User talk:SchroCat: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes the Troubles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

To any friendly talk page watchers, I have:

If there is anyone who fancies commenting, I would be grateful. Cheers – SchroCat (talk)

Well deserved! Congrats! MisawaSakura (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you help me wordsmith this, it doesn’t flow well and I am having trouble making it better:

• current sentence – “Aomori Prefecture’s population grew until the late 20th century.[112][131] Japan’s population growth rate started declining in 1970 and the total population peaked in 2010 at 128 million”

Underlying facts:

• • While the growth rate started slowing in 1970, the total JAPAN population number didn’t peak out til 2010.
  • The current sentence mixes Aomori’s population and Japan’s population. The current Prefecture population is 1,188,043 as of 2023.
  • In 2020, the prefecture population was 1.23 million.
  • The prefecture populatin peaked at 1,524,448 in 1985

Any input from you or talk page stalkers welcome. Thank you. MisawaSakura (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mccunicano and I are working the article again. I copied Nick-D’s comments to here, where status can be viewed: User:MisawaSakura/Sandbox2. MisawaSakura (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would add all the figures for the province and keep them together in one sentence:

“Aomori Prefecture’s population grew until the late 20th century; it peaked at 1.52 million in 1985, dropped to 1.23 million by 2020 and by 2023 was 1.19 million. Japan’s population growth rate started declining in 1970 and the total population peaked in 2010 at 128 million”

If you can find a more up-to-date figure for Japan, that would be good too. SchroCat (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I needed a mental break from FAC. Haha.MisawaSakura (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem – hope that works for you. – SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s not too much trouble, there’s this in the sandbox2 I linked to, I’m not sure what to do as I strongly think it’s uniqueness and interesting nature warrant inclusion:

• Why does the “Tomb of Christ” need a standalone section and the article’s only footnote? 20-30,000 visitors annually is very modest compared to many places in Japan. The Wikipedia article on this site also notes that it’s widely regarded as a hoax and the visitors come as it’s marketed as a novelty tourist attraction, but this article implies that it’s a serious place of pilgrimage. (NIck-D’s original comment)
  • Because it’s very interesting and unique. I don’t get “only footnote” as there are six in the paragraph. The paragraph uses phrases like “claimed” and “purportedly” many times so I disagree that it implies it’s serious (me)
  • Oh, you were talking about the efn note, not actual refs, I’ve moved this to the tomb’s main article (me)

input appreciated, maybe there’s a way to make it less serious but I can’t think of it. MisawaSakura (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would retain the section – it’s valid and seems to be a high profile tourist attraction for the region. I think what you need to do is frame the text more towards it being a hoax or tourist attraction – if you can find a strong enough reliable source that states it categorically. “Purported” etc are are well and good, but it’s best if the text can openly state “hoax” to remove any doubt. – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, good insight, thanks!MisawaSakura (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done some more poking on this. The only academic journal article on this is the BYU one already in the article. It raises some interesting points, like Hebrew characters on the back of a very old sacred mirror, the age old local custom of painting a cross on the head of newborns, etc. I also says the tomb of Christ truth or falsehood can’t be proven. Several sources say the documents from 1935 were destroyed in a fire in Tokyo in WWII. I think we’ll never know for sure. While the local customs are indeed interesting, I think it highly unlikely they come from Jesus. Perhaps some other missionary sort was there ages ago is the root of this. MisawaSakura (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How’s this?. I’ve also added some to the tomb main article and am translating the ja wiki article on the Takeuchi documents to en wiki. MisawaSakura (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MisawaSakura, “Kokichi Kano, Ph.D. [ja] examined…”: the “Ph.D” falls foul of some part of the MOS, and as it’s supposed to be an expert opinion, there needs to be something that explains that, so best to go with “the [historian?] Kokichi Kano [ja] examined…” – SchroCat (talk)<

Oh. Didn’t know. Glad I asked. Thank you. I went with “Historian and literature professor”…..one other question, should the one I’m working on here: User:MisawaSakura/Takeuchi documents be “Takeuchi documents” or “Takeuchi Documents”? (lc vs uc) MisawaSakura (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this has been listed at pending for a TFA in February. I have tentatively reserved a date for it, but if you would still like it be considered you will need to nominate it at Wikipedia:Today’s featured article/requests, which is now open. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly St Scholastica Day riot. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, Done! – SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to list Octopussy and The Living Daylights for June 23, 60th anniversary, in the pending TFA list but someone already has Battle of Trapani listed in pending for Jun 23, 760th anniv. It was you who nom’d it at FAC. Would you like it listed for a different day or what? MisawaSakura (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MisawaSakura, I don’t mind which day it runs on. Of all the people who may be interested in the book, there is a tiny percentage who care about things like publication dates, while most will just be interested in the book for itself. Events like battles are one-off occasions that happen on specific days; Octopussy has been on sale every day for the last 60 years. – SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’ll create the blurb now and put it on my own list for any day in March, since you already have two up for Feb. MisawaSakura (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]