A well-known colour print by
ukiyo-e master
Utamaro, dating to c. 1792–93 and featuring three real-life beauties who frequently appeared in his works and the works of others.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from Margin1522
This is my first post on this board, so I will limit it to comments. I think this is a really good article. I like the lead, the images, the analysis, and the conclusion. Some small things that I think might be done to improve it.
It seems a bit short on the background. I think a bit more material could be added on bijin-ga as a major genre in ukiyo-e.
That's good. Maybe more, but we do talk about it later, so maybe this is enough.
There are a lot Japanese terms and names, which some readers might have trouble with. For example, we link to
sharebon but perhaps we could describe in a few words what kind of books those were.
In the sentence "Kyōden was manacled for fifty days, and Tsutaya was penalized half his property.", maybe we could say "the artist" instead of "Kyōden", and "the publisher" instead of "Tsutaya". When I came to "Kyōden", I had to go back and see, who was he again?
Handled in the response to the previous item.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Is "Tomohisa's" correct? Should that be "Toyohina's"?
*Burp* One of those things spellcheck will never catch. Fixed.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The
Tomimoto-bushi article we link to is quite weak. I'll try to see if I can expand it. It was a genre of
jōruri, which is a storytelling song. This particular genre was especially refined and popular with rich townspeople and samurai, and she played the accompaniment. If we could add some of that information, I think it might fill out our picture of her, which is shorter than the other two models. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I look forward to seeing what you can do with Tomimoto-bushi. Please don't feel that any nit in the article is too small to pick. I hope you'll be hanging around FAC more—there's been much wringing of hands lately over the lack of reviewers.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Discovering now that the main article on
jōruri (music) is also pretty meager. Urk. This may take some research. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm also wondering if there isn't a better term for ōkubi-e than "big-headed pictures". I know it's often translated this way, but it's not that the subjects had big heads, but that the image was a close-up of the head, or upper body actually. Other translations I've seen are are "torso portrait" or "bust portrait", but these don't seem quite right either. Is there some term (Italian?) in art criticism for "upper body portrait"? If not maybe we could just explain again what it was. Also, there were ōkubi-e of kabuki actors before Utamaro. His innovation was to do it for bijin, so maybe that could be clarified. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm partial to "big bust portrait", but everyone keeps shouting me down. If you check out the "Background" section you'll see that ōkubi-e is attributed to Shunshō, and the association is made with yakusha-e.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
OK, that's true, the background section is fine. Also, I finished expanding the
Tomimoto-bushi article. I seem to remember seeing a print of Toyohina standing on a veranda and looking like she was teaching the shamisen a child, which would have been nice to add. But I can't remember now where I saw it, or even if it was her. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)reply
One more nit. At Amazon the ISBN for the Yoshida dictionary goes to the 3rd edition. And I'm wondering if 定本 actually means "Revised". It could, but publishers like to put that on dictionaries regardless, just to make it look authoritative. There is a used copy of the 1974 edition on the Amazon page and the cover has 定本 already. Is it not enough to just say 3rd edition? –
Margin1522 (
talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)reply
That is strange, but if says so in the book it must be correct. The
National Book Network says "If you are revising a book and there is a substantial change of the contents, the book should be assigned a new ISBN. A rule of thumb is that 15-20% of the text or content should change to treat the book as a new edition." So perhaps all of those editions are substantially the same. Or not, I don't know. But the cite gives the year, so there's no doubt as to which edition was consulted. I guess it's OK then, we can't do anything about the ISBN. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from Bamse
Very beautiful article and artwork. Unfortunately I don't have time for a full review. Just a couple of comments...
The sentence Unlike as was common in ukiyo-e, the subjects were not courtesans, but young women known around Edo for their beauty reads quite hard to me. Could perhaps be rephrased/simplified.
Might need to decide on AE/BE spelling (e.g. centre, symbolize), but perhaps the -ize are ok in BE (I am not native).
It's in Canadian English to maximally frustrate readers.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, I guess fine in this case.
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Perhaps spell out what Tamamuraya is (a teahouse?)
Not a teahouse—but I can't find a source that says explicitly what it was, other than being in Yoshiwara.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There were teahouses in Yoshiwara, and visits always started there. [
Here] is one description (in Japanese). The place where she worked probably had a teahouse in front where visitors would wait to be ushered into an inner entertainment room. This is all too complicated to explain, so I just added "house" to "the Tamamuraya house". "Pleasure house" would sound like a brothel, which it wasn't exactly. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 13:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification. I personally don't care, but is there a MOS issue with the doubling of -ya + house (I assume -ya is 屋)?
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There are articles with "Naninani-ji temple" in them. I think the helpfulness of such a construction far outweighs the redundancy—it's not confusing, inelegant, or misleading, and dropping the "ya" from the name is not (at least in this case) an option.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I am confused by: ...it was the first time in ukiyo-e history that the beauties were drawn from the general urban population rather than the pleasure quarters. From the first part of the article my understanding was that these beauties were from the pleasure quarter, no?
Toyohisa worked in Yoshiwara, but the other two were teahouse girls (some sources describe them as "看板娘") and worked oustide the pleasure quarters.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification.
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
As testimony to the popularity of the three models, the three models often appeared in the works of other aritsts. Should be rephrased to get rid of the two "three models".
Yes, at least in Western prints, "impression" = individual copy. "Printing" or "edition" are for groups, or "
State (printmaking)" for groups showing a particular point in a changing work.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I must say I don't really like adding the collections - it takes too much space, and encourages people to think they are unique objects, which many will, despite being told.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
You're right; I've kept the dates and dropped the museums.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Under "Portraits of the three Kansei beauties by Utamaro", you might want to swap Hisa with Kita in order to (a) have the same position of the beauties as in the main image and (b) not having them face to the border of the screen.
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
"Her clothes and hairstyle are in the showier style of a geisha compared to the plainer, teahouse-girl garments of the other two models..." I must say they all look identical to me. If there is a difference it needs explaining.
Maybe more later.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Here is a page where you can see the difference. The image is at the top (1781~1789) is a bit earlier and the hairstyle isn't quite as elaborate. The 2nd and 3rd from the top (1789~1801) are exactly this period. The 2nd is a geisha, and her kinono has more layers. The 3rd is a tea house girl, and she has a simpler kimono. The hairstyles of all 3 models are really elaborate -- it says Utamaro wasn't exaggerating, this was real. But the geisha's is a bit taller and has more ornaments. The ornaments make the difference. Perhaps we could say "ornamental hairstyle" and "elegant kimono" about Toyohina. But it's true, I can't see calling any of those hairstyles simple. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
But all these 3 seem to have exactly the same styles and ornaments.
Johnbod (
talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
One lacks the comb, but I don't know if that's significant. The kimono are different, but you're right, the hairstyles are very similar. Instead of talking about the differences, maybe we should try to find out the name of this hairstyle and why teahouse girls were wearing it in the first place. I think that's pretty remarkable. It might be a characteristic of this period. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
If you mean the top one, I thought that was just the angle of vision - there's a little bit coming out of the back at right, similar to the other two.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There are other details that distinguish Toyohina's hairstyle if you're willing to cross your eyes and hold it up to the light, but anyways I may have misinterpreted the source: it compares their clothes, and along the way says "派手な芸者髷を結わせ" to describe Toyohina's hair, but doesn't explicitly compare her hair to that of the other two—just the clothes: "家つきの娘らしいやや地味な着物を着せて、それぞれの身分の違いを描くことに務めている". I've tweaked it, dropping reference to the hair.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, thanks - the top one has a plain kimono and the other two patterns, but I won't argue the toss with sources on historical Japanese women's fashion (do we have articles on any of this stuff - I doubt it).
Johnbod (
talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
On the hairstyle, I have expanded the article on
Shimada (hairstyle) so that now it explains the style that all 3 models are wearing and slightly reworded Toyohina's description to point to it. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
"confections"? Not really an English word for food, is it? In the UK we have "confectionary" aka "sweets" = "candy" in the US. If that is the title they use, then you are stuck with it, but in the text something understandable should be used.
I see "confection" with the same meaning in a couple of dictionaries (and Wiktionary), but now that I see "sweet" is part of the definition, it's not really the best translation of 菓子, which includes salty snackfoods. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll sort this out tomorrow.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
For now, I've substituted in "snacks", though somehow it doesn't seem right ... dictionaries seem to favour "sweets", "confectioneries", "candies", or even "cakes" (!), which I think any Japanese speakers here will agree is not right (
ja:菓子 describes kashi as 甘味や塩味など "sweet, salty, etc.")
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
See my comment in Bamse's section. This print has two
states & that should probably be used & linked. You might also link this there, as it mentions no Japanese prints at present.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
About why the later state lacks the names, another explanation I have seen is that the
bakufu cracked down on these frivolous prints and forbade printing the names of models. I wonder if any of the sources mention that. Censorship seems like a more plausible explanation than that they moved away. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Plausible, although none of my sources suggest so—the "moved away" one is the only one I've seen, and only in the one source, and even then only put forth as a conjecture. It would be difficult to determine anyways, given that the different states are undated (even the original is only estimated at 1792–93). Of course, if a source turns up that says anything like that, it'll have to be added.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I found a reference and mentioned it on the Talk page. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
"fined the publisher half his property. In the wake of this setback, Utamaro began producing the first ōkubi-e" This seems a non-sequitur. Did Tsutaya commission them as a response to his setback?
indivuated is not recognised as a word in the Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries.
In the h/c
OED the verb is first cited in this sense (#2) from 1614, and the participle from
De Quincy in 1813 I think.
Johnbod (
talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Graham Beards (
talk) 18:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A well-known colour print by
ukiyo-e master
Utamaro, dating to c. 1792–93 and featuring three real-life beauties who frequently appeared in his works and the works of others.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from Margin1522
This is my first post on this board, so I will limit it to comments. I think this is a really good article. I like the lead, the images, the analysis, and the conclusion. Some small things that I think might be done to improve it.
It seems a bit short on the background. I think a bit more material could be added on bijin-ga as a major genre in ukiyo-e.
That's good. Maybe more, but we do talk about it later, so maybe this is enough.
There are a lot Japanese terms and names, which some readers might have trouble with. For example, we link to
sharebon but perhaps we could describe in a few words what kind of books those were.
In the sentence "Kyōden was manacled for fifty days, and Tsutaya was penalized half his property.", maybe we could say "the artist" instead of "Kyōden", and "the publisher" instead of "Tsutaya". When I came to "Kyōden", I had to go back and see, who was he again?
Handled in the response to the previous item.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Is "Tomohisa's" correct? Should that be "Toyohina's"?
*Burp* One of those things spellcheck will never catch. Fixed.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The
Tomimoto-bushi article we link to is quite weak. I'll try to see if I can expand it. It was a genre of
jōruri, which is a storytelling song. This particular genre was especially refined and popular with rich townspeople and samurai, and she played the accompaniment. If we could add some of that information, I think it might fill out our picture of her, which is shorter than the other two models. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I look forward to seeing what you can do with Tomimoto-bushi. Please don't feel that any nit in the article is too small to pick. I hope you'll be hanging around FAC more—there's been much wringing of hands lately over the lack of reviewers.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Discovering now that the main article on
jōruri (music) is also pretty meager. Urk. This may take some research. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm also wondering if there isn't a better term for ōkubi-e than "big-headed pictures". I know it's often translated this way, but it's not that the subjects had big heads, but that the image was a close-up of the head, or upper body actually. Other translations I've seen are are "torso portrait" or "bust portrait", but these don't seem quite right either. Is there some term (Italian?) in art criticism for "upper body portrait"? If not maybe we could just explain again what it was. Also, there were ōkubi-e of kabuki actors before Utamaro. His innovation was to do it for bijin, so maybe that could be clarified. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm partial to "big bust portrait", but everyone keeps shouting me down. If you check out the "Background" section you'll see that ōkubi-e is attributed to Shunshō, and the association is made with yakusha-e.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
OK, that's true, the background section is fine. Also, I finished expanding the
Tomimoto-bushi article. I seem to remember seeing a print of Toyohina standing on a veranda and looking like she was teaching the shamisen a child, which would have been nice to add. But I can't remember now where I saw it, or even if it was her. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)reply
One more nit. At Amazon the ISBN for the Yoshida dictionary goes to the 3rd edition. And I'm wondering if 定本 actually means "Revised". It could, but publishers like to put that on dictionaries regardless, just to make it look authoritative. There is a used copy of the 1974 edition on the Amazon page and the cover has 定本 already. Is it not enough to just say 3rd edition? –
Margin1522 (
talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)reply
That is strange, but if says so in the book it must be correct. The
National Book Network says "If you are revising a book and there is a substantial change of the contents, the book should be assigned a new ISBN. A rule of thumb is that 15-20% of the text or content should change to treat the book as a new edition." So perhaps all of those editions are substantially the same. Or not, I don't know. But the cite gives the year, so there's no doubt as to which edition was consulted. I guess it's OK then, we can't do anything about the ISBN. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comments from Bamse
Very beautiful article and artwork. Unfortunately I don't have time for a full review. Just a couple of comments...
The sentence Unlike as was common in ukiyo-e, the subjects were not courtesans, but young women known around Edo for their beauty reads quite hard to me. Could perhaps be rephrased/simplified.
Might need to decide on AE/BE spelling (e.g. centre, symbolize), but perhaps the -ize are ok in BE (I am not native).
It's in Canadian English to maximally frustrate readers.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh, I guess fine in this case.
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Perhaps spell out what Tamamuraya is (a teahouse?)
Not a teahouse—but I can't find a source that says explicitly what it was, other than being in Yoshiwara.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There were teahouses in Yoshiwara, and visits always started there. [
Here] is one description (in Japanese). The place where she worked probably had a teahouse in front where visitors would wait to be ushered into an inner entertainment room. This is all too complicated to explain, so I just added "house" to "the Tamamuraya house". "Pleasure house" would sound like a brothel, which it wasn't exactly. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 13:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification. I personally don't care, but is there a MOS issue with the doubling of -ya + house (I assume -ya is 屋)?
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There are articles with "Naninani-ji temple" in them. I think the helpfulness of such a construction far outweighs the redundancy—it's not confusing, inelegant, or misleading, and dropping the "ya" from the name is not (at least in this case) an option.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I am confused by: ...it was the first time in ukiyo-e history that the beauties were drawn from the general urban population rather than the pleasure quarters. From the first part of the article my understanding was that these beauties were from the pleasure quarter, no?
Toyohisa worked in Yoshiwara, but the other two were teahouse girls (some sources describe them as "看板娘") and worked oustide the pleasure quarters.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the clarification.
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
As testimony to the popularity of the three models, the three models often appeared in the works of other aritsts. Should be rephrased to get rid of the two "three models".
Yes, at least in Western prints, "impression" = individual copy. "Printing" or "edition" are for groups, or "
State (printmaking)" for groups showing a particular point in a changing work.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I must say I don't really like adding the collections - it takes too much space, and encourages people to think they are unique objects, which many will, despite being told.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
You're right; I've kept the dates and dropped the museums.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Under "Portraits of the three Kansei beauties by Utamaro", you might want to swap Hisa with Kita in order to (a) have the same position of the beauties as in the main image and (b) not having them face to the border of the screen.
bamse (
talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)reply
"Her clothes and hairstyle are in the showier style of a geisha compared to the plainer, teahouse-girl garments of the other two models..." I must say they all look identical to me. If there is a difference it needs explaining.
Maybe more later.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Here is a page where you can see the difference. The image is at the top (1781~1789) is a bit earlier and the hairstyle isn't quite as elaborate. The 2nd and 3rd from the top (1789~1801) are exactly this period. The 2nd is a geisha, and her kinono has more layers. The 3rd is a tea house girl, and she has a simpler kimono. The hairstyles of all 3 models are really elaborate -- it says Utamaro wasn't exaggerating, this was real. But the geisha's is a bit taller and has more ornaments. The ornaments make the difference. Perhaps we could say "ornamental hairstyle" and "elegant kimono" about Toyohina. But it's true, I can't see calling any of those hairstyles simple. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
But all these 3 seem to have exactly the same styles and ornaments.
Johnbod (
talk) 21:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)reply
One lacks the comb, but I don't know if that's significant. The kimono are different, but you're right, the hairstyles are very similar. Instead of talking about the differences, maybe we should try to find out the name of this hairstyle and why teahouse girls were wearing it in the first place. I think that's pretty remarkable. It might be a characteristic of this period. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 05:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
If you mean the top one, I thought that was just the angle of vision - there's a little bit coming out of the back at right, similar to the other two.
Johnbod (
talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
There are other details that distinguish Toyohina's hairstyle if you're willing to cross your eyes and hold it up to the light, but anyways I may have misinterpreted the source: it compares their clothes, and along the way says "派手な芸者髷を結わせ" to describe Toyohina's hair, but doesn't explicitly compare her hair to that of the other two—just the clothes: "家つきの娘らしいやや地味な着物を着せて、それぞれの身分の違いを描くことに務めている". I've tweaked it, dropping reference to the hair.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, thanks - the top one has a plain kimono and the other two patterns, but I won't argue the toss with sources on historical Japanese women's fashion (do we have articles on any of this stuff - I doubt it).
Johnbod (
talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
On the hairstyle, I have expanded the article on
Shimada (hairstyle) so that now it explains the style that all 3 models are wearing and slightly reworded Toyohina's description to point to it. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
"confections"? Not really an English word for food, is it? In the UK we have "confectionary" aka "sweets" = "candy" in the US. If that is the title they use, then you are stuck with it, but in the text something understandable should be used.
I see "confection" with the same meaning in a couple of dictionaries (and Wiktionary), but now that I see "sweet" is part of the definition, it's not really the best translation of 菓子, which includes salty snackfoods. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll sort this out tomorrow.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
For now, I've substituted in "snacks", though somehow it doesn't seem right ... dictionaries seem to favour "sweets", "confectioneries", "candies", or even "cakes" (!), which I think any Japanese speakers here will agree is not right (
ja:菓子 describes kashi as 甘味や塩味など "sweet, salty, etc.")
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
See my comment in Bamse's section. This print has two
states & that should probably be used & linked. You might also link this there, as it mentions no Japanese prints at present.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)reply
About why the later state lacks the names, another explanation I have seen is that the
bakufu cracked down on these frivolous prints and forbade printing the names of models. I wonder if any of the sources mention that. Censorship seems like a more plausible explanation than that they moved away. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 20:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Plausible, although none of my sources suggest so—the "moved away" one is the only one I've seen, and only in the one source, and even then only put forth as a conjecture. It would be difficult to determine anyways, given that the different states are undated (even the original is only estimated at 1792–93). Of course, if a source turns up that says anything like that, it'll have to be added.
Curly Turkey ⚞
¡gobble!⚟ 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I found a reference and mentioned it on the Talk page. –
Margin1522 (
talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)reply
"fined the publisher half his property. In the wake of this setback, Utamaro began producing the first ōkubi-e" This seems a non-sequitur. Did Tsutaya commission them as a response to his setback?
indivuated is not recognised as a word in the Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries.
In the h/c
OED the verb is first cited in this sense (#2) from 1614, and the participle from
De Quincy in 1813 I think.
Johnbod (
talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Graham Beards (
talk) 18:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.