| Revision as of 14:26, 20 October 2012 editBoneyard90 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers80,832 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:05, 13 November 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::As six months have passed without comment, I'll remove the three names mentioned above from the article. If their haiga is not worthy of note in their personal articles, they can hardly be haiga artists of note.--] (]) 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | ::As six months have passed without comment, I'll remove the three names mentioned above from the article. If their haiga is not worthy of note in their personal articles, they can hardly be haiga artists of note.--] (]) 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Removal of EL == | |||
| With this , User Elvenscout742 removed an EL to , and offered this edit summary: ''(Revert unnecessary EL. ELs should be used sparingly, and should generally only be to sites that contain accurate, relevant information that would not be in this article if it was FA-standard. This painting style is not equal to literary movement.)'' | |||
| The EL in question is the online site of an annual anthology of haiga and winner, in 2006, of the ''Haiku Society of America’s Mildred Kanterman Memorial Merit Book Award''. The site offers many interviews with and articles by contemporary haiga artists from the USA, Japan, Romania and elsewhere as well as a gallery of contemporary haiga. The site’s coverage of current haiga, if anything, is broader and more representative than that of some of the ELs that Elvenscout left standing in the article. | |||
| Please elaborate, Elvenscout, on why you believe this EL offers ''something other'' than “accurate, relevant information” as justification for your removal of this EL. Also, you argue that ELs should be employed “sparingly,” a word open to broad interpretation, particularly if one reviews other WP articles such as ] (19 ELs), ] (9 ELs) or ] (9 ELs). The present article, with the addition of the EL you removed, would have only five. In light of the above, please also explain how you would define “sparingly.”] (]) 04:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:05, 13 November 2012
 | Japan: Culture Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | Visual arts Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
The definition of haiga is taken from my personal web site on the haiga art/haiku form. I grant Misplaced Pages permission to use it. ~ ray rasmussen, http://raysweb.net/haiga ray@raysweb.net
--198.166.61.6 (talk) 16:57, 04:26, June 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Not good enough. Needs a reliable source. The present article has one.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
"Haiga artists of note"
With some 30 entries, more than 20 of which are redlinked, this list is excessive, and conveys practically no useful information to the reader. I propose deleting all redlinked entries from the list. Objections?
--Yumegusa (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take
fivetwo months of silence as an indication that there are no objections. Done.
- Does it strike anyone as odd that the painters Sakai Hōitsu, Hakuin Ekaku, and Maruyama Ōkyo, all mentioned in the History section as haiga painters, have no mention at all of haiga in their WP articles?
--Yumegusa (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- As six months have passed without comment, I'll remove the three names mentioned above from the article. If their haiga is not worthy of note in their personal articles, they can hardly be haiga artists of note.--Yumegusa (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Removal of EL
With this edit, User Elvenscout742 removed an EL to Reeds Contemporary Haiga, and offered this edit summary: (Revert unnecessary EL. ELs should be used sparingly, and should generally only be to sites that contain accurate, relevant information that would not be in this article if it was FA-standard. This painting style is not equal to literary movement.)
The EL in question is the online site of an annual anthology of haiga and winner, in 2006, of the Haiku Society of America’s Mildred Kanterman Memorial Merit Book Award. The site offers many interviews with and articles by contemporary haiga artists from the USA, Japan, Romania and elsewhere as well as a gallery of contemporary haiga. The site’s coverage of current haiga, if anything, is broader and more representative than that of some of the ELs that Elvenscout left standing in the article.
Please elaborate, Elvenscout, on why you believe this EL offers something other than “accurate, relevant information” as justification for your removal of this EL. Also, you argue that ELs should be employed “sparingly,” a word open to broad interpretation, particularly if one reviews other WP articles such as The Tale of Genji (19 ELs), Matsuo Bashō (9 ELs) or Haiku (9 ELs). The present article, with the addition of the EL you removed, would have only five. In light of the above, please also explain how you would define “sparingly.”Tristan noir (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories: