Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kanazawa castle"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I would, in any case, disagree with the basic notion that not much remains of the castle. A lot more remains (or has been rebuilt) than in most cities. Been to Fukuoka-jô lately? Nothing there but the stone foundations of some parts of the castle. The city also has, in addition to the Kenrokuen, Maeda mansion, and Myoryû-ji temple, two active geisha districts with beautiful old late Edo period machiya style buildings, a samurai (buke) yashiki district, and a very modern art museum. If we're going to mention some sights as part of an argument that the city is worth a visit, let's mention all of them. Or perhaps the whole thing should be moved to the article on the city of [[Kanazawa]] and not addressed on the castle page. No? [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 10:05, 18 February 2009 (PST) | I would, in any case, disagree with the basic notion that not much remains of the castle. A lot more remains (or has been rebuilt) than in most cities. Been to Fukuoka-jô lately? Nothing there but the stone foundations of some parts of the castle. The city also has, in addition to the Kenrokuen, Maeda mansion, and Myoryû-ji temple, two active geisha districts with beautiful old late Edo period machiya style buildings, a samurai (buke) yashiki district, and a very modern art museum. If we're going to mention some sights as part of an argument that the city is worth a visit, let's mention all of them. Or perhaps the whole thing should be moved to the article on the city of [[Kanazawa]] and not addressed on the castle page. No? [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 10:05, 18 February 2009 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | While an article on the city might be a better place for such information, it doesn't exist yet, so this seems a good place now. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To call Kenroku Park worthy of a visit does not seem very subjective, seeing it is one of the "Three Famous Gardens" of Japan. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But I don't think we can be too sensitive about "subjectivity." If one troubles to write a detailed article about something, some personal feelings or involvement may get through. Of course, there should not be much subjectivity, but this Wiki has the advantage that editors have to be approved and so are relatively sensible (and the disadvantage that not many are editing), so I don't think we need an absolute rule forbidding the slightest subjective expression.--[[User:Bethetsu|Bethetsu]] 01:01, 19 February 2009 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 05:01, 19 February 2009
Subjective tourist information
"While not much remains of the castle, Kanazawa is still worthy of a visit. The castle town has many interesting structures. The Pond Garden (now Kenroku Park) and the Maeda mansion still stand, and the Myoryu-ji is a prime destination as well."
This section seems subjective and uncalled for in an article on the castle. Then again, I haven't been here (S-A Wiki) in a long time, so I don't know what sort of attitudes or guidelines you follow regarding this sort of stuff.
I would, in any case, disagree with the basic notion that not much remains of the castle. A lot more remains (or has been rebuilt) than in most cities. Been to Fukuoka-jô lately? Nothing there but the stone foundations of some parts of the castle. The city also has, in addition to the Kenrokuen, Maeda mansion, and Myoryû-ji temple, two active geisha districts with beautiful old late Edo period machiya style buildings, a samurai (buke) yashiki district, and a very modern art museum. If we're going to mention some sights as part of an argument that the city is worth a visit, let's mention all of them. Or perhaps the whole thing should be moved to the article on the city of Kanazawa and not addressed on the castle page. No? LordAmeth 10:05, 18 February 2009 (PST)
While an article on the city might be a better place for such information, it doesn't exist yet, so this seems a good place now.
To call Kenroku Park worthy of a visit does not seem very subjective, seeing it is one of the "Three Famous Gardens" of Japan.
But I don't think we can be too sensitive about "subjectivity." If one troubles to write a detailed article about something, some personal feelings or involvement may get through. Of course, there should not be much subjectivity, but this Wiki has the advantage that editors have to be approved and so are relatively sensible (and the disadvantage that not many are editing), so I don't think we need an absolute rule forbidding the slightest subjective expression.--Bethetsu 01:01, 19 February 2009 (PST)
