For your ceaseless editing, creating and translating of Japan-related articles - especially Gifu related articles - I award this Barnsensu to you, Douggers. You are a valuable asset to WikiProject Japan. Keep up the good work. Brian Adler (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, Douggers. You deserve it. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the award and the comments. m(_ _)m Recognition creates a nice warm feeling on a cold January day. Douggers (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could use some recognition where I live, then. It's about 2°F outside right now, and the breeze isn't helping any. <shiver> ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UCFD relisting
Hi. Recently you commented at
Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians in x prefecture. Although the debate started as a discussion on whether to rename the category, it later broadened to encompass upmerging the categories to Category:Wikipedians in Japan. I have left the debate open a little longer because the suggestion came quite late in the debate and I am not sure if all participants had seen the suggestion. If you have an opinion on this upmerge, please comment at the debate above. Thanks for your time. HidingT 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Mutsu province/Iwase province
Your recent edits based on
Tohoku
are transparent, accurate, reasonable -- of course. But I wonder if you might be persuaded to expand on the thinking which underlies this minor edit because I think it might help clarify my understanding of my own edits elsewhere.
I'm especially wondering about the plausible inclusion of deliberate redundancies in related Wikipedia articles. Why wouldn't it have been more "
Mutsu province
? Do you see my point?
The issues in this instance are small. The consequent evolution of the two stubs is trivial. However, I'm persuaded that the implications may be relevant in a process of figuring out how better to parse the way I approach more complicated subjects. Expressed differently, I'm trying to invite you to think about something which is a little bit beyond mere lexicologicalmetastasis; and my tentative POV assumes that the efficacy of internal links will ultimately prove to be Wikipedia's greatest asset as 21st-century reference source. At the same time, I try to approach every subject (and every edit) with a view to metastasizing the contents of any specific article across the broadest array of plausibly relevant corollaries -- not only by creating internal links, but by actively engaging the subject matter from this ontological perspective.
This means that I now believe I missed a trick by not editing
Iwase province at the same time as I added the Yōrō changes in Mutsu province; and also, this POV means that I suspect that it was a mistake -- or a missed opportunity -- when you deleted any mention of Yōrō
changes.
Bottom line, this isn't really a matter of POV -- not really. Rather, it goes to the heart of what we each construe to be the goal of an Internet encyclopedica. Now that I've actually typed out these thoughts, the words sound much too fancy; but there you have it. I could work on softening the overly-academic tone, but the gravamen of my questions might be muddied. I this strikes a responsive chord, I'd look forward to your feedback. --
I'm sorry for not explaining my moves more clearly when I made my edit. To a certain extent, I'm not against redundancies on Wikipedia. Each article is related to some other article, so it makes perfect sense for some information to be shared. However, the information about Iwase Province that was place in the Mutsu Province article seemed to be a complete cut and past of the exact same information (along with all of the {{nihongo}} codes and bolding). There was no context relating it to the rest of the article, so it didn't flow at all and seemed very jumbled. (There's no mention of Iwase Province or Michinoku Province anywhere else in the article, which made the information seem useless. I've since learned the relationship between Michinoku and Mutsu, but the article itself has to show why the information is all connected.)
I would not be against the information being reincorporated into the article, as long as it wasn't a direct cut and paste of the information and as long as the flow of the information can be easily understood. If you need help with that, let me know. Douggers (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't wrong -- not at all. In fact, what I'm taking away from your words is that I was doing something wrong. Because of your feedback, I begin to appreciate what I did was inadequate when I used cut-and-paste to bring this information from somewhere else.
Of the things you wrote, the independent clause I most needed to read was this one: "the article itself has to show why the information is all connected." Aha! I almost get it.
I anticipate that I'll be doing a lot of this sort of thing in 2008, and while I'll be making all sorts of mistakes throughout the coming year, maybe I'll manage to avoid this one a little bit more frequently than would have been the case without your analysis. Thanks. --
I still make plenty of mistakes, too. Don't feel bad. ;-) I'm glad I could help. Douggers (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA pass of
Gifu, Gifu
It looks like someone else nominated it, but I wanted to let you know that I just approved
Good Article
. I've left comments on the talk page, but I also noticed (after I finished the GA review, strangely) that it had been to FAC and was rejected. Alas, the peer reviews didn't seem to offer much advice, and I worry that I haven't been too helpful either. =) As I say in the GA review, I agree with one commentator elsewhere that more independent sources would be good – but you would know better than I how easy those are to come by.
Anyway, good luck with the article and let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 00:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update! And I do appreciate your comments because it atleast gives me a direction to go in. I haven't worked on the article much recently because I didn't know what to do. Douggers (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll take a look at the Sakai clan. I don't think I know enough to help make a common structure for clan pages, but I'll see what I can do. Douggers (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]