Jump to content

Talk:New Morning (Misia album): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Adding RFC ID.
Ryulong (talk | contribs)
Line 37: Line 37:
:::::And as before Artpop is an English-sourced album which is ''sometimes'' capitalized in some English sources. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::And as before Artpop is an English-sourced album which is ''sometimes'' capitalized in some English sources. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::'''This is not romaji'''. How many times do I have to explain that to you? This is '''common practice''' for articles on '''all language subjects''' where the name is officially typeset in a way that consensus on the English Wikipedia does not allow. Artpop's officially referred to by the record label as "ARTPOP" just like this album is "NEW MORNING" and she is MISIA and her previous studio album was "SOUL QUEST". Why do you insist on this with your completely wrong understanding of what's going on? It's not like this album's name is in Japanese and I'm saying that an all caps ''actual romaji'' transliteration is a stylization. '''This album's title on the CD and in all reliable sources is NEW MORNING'''. Why is it that you ''cannot'' accept this?—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::'''This is not romaji'''. How many times do I have to explain that to you? This is '''common practice''' for articles on '''all language subjects''' where the name is officially typeset in a way that consensus on the English Wikipedia does not allow. Artpop's officially referred to by the record label as "ARTPOP" just like this album is "NEW MORNING" and she is MISIA and her previous studio album was "SOUL QUEST". Why do you insist on this with your completely wrong understanding of what's going on? It's not like this album's name is in Japanese and I'm saying that an all caps ''actual romaji'' transliteration is a stylization. '''This album's title on the CD and in all reliable sources is NEW MORNING'''. Why is it that you ''cannot'' accept this?—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Let me give some more examples that show how ''wrong'' you are. [[Superfly (band)]] released 4 studio albums so far. Their titles '''''inline in Japanese text'''''' are "Superfly", "Box Emotions", "Mind Travel", and "Force". Her upcoming album is to be titled "WHITE". In all caps. Not like any of her previous albums which had standard capitalization. So this is '''''not''''' what you claim to be {{tq|simply a common function of romaji and ENGLISH CAPS in among kanji and kana in Japanese script}}. In Japan, they arbitrarily choose how to title their albums or even refer to themselves. I have listened to music performed by someone who calls himself TAKUYA and by a completely different person who goes by the name takuya. [[L'Arc-en-Ciel]]'s member [[Tetsuya (musician)|Tetsuya]] recorded music as "TETSU69", "tetsu", and "TETSUYA" as a solo artist while he calls himself "tetsuya" as part of the band. This is just something that happens when the Japanese music industry decides to co-opt the English alphabet in its repertoire. It's why American born musicians [[Kylee]] and [[Joe Inoue]] have released songs and albums with titles in all caps and in normal caps during their music careers in Japan (Kylee released "CRAZY FOR YOU" and "Everlasting"; Inoue released ''DOS ANGELES'' which has a track titled "Can you hear me?"). The Canadian guys who make up [[Monkey Majik]] named their band in Japan "MONKEY MAJIK" and they've released song slike "Change" and "WANDERER". This is '''just how Japanese music works'''. You have ''zero'' knowledge of this subject so why ask for something which is standard practice?—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 05:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


==RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese"==
==RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese"==

Revision as of 05:15, 23 January 2015

WikiProject iconAlbums Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Source needed

This edit New Morning (stylized as NEW MORNING)... needs a reliable WP:RS English language source.
However, I see this now reads

New Morning (stylized as NEW MORNING in Japan)...

But really that should say

New Morning (capitalized as NEW MORNING in Japanese text)...

Since that is what we are talking about here. The same is often true for American albums appearing in Japanese sources where they are not given in katana. For example ja:MICHAEL “マイケル・ジャクソン 全世界待望のニューアルバム「MICHAEL」”. 2014年7月15日閲覧。 How is this Misia album any different? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired of making the same answers on every page you did this to. What happens to American or British or French or whatever national origin albums in Japan is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia. You are asking for vast changes to how articles on Japanese albums are formatted because of a pointless technicality and unending pedantry. "In Japanese" and "in Japan" should be considered synonymous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are not synonymous. Japanese is a language which is also used albeit rarely outside Japan. Japan is a place where English books and newspapers are also printed. Now that we have established that "in Japanese text" and "in Japan" are not synonymous, what second/other objection do you have to the above. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The KISS principle.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not going to fly either, it's not simpler to state "in Japan" when what is meant is "in Japanese text", so KISS doesn't apply. You have already agreed that this occurs in Japanese language texts, not English texts in Japan, so unless you're going back on that, there's no reason not to reflect what you have said in the edit (if the edit is required at all). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to be extremely pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. "NEW MORNING" is English, but used exclusively within Japanese contexts. How do you describe that? And it's not something that should be omitted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe that as "in Japanese text" since it is in Japanese text. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why make the distinction? Why be pedantic?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Japanese and English are different languages, and use different writing systems. Since we are talking about "in Japanese text", and this it is in Japanese text, and not in English text then we should say "in Japanese text". In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still English text (effectively a trademark) in a Japanese language context. Calling it "in Japanese text" seems incorrect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is not "in English text", this is "in Japanese text":

若松正子 (2014-04-02). "MISIA『今だからこそ言える――15年間続けられた理由と歌声の秘密とは!?』". Oricon.co.jp. Retrieved 2014-04-02.

"ナタリー - MISIA、アルバム発売日にBunkamuraで15周年ツアー完結". Natalie.mu. 2014-03-17. Retrieved 2014-04-02.

That is clearly in Japanese text not in English text. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is "NEW MORNING" in any way Japanese text?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said "in", I said "in". The preposition wikt:in means inside, among. That is clearly "in Japanese text" not "in English text":
This is clearly "in Japanese text". Agreed? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is in Japanese text. But we do not need to be pedantic on this page any further than you've made it to be. Trademark. End of this nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to visit this again. The name of this album is "NEW MORNING" within Japan rather than "New Morning" or even "new morning". And because MOS:CAPS forbids the use of "NEW MORNING" it's instead "New Morning" and there's a note saying that "NEW MORNING" is the stylization because that's how all of these articles are set up when the album's name doesn't have standard capitalization in Japan. Why do I constantly have to come back to this, In ictu oculi? Why won't you let this stupid technicality go?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please find a reliable English print source (not a blog) which says "Misia's album NEW MORNING was released in 2014" In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no English language sources for this album. I told you that half a year ago. I've shown you multiple sources that feature this album's name as "NEW MORNING" inline with Japanese text which is all that there is. And that is not the point. The point is that MOS:CAPS forbids using "NEW MORNING" as the title of this page just like it forbids "ARTPOP" for being the title of Artpop. This album was trademarked as "NEW MORNING". It's on her official website for the album. Hell, the album even has a song on it that isn't all caps and it's formatted that way on her website. It's on HMV. It's on Sony's official website. Why do you demand something that does not exist and I've explained to you that it is just a pedantic thing required by the English Wikipedia's manual of style?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know there weren't. I was suggesting that you find some if you want to represent the album as if it is capitalized in English. Otherwise you need to adjust the lead to something like this:

New Morning (capitalized as MISIAのアルバム「NEW MORNING」in Romaji in Japanese text)...

This is en.wp not ja.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's entirely wrong. There should be no reason to treat this any differently from Artpop which is the exact same situation. The album's title is "NEW MORNING" in Japan. Not this "MISIAのアルバム「NEW MORNING」" crap that you've pulled out of one of those links I posted. Because the English Wikipedia forbids us from having the article at NEW MORNING then it has to be at this title and adding a note that it's stylized as such. Why did you even come back to this page to pull this again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As before, because your addition of (stylized as CAPS) to so many Japanese albums with no English sources misrepresents what is simply a common function of romaji and ENGLISH CAPS in among kanji and kana in Japanese script.
And as before Artpop is an English-sourced album which is sometimes capitalized in some English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not romaji. How many times do I have to explain that to you? This is common practice for articles on all language subjects where the name is officially typeset in a way that consensus on the English Wikipedia does not allow. Artpop's officially referred to by the record label as "ARTPOP" just like this album is "NEW MORNING" and she is MISIA and her previous studio album was "SOUL QUEST". Why do you insist on this with your completely wrong understanding of what's going on? It's not like this album's name is in Japanese and I'm saying that an all caps actual romaji transliteration is a stylization. This album's title on the CD and in all reliable sources is NEW MORNING. Why is it that you cannot accept this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give some more examples that show how wrong you are. Superfly (band) released 4 studio albums so far. Their titles inline in Japanese text' are "Superfly", "Box Emotions", "Mind Travel", and "Force". Her upcoming album is to be titled "WHITE". In all caps. Not like any of her previous albums which had standard capitalization. So this is not what you claim to be simply a common function of romaji and ENGLISH CAPS in among kanji and kana in Japanese script. In Japan, they arbitrarily choose how to title their albums or even refer to themselves. I have listened to music performed by someone who calls himself TAKUYA and by a completely different person who goes by the name takuya. L'Arc-en-Ciel's member Tetsuya recorded music as "TETSU69", "tetsu", and "TETSUYA" as a solo artist while he calls himself "tetsuya" as part of the band. This is just something that happens when the Japanese music industry decides to co-opt the English alphabet in its repertoire. It's why American born musicians Kylee and Joe Inoue have released songs and albums with titles in all caps and in normal caps during their music careers in Japan (Kylee released "CRAZY FOR YOU" and "Everlasting"; Inoue released DOS ANGELES which has a track titled "Can you hear me?"). The Canadian guys who make up Monkey Majik named their band in Japan "MONKEY MAJIK" and they've released song slike "Change" and "WANDERER". This is just how Japanese music works. You have zero knowledge of this subject so why ask for something which is standard practice?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese"

Should [Option A] the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead be retained but make clear "in Japanese" only? There are no English print sources and English books do not normally capitalize Japanese album or song titles, while Japanese habitually displays Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text. Or [Option B] should the (stylized as...) parenthesis be removed as irrelevant, since Japanese habitually displays Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text in most cases, without any special stylization being required. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The physical CD is printed as "NEW MORNING", so including the "stylized as ..." in parentheses in the article lead seems appropriate and desirable, and is a style widely used across articles about Japanese subjects. Adding "in Japanese" does not appear totally accurate, as the HMV online site uses "NEW MORNING" in English. --DAJF (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no, In ictu oculi. "Stylized as" is perfectly fine as it's exactly what happens to Artpop and Kiss (band) and plenty of other pages on Wikipedia. This is a WP:IDHT situation because In ictu oculi has repeatedly ignored all of my explanations of why he is wrong on this page, on his user talk page, and elsewhere. He is demanding something that no one can possibly provide proof for because it is only very rarely that Japanese language albums get any English language press. The situation here is simple, as I've laid out time and time again.
    This album's title is typeset as "NEW MORNING". Period. Because MOS:CAPS doesn't allow this, "New Morning" is used instead and the original typesetting of the title is included alongside it. This isn't an issue of Japanese habitually displays Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text in most cases because there are tracks on this album that are not written in all caps in Japanese nor is it "romaji" (which explicitly refers to Japanese laguage transcribed into the Latin alphabet). Track 5 is "Miss you always". Track 7 is "Daisy". Track 8 is "Jewelry". Track 9 is "Especially for me". Track 11 is "One day, One life". Track 13 is "My pride of love". Track 14 is "Re-Brain". Track 1 of course is "HOPE & DREAMS" (in all caps) so, In ictu oculi, do not talk about whatyou clearly have no clue about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is a RFC it is ideally a request for new comments. But thank you for summarizing your position above. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There shouldn't be an RFC just because you cannot understand anything I have told you from September to today.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]