Template:Did you know nominations/Kamiyodo Haiji
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Kamiyodo Haiji[edit]
- ... that fragments of wall painting from the Japanese Buddhist temple of Kamiyodo Haiji (site pictured) have been dated to the late Asuka period, as early as those of Hōryū-ji?
- Reviewed: Degenerate Art Exhibition
- Comment: article extension and review to follow v.shortly
Created/expanded by Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk). Self nom at 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Quality article, Japanese sources accepted AGF. I suggest to reword the hook for the uninitiated readers who don't know that the period ended in the eight century, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The hook or the article will definitely need rewording: I don't see anywhere in the article where it actually states that the wall paintings at Kamiyodo Haiji, specifically, were dated to the late Asuka period, which calls into question the primary hook fact. Indeed, there are mentions of all sorts of other sites that may have been earlier, or about the same time, or discovered before or after: I find it very confusing to have so much comparison going on without making it initially clear what the dating and time period is for the Kamiyodo Haiji.
- Can there be a simple statement in the article of the dating, and if possible not by "late Asuka period", since the Asuka period's end dates are argued by scholars according to the linked Wikipedia article, and the difference is half the length of the period itself. Thanks. (Alternately, give which Asuka period's dates are being used, which would clarify matters.) Gerda's statement that the period ended in the eighth century is only true with one scholarly interpretation; the other places the end in 645, with the Hakuhō period following. The intro does say that the buildings date to the end of the seventh century, but this fact is neither sourced here nor repeated in the body of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments and sorry for the slow response; I've clarified the date (and structure) accordingly, but am reluctant to amend the dating of the hook because, without the numeric tyranny of a western-style date, it might lead to a few more clicks on the Asuka period... What do you think? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
fine with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments and sorry for the slow response; I've clarified the date (and structure) accordingly, but am reluctant to amend the dating of the hook because, without the numeric tyranny of a western-style date, it might lead to a few more clicks on the Asuka period... What do you think? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
