|This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Japanese castles. View the page revision history for a list of the authors.|
- Yes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The number is right now, but it would be good if they were spread out more equally through the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Now that this is its own article, how best should it be structured? I think the 12 original castles is of course still a must to highlight. After that, though, I wonder if "Reconstructions" and "Ruins" are the best way to organize things. There are a lot of topics to add, obviously history/historic periods as it relates to the castles and their architecture, architectural features, etc. I had considered in the past creating an article for Japan's Top 100 Castles but I didn't when users seemed weary about Japan's Top 100 Cherry Blossom Spots article creation (although I think in the end that was a misunderstanding that people thought it was my personal list rather than an established list). I still think the Top 100 castles could be a worthy topic, but considering this article, there are no bounds. Should we just start with making lists with blurbs for each under the "reconstruction" and "ruin" headings or is there another/better way to organize them? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I thing reconstructions/ruins is still a good distinction to make -- it's a very different visitor experience. The first is fake but requires little imagination, and the second is authentic but requires a lot of imagination.
- If the lists within each section get too big, dividing them into subsections by region would be useful. I agree that the article needs more history, architecture information. Text from the Wikipedia article can be easily adapted our needs. (It probably gets too deep for the average traveller.) Ground Zero (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)