Talk:History of the Catholic Church in Japan: Difference between revisions
Pollinosisss (talk | contribs) tags |
→Anachronism: new section |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::#Ah, ok! Thanks very much for clearing that up; now that you explained it, that definitely seems to be the common sense way to read it. I suppose my mental grammar parser got hung up on the link... somehow I thought it was referring to contents within the link, and not to the link itself (the article)... I wonder if it would be a good idea to modify the notice to read "The article [[Foo]] now serves to provide attribution..."? |
::#Ah, ok! Thanks very much for clearing that up; now that you explained it, that definitely seems to be the common sense way to read it. I suppose my mental grammar parser got hung up on the link... somehow I thought it was referring to contents within the link, and not to the link itself (the article)... I wonder if it would be a good idea to modify the notice to read "The article [[Foo]] now serves to provide attribution..."? |
||
::#Since there were "several other edits" mentioned in the notice here, it seemed a bit hard to track down all of them. Maybe I could have just use a text comparison tool on it...anyway not needed now. Thanks! [[User:Joren|Joren]] ([[User talk:Joren|talk]]) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
::#Since there were "several other edits" mentioned in the notice here, it seemed a bit hard to track down all of them. Maybe I could have just use a text comparison tool on it...anyway not needed now. Thanks! [[User:Joren|Joren]] ([[User talk:Joren|talk]]) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Anachronism == |
|||
The Nestorian denomination was founded in about 428 A.D., and cannot have appeared in Japan or anywhere else in 199 A.D. |
Revision as of 15:51, 27 March 2010
Japan Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Kirishitan was copied or moved into History of Roman Catholicism in Japan with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
- Several other edits made the same day, 12/25/2009, also imported text from this page.
Text and/or other creative content from Twenty-six Martyrs of Japan was copied or moved into History of Roman Catholicism in Japan with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from Kakure Kirishitan was copied or moved into History of Roman Catholicism in Japan with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Nagasaki and the Atomic Bomb
From memory the largest grouping of Christians in SEA was incinerated with the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki, if I also remember correctly the mission founded by St. Kolbe was spared as he counter-intuitively located the building on the hillside facing away from what would be the blast direction . Taam (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Copied-to Notification
Hi, I came here by way of notices on Kirishitan and Twenty-six Martyrs of Japan, and I am writing to ask some clarifying question about these notices. From what I understand, it seems text has been used in more than one article, and these were put up to resolve potential copyright issues. That's great (and much needed), but I'm a little confused about the implications...
- Does this mean that we can no longer delete text from the source article? Even if it's badly sourced/whatever? I would like for editors to be able to continue to maintain/improve the source article... a prohibition against doing so seems a little severe if I'm reading it correctly.
- Corollary: If text is deleted from the source, does that have to be reflected in the copied-to article as well?
- How do we tell which text is protected by this notification? Is there a way to tag such text so that modifications are not made? (I wish there was a comparison tool... is there?)
- Is this a precursor to a merger?
I tried to read the template docs but that just left me more confused. Would appreciate clarification; thanks!
Joren (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re #1, the articles Kirishitan and Twenty-six Martyrs of Japan should not be deleted because doing so would delete their edit histories and thus make it impossible to establish the attribution of specific text to specific Wikipedia editors (or anon IP contributors). This does not restrict modifying or deleting the text from the article. The only restriction is deletion of the entire article.
- Re the corollary... "No, the three articles can proceed independently and the text in question can be deleted from any or all of the articles in question.
- Re #2, you have to look at the edit linked to by the hyperlink "by this edit".
- Re #3, the notice is not at all related to a merger. It neither proposes nor precludes a merger. It is solely about retaining the ability to preserve attribution of the text (i.e. identifying who wrote it originally).
- --Richard S (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, ok! Thanks very much for clearing that up; now that you explained it, that definitely seems to be the common sense way to read it. I suppose my mental grammar parser got hung up on the link... somehow I thought it was referring to contents within the link, and not to the link itself (the article)... I wonder if it would be a good idea to modify the notice to read "The article Foo now serves to provide attribution..."?
- Since there were "several other edits" mentioned in the notice here, it seemed a bit hard to track down all of them. Maybe I could have just use a text comparison tool on it...anyway not needed now. Thanks! Joren (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Anachronism
The Nestorian denomination was founded in about 428 A.D., and cannot have appeared in Japan or anywhere else in 199 A.D.