Talk:Chokusen wakashū

Merger proposal
I propose that Nijūichidaishū be merged into Chokusen wakashū. The term Nijūichidaishū is another name for a particular set of Chokusen wakashū, and should be considered a sub-catagory of Chokusen wakashū. The limited information on the Nijūichidaishū page could easily be imported into a new section on the Chokusen wakashū page. Kurtishanlon (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

2019 Merge proposal
Suggesting that the subsets of Nijūichidaishū, Hachidaishū and Sandaishū be merged here. Those pages are brief stubs, already just subsets of the content here, and not independently notable in English (although they might be in Japanese). Easily discussed in one place. Klbrain (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, according to Britannica, Fujiwara no Kiyosuke used Sandaishū to refer to the Man'yōshū, the Kokinshū and the Gosenshū, before the Shūishū existed, and the Man'yōshū is not generally considered to be a chokusenshū. Mumyōzōshi, similarly, included the Man'yōshū in its Hachidaishū, leaving out the Shinkokinshū. I created the one medium-sized article and two stubs (the Nijūichidaishū stub existed earlier) based on the idea that all of these concepts were independently notable, and could be discussed more easily in their own articles than in this one. Explaining the relationship of the MYS to the court anthologies is somewhat complicated, and is not done in either of the Britannica articles cited above, so separate sources would need to be found for the claim that the MYS is not a court anthology, and that the "number-daishū" terms are not, strictly speaking, subsets of this topic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet WP:NOTADICTIONARY also suggests that we don't need a separate page for each term. The pages are so short and overlapping that the distinctions between the terms can easily be made on one page, and the overlap suggests that it would be better to do so in one place. Klbrain (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not at all afraid of losing my WAM 2017 laurels just because it turns out that one of the articles I submitted was a fork of a preexisting page, but I still don't think it would be "easy" to make the distinction between the Man'yōshū and the works described on this page without technically running afoul of NOR by, say, citing either of the above Britannica articles but referring to the Man'yōshū as "non-chokusen". A quick Googling brought up this source that didn't seem at all sure of the issue, this source that is currently not visible but whose Google preview implies Motoori Norinaga rejected the idea that it was a court anthology outright; but looking for "Manyoshu lecture" on YouTube brings up this fairly well-known lecture by Ian Hideo Levy, in which he apparently misspoke (?) and stated simply that it was compiled by "the court". The whole point of this article is distinguish the concept of a court anthology from the various lists of court anthologies, and mixing it in with the articles on said lists would mean we'd also have to distinguish it (preferably before the merge) from the early non-court anthology that apparently was included in some of those lists. I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other, but the article I wrote would need to be completely combed over so that it is no longer written in such a fashion as not to imply that the others need to be incorporated into it, as well as to incorporate a discussion of the relationship of the Man'yōshū to this group. (I didn't have the Nijūichidaishū page on my watchlist and so was apparently not notified by email when the merger happened last year.) I would prefer if this was done before any more content was merged in; I might get time to do it this weekend, but not if anyone else thinks the separate pages should be maintained before then.
 * Also, this is a minor point, but I decided that these were separate topics in November 2017, and created this page out of one of the more obscure titles that didn't already exist as a redirect to the Nijūichidaishū article. This is the better title for the "topic as a whole", but for ten years before I made that decision we had an article under the other title, and actually the oldest page under any of these titles appears to be, which for some reason redirects to an entirely different article. (I say "for some reason", but actually it's entirely my fault; I was apparently not as diligent or thorough in 2012 as I was in 2017.) My point is that if the pages are merged, it would probably be better if the titles were switched around and was the main article, since virtually all of this page's history is me fiddling around with it in the two hours or so after I created it.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing, with no merge (and no intention of stripping Hijiri of laurels!), given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)