Talk:Sakkō

Unnecessary fork

This article, unreferenced and unlikely to grow from a stub, in an unnecessary fork from Geisha, which content it duplicates. Rhadow (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a 2007 article, not a fork. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Andy Dingley -- The point is that this article unintentionally duplicates content in the hairstyles section of Geisha. I remolded the unreferenced material. It is up to you to provide inline references for the material you restored or to agree that a REDIRECT serves the WP reader best. Rhadow (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We have an entire category on Geisha. Are you claiming that all articles within that need to be merged to geisha? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andy Dingley -- Your suggestion is a good one. Many of the subsidiary articles might well be rolled into Geisha, which is only 68,000 characters. Sakkō is only 1,100 characters, and fails WP:V on its own. Erikae is a stub of 1,200 characters and unlikely to grow. Misedashi is only 2,200 characters. It could be painless rolled in. Nihongami, another unreferenced article of 2,300 characters on hairstyles, should be rolled in. Okiya, another badly reference article of 2,300 characters out to be rolled in. Okiya, yet another article of 4,000 characters about hairstyles, could be rolled in. In the alternative, a single article on hairstyles could be subsidiary to Geisha. I fail to understand why ther is such interest to have a multiplicity of individual articles on closely related topics, many of which individually fail WP:V.

In any case, as the restorer of text to Sakkō you have an affirmative obligation to supply references, or it has to go. Rhadow (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow - I don't think this page should be marked for deletion. Yes, it's a stub article, but leave it up for now, at least - as I think a subsidiary article on the hairstyles in the geimaiko world would be an excellent idea.

There is information on these hairstyles out there, and there's enough of it that simply rolling this article into the Geisha page would bulk it up, unnecessarily. The same goes for the okiya page, which I recently re-wrote, though I still need to go through the sources I've got and add to it - it would make the page ridiculously long, and in an effort to shove them in but keep it short, you'd be losing information in the process.

I agree that Erikae could probably be rolled in, but I would also make the point that you'd be leaving the pages Misedashi and Mizuage out in the cold, where they're already pretty unspecific and poorly-written. You'd be looking at the Geisha page and going 'oh, that's how maiko graduate', and then finding these pages and going 'but wait, what do they do now?'.

I think these pages could be rolled into the Maiko page, and that we could roll the Nihongami page into a new, Traditional Japanese hairstyles page - as not all nihongami are worn by geisha and maiko, and simply having the bulk of the Nihongami page be about them, instead of hairstyles generally, would mark the page for being re-named. You could also plot the development of hairstyles over time, from Nara-period Japan to the modern day, and have a separate section, perhaps, for the meanings of hairstyles in Kabuki plays (which I have a source to reference from!). Please let me know what you think. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ineffablebookkeeper, I am sure are right about the details, but my original observation, that this is a 700 character stub without any reference whatsoever, is still true. I'm tempted to label it original research and call for its deletion. Rhadow (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I want it deleted eventually - but I'd like it kept up at least until we have something better in place, just so we could merge some of the text here in, and then have it referenced eventually. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)