Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:46, 8 June 2010.

List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials)

 * Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another list of National Treasures of Japan. It has been modeled after the featured lists of national treasure paintings, sculptures, temples, shrines, residences and castles. bamse (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Sandman888 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you considering putting the Japanese names in notes? That way they will not take up space in the list. It might be a hassle but I think it'll help attract a wider audience. Sandman888 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea. I asked the wikiproject Japan about guidelines in this case and requested here a template which would reduce the hassle of converting to the style you suggested. bamse (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be a step forward! Looking forward to the outcome. Btw, I edited a minor flaw in the list. Sandman888 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the list is of Japanese National Treasures, putting the Japanese in notes would be a step backward, IMO. Relegating the actual names of the treasures to the footnotes would be a bad idea. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. However it also depends on whether the typical reader knows enough Japanese to make sense of the parantheses. Since I don't have a preference for either way, I'll wait what other reviewers think about it. bamse (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If they don't know how to read Japanese, then they will ignore the parenthetical part. I do the same with languages I don't know. "People may not understand it or be able to read it" is not a reason to not include it, especially in the case where it would be removing or displacing the actual title of the item. The only case where I'd be fine omitting it is if the individual national treasure had its own article which was linked to. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Japanese would not disappear completely, but moved to a footnote. Anyway, now I tend to leave it in as is, because, after all the national treasures are designated with their Japanese name and the official source also lists them by their Japanese name only. All the English names are due to secondary sources such as museum websites or books on Japanese art. bamse (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see if other editors have the same feelings regarding Japanese names. The average wikipedian almost certainly doesn't understand it, and we do have a policy to use English, WP:UE, which doesn't operate by what's official, but what's common. Sandman888 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But if the Japanese names provide additional information which is not (and cannot be) expressed easily in English, it is worthwhile to have Japanese alongside English. Please note that most wikipedia articles on Japanese topics start with the Japanese name (in kanji or hiragana or katakana) and its reading. Since this is a list of Japanese items (National Treasures) it should have Japanese names. Also, if this list was a list of Japanese people, it would be very worthwhile to have Japanese names in the table because of the ambiguity in spelling. Similarly, in this case there are often various English names for the treasures found in literature. So, providing the fixed Japanese name helps to avoid ambiguity here. bamse (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been peripherally involved with these articles as a copyeditor. Currently five have been promoted to FL such as,  List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) and List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings). In my view the formatting should be consistent across the series, which I believe is the formatting presented in this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Mostly a good list. I agree that the Japanese text in the tables is fine as is. A few things I noticed:
 * "and have been designated national treasures since the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties came into force on June 9, 1951." I think 'came into effect' would sound better.
 * Changed as suggested. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph seemed awfully long; I tweaked this to make them more even, let me know if it's wrong.
 * Thank you for tweaking. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the details are good, but a couple, such as Dogu with palms together, have nothing more than the dimensions. I'd imagine there would be a bit more to add for those.
 * I expanded the "Dogu with palms together" and the "Jomon Venus" details. Please let me know if you think that other entries need to be expanded as well. The idea of this table is to summarize only the most important or most interesting information of the treasures. Comprehensive details should eventually go into the (to-be-written) articles of each national treasure. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I replied above. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good now. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Very nice list, good work.  Jujutacular  T · C 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. I support with just one comment. You should mention historical periods (Asuka, Nara, Heian), when various events described in the fourth paragraph of the lead happened. You do this in the first three paragraphs, but omit in the fourth, which seems strange. For instance, you should say that Buddhism was adopted in Asuka period (first sentence). Ruslik_ Zero 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added Asuka and Nara period as suggested. Other periods were already present. bamse (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Few Points. Alt Text on some of the images need to be checked, Ref 89 doesn't work for me, any reason why the language isn't specified in some of the references? Afro  ( DontTazeMeBro ) - Afkatk 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. As far as I understand, alt-text is not a requirement of featured lists anymore. Fixed ref 89 (which probably changed due to a town merger). The language is only specified for non-English sources (did I forget any?) which is in accordance with the MOS. bamse (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Everything looks good here. The experience gained from getting the other National Treasure lists through FLC clearly shows through here. The table's good and I like the layout of the lead. Presenting an explanation of the artefacts and National Treasures followed by a brief excursion into Japanese history to put the artefacts into context seems to me like a sensible way to do it. There are a couple of points below I'd like to see addressed, but they're fairly minor copy editing issues and shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. Congratulations on another fine list. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "such pottery may have had a symbolic meaning or was used as ceremonial objects": "was used" is singular while "objects" is plural. Maybe change to "...meaning or was used ceremonially"?
 * Changed as suggested. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "which were introduced from the mainland": does that mean mainland Asia?
 * Yes, mainland Asia, or more specifically, China and Korea. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "The starting date of the Kofun period ... is defined by the appearance of large-scale keyhole-shaped kofun mound tombs": I'd suggest changing "defined" to "marked".
 * I prefer "defined", since here it is really a definition, i.e. the Kofun period starts with keyhole-shaped tombs and there is no other "definition" for the start date. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments (and support). I incorporated the first of your suggestions and replied above to the other two. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.