This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Wuism" is not a good title for an article in the English Wikipedia -- see WP:English -- nor is it a WP:Common Name. The main source for the term is a translation of a single work, that is, Libbrecht. Although there are several examples in reliable sources for the earliest period, the term is not in general use in other places or in surveys. The Google search here turns up almost no uses in this sense, while a Google Scholar search here finds 23 hits, only a few of which are to English language uses in this sense.
Chinese shamanism: A Google search here got 431,000 hits, and a Google Scholar search here] got 17,300 hits, many to English language works in this sense.
I suggest that we should rename the article "Chinese shamanism" or "Shamanism in China," or some such, and expand it. How does this sound?
Other editors who have worked on Chinese shamanism or shamanism and who are more knowledgeable than I might like to put in a word. They include Aethelwolf Emsworth, who did much editing on this article, Madalibi, who did much work on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Kanguole, Keahapana, and Dcattell who have made recent edits at Wu (shaman).
Cheers ch ( talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you consider moving those that have not been moved as well?
Cheers ch ( talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"Chinese shamanism" was not a well informed choice. It is always a mistake to come up with terms based on "That's much more natural to the average Wikipedia reader" as opposed to asking, where is the expert literature, and what is its established terminology. Often, it turns out that the supposed article topic is nebulous, not understood or ill defined. Looking at actual terminology helps. I believe there is no actual topic here. The following topics are being conflated:
-- dab (𒁳) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Wuism" is not a good title for an article in the English Wikipedia -- see WP:English -- nor is it a WP:Common Name. The main source for the term is a translation of a single work, that is, Libbrecht. Although there are several examples in reliable sources for the earliest period, the term is not in general use in other places or in surveys. The Google search here turns up almost no uses in this sense, while a Google Scholar search here finds 23 hits, only a few of which are to English language uses in this sense.
Chinese shamanism: A Google search here got 431,000 hits, and a Google Scholar search here] got 17,300 hits, many to English language works in this sense.
I suggest that we should rename the article "Chinese shamanism" or "Shamanism in China," or some such, and expand it. How does this sound?
Other editors who have worked on Chinese shamanism or shamanism and who are more knowledgeable than I might like to put in a word. They include Aethelwolf Emsworth, who did much editing on this article, Madalibi, who did much work on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Kanguole, Keahapana, and Dcattell who have made recent edits at Wu (shaman).
Cheers ch ( talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you consider moving those that have not been moved as well?
Cheers ch ( talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"Chinese shamanism" was not a well informed choice. It is always a mistake to come up with terms based on "That's much more natural to the average Wikipedia reader" as opposed to asking, where is the expert literature, and what is its established terminology. Often, it turns out that the supposed article topic is nebulous, not understood or ill defined. Looking at actual terminology helps. I believe there is no actual topic here. The following topics are being conflated:
-- dab (𒁳) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)