Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japanese mythology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japanese mythology

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

This page is part of the Japanese Mythology Project.

1 Jmyth infobox
2 Categories
3 Names...
4 Horizontal Infobox
5 Infobox
6 Kami
7 Potential switch to {{Japan-myth-stub}}
8 Proposed the stub...
9 News and announcements
10 Archive Box
11 Stub design

Jmyth infobox

Good idea for a wikiproject! One suggestion I have off the bat is that we compile a list of references people can use to write articles on Japanese mythology. I've written quite a few articles on Japanese folklore myself (unfortunately, most before I became a convert of WP:CITE), but the only references I've been able to find have been web pages. A list of books would be incredibly useful!

Secondly, I've got to say that I don't particularly care for Template:Jmyth infobox. I saw it on yōkai, and it just looks too distracting as a sidebar-style thing. Besides, aren't there thousands of kami? How will the infobox ever be able to display them all? If it stays, it should probably be a horizontal template that goes along the bottom of the article. That'd make it less obtrusive. Thoughts? — BrianSmithson 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, if you think it's bad now, you should have seen it initially. The person who created it had some color schematic that was incomprehensible, and when I turned it into a template, I should have fixed it a lot earlier.

As for the template itself, I figured it was going to be transitional, and that we would eventually replace the names there with topical lists (again, look at an example of how the infobox used to look for what it was like). I think we could probably create supplemental horizontal boxes for the bottom as well, but that's just me. Hopefully, someone else has some ideas on that as well.

Lastly, I've been working on a list of references; the problem is that most of them are in Japanese, and most of the ones that aren't are either Lafcadio Hearn books or translated manga. Still, I'm hoping to have something in the next few days, so if you've got anything, feel free to start that section up. ^_^--み使い Mitsukai 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I know of at least one. I'll add it when I get home from work. — BrianSmithson 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing about the infobox that bugs me (it looks fine and isn't all that distracting to me) is that it pushes any right-justified pictures down below it. I don't know if there's anything that can be done about that, but it would be nice if right-justified pictures were simply lined up on the edge of the box instead of being pushed below it. Also, is it cool to add or mark off things that have been done on the to-do list on the project page? MikeDockery 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just it. Right-justified infoboxes should have something to say about the article in question, not be general "Here are a bunch of related topics" call-outs. Like I said, I'd have no problem with a bottom infobox, as it would not be so prominently displayed in the article. And it would also solve the problem of messing up right-justified images. (None of this is intended to trivialize the work done by Mitsukai, mind you. I just have strong feelings about this infobox, for some reason. :)) — BrianSmithson 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See Template:NorseMythology for the kind of thing I'm talking about. (Also note Norse mythology uses two infoboxes, the right-justified one being an example of what ours will look like if we let it get out of hand. :) — BrianSmithson 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the NorseMythology template, I can see what you mean. Too many additions and it will get way out of hand. Maybe we should think about having just a horizontal infobox at the bottom. I personally think the right-justified one looks good on pages...it's prominent and it's useful, but I take the point that it can clutter up pages and mess up the formatting of an article, which wouldn't be an issue with a horizontal box. Also, the new to-do template and news / announcements section are great. MikeDockery 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I might take a stab at creating a horizontal infobox based on the NorseMythology one, just so we can compare the two and make a decision. I will work on it in my Sandbox, so if anyone wants to help you can mess around with it there as well. MikeDockery 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a To-do list (in fact, probably have to create one). As for the pictures issue, I think there will probably have to be some rearranging done on some pages or such, unless someone has a better idea of how to handle it.--み使い Mitsukai 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd be cool to set up a to-do template like the one over at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. What do y'all think? — BrianSmithson 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and set this up. Didn't realize Template:To do was multipurpose/adaptable! — BrianSmithson 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, changed the Kami section of the infobox to Divinities so we can cover the non-Shinto deities as well (thinking primarily the infusions/Seven Lucky Gods) et al. Any thoughts on this?--み使い Mitsukai 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the change. — BrianSmithson 16:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Names...

"Use the form of the name in English that the person personally uses" - from the project page.

This isn't gonna work for mythological figures / legendary people / anyone that's dead ;-). I didn't change it because I don't know what our policy should be. Use the name in most common use? MikeDockery 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I get for trying to copy sections of the Anime and manga WP and Hindu myths WP to try to get this page up to snuff. ^_^;;; Yeah, the name in most common use should work, unless anyone else has any ideas.--み使い Mitsukai 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries :-). I changed it for now, but "common usage" is a little vague and we may want to be more specific. Perhaps simply refer to the Manual of Style. MikeDockery 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Since these names generally fall into the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) area of pre-Meiji names, I clarified that bit in the MOS-JA to indicate that. --日本穣 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal Infobox

I'm taking a stab at a Horizontal Version of the infobox on my Sandbox, just so we can compare the two and come to a decision regarding which is better. The advantage of the current vertical, right-justified version is that we can fit much more information and links in that style. If we decide to go with a horizontal version, we will need to condense the information a bit. This may not be a bad thing. Ideas? Suggestions? MikeDockery 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'm particular to the vertical one, as I've seen that used most often on mythological and religion-based pages; however, I see the merits of the horizontal one as well. Ultimately, I'm for whatever works best.^_^--み使い Mitsukai 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't mind the vertical one, except for the issue with the page formatting being goofed up. But we can work around that by going through and fixing pages that need it. One thing I noticed, our infobox is quite wide compared to many other vertical infoboxes that I've seen, with the obvious exception of the Christian one that it was modelled after. I wonder if Brian would find it as obtrusive if it were thinner, like say Template:Hinduism small. In fact, it might be a good idea to follow the example of the Hindu pages, which have a large, horizontal version and a small, vertical one, which are standardized with a common color scheme. That way page editors would have a choice, depending on how they want to format the article. MikeDockery 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer to avoid a vertical infobox, but that thin Hinduism one is much better than a lot of the other ones I've seen (like that Norse one). But what happens when there's a picture? Typically, if we've got artwork, it should lead the page (like at kappa (mythical creature)). That means that vertical infoboxes work well when they are tailored to the individual page (like the presidents infobox used on, say, Chester A. Arthur), but when you try to stack them with an image, things get hairy. Are we suggesting a vertical infobox for pictureless pages and a horizontal footer one for pages where there's a lead image? I'd have no problem with that. — BrianSmithson 13:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think we should have two versions, and leave it up to the editors on individual pages to decide which one works best. Having the vertical infobox doesn't preclude an opening picture (Buddhism for example), although I couldn't get it to work with our infobox on the Kami page (I'm not sure why - can someone help?). We may even want to have a large vertical infobox for pages with no pictures, then a smaller vertical and large horizontal one so that editors will have a choice. MikeDockery 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Tried the infobox on the Kappa page, too, and やっぱり, the infobox goofed up the formatting. There's got to be a way to force it under the picture, but I can't figure out how. At any rate...one more thing, about the current infobox. I was trying to find some information on some of the dragons to stub them, but no luck. Perhaps we fold Japanese dragons into "Legendary Creatures"? MikeDockery 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I played with it at kappa (mythical creature) and had no luck. I'm not sure how they got it to work at Buddhism. If we do end up going with thick and thin vertical infoboxes, I think we should still write some guidelines on when to use what. I'd rather do any negotiating once than to have several minor edit wars on many different pages! :) As for now, let's try for a thick vertical, thin vertical, and footer version. Then we'll talk about when to use what where. — BrianSmithson 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll play around with the templates tomorrow. If anyone wants to mess around with them, they're still in my Sandbox. Hopefully Mitsu will take a look, because he knows more about templates than I do. All I can do is cut and paste and change colors from other templates. Which reminds me, we should decide on a color scheme for the templates...it will keep them looking standardized once we have three different versions. MikeDockery 14:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of the crimson red that's associated with Shinto (though, in truth, that's an import from China), though I'm sure other colors can work as well. I'll look into the boxes and see what I can do.--み使い Mitsukai 14:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually had the same idea (I was specifically looking at the red from the Shinto portal) but the links don't show up well on top of it. If you can get the link issue worked, the red will get my vote as well. Also, do you have any idea why our current infobox won't allow pictures to be placed on top of it? MikeDockery 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I also vote crimson if we can get it to work (but only for the header bar). I'm a big fan of the less-is-more school of infobox design (see what we came up with at Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon, for example), so I definitely want to maintain the white background. White fits in better with the look of the rest of the site and avoids the gaudiness so many infoboxes are prone to. It also won't present a problem with text showing up. — BrianSmithson 15:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of the box being white. I've seen more than enough psychadelic infoboxes around here (Mike will attest to that, having been a victim of the original version of our infobox).--み使い Mitsukai 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. The actual collection of links should be on a white background. Before, I meant the links in the header bars don't show up well on red. Just to mention it, I do like the way the hindu_small template has the category headers colored, though. It uses the colors in a way that is not too garish. MikeDockery 16:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Okay, I have a few versions of a new infobox up on my Sandbox. The aren't ready to go (almost none of the links have been changed), but they should give you an idea of the style. Suggestions? How's the color, etc.? BTW, technically what we have here are Navigational templates, not infoboxes.MikeDockery 17:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking of. Nice. ^_^--み使い Mitsukai 17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the image from the footer-type box, er, navigational template. :) Alternatively, replace it with an image that is as tall as the box itself. But other than that, I think they look quite nice. — BrianSmithson 18:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've got final versions (style-wise - the links still have to be worked out) of three different versions of our new "Nav"boxes. One is a small verticle navbox, one is a small horizontal navbox with a picture, and one (scroll to the bottom) is a huge navbox with no picture but with a "hide" feature so users can hide it if it's in the way. We need to decide which of these to keep (or all of them), and then we need to decide how to break up the link categories in the various boxes (in the smaller versions, not all the information from the current infobox will fit). MikeDockery 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the top two the best. Good job. (^_^) --日本穣 05:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that the top two look better, but the bottom one is the only one that will hold as much information as the current infobox...it will hold way more, in fact, so we may want to keep that one around to use as the number of articles goes up. MikeDockery 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The extra tweaks look even nicer. Great job! --み使い Mitsukai 05:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to coax all that HTML (which I haven't coded since High School) out of my head was no easy task. MikeDockery 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The top two are done now, links and all. I had to move the dragons into the Mythical Creatures page, and I had to create List of sacred objects in Japanese mythology (haven't actually made that list yet...). Also, I would like to add some links at the very bottom of the vertical box, but I don't know what to add. Suggestions? If you guys are cool with these two boxes, we can take them live as soon as that list of artifacts is done. MikeDockery 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh...navbox formatting is slightly wonky in Safari; they looked fine at work on IE. The top two boxes are okay (I think the vertical box actually looks better in Safari - picture is a little off-centered in the small horizontal box), but the large horizontal is screwed. There's obviously a difference in the way Safari and IE handle the "hide" thingy. What does everyone think? Do we want the large box? If so, I'll work with it some more and get the links entered in. If not, I won't bother. MikeDockery 08:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just checked these. I definitely like the vertical box. The big vertical box is way too big, IMHO. I'm not sure what good it does anyone to have all those links on every page related to Japanese mythology (or even on some of them). It'd be better (IMO) to make a new page: List of articles about Japanese mythology or somesuch and include it on a much smaller navbox. But what happened to the small horizontal box? I kind of liked that one. BTW, I also use Safari, and the big box is somewhat messed up for me, as well. Good work, nonetheless! — BrianSmithson 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It went live! The general opinion seemed to be in favor of the two smaller ones, so I went ahead and took them live: {{Jmyth navbox long}} and {{Jmyth navbox tall}}. MikeDockery 15:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! — BrianSmithson 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kami

Nice job, Mike, on sorting out the kami from the gods and goddesses categories! Now what about Category:Japanese legendary creatures? Are any of those considered kami? — BrianSmithson 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated really, because often creatures in folklore are later incorporated into Shinto, thus receiving the title "kami." I mean, kami is a bit amorphous so a lot of things could be considered kami, depending on how wide you want to throw the net. But I'll take a look. MikeDockery 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through the creatures category and adding the Shinto kami cat. to some of the articles ('m through the "N"s now). Basically, I'm only adding the Shinto kami cat. when there is an obvious link to Shinto. Some of the ones I skipped could be considered kami as well, but I'll leave that to others to decide. MikeDockery 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential switch to {{Japan-myth-stub}}

Anyone know how many articles we have left? By my count, we should have enough to start making the switch and making the announcement over at Stubs proposal.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian has the count at 53, I think, on the project page. I added one more last night, so 54? Seem right? MikeDockery 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

56, then. I added two more a couple of hours ago.--み使い Mitsukai 06:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

57, I just added the japan stub tag to one that was missing it. I'm gonna stub some more later, as well. We should be over 60 by tomorrow. MikeDockery 06:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Make that 58. Found one that was hiding in a corner and tagged it.--み使い Mitsukai 06:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

59. Just finished stubbing Amikiri. MikeDockery 06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

60. Stubbed Harionago. We have enough now. MikeDockery 10:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that we had enough a long time ago. We only need 30 if the articles are related to a WikiProject. Anyway, having more will help us when we propose the stub. MikeDockery 10:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall we propose the stub, then? I've never done such a thing, but if we meet the requirements, why not get the ball rolling? — BrianSmithson 21:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I started to yesterday, but I have never done it either, so I'm not sure what we should write in the proposal. But, yeah, the sooner the better in my opinion. MikeDockery 22:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed the stub...

I don't know if it kosher for people from a project to agree or disagree with the stub proposal, but the stub has been proposed. We can start re-marking the stubs in a week if there are no objections to our stub tag. MikeDockery 05:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposal? --日本穣 17:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I just placed the link in the announcements on the project page in response to your question. But here it is if you're lazy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Japanese Mythology Stub. :) — BrianSmithson 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. (^_^) --日本穣 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I doubt it's going to be shot down, perhaps we should start looking into the design of the stub. Side image, wording and such.--み使い Mitsukai 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

News and announcements

How long should items remain on the "News and announcements" section of the project page? If we don't delete old items now and again, the list will get very long! Perhaps a week would be good? Two? What about crossed-out items on the To-do list? — BrianSmithson 19:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought about that earlier myself. I think a week on the striked To-do items, then delete. Should we archive the News and Announcements every week or so? Or is archiving unnecessary? Simply delete after a couple of weeks? MikeDockery 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A week would suffice, I think. As for what to do with the items, it would best to archive, if for no other reason than historical record.--み使い Mitsukai 04:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. MikeDockery 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive Box

I added an archive box to the News and Announcements section on the project page. Basically, I figure we archive about once a week (if needed), but put all the archives for a single month into a single archive page, seperating them into weeks by sub-head. Then link to the specific sub-head for each week of a month, but only for the CURRENT month. So the current month will have its archive links seperated into seperate weeks in the archive box, but other months will only be listed by month. Hopefully this will make things easy to browse, while not making the box too cluttered. OK? We can change it if it seems like too much trouble.

Speaking of archiving, this talk page is getting pretty long. We'll need to talk about whether to archive the talk page by month or by discussion. What does everyone think? MikeDockery 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I usually go by the KB limit (once a talk page exceeds 30 KB, archive but keep any active discussions on the main talk page). At this stage, we're talking quite a bit since the project is still getting on its feet. Later, things might run quite smoothly and monthly archives won't be necessary. Discussion-by-discussion archives would create some awfully short archives, too. — BrianSmithson 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was just going by the "getting to be quite a scroll to the bottom" criteria. ;-) How do you check the page size? Monthly archives (or however long...) seems good to me. Discussion-by-discussion would be somewhat of a pain, anyway. MikeDockery 13:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When you're in edit mode, there will be a message above the edit box if the article is 30 KB or more. Currently, there's not message, which means we're in the clear. :) — BrianSmithson 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha! Sounds like a plan, then. MikeDockery 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of something else. Rather than strike items from the to-do list and leaving them there for a while, here's my proposed procedure for when something on to-do gets done: 1) Remove the item completely from the to-do list. No strike-through. 2) Add a note to "News and announcements" that you've completed that task. This way, the to-do list keeps from getting cluttered, and there's no need to archive the to-do list, since the items get mentioned in "News and announcements" and thus get archived there. Make sense? — BrianSmithson 13:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of archiving the to-do box along with the News and Announcements, but I'd like to keep the striked items up as well, for a certain amount of time. Mainly because there is something quite satisfying about having that crossed-off task on there for a bit. ;-) But also, it will give other editors a chance to make sure the task is done. For complicated things, like the category stuff, it would be easy to miss something, so having the finished task in a conspicous place may serve some purpose other than the simple satisfaction of having something crossed out on a list. We could do it this way - strike out and add the announcement to the News and Annoucement section. Then a week later delete entirely from the to-do list. That way we still don't have to archive the To-Do list. MikeDockery 13:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. — BrianSmithson 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that doing it by KB makes a lot of sense as well. Discussion by discussion will make for some short pages, and even month to month might do so as well, should, say, all of us somehow get tied up during one particular month.--み使い Mitsukai 13:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

True. By KB seems to be the way to go. MikeDockery 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, we're currently at 31 KB. I'll leave it for the moment, but we should probably archive today! — BrianSmithson 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub design

(Thoght I'd start this discussion in a new section in preparation for archiving most of the rest of this talk page.) So, what do we want the stub to say? What should the image be? As for the latter, it should be something simple, and therefore easily seen at small sizes. Any of these images would be cool: Image:ManjuNetsuke.jpg, Image:MaskNetsuke.jpg, and Image:KagamibutaNetsuke.jpg. We'd use the left-hand image and cut the netsuke out so it'd be on a white background. I don't know whether they'll show up at the reduced size of the stub image, though. I particularly like the oni and think it would probably show up best at a small size. Another option: Image:Metal dragon side view.jpg, though a dragon could be construed as Chinese. This might work, too: Image:Onigawara.jpg. If we cut him out from his background, Yebisu would be fun: Image:RA-Ebisu.jpg. If we could find a free image of the Japanese imperial regalia (particularly the paisley-shaped thing), that would also be good. (The only image Wikipedia has of this is copyright: Image:Sanshu no Jingi.gif). All that, and I only got about halfway through Category:Japan at Wikimedia Commons! — BrianSmithson 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian, did you mean a magatama?--み使い Mitsukai 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. Looks like the image of it there is also not free. It'd be a simple solution to the graphic issue if we could find a free one. As of right now, I like the oni netsuke and Ebisu versions. — BrianSmithson 19:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can gen one up tonight. Working on a graphic for another article, so it shouldn't be much of a problem.--み使い Mitsukai 19:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think Kagamibuta or Ebisu would work well, though I'm leaning slightly more towards the former.--み使い Mitsukai 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to play with this at my sandbox. Anyone who wants to can drop by and change things up as much as they please. — BrianSmithson 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian, have you tried the Inari image? I think it would look good if it was cut out on a white background. Not sure it would show up at a small size, but it might be worth a try. The Ebisu image looks good, too. But I'd like to see the fox image on a white background and at a small size before I vote. If no one has done that by the time I get home (no photoshop on my computer at work) I will have a go. Thanks for working on the stub tag! MikeDockery 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a rough version of the fox, just to have an idea. It doesn't look as good as I hoped, mainly because the original image was a little too dark. MikeDockery 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So far my favorite is Fujin. A Noh mask would be wonderful if anyone can find a free-license one. Something like this, only free. :) — BrianSmithson 04:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I might have something like that...I'll check my pictures. Also, if you can think of specific requests, I can take my camera out to some shrines or something this weekend. MikeDockery 05:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of a guy wearing a mask sort of like that. It's from the front, though, and it has hair so it's hard to put against a background. Anyway, it's here for the original, and here for a small version. MikeDockery 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good picture, but you're right; the hair gets in the way. Basically my thought process was that I liked the oni netsuke version, but that it would be better if we had something similar but more colorful. Your mask photo would be perfect if the mask could be easily cut out and placed on a white background, but I don't think that's possible with the hair. — BrianSmithson 14:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Starting back over here because I'm lazy like that. ^_^ Anyway, added a magatama version with an image I made in Illustrator a couple of minutes ago.--み使い Mitsukai 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not bad! But I think a photographic megatama would be better; the pop-art vibe seems to be more appropriate for something like WikiProject Anime than for us, methinks. My favorites are the oni netsuke, Fujin, and Yebisu. The oni netsuke would be better in color (a painted Noh mask like the one Mike posted, only on a white background); it's possible some piece of art may have a bit more contrast to it to replace Fujin (but I like the close-cropped painting motif; very Japanese website); and at that size, Yebisu kind of looks too much like a garden gnome for me to rank him higher. :) I don't think it's worth fretting too much more about the image. Anyone else have any preferences at this stage? — BrianSmithson 14:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I chose the pop-art look so that it would better match many of the other stub icons floating around here {{rock-album-stub}}, {{politics-stub}}, et al. I do agree though that Ebisu looks like he'd be hanging out over at Travelocity instead of on the stub.--み使い Mitsukai 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to give my thoughts. I would reject the Onigawara and Kagamibuta_netsuke, because you can't really tell what they are when they are made small enough for the stub template. The inari I put up might have the same problem - I can't really tell because I know what it's supposed to be. You can kind of tell what the dragon is at that size, but it kind of gives off a China-vibe.

Mitsukai's magatama looks good, but I'm not sure that the random person knows what a magatama is, much less what they look like. I agree that the demon mask picture doesn't work because it can't be put on a background. Ebisu's okay (now that you said that about the garden gnome, though, it's all I can see...). I like Fujin and Oni netsuke (although it would be better in color... しょうがない). I like the fox, too, but I can't really tell how it looks to someone who didn't spend time working on the original. That's my 2-cents. In the end, whatever everyone else likes is okay by me. MikeDockery 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Tried another version of the fox. I know, I should just let it go.... ;-) MikeDockery 15:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the oni netsuke or oni mask would be the way to go. Fujin is a little hard to make out at the smaller size with all those sepia tones, unless you know what the image is meant to be. I like the fox, too (the full shot more than the head-only one), but I think the oni work a bit better. Shimeru 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Japanese_mythology_Archive_1_3a0a.html"

Category: Wikipedia talk archives

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japanese mythology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Jmyth infobox

Categories

Names...

Horizontal Infobox

Infobox

Kami

Potential switch to {{Japan-myth-stub}}

Proposed the stub...

News and announcements

Archive Box

Stub design

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search