Talk:Kabuto

Untitled

is the inspiration for the helmet of Darth Vader. i dont believe this to be true. the idea that his helmet derrives from the standard wehrmacht stahlhelm is more common. because of the use of german stormtrooper also more plausible.

The word kabuto is probably related at a very ancient level to the Indo-European *kaput, "head." The helmet is protection for the head, and the first helmets were probably made of the skulls of bears, lions, and wolves. Das Baz 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention kabuto beetles :)

Oh, and about Vader.. uhh.. he didn't wear hakama or robe/cloakness.. He had a cape. A superhero cape.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• reassessed and graded as c class.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Image galleries

This page is a good example of image galleries run rampant. We need to pare down the images to a few examples that support the text of the article. Please note WP:IG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I will be back to help with this later. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you discuss any major changes to the article on the talk page first, this article has been stable for a long time, the images in my opinion are not excessive as they help explain the particular aspects of the kabuto, it is not just a bunch of images collected in an image gallery. Without the appropriate images to go along with the text a reader would not have a clear idea what the different kabutos and their individual parts looked like.Darkness walks (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Have I made any major changes to the article? I added the 'helmets' navbox at the bottom of the page. That's all. Discussing at the talk page first is precisely what I am doing. So what are you suggesting I do differently? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• If you want to show various parts of the kabuto, that's fine, but this article has 25 image galleries (most articles have one or two!) and many of these include 3-4 pictures to show what one picture could show. For that matter, if pointing out the parts of a kabuto is the goal, why not make a diagram with the various parts labeled, like this one for an achievement of arms? I think that could achieve that goal with an elegant simplicity, without cluttering up the page with tons of images. Surely we can agree that 83 images in this article is excessive. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wilhelm, Japanese armor is much different than European armor, there is no way you could ever substitute some sort of chart and replace the usefulness of the images used in this article. Before the major text change to this article and the addition of the images (go back in the history and see the old article) this article was practically useless as a learning source. For someone who has no real interest and or knowledge of Japanese armor I could see were they might not understand but this is the best article on the subject of kabuto in the world that I know of. Without images of the different types and styles of kabuto and the associated parts all the text in the world would not give a reader with a real interest in the subject enough information to really learn anything about kabutos. Were you might see 3-4 pictures that appear to be all the same I see 3-4 pictures that show different aspects, take the "shiroko", this images show several different types, the same with "tate hagi-no-ita" etc.

It appears that you do not have a real interest in the subject but just want to "pare down the images", as far as I know you are the only editor who has complained about the way this article is presently laid out and there is a reason for that....for this type of article to properly educate people you need images, its as simple as that, in my opinion.Darkness walks (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with WM. It is cultural bias to imply that we should fill this article with images because Japanese armour is different from European armour. Either expand the text so there is some sense of proportion, or remove most of the images. If Japanese armour needs to be explained, then Wikipedia should do that with words. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have to regard the idea that Japanese armour is fundamentally different from European armour as an exceptional claim. It is superficially different, but not fundamentally different. I would also argue that 83 images do not add much more information than 12 well chosen images, to any article (unless the article in question is simply too long and needs to be split, but that's not this article). Some reasons to remove excessive images from an article include making Wikipedia articles accessible to those with disabilities and mobile device accessibility, as well as avoiding an indiscriminate collection of images and providing only pertinent and encyclopedic media content. Specifically, the latter states: "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful... You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Again, I think the coat of arms template I linked in this thread demonstrates that if you want to depict the constituent parts of a complex object, you can do so with a template showing a generic form of the object with each part labeled, and these labels can even link to those articles (if they exist), without cluttering up the article with image galleries. I will work on a proposal on my sandbox page later and see if I can strike a balance of images that is acceptable to everyone here. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since the objecting editor is blocked and no one else has raised any objections, I'm going ahead with a major revision of this article, basically condensing the text into prose and weeding out tons of unnecessary images. I'm certainly open to further improvements, and I know this article still needs a lot of work, but it's more encyclopedic now. Is there a bot that can convert these Gbooks links into properly formatted references? Doing them manually is tiresome. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)