Talk:Toyoko Tokiwa

Miniature reproduction?

Tokiwa's book may perhaps be reproduced in miniature within 性暴力問題資料集成 第14巻 1957年6月〜10月 (東京: 不二出版, 2005; ISBN 4-8350-5340-0), which I have not yet seen. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Backups

This interview is rather good. I've therefore backed it up here at WebCite. If the former ever vanishes, this article can cite the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for this article from Mainichi Shinbun, now also here at WebCite. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?

I've reverted the well-intentioned addition of a biographical infobox. For my reasons, please see this. If anyone would like to add an infobox, please first get agreement to add it here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you need a good reason to remove it. As stated over there (please move the discussion here instead), infoboxes are an accepted standard in biographical (and many other) articles here. That's a fact. That you don't like them is irrelevant. If you don't think they should be used in biographical (or other) articles here, then pop on over to the Village pump and make your case. Otherwise, please stop removing something which is an accepted standard in articles like this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's simply wrong. How an article is laid out is a decision for those editors working on the article. The place to discuss this is here not at the village pump. I do agree that anything relevant from any user talk page ought to be moved here. This is the proper place to make the decision. Now, perhaps both of you would like to set down the reasons you believe that a box does or does not improve this particular article.--Scott Mac 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not obligatory, in biographical or other articles here. In this case, "those editors working on the article", per Scott, consist of Hoary. Please consider his opinion, Nihonjoe. I see to my surprise that you tell him on your talkpage that removing the infobox is "considered vandalism". That passive form "is considered" presumably means you consider it vandalism; I'm sure you're aware, being a 'crat, that WP:Vandalism doesn't. Note especially the sentence "If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." It's hardly ever proper to call good-faith actions of good users, such as Hoary, "Vandalism", nor to try to bully them like this (I quote from your talkpage again): "You know, I have no idea why you're so hung up on this"... "Edit warring on this article isn't going to help your case as removing the infobox is considered vandalism. Please stop this stupidity now." Is there any reason why it would not make just as much sense, no more and no less, to express surprise that you are so hung up on it, point out that edit warring isn't going to help you, and ask you to stop your stupidity? I'm removing the infobox. Please don't edit war. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Thank you, Scott and Bishonen. Nihonjoe states: you need a good reason to remove [an infobox]. I do? All right then, it's because it detracts from the article. I explained this here. In brief: infoboxes [in this kind of article] invite simplifications, exaggerations, and mere repetition. We've already seen cartoonish simplification (that she was influenced by Domon, rather than the realism led by Domon, or much better by this realism coming on top of input from her elder brother, her husband, the others in the Shirayuri club, and very likely yet others again, about whom I haven't yet read) and repetitiveness (the birth stuff again, etc). Nihonjoe says that A summary will always repeat information. Yes indeed it does. But Nihonjoe strangely misses the main point, which is that a "summary" (with repetition) is totally unnecessary here, as the information he's keen to have repeated is presented concisely and conspicuously within the article itself. Further, Nihonjoe hasn't retracted his claim that the infobox presents the most important elements in the article, but he also hasn't yet answered my simple question as to just how this photographer's place and exact date of birth are important, let alone "most important". Now, if I underestimate the faults and opacity of the prose that I've perpetrated, then the prose should of course be improved; and I'm open to complaints, suggestions and fixes. (I'm most grateful to Scott for having already replaced my dreadful "reunitings".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already made a comment at Nihonjoe's talk page. "infoboxes are an accepted standard in biographical (and many other) articles here"—in some topics, enough editors have made the effort to object to infoblots that the proponents have backed off. Methinks many folk don't like them, or at least think they add nothing. Me? I think they often degrade the impact of an article, and end up repeating information that is already in the body of the text, in a more detailed context. Infoboxes package WP's information across topics in a way that ads do on television. I think the shoe is on the other foot: if you want to keep an infobox in an article, you need to clearly and cogently argue why it improves the article. Tony (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The notion that infoboxes are accepted Wikipedia-wide (or even for all bios) is indeed a misconception, one that seems to be widely held, but still a misconception. Frankly, bios are some of the articles I find infoboxes are least suited to. Some things, like countries, have a list of vital statistics that can be expected for just about any specimen (language, currency, int'l dialing code etc.), and I like infoboxes here. People, though? Other than birthdate and, where applicable, death date, there's little that can be applied to them all. Here, we try to come up with one specifically for artists. But how can we possibly anticipate what sorts of things will matter most about a specific artist? I find that a pretty fruitless approach, and one that fails to realize that art is individuality. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The do tend to amplify trivia and cause disagreements on bios. To take one instance, we had a huge (pages and pages) debate on Ed Milliband to decide whether his infobox under religion ought to have "Jewish" "atheist" or "none". It was really silly. (Describing his religion in the article was not contentious - he's from Jewish stock and has made some citable remarks about his disbelief in God). But a) infobox fields don't leave the room for nuance that prose does and b) actually, in the British context, Milliband's religion was not particularly significant, however it may be described. So, two pages of discussion and an RFC, all over nothing much at all.--Scott Mac 14:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have hesitated to participate in this heated discussion but as someone who has participated strongly in writing bios of photographers over the past year or two, I would like to explain why infoboxes might, in general, be less suitable for photographers than for others. The first, and most important reason for me, is that an infobox — which typically presents a portrait of the individual in question — replaces what may be the most important means of attracting the reader's attention, namely the appendage of a (sometimes quite large) photograph demonstrating the work/style/period of the photographer. I realize, of course, that it is not always easy to find an image without copyright problems, but in cases where it is, I think the photo is usually far more appropriate and meaningful than the infobox. For this very reason, I think it is a great pity that the bookcover presenting a useful image of Tokiwa's work has been moved lower down the article with the result that it no longer appears on the first screenful of information most people see when opening up the article for the first time. Another reason boxes can be distracting is that they sometimes stretch right down the article, listing details of the photographer's or artist's works, details of places visited, etc., etc. So I would argue that each case should be taken on its own merits and that there should a least be a modicum of respect for the views of the article's initiator.

On the other hand, I am sorry to see that two avid Wikipedians who both have an excellent Japanese background as well as an interest in photography can spend so much time and effort arguing about capitalization and infoboxes. I would suggest that rather than trying to come up with an ever longer list of reasons for and against, it would be far more constructive to concentrate on improving the content of this or other articles. If the dispute must be maintained, as the article's creator has a number of good reasons for his original choices, I would suggest that these be restored until others come up with valid arguments. Finally, I cannot seriously believe that after the collective experience of developing Wikipedia over the past 10 years, a seasoned member of the editing community can seriously inform an equally seasoned collaborator that removing the infobox is considered vandalism. - Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• For a very long time, it has been accepted practice that info boxes are not forced upon an article if the principal authors do not wish it. In short, so long as the lead is properly written (here it is) there is nothing more than an info box can add to the page beyond being a detraction. There may be a place for them on scientific or chemical pages, but not here.  Giacomo  21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, my thanks to all those who have commented here.

For photographers in general, I'd echo what's said here about the inutility of infoboxes for composers. I have trouble coming up with any kind of photographer whose life and work are unlikely to be distorted by an infobox and for whose article an infobox would probably be of help.

I've also just today discovered and skimread, and agree with what I have read of, "Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes".

What's said about bio infoboxes in the Composers project is based on this RfC on bio infoboxes for composers, of which too I hadn't previously been aware. (And Nihonjoe may well have been unaware of it: his name too appears nowhere within it.) "This page is 260 kilobytes long", and I do not claim to have read it. But as I skimread it, I see little that would distinguish composers from photographers, and I also see very little in the way of positives for infoboxes.

One argument there for bio infoboxes that does start to interest me -- one made by DGG (and easily found within that long RfC if you search from the top for "DGG") -- is of "providing reusable metadata for a semantic wiki as Wikipedia develops into a Web 3.0 environment". However, this too doesn't convince me. Provide reusable metadata by all means, yes; but users or "Web 3.0" or "the semantic web" (or whatever name it will end up with) will not be helped by oversimplified or distorted "metadata". And as for the metadata of stuff that if less important is at least clearcut (original name, birth details and whatnot), many articles, this one included, have Wikipedia:Persondata that include this material. A quick comparison of (a) what's written in Wikipedia:Persondata about "Persondata" and (b) "Persondata" as they actually appear within articles (with "[[ ]]" markup and the rest) suggests to me that "Persondata" are poorly understood by editors; people who wish to help toward "Web 3.0" may wish to work on issues such as this.

As for me, Nihonjoe has invited me to initiate an RfC on biographical infoboxes. I say no thanks: I'm lazy if you wish, I'm busy, and I see no reason to rehash a discussion of which 260kB was concluded less than a year ago -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image placement

The image of the book has been moved down within the article. Ipigott regrets this (section above), and I do too. But I fear that the move down may be for the better. After all, the design is copyrighted, and "Fair Use" really doesn't allow use of the image to illustrate the photographer, very tempting though this may be. (After all, this particular photography says little about her photographic style; it's quite unlike the photos within the very same book.)

Or anyway we shouldn't do so without the copyright-holder's permission. (Oda Mari has pointed out that the publisher is alive and well, so somebody might ask some time.)

Incidentally, I have my own copy (minus obi), of which I could make a proper scan some time. (I don't have a scanner at home.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to replace the book at the top of the article when I was in there doing a very small ce just now—it certainly would look better—but realised in time that it would be a Fair Use vio. We definitely don't have the right to use the cover to illustrate anything but a discussion of the book itself. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC).