Talk:Nahoko Uehashi

Guardian / Moribito

(quote) Uehashi's most famous work is the "Guardian" (守り人, moribito) series ...

And so on. For what it's worth, ISFDB catalogs it as the Moribito series.[1] Generally that is worth following and there are many fictional Guardians (surprise, we have no category for them). In this regard I made no change but adding "Moribito series" to the infobox--and Uehashi at ISFDB to the External links.

--P64 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense to include the series AND a book of the series. That is utterly redundant and makes no sense. This is not an issue that belongs in the infobox, but in the article itself. As the article is now, there is absolutely no mention of any kind of "Guardian series". The article refers to the series as the "Moribito series" (which you seem not to have noticed), so any attempt to shoehorn in a mention of the term "Moribito series" in the infobox, to inform people that it's called that, makes no sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hans Christian Andersen Award

Uehashi is 2014 winner of the Hans Christian Andersen Award for writers, announced today. I expect to "complete" the coverage here after the official website is updated, presumably this week.

More material useful here may be expected when the award is presented later this year. The previous two-year cycle ended in ceremonies 25 August 2012, including speeches by the jury president and the award winner that were published online (María Teresa Andruetto#References). I have inquired by email to IBBY how to find the short profiles of all nominees, such as that for Andruetto 2012 which is incorporated in the same reference. If that is answered I'll post notice on the Award talk page, at least.

--P64 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Once the IBBY website actually verifies her victory (well deserved! I'm happy for her ...if that is confirmed), her winning the prize should be included.

Not before.

Furthermore, it should be done in the same manner, and in the same place, as her other prizes, rather than being given its own paragraph. That feels out of place and disturbs the flow of the text. It is incompatible with the rest of the article.

...and also: Please learn how to make references. You do not put them in the {{Reflist}} template! You put them right after the statement that it is supposed to verify!--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent re-revert did not address any of the issues I mentioned ...and even if you want to mention the shortlisting, it should be done in the same manner, and in the same place, as her other prizes.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems the IBBY website did announce her victory in the "news" and "press release" bits of their page ...though strangely not in their page about the award (which makes no sense). I have now added mention on her victory in a manner that is compatible with the rest of the article ...as well as rewriting some bits, and making the lead into an actual lead, which required moving some information.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

ZarlanThe Green

1. don't shout
2. "Please learn how to make references." If based on reading something, this is based on mis-reading.
3. Awards should not be covered in the same place and manner; some are not worth mentioning at all, some not in the infobox, some in the lead. This one is more than worth covering the finalists; for some of them it belongs in the lead. Others ...
4. The lead paragraph whose "flow" you protected two days ago covered her U.S. publisher and the ALA award it/he won for the year's best English-language edition of a children's book in translation. That is material for a book article.
5. We still have so little biographical information about N.U. that it all fits in the lead sentence parentheses. "Flow" is for articles that are more advanced.

--P64 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"don't shout"

I haven't.

"If based on reading something, this is based on mis-reading."

Where does it state that you should make put references in the {{Reflist}} template, as you have done? Can you link to a Wikipedia policy or guideline ...or even an essay? Furthermore, referencing should be done in a uniform manner. To make a citation in a completely different kind of way, to every other citation done on the article, would thus go against the guidelines, either way.

"Awards should not be covered in the same place and manner; some are not worth mentioning at all, some not in the infobox, some in the lead. This one is more than worth covering the finalists; for some of them it belongs in the lead. Others ..."

Do you have any basis for any of that?

Well I agree that some are not notable enough to warrant including in the article, as that would be giving it WP:Undue weight, but aside from that...

Furthermore, while the Hans Christian Andersen Award is a rather prestigious one, I see absolutely no reason why it would warrant a whole paragraph, where the other awards only got a simple mention.

"The lead paragraph whose "flow" you protected two days ago/.../"

I protected the general flow of the article. Not one specific paragraph.

Also, please note that I was the one who changed the appearance of the lead section ...without causing any form of disruption of the flow of the article. My reshaping of the lead did not make it stand out in contrast to the rest of the article, in any way. On the contrary: I gave it greater balance and flow. That and other edits I and River-kun made, has rather improved on the article, I find.

Your Hans Christian Andersen Award paragraph, however, is very much strange and out of place, in the article.

"We still have so little biographical information about N.U. that it all fits in the lead sentence parentheses."

No. Most of it fits, but not all.

""Flow" is for articles that are more advanced."

This article has a "flow", so you are demonstrably wrong.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you-Zarlan care, see the article you protected zealously: version 2014-03-19/to/23.

This remains substantially relevant so I outdent and provide a bold heading and address "you-all" editors.

References

There was one 40-month-old reference, citing the "Viewpoints" section of a Malaysian newspaper* in review of the first Guardian book in English translation, on a point that that review did(does) not address --and could not demonstrate, as one person's viewpoint-- namely, that Uehashi was(is) most famous for the Guardian series.

We still use that ref, which remains ref #1, and still use it only in support of the same point, so the substance is relevant. *In the reverted version -03-23, I revised that citation to identify The Star as a newspaper, as we say in the target article; in effect following the original linked reference, 2010-09-30.[2]

That ref was introduced as a run around the article's "Unreferenced BLP" status (after a lag of 30 months!). If you-all editors do agree that that fix is the crucial precedent to be followed, then the ref date format should be DMY uniformly--both DMY publication and DMY retrieved dates.

As you may know, I inquired regarding national style at WP:JAPAN (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Date format). FWIW my preference is Retrieved YMD with no preference re prose, infobox, and publication dates--but those should be uniform.

--P64 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what you wish to say. My rejection of your modifications, does not imply that I approve of every detail of how the article was, before it. Your insistent talk of the previous article is completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, you have utterly failed to address any of the points I made or questions I asked, in any way whatsoever.

"on a point that that review did(does) not address --and could not demonstrate, as one person's viewpoint-- namely, that Uehashi was(is) most famous for the Guardian series."

...in which case the source is not valid as a verification of the statement, meaning that it should be removed. As should, probably, the statement. how this relates to the issues we are discussing here, I do not understand.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Date format

This article mixes date formats. There should be one format used generally, perhaps a different one for archived and retrieved dates. After brief investigation I informed or consulted our Japan project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Date format. --P64 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Popularity

I wonder how much anyone here knows about the popularity in Japan. Or about the Japanese awards, some of which may reflect or confer popularity, others not.

Has the Moribito series sold only 2.5 million copies (we say in the lead) with all those volumes and so many years? Is it her most popular or best known work in Japan? J'Lit Books from Japan (now Ext link, should be promoted to formal Ref) says that Kemono no soja has sold 1.82 million with four "main" and one "spin-off" volume, from 2006 only.

--P64 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

*Checks the source*

Yeah, that's what the source says. Kemono no souja has not sold as much ...though given the far lower number of books in the series, I guess, given the number, that it has a greater number of average books sold, if you look at the individual books ...but that is just WP:Original research, so you'd need a proper source to make any change to the article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Popularity, sales, and fame must be three different things but let it all pass under this heading. Our source for the first half of the sentence, that Uehashi is most famous for the Guardian, seems to me nothing but an exceptionally positive review of the first English-language edition. See above, my flushleft "References" remarks in section #Hans Christian Andersen Award.

--P64 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nahoko Uehashi. 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/20130809170738/http://corp.kodansha.co.jp/award/archive/noma-jido-bungei.html to http://corp.kodansha.co.jp/award/archive/noma-jido-bungei.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226090033/http://www.kaiseisha.co.jp/moribito/index.html to http://www.kaiseisha.co.jp/moribito/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)