This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
What do you mean by aphorism here? In either case, I'm not sure "Accordion book" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, perhaps it should be merged the other way. I have never heard of the phrase "accordion book" in my Southeast Asia studies and when this popped up I assumed it was some style of book from Europe because of the word "accordion". EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 23:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmeraldRange I think the word I was looking for was anachronism, but either way, we're on the same page - accordion book is not a useful or accurate term, and my suggestion is to merge this page to folding-book manuscript.
Per your studies, would you say there is any precedence for a separation between Chinese-Japanese-Korean folding manuscripts and SE Asian ones, as these articles being separate suggests? chickenpox4dinner (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad I misread your initial suggestion. I would not say that these two are substantially different to warrant a separate article. Both are based on historical developments from Buddhist literature and arts, before developing some secular uses in the early modern period. From a cursory google scholar search, sources dating back to at least the 1970s discuss the "accordion" style folding book in the context of East Asian studies, but the main results I see do not seem to indicate an overwhelming preference for the phrase accordion book. Furthermore, the folding-book manuscript article is already a general term for various types of books that, in the literature, are called by their national terms (e.g. parabaik, samut, etc.)