Talk:Glossary of literary terms

message: Someone suggested this list/index be turned into a category. There are several items on the list that do not have their own Wikipedia articles and likely never will because they are not independently notable enough to merit such. If this was just a list of literary terms that have their own Wikipedia articles it would make sense, but as it is it is just an indiscriminate list of words that could be expanded ad infinitum. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria 

message: After Haiga was removed from the article, I reinserted it, but have since been reverted with this edit accompanied by the summary:
Revert: it's only a "literary term" to someone who doesn't speak Japanese/understand what the word itself means. It is a type of painting, and is only as "literary" as the word "illustration", which isn't on this list.
This is patently untrue, as haiga, far from being a mere illustration as the reverting editor appears to think, is a mixed form combining poetry and painting, and intimately part of the haikai literary movement. Haiga were produced by haikai poets, notably the haiku masters Matsuo Bashō and Yosa Buson, so an editor claiming that the term is not a literary one is merely displaying the limitations of his own knowledge. Is there any reason this literary term should not included in the article? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Haiga is a Japanese style of painting. The word itself means "haikai painting". If the word has a different meaning in English and is used primarily by poets to describe works of poetry that are accompanied by images, please add that information to the article on haiga  - and please cite reliable sources. Otherwise, add a definition of the term to this page, and help us turn this page into either a glossary of literary terms. Or an index of Wikipedia articles on literary topics. Perhaps a merge with Index of literature articles should be under discussion? elvenscout742 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Stephen Addiss, Haiga: Takebe Socho and the Haiku-painting Tradition, University of Hawaii Press, 1995, pp. 9-10.Tristan noir (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a book about painting. This list is supposed to be a glossary of literary terms. If you wish to add a style of painting that happens to use poetry as its theme, please also add illustration, comic book, film and manga. (By the way, the ga in the latter is the same as in haiga, and if manga means "whimsical drawings", then haiga means "vulgar drawings" or "humourous drawings".) elvenscout742 (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I offered the specific page references because Addiss there discusses haiga not only as painting but as a literary phenomenon also, e.g., It may seem odd to admire and study paintings that were not created primarily by painters, because in our own society we have honored the work of the finest professional artists almost to the exclusion of any others. In Japan, this has not been so, in part because of the close union of poetry, calligraphy, and painting. All three are created with the same tools of brush, paper, and ink by artists to whom poetic vision was paramount. Your comparisons to “illustrations,” "comic book," and “manga” are misplaced. It seems eccentric to insist that haiga is solely a style of painting when many of its best-known practitioners are poets first, graphic artists second. Visual poetry, in its many manifestations, incorporates image and text, like haiga, and visual poetry is commonly recognized as predominately literary in nature.Tristan noir (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This REALLY isn't the place to argue over semantics and obscure aspects of Japanese language and artistic philosophy, although I am sure that I would win such an argument given that I speak Japanese and you don't. But I will humour this argument a little nonetheless. The passage you quote above is clearly a reference to the (relatively obscure/difficult to explain in a Wikipedia LIST) fact that in Japanese philosophy calligraphy, literature, painting and drawing are all closely linked. This is at least partly because Japanese has essentially  for "to write", "to paint" and "to draw", and reinforced in this instance by the fact that the character , when read with the variant pronunciation kaku, refers to a single brush stroke of a Chinese character. I could find dozens of reliable sources that discuss comic books/graphic novels/manga as a literary form, but they still probably don't belong in a glossary of literary terms. You seem to have at least partly misunderstood the word haiga to mean "a mixed artistic form that combines poetry and painting"; this is incorrect, as haiga refers specifically to the painting, and not to the accompanying poetry (let alone the fact that poetry is not always "accompanying", per se, as haiga may just be pure paintings whose aesthetic is influenced by haiku). If the source you cite above is used to justify the inclusion of a style of painting in a glossary of literary terms, then in order to avoid undue weight we must also add ALL the other terms related to Japanese (and Western/other) visual arts, calligraphy, writing systems, etc. (Abugida, hanja, hangul, kanji, devanagari and hieroglyph are, equally, not literary terms except by the very loosest definition of "literary".) And the fact remains that your argument is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes the existence of professional poets who painted haiga as well means that the latter is a recognized literary term. The portion of the quote that you highlight also specifies that haiga are paintings. My comparison to illustrations is not flawed in this context (comic books and manga, on the other hand, are closer to literature than haiga); your comparison to visual poetry, however, is severely flawed, since the latter term refers to poetry, while haiga refers to painting. If either you or Bagworm wish to include reference to the obscure/minority/non-scholarly view that any picture (photo, pencil-drawing, etc.) accompanying a haiku is "haiga", please do so at the articles on Haiga or Haiku in English. Including a link to the haiga article, which discusses the early modern style of Japanese painting, in this list could only confuse readers, however. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Haiga  

message: I think that the items in the list, now that they are in table-format and are to be made into a glossary, should have lower-case letters unless capitals are otherwise justified. When they were meant to be links to Wikipedia articles under those titles, it made sense to have upper-case, but not really anymore. I'm not going to start implementing it, though, until someone agrees, since changing the first letter of every entry on the list is a large task in itself. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't blame you for that, as someone is quite likely to come along and revert all your hard work with a single click of the mouse! Can you explain your thinking regarding lower case? Is there any precedent you can point to? It seems counter-intuitive to me. I think of each row of the table as like an entry in a dictionary: each of which would normally start with an upper case letter. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about precedent in Wikipedia glossaries, but one of the reasons dictionaries such as Wiktionary prefer lower-case for individual entries is that it allows for a distinction between proper nouns and other entries. As it is now, they look like they are all proper nouns. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a look at Portal:Contents/Glossaries (which contains a mixture of glossaries and indexes) and opened the first dozen or so entries in the arts section. While most retain normal casing, some do use lower case, so there is precedent for your proposal. I've no strong feelings either way (I don't see the entries all looking like proper nouns, but I accept that others might), so I won't revert if you make the change. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: However, what we shouldn't do is have a mixture of lower case and normal case - it will look a mess. On this basis, I'm going to normalize the one entry I see in lower case, ji-amari, for the moment. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New formatting 

message: Not to be a jerk about reverting but many recent anons are adding descriptions without citations. This makes it difficult for later editors to add cites for unknown text. I think we need to really encourage editors to add citations otherwise this will become a giant list of original research. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now we have users adding citations, but the cites don't verify! It's like they are blindly copying and pasting a ref from another entry. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Because Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources and doesn't use itself as a source. Glossary of geography terms uses citations. Other Glossary pages have been deleted for lack of citations. This one almost was deleted. I'm trying to help prevent that from happening again. For contributions on Wikipedia to stick around for the long term, use citations. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, I understand and support the citation requirement, and yes, there may be some glossaries that include citations. My point is that many don't, and this one is nearly empty. I'm just saying we should ignore rules that impede improving and maintaining this important page. From the discussion above, this page faced deletion because of redundancy, not because it lacked citations.PCFleming05 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is nearly empty because we just created the description field only two months ago in response to the AfD which included a discussion about original research and the need for cites. Give it a chance to develop properly instead of rushing to create a low quality mess of original research ripe for deletion. Finding cites for these is extremely easy, there is no excuse other than laziness. There is no rush, if you can't or won't do it, let someone else work on it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I see, I hadn't realized it was so new (guess I should've looked at the dates). Yes, let's give it time. These are easily cited items. PCFleming05 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The top page notice was added because there is a long-standing problem of entries without citations. It's remarkable how frequently it happens. It got so bad that in 2012 the entire article was almost deleted at AfD. The notice was added, and it has been helpful. Otherwise what happens is there is constant churn of entries added and then deleted (best case scenario) for lack of citation. I've never needed  before but this page has been exceptionally difficult. I think people see a common term and jot down a quick definition thinking they are helping when really they are engaging in Original Research and degrading the article to the point it can end up at AfD. -- GreenC 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue with basically every list on Wikipedia -- some more than others, granted. The inclusion criteria is supposed to be clear in the lead of a list article per WP:SAL. If that doesn't work, there are edit notices, talk page notices, some people use html comments (not sure that's MOS kosher, though), etc., but putting it in a big box at the top of the article, addressing people intending to edit the page rather than all readers (what describing the inclusion criteria in the lead would do). I'm not going to remove again, but it shouldn't be there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  there hasn't been a problem since 2019 the rate of unsourced entries has dropped off the past few years. I  am willing to remove it to see what happens. If unsourced entries start appearing again at a clip I will re-add it. This will be a test to see how useful it is. I don't think an inclusion criteria is possible because this is a warning-notice that unsourced entries will be deleted.  It goes beyond criteria for inclusion, it's speaking directly to editors that their work will get undone if they don't include a source. It took it to the next level due to extraordinary level of the problem. -- GreenC 15:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top page notice 

message: Glossary of terms 49.145.73.145 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP 

message: A-Z 49.145.73.145 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ap