Talk:Shunga

Article Expansion
I've added a lot to this article - generally I'm quite pleased with what I've been able to do. However, out of fear of conflict, the references section is perhaps a bit excessive, not least because a lot of my citations are the same Helsinki Art Museum book. Would someone mind checking through and removing references next to statements that they do not feel will be questioned by many people?

I also feel that it would be nice if it were rated higher than start class now. Gosh, I hope this article is on someone's watch list.

Please let me know if you think some of the points I've raised in the new article are a bit pedantic. Genre classification may be one of them. Rupa zero 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has passed GA criteria and looks appropriate under the terms. Lakers 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm
Screech is not a very good source because he published his book with the intention of stirring up study/debate on shunga and very often uses quite a number of generalizations.

While I think that his generalisations are backed up by so much anecdotal evidence that it's almost tiring to wade through it all, I think I understand your concerns regarding his intention to stir up debate. If there are any statements in the article that you find controversial then let me know - however, I think I've managed to steer clear of his more outlandish claims, such as that shunga was nothing more than a masturbatory aid. I don't agree with Screech on everything he says, and I hope you'll find that I've used other sources extensively enough. Oh, and please remember to sign off with four tildes.

Rupa zero 14:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review
I'd like to apologize to the editors who regularly contribute to this article, but it seems that Lakers did not fully perform a full good article review last April 03, 2007. Generally, a good article review begins with a nominator placing a GA nominee template on the talk page. In a week or two, a volunteer reviewing editor, who has not contributed significantly to the article, compares the article with the the good article criteria. When the reviewer completes the review, he or she generally leaves a series of comments, and possibly some action items. With the completion of action items, if any, and if the article meets the criteria, the reviewer grants the GA award. A recent review session of the Battle of Antietam looks like this; this review was conducted over the course of a few days by an experienced good article reviewer, Awadewit, who found the article generally compliant; he worked with a regular contributor, Hal Jespersen to clear up a few action items. On granting the award, Awadewit left some remarks on what might need to be done for the article to be compliant with the more stringent Featured article standards.

In contrast, Lakers apparently did not begin with a nominatation for this article, nor have I come across any page or section where he left review notes. From what I gather from the talk page history, he simply placed the GA award with a brief complementary announcement. A long-term participant in the Good Article review process, Homestarmy remarked on a similarly abbreviated review process for Original Stories from Real Life conducted by Lakers. As Homestarmy noted to Lakers on that occasion, in the absence of any written review, it is not clear to other editors how or why an article gained the Good Article marque and may speedily delist this article on no larger grounds than an improper procedure was followed.

To this I would add that the Good Article marque in and of itself is void of meaning: it acquires meaning only when another editor, a reviewer with no ego invested in an article and who, quite independently of those contributing to the article, reviews the effort and publishes (1) a written opinion on how well the article compares to a written standard, (2) offers action items that may be needed to meet those standards, and (3) suggests ways to improve the article so that it can achieve even higher standards. It is this sort of published commentary that endows a Good Article marque with meaning with respect to the article to which it is attached. in the absence of such published commentary, the marque has little meaning and awarding it is largely an empty gesture.

I have given the article a brief read, and see no immediate reason to delist, indeed, it seems to be in the territory of a good article. But as you may have gathered, I regard the written review, and the responses that contributors may have to it, as the real value of a Good Article marque. I will be posting this article at the Review board for the independent opinions of other reviewers; my overall recommendation is to requeue this article as a Good Article Candidate so that an independent editor can give you useful commentarty. I apologize for the haste and lack of content of the previous review and the extra process it has engendered, but I hope you all may agree with me that the Good Article marque is only so much page clutter if it is empty of meaning. Take care — Gosgood 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Gosgood. I'm impressed by how meticulous you are. Looking forward to the independent review. Rupa zero 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

zeng
The original reference to "zeng" was a single word paragraph added 18:41, 11 November 2006, then expanded a minute later to '(usually named Zeng)' and apparently unnoticed or unquestioned since. I strongly suspect this is a case of 'potentially embarassing act' > 'potentially embarassing act is a favorite pastime of chosen victim' vandalism that's been missed. If there is some kind of historical reference here that I'm missing, explain it here (and the article)

For now I'm deleting it as sadly 14 month old vandalism.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.67.106 (talk • contribs) 02:13, January 10, 2008

What are empon?
Empon are mentioned twice (once in each of two sections) on this page. http://jisho.org/search/empon says it means one-yen book, but beyond that and even though I searched (japan "empon") I could not find anything but a gallery mentioning Empon Mokuroku as a pseudonym. (For a moment I misread it as Empon Mokushiroku, or One-Yen Book Apocalypse, which would a great pen name for an erotic book artist! Thanks, Revolutionary Girl Utena anime, for teaching me that second word!)

So, if a bowl of noodles cost one yen at the time, then an empon would be the more cheaply produced shunga mentioned, but this needs to be addressed with a good quote in a good reference if we keep this term at all.

Sorry that all I can do is point this out! Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. People have interpreted this as 'all possible ways to romanise the Sanskrit word' versus 'all possible ways to romanise the Japanese word.' It's hard to say this is wrong. The counting methods give different results, but generally the editors who did the analysis find that the Japanese art form wins. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments depend on a 'discussion among editors' as the guideline says and there is no absolute rule for what should be chosen. Given that the numeric vote favors the Japanese art form by 6:4 that appears to decide the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Shunga → Shunga (art) – I would like move Shunga (disambiguation) here and move Shunga to Shunga (art). This is because the Shunga Empire is a notable topic which is referred to by the term Shunga as well. The "Shunga" in Shunga Empire is a transliteration of the Sanskrit शुङ्ग; it is also transliterated more accurately to "Śuṅga" or when these diacritics are dropped (which is often), to just "Sunga".

For notability, please compare: N.B. These searches compare all three Shunga (empire) spelling variants restricted by the Empire/Dynasty keywords against variants of Shunga (such as Syunga and Shun'ga) restricted by Japanese/Erotic.
 * 1) Google Search: Shunga (Empire) (582,000 results) vs Shunga (art) (506,000)
 * 2) Google Books: Shunga (Empire) (34,300 results) vs Shunga (art) (11,000)

(Edit): The search stats above were updated on Aug 11 to include the Syunga and Shun'ga spelling variants. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Articles that link here refer to the Japanese term. Googling "Shunga" (in private browser mode to avoid any influence of past searches or Google's data on me) reveals that 48 of the first 50 results are about the Japanese term (the other two were related to place names in Kansas). It seems clear that the primary use of the word alone is for the Japanese term.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've already gone through and weeded out all the misdirects to Shunga on WP. For your second argument, I have nothing to offer except to say that since we are talking about the primary *topic* (and not spelling) here, then all three spellings for Shunga (empire) ought to be taken into account. And as a random counterexample, WP uses a disambiguation page for Vibrator even though the sex toy dominates search results on Google. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and interesting parallel to vibrator... I'll think on that.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC means primary for a certain term, in this case "Shunga" written exactly that way. The empire may be the primary topic for Sunga and Śuṅga but not for Shunga.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be terribly opposed to having Shunga redirect to disambig. Just weakly opposed I guess. I think it's find the way it is tbh, but would not fight a move if people supported it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this reply earlier, sorry. I'm not sure if that argument can be applied here as those are all highly similar transliterations (as opposed to synonyms) of the same term, Shunga.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning support, but I'll point out that there are different transliterations of the Japanese word as well: this GBooks search gives 11,000 hits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of these variants. I've updated the search stats in the RM accordingly. Thank you. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In my Google Books search I'm getting 5600 for Shunga Empire vs. 9040 for Shunga art. Page views are a little difficult to parse, as the empire's page has moved, but the trend is clear: 6945 views for Shunga in 30 days, vs. 1835 at Śuṅga Empire and 1817 for Shunga Empire (part of which will be the same people hitting a redirect). This means that even if every person seeking the empire got there by going to Shunga first, there are still several thousand more readers looking for the art form.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that WP:PRIMARY does not mean "more page hits" or "more search hits"—for instance, the animal Wolverine got 114279 page hits in the last 90 days, while Wolverine (character) got 203821 (and you can be sure that a lot of the page hits for Wolverine were actually from people looking for Wolverine (character)). For page hits to be relevant to the discussion, the difference has to be quite extraordinary. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically encourages looking at Google Books results, article traffic statistics, and incoming links to determine if a topic is primary in terms of use; they're especially meaningful when one topic gets several times the traffic of the other, as is the case here. There's also a question of long-term significance, which is going to be subjective here, as both topics are of considerable historical significance and have been for hundreds of years.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you reading the same WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I am? The alleged "encouragement" looks awfully disclaimered to me (descriping it as a "tool" and noting its unreliability), and comes only after PRIMARY makes it clear that a primary topic is something that is either "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" or that "it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term".  Both topics appear to be frequent search topics and both have substantial long-term significance, and the numbers are not differnt to such a degree as to be relevant to PRIMARY. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Books search, page view stats and incoming links are tools used to gauge primary topic in terms of use, and they're very widely accepted in that regard. By the evidence, the art form is "much more likely than any other topic" to be sought, several times over. Both do have significant long-term significance, but the fact remains that readers are much more frequently looking for the art than the empire.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Several times over"? Only in a single search out of several that have been linked to here, and not nearly to a degree that could ever grant PRIMARY.  We're seeing right now just why GBooks results have to be approached with caution (as WP:PRIMARY explicitly warns). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A topic being "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" is a good gauge that it's the primary topic. Three times the page views easily meets any conceivable threshold.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not by a long shot, and there's no guideline that suggests it should. Worse, given the variety of numbers that have been presented, it's disturbing you'd pick one particular set and declare it settled—which demonstrates all the more why GBooks numbers cannot be used to determine WP:PRIMARY (as WP:PRIMARY itself makes explicit). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not WP:PRIMARY, and it doesn't say anything like that. To return to the article traffic stats, clearly you disagree, but it's widely accepted evidence in move discussions.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it doesn't say anything like that: So you simply ignored the "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)" at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Yes, yes you did, along with all the conflicting numbers presented in this discussion which demosntrate exactly why. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I didn't "ignore" it, I used them in the way the guideline says, the way they're used in hundreds of other RMs.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote, please, as I see no wording in the guideline that supports what you say, and plenty of disclaimers there against. Regardless, you still fail to acknowledge search results that don't support your position. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote you just cited. I'm not going in circles with you any further. So far in this discussion, we've seen article traffic statistics, which support the art form receiving 3x the page views, my Google Books results, which show the art form with an easy lead, and Google Books searches from you and Cpt.a.haddock, which show a different result, although yours are results for "Sunga Dynasty", not "Shunga Dynasty".--Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow—so black is simply white, eh? Never mind that page views for the Wikipeida "Shunga" article will inevitably include those intending to find the dynasty and thus Wikipedia traffic statistics can't possibly apply. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline seems pretty clear. As for the page views, correct, but with 3x the views, even if every person intending the dynasty got there by going to "Shunga" first, there would still be thousands more for the art form.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not restrict your book search only to "Empire". Shunga is often collocated with "Dynasty". That Google Books search gives me 11,100 results. "Pushyamitra Shunga" (its most famous ruler) is also often seen outside the context of his empire/dynasty. And FWIW, Shunga (the Empire) can also be noticed in the realm of art and architecture as seen here in The Met. Furthermore, it can also be encountered in the domain of erotic art as here.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are probably many ways to parse the Google Books results, but I get only 882 hits for Shunga dynasty. Running through the first several pages of a bald search result for Shunga on Google Books, as well as Worldcat and my university library, reveals many more returns for the art form than the empire.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see 11,100 results in your provided Google Books link. Not 882.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk)
 * Just checked it again and I'm seeing 882. Must be differences in preferences, location, search history or something.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting 17,400 hits for "Shunga Dynasty". Screenshot - Shunga Dynasty results.png Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's showing results for "Sunga Dynasty", not Shunga.--,Cúchullain t/ c 22:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, nobody has managed to get a number as low as 882 but you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you clicked the link that says "Search instead for Shunga Dynasty".--Cúchullain t/ c 13:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The usage criterion for primary topic is clearly controversial here, and the enduring significance criterion would be intrinsically highly subjective, a short-lived but significant empire versus a minor but significant branch of erotica. A good case for no primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly meets the usage criterion of WP:PTOPIC, as laid out by Cuchullain. And I'm not convinced anyone has made a good long-term significance argument, so I can't see any good reason to change the status quo. Jenks24 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It appears the Japanese art form is the most popular topic for things simply referred to as "Shunga". I looked into the search results of the Google Book search for "Shunga was" and "Shunga is" and most of the results are about the art form. --Kusunose 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing convincing, so oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per most of what has already been said above.Tiggerjay (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per most of what has already been said above ;) seriously, the fact that this discussion is split so evenly between India and Japan shows that there is no primary topic. Shunga in books can be either. It's that simple. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I binged Shunga and was saddened to learn that there is far more interest in dirty pictures than in ancient empires (13 results for the art, one for the empire). Hymn and her (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Open Access sources on Shunga
Japan Review Vol. 26 at Nichibunken Open Access. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shunga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050930201104/http://www.gregkucera.com/shunga.htm to http://www.gregkucera.com/shunga.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)