a translation of "Iki no kōzō." Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-2735-X (cloth) ISBN 0-8248-2805-4 (paper) <./ref>

If, like me, you're unfamiliar with this term, see Place of articulation for further explanation. In any case, your question was (and remains) a good one. Perhaps we take a modest step forward with this new fancy label? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant[edit]

Quick question: About that recent edit to the 47 ronin ...?

I would have thought "valiant" (or indeed any similar POV adjective) would have been appropriate in a caption for that specific image, precisely because the creator himself intended POV as an element of its artistic and commercial success. Not that I'm inclined to undo your edit. Nor am I really disagreeing. Rather, I'm questioning.

In this context, there is a deliberately stirring image associated with Emperor Antoku. I'm not interested in changing the caption, but, in a sense, I'm similarly affected. The artist intended for his work to be perceived as stirring ... and, I'd suggest that it becomes a useful comparison for the purposes of questioning. It's useful precisely because that image is quite unrelated to Chūshingura's narrative style or substance ... except that I would understand if anyone were to use the word "valiant" in a sentence having to do with whatever is going on with that dragon.

I wonder if this way of re-considering your edit has any resonance? --Ooperhoofd 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooperhoofd- Thanks again for your feedback. Now that I think of it, I do see your point in bringing this up; from what I've read of Horibe father and son, they seem to have been among those in the group who were particularly active during the raid; I think Yahei was with young Oishi Chikara by the back gate, trying to help him out; and Yasube was among those who went all-out in spearheading the attack. Then again, it's the 47 ronin, so I pretty much question anything I read. But yes, if the artist was depicting these two, then I'd think that a valiant spirit would be what he'd want to get across...after all, it's thanks in no small part to art like this that the whole "Chushingura myth" sprang up. I wonder if the concept of "valiant" might be better suited to a discussion of the artist's work, or of that particular series of prints; of course this would also necessitate, I think, a total rewrite of the 47 ronin article itself, since the lines between fact and fiction seem so blurred. Just about the only thing I have in print form that I feel I can vouch for the veracity of is an encyclopedia entry from 300 Han Hanshu Jinmei Jiten (an encyclopedia of daimyo bios) for Asano Naganori, and other entries from the companion series on famed domainal retainers, about the 47 men.
Anyway, yes, there's really no doubt about what the artist is trying to convey. -Tadakuni 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamei-sama[edit]

I've been wondering about Kamei-sama and his relationship to the Forty-seven Ronin for some years. Looking at the Japanese Wikipedia article 元禄赤穂事件, I see only one mention of Kamei, whereas the other daimyo ordered, together with Asano, to arrange the reception is given as Date Sakyonosuke of the Iyo Yoshida Domain (a branch of Uwajima). Have you had any success figuring out the roles of Kamei and Date? Fg2 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the mention of Kamei Oki no Kami Korechika on Forty-seven Ronin is in error, from what I recall, Kamei had Asano's job, but the year before (or something like that). Date Sakyo-no-suke Muratoyo of Yoshida-han was indeed Asano's colleague for this duty. This is based on what I've read in the 300 Han Hanshu Jinmei Jiten encyclopedia. By the way, I really think that the 47 ronin article needs a major rewrite...all I was trying to do with the mention of Kamei was switch it over to a format that was conducive to a link; his name was given as "Kamei Sama," and that sounds like it was lifted straight out of some Meiji-era British Japanologist or Japanophile's work... -Tadakuni 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think a lot of text came from Mitford. I agree the article needs an overhaul. And what you said about Kamei sounds like what the Japanese WP was saying. I've always wondered about "Kamei Sama" and now I know there was at least a real person with some connection to the ronin (predecessor in the task). It's become clearer. Thanks! Fg2 10:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few other daimyo connected to this whole Chushingura story: Mizuno Tadayuki, Wakisaka Awaji no kami, Nagai Naohiro, the Mori lord of Choshu, and I think Hosokawa Etchu-no-kami, too. Either connected to the housing of the 47, or the Bakufu takeover of Ako. I'd like to write proper articles on all of them, but it would take awhile. -Tadakuni 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)[edit]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Japanese Vegemite[edit]

You've identified a curious interest in Vegemite. In that Aussie context, I wonder what you may think of this?

  • Bun'an 1, in the 4th month (1444): The inhabitants of the eastern part of Kyoto and the western part of the capital each demand exclusive rights to sell the dregs remaining from sake brewing. Crowds gathered at the Shinto shrine, Kitano Tenman-gū. Kanrei Motokuni sends troups to break arrest the troublemakers, but they all escape after having reduced the temple and much of western Kyoto to cinders.<ref.Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, p. 343.</ref>

To me, this sounds a little like a mid-15th century version of something Vegemite-like? --Ooperhoofd 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooperhoofd- interesting point you bring up there...far as I've heard, tofu dregs are what you feed animals, as far as sake dregs (which I guess would be rice...ish...) go, I've never quite heard of that before. Might be vegemite-ish, though. And yes, I had Vegemite a couple times...not something I'd care to repeat again, but it's a fascinating social concept that says something about Aussie taste. Although your quote above curiously reminds me of the book I read about the Onin War once, that started out with "Dancing is Forbidden." Those Kyoto-ites seem to have been quite the rowdy lot back then. -Tadakuni 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles lists[edit]

Greetings. I do update the missing topics lists when I can find time. Also, right now I'm in the process of rechecking the lists in case of redirects (as you have done to some topics in the Japanese history page). I'll update the page eventually, but as far as I'm concerned, you can remove the blue links. And if you think there may be still missing topics, you can mention them in the talk page. - Skysmith 18:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Sacred Treasure (not Treasures)[edit]

I just noticed your edit to known recipients of this Japanese state honor. I wonder if perhaps you might be willing to help me fix something here?

The title is wrong. It should be Order of the Sacred Treasure (singular). I do sorta know know how to change a title and then correct all the subsequent redirects, but I'm not entirely confident that I'll do everything that needs to be done -- not sure I can achieve 100% correct systemic modification. If I do the work to the best of my ability, is it possible for you to scan for errors or omissions? If so, would you be willing to invest the time to do this?

If not -- no matter. This can wait until I develop more confidence. No one is likely to be thrown off by this entirely trivial, even unimportant mistake. Who's in a hurry anyway? --Ooperhoofd 18:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts -- no worries. I'm just going to do this as best I can; and if I miss something or make a mistake, so what? I'll pretend to be BOLD ... and I'll just deal with the consequences as they become known. -Ooperhoofd 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooperhoofd: Sorry about not getting back to you before this. My attention keeps getting distracted by stuff at home. Sure, if you move the article to the correct title (using the "move" button on the top of the page), I'd be more than happy to go through it to check for errors. Thanks for catching the error as well, I was wondering about it. -Tadakuni 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Maybe this could be naught but a non-problem. I've posted the following note at Talk:Order of the Sacred Treasures
  • "Every source I've encountered, including the Japanese Prime Minister's Decoration Bureau's English-language sub-page, identifies this award in terms of a singular noun -- Order of the Sacred Treasure, not Order of the Sacred Treasures ...? If it would be perceived as an improvement, I would be willing to do the work involved in correcting this trivial error. Is there is general agreement/disagreement with moving or re-naming this page from Order of the Sacred Treasures to Order of the Sacred Treasure? Perhaps the current spelling re-direct is really all that's needed."
Let's just wait and see for a bit longer. For me, this is just one of those niggling things at the back of my mind. --Ooperhoofd 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takanabe Domain[edit]

Please cite sources for this article. Otherwise, it may be tagged as a candidate for deletion in the near future. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daijō-kan[edit]

Thanks very much for the very welcome help.

Just one question: Do you think the text would read better without the bold font? The original work done by Pentiles who created Kōkyū is accessible without the bold print. At first, I thought the boldface helped to clarify an easily-confusing list, but now I'm less sure about what might be best. Perhaps it would be an improvement to adapt our work to Pentile's style choice? Any thoughts? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ooperhoofd...always glad to help out. God knows these ranks aren't exactly the most well-known things to begin with. I particularly found it interesting that while the phonetic spelling of the rank structure was the same regardless of the office-- kami, suke, jō, and sakan, in descending order-- the kanji used for those offices varies depending on what level the office is in the hierarchy of government offices. As far as the boldface goes, I kind of like it because in the block of text that describes said office, it kind of very plainly tells you the name of the office in English, and then goes on with the Japanese transliteration and explanation. Just my two cents (or sen, or mon, as the case may be?) on the matter. -Tadakuni 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsensu[edit]

Thanks for the welcome feedback. Considering the source, I'm pleased. That you're the one who offers this honor only enhances its value to me. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kubota-han[edit]

Hi, I was editing the Kubota Han page and you undid one of my sentences citing the fact that northern soils were poor and not really fit for rice growing. I don't deny the fact that rice were indeed grown in the north, but their forceful plantation there often results in short falls. If you would like the source, take a look at the Japanese Wiki Page for Morioka Han. It has this sentence given as one of the reasons for the frequent Ikkis of Morioka Han during Edo Period :"水稲北限地域外で無理に水稲生産を強制したため、連年凶作に見舞われ、代換品による食事を奨励したが、代換品すらも備蓄が無かった現状。"

-Haow 08:40, 08 Dec 2007 (CST)

Thanks, I appreciate you posting the relevant passage. I also apologize for being a tad overzealous as far as this article is concerned...for my part, I'm going to input all the print citations I can get my hands on in order to get the article to an improved status. Again, sorry about jumping the gun. -Tadakuni (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I am actually an extremely amateur wikipedian, I scour the Japanese wikis for infos and then post them in the english counter parts, still getting used to all the technical jargons and stuff with the wikis. I need smart people like you to put flesh out the skinless monsters I create, :)

-Haow 08:54, 08 Dec 2007 (CST)


A nascent exchange worth following?[edit]

I can't know whether you'll have any interest in the specific subject matter, but the way the exchange evolves may prove useful. I'm just guessing that you might want to invest some superficial attention to following what develops from what I've posted simultaneously at:

The Disaster Management WikiProject came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. The the <date> + <place> + <type of disaster> format leaves no place for conventional nengō names -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji."

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional wik-consensus standards. It does matter to me that there needs to be some place in Wikipedia for "the Great Ansei fire" and for other pre-Meiji period identifiers (like "the Ansei Purge"); but it doesn't really have to be the main title, I suppose. However, I do very much want to have the standard Japanese era name succession boxes modifed so that there are three nengō names on each page: (1) BEFORE, of course; (2) AFTER, of course; and (3) the NENGŌ which is the subject of the current article (which is non-standard). I think that this non-standard variation is essential; but I'm not sure yet how to explain my thinking to those who don't already agree with me. It's not much of a beginning -- but it's something more than nothing.

The 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right button with me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward towards some kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooperhoofd- Thanks for apprising me of this situation. I must confess I'm not that familiar with the Genroku earthquake, but what you're talking about with regards to naming conventions is a valid point to bring up for discussion; this is something I particularly like about your work on Wikipedia, in that you seem to like to bring things up for discussion and debate, and threby get people thinking about the issues at hand. I look forward to how this pans out in the coming year. -Tadakuni (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning from Nobel laureates[edit]

As an end-of-year exercise, I invite you to give some thought to a trivial edit I made some time ago to Metathesis:

In this context, the otherwise abstract concepts of metathesis are especially well-visualized in the unique diplomas which were crafted for King Carl XIV Gustaf to present to the three chemists who shared the Nobel Prize in 2005.

Please accept this unanticipated token of thanks for that Barnsenu Award. This artwork represents a plausible description of what I like about the Wikipedia project -- and what I like about your recent below-the-radar contributions.--Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ooperhoofd: Thank you very much for this gift. Indeed, the whole concept which I like about Wikipedia, despite all its inherent problems, is that it brings people together-- people of all sorts-- in progress toward a common goal of spreading and sharing knowledge. I am indeed grateful that I have had the opportunity to participate in this endeavor which is, I daresay, unprecedented in human history, and gives some glimpse of how cooperation and teamwork can forge new worlds of understanding. I am also grateful to have the opportunity to work with someone like you. Best wishes for the season and for the coming year. -Tadakuni (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Shijaku Katsura[edit]

A tag has been placed on Shijaku Katsura requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability Am under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a ref, use the <ref></ref> syntaxes. —BoL @ 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to make a ref, thank you. Thank you also for giving me breathing room in order to complete said article. -Tadakuni (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tadakuni/Talk_page_from_15_Sept._to_31_Dec._2007&oldid=1057109411"