Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Furigana

An issue that has come up recently is the use of furigana in Wikipedia articles. Having read this Manual of Style and its discussion, there was no serious discussion of furigana usage to be seen.

While romanisation shows how a word or phrase is pronounced as a whole, furigana have the advantage of showing how each character is pronounced — which is valuable since Japanese, unlike Greek or Russian, does not regularly use an alphabet. While not extremely valuable, it is somewhat educational and, by that token, encylopaedic.

Due to the fact that furigana can only be incorporated as tables, they are impossible to display in body text, since they will result in huge spacing gaps that detract from the article's appearance. But they can be used, to no detriment, in template infoboxes, since those are already tables. This just means putting furigana over the kanji of the person's name.

I advocate this; but of course I wish to hear the opinions of people who know much more about Japanese than I do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.105.121.208 (talk • contribs) .

Do you know <ruby> markup? There has been several attempts to utilise it. All I know is that:
  1. on japanese wikipedia, this issue popped up at least four times, but every time they concluded not to use it, mainly because the tag is defined in XHTML 1.1 not 1.0, which wikipedia using – VP 2004 – VP 2005 – talk:MoS – VP 2006
  2. a similar post can be seen on ja.wikiquote – VP 2005
  3. on the other hand, Japanese book on English wikibooks, they already use the function with a note to mizilla users on the top page, since mozilla browsers (including firefox) cannot render ruby as IE unless installing a plug-in (without the plug-in, Furiganas are not set above the Kanjis, rather they are shown in parentheses right after the Kanjis, like "漢字(かんじ)"). See b:Japanese for details. Note they make use of templates (such as b:Template:ruby) to elude its complicated markup syntax. The book is focusing on the language learners. I guess this is why the use of this markup (nonstandard, require a plug-in) was justified in this case.
HTH – marsian 11:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
However, an alternate (albeit complicated) way of displaying ruby is by assembling a table, as in the article on furigana. While this is inconvenient and disruptive in body text, in an infobox, a table setup is already present, and ruby can thus be used in a way that is neither disruptive of the text nor subject to any technical limitations on any browser, since it is essentially regular text.
Another note, while furigana is obviously useful in certain cases, I'm not convinced it would be a benifit in the English wiki. Whether it is eventually incorporated on the Japanese side is a different issue (I doubt there are many people that prefer kakko to rubi), it seems to me that using it in an English article (other than the article on rubi) would only serve to confuse the 99% of readers who can't tell the difference between a hiragana and a kanji. Since the need to spell out kanji is limited to the article titles and usually very few words within the article text (at least on the English side) the visual complexity seems to outweigh the actual usefulness.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't know what I was thinking. As Hoary said it below, romaji serves the purpose of rubi, and there is no need in the English 'pedia. Unless, of course, someone is proposing English rubi.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm also in the leaning against furigana camp--I think the same effect can be had simply by having spaces between the pronunciation characters--in the example above, a space between かん and じ "漢字(かん じ)" clearly show which character belongs with which pronunciation. Besides that, furigana looks messy and as noted can be confusing to the _total_ novice. LactoseTI 04:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. Aside from articles about furigana (ruby) or Japanese script, I don't understand why roman letters aren't (or, where appropriate, IPA isn't) adequate for the job. As for articles about Japanese script, etc., I'd have guessed that an (intelligent) ad hoc approach would be adequate. (Where ruby really must be shown, e.g. in an explanation of what ruby are, then one would have to resort to a PNG/GIF image.) -- Hoary 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This issue comes around every now and then in discussions about how much "real" Japanese should be included in articles, and furigana/hiragana almost always gets put together with alternate romanizations in the Too Much Information category. I think we are quite fortunate that pronunciation of Japanese is fairly straight-forward given either its romanization or its furigana, thus including both in the article is a bit redundant. CES 11:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, ruby markup is not yet a standard (it's only a proposed standard under XHTML 1.1). I don't think we should go adopting anything that's only proposed. I also agree with CES' reasoning regarding including too much information. I think the {{Nihongo}} template is about as technical as we want to get as it presents the information in an orderly manner and in such a way as to not overwhelm a person with information while still providing the extra information for those who are interested in it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, ruby markup is part of XHTML 1.1, which is already a standard. Specify the XHTML 1.1 DTD in your DOCTYPE statement, and away you go -- in principle, at least. In practice, it's complicated. First, there is no XHTML 1.1 transitional (or "loose"); the only XHTML 1.1 is strict, so the presentational markup (<font color="blahblah">, etc.) common on WP is a no-no. Moreover, while XHTML 1.0 can be dished up as HTML rather than XML and (in effect) parsed and rendered pretty much like HTML, some standard or other (I forget) says that XHTML 1.1 can't be, and must instead be dished up as XML. (Depending on the way the web server is set up, this is often simply achieved by giving it an "xml" filename extension.) Mozilla won't mind this, but MSIE at least as recent as 5.5 (and perhaps later) won't be able to render the page at all. -- Hoary 07:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've just seen my first wiki article using ruby: Dragons of Earth. Shiroi Hane 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
桃(もの)生(う) 封(ふう) 真(ま)
Percisely why I don't like ruby. What does this tell someone who doesn't know Japanese writing from a dingbat font? Nothing. Who is this helpful to? Not very many people. (In addition it does not display correctly on Opera. i.e what I've pasted is what renders for me.) --Kunzite 00:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That's how it shows on Netscape too. For each name in that article there is Romaji, Furigana, Kanji, and a "Name Analysis" ... talk about Too Much Information! CES 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So the two main objections, as far as I can see, are: 1) ruby are redundant; 2) technical limitations. The first is true enough, except that it does allow a reader to differentiate between じ / ぢ and ず / づ. The question is, is it worth it for these four characters?
Concerning the second, what is Wikipedia's official stance on display difficulties that may only be an issue using certain programs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.105.104.176 (talk • contribs) .
Ow, that gives me a headache to try to read.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps furigana could be included with pop-up text somehow. Something like this, maybe: 桃生 封 真 —Jecowa 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nihongo

I think the template should link to Japanese language. See ilustration below:

  • How it is now:    Fullmetal Alchemist (鋼の錬金術師 Hagane no Renkinjutsushi?)
  • What I propose: Fullmetal Alchemist (Japanese: 鋼の錬金術師 - Hagane no Renkinjutsushi)

Current problems:

  • names with mixed latin-kanji names mix up.
  • to an untrained eye it is curious what language are these wierd scribles are
  • the ? has little usage and it is confusing as people can easily believe it is a part of the romaji.
--Cat out 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the way it now, though I wouldn't object to replacing the "?" with "Help" or something similar. Every place the template is used should be obvious the characters are Japanese since the only places it's used are articles about some aspect of Japan or Japanese culture. I think it's best to keep it as simple as possible. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
True but on for example on Planetes it can be problematic. The template might appear like it is pointing the obvious but what I am saying is in accordance with Manual of Style for all other languages I believe. it isn't becoming any more complicated when it is stated that text is infact in japanese. besides consider the case at FMA and Planetes lists when japanese characters dont load properly. Deriving the language from context can be problematic if many are listed. --Cat out 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that this suggestion has come up before. Consensus has generally been that there's too much that needs to be put in the opening sentence as is; the more we try to squeeze in, the uglier and more confusing it gets. Personally, I think Help:Japanese (which is intended to help with the very problem you mention!) is more likely to be useful than Japanese language, and people can infer the latter from the former anyway.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you think of this:     Fullmetal Alchemist (鋼の錬金術師 Hagane no RenkinjutsushiHELP) or     Fullmetal Alchemist (鋼の錬金術師 Hagane no RenkinjutsushiHelp) instead of the question mark? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the merit, but you can bring it up on Template talk:Nihongo to see what others think about this. Shinobu 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see Cool Cat's reasoning on fully writing out Japanese: at the front of the template, at least when it's used for the article title. If you look at how translation is done for articles with Chinese names, they fully write out Traditional Chinese: Simplified Chinese: AND Pinyin:, and I don't really see why Japanese is being excepted from this.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  10:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The main reason to avoid it is because it looks clunky. It's much better to have a simple question mark than to have all kinds of extra stuff in the sentence that simply clutters it up. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Huh. This is true. I'd been under the impression that Chinese usually got away with removing it entirely from the opening sentence and using an infobox instead.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad we've avoided introductory sentences like the Jet Li example. Fg2 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but that's because I understand Japanese and Chinese, so I'm not sure if I count.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that having “Japanese” written out every time would look clunky, but in some cases it should be. That’s why I keep removing the template from the intros of video game articles: The first time something is written in both languages, it needs to explain, within the parentheses, that it’s Japanese without the reader having to click or hover anywhere. The obvious solution that strikes me as I write this is a second, similar template that provides the explanation for the first such phrase in an article, and the one with the question mark thereafter. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me, and might be a possible solution to the question mark issue. Create a new template (based on the current nihongo template, with Japanese: link included, minus the question mark) for the first mention in an article; all subsequent template needs being served by the current nihongo template minus the question mark (as it would be unneccessary). The use of a new template for the opening phrase would also avoid screwing up the many, many instances of the current nihongo template. Seann 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would support a variation of the nihongo template for use only in the introductory sentence of an article that would explicitly state that the word is Japanese. Maybe Template:Nihongo-intro.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Minus question mark is good proposal. Question mark is not working well. That shows every Japanese word as if it was not exact.Open-box 03:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Romanizing おう and おお

Is "Õsaka" for おおさか a typo on this page, or is Wikipedia's style to write both おう and おお as õ instead of as õ and oo respectively?

In general, long o-vowels (be they おお or おう) are written as ō (NB: that is a macron not a tilde). See Hepburn romanization for more details. CES 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
O+macron (Ō) is used for おう and おお. (You clicked on O+tilde (Õ).) Osaka would not take the macron because it's a well known name in English. But, Ōmagari (大曲市) takes the long. Also, sometimes people use "passport Hepburn" for names. i.e. Emika Satoh (佐藤恵美香, Satō Emika) just use the nihongo template and make redirects for spelling variations. (Oops. Edit conflict.) --Kunzite 02:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The Insert buttons are small, and the o+tilde looks a lot like o+macron. Wikipedia romanization of Japanese does not use o+tilde (õ), but it does use o+macron (ō) both for o followed by o and for o followed by u. And Osaka, along with Tokyo and Kyoto, are examples of words so familiar in English that we do not use the macron for them. (I guess I'm repeating what CES and Kunzite said.) Fg2 09:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I would still much prefer writing them out in full as ou and oo. For instance, the name Ookouchi contains both. Shiroi Hane 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the thing about wiki, it doesn't really matter what you prefer. Sounds kinda harsh when I say it like that, but everyone learns that eventually I guess. Big wikis simply wouldn't work if it was down to individual tastes.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I never said it did matter, and if you looked at my editing you would see that I learned that a long time ago and have inserted lots of macrons in the appropriate places. I did not realise that meant that I could not state a preference. Shiroi Hane 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Then I apologize. I assume all comments discussing the Japanese MoS are intended to matter.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's important to consider the reader. If we romanized the capital as Toukyou, or the governor of its neighbor as Tibakennnotizi, we'd make a lot of readers buy Britannica! It's important to choose a romanization style that people can read, no matter what their education level or academic interest. Linguists want all the vowels; typists want waapuro; people who haven't studied the language want macronless Hepburn; those who have want the macrons; manga readers want each article to follow the mangaka's personal romanization system... and the Japanese government has many opinions. We can't all be pleased! Fg2 07:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I support not using macrons for "ou" and "oo" because representing both clusters with the same character introduces ambiguity, which I find unacceptable when it comes to transliterating a language. I also don't like the idea that "o" and "u" are singled out--why doesn't MOS-JA say that "aa", "ee", "ei", and "ii" should be written with macrons (as ā, ē, ē, and ī, respectively)? There's also no Japanese-language reason for macrons in anywhere except for katakana words using ー. They are simply two distinct vowels that happen to be adjacent and pronounced the same. As far as the Tokyo/Toukyou issue, why not write it as "Tokyo (東京 Toukyou)"? It includes the most common spelling used by English-speakers and the most-unambiguous romanisation. Note that I don't terribly oppose the use of macros for katakana words using ー. It's not my preferred romanisation, but there is a case for using macrons, as the Japanese text clearly indicates it's a single long vowel, and not two adjacent vowels that just happen to be pronounced the same. Just my two cents... jgp 09:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I find ō to be sufficient: to my knowledge there are only a very few kanji that are read with おお (大 and 氷 probably cover 99% of cases), so from that it's easy enough to tell what the proper kanaization of ō should be. (Now zu, on the other hand....)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish we'd note the caveat, though, that where it breaks on the syllable, you _never_ are to use the macron. Hiroomi and Hiroumi are not just two different words, but have different pronunciations (I gave the kanji in a section above), and never should have the macron. It doesn't stop people from doing it. While we use the (less common) macron system with Hepburn rather than "straight up" Hepburn, even in this modified form, it is always very clear that it is a no-no to change both of those to Hiromi with a line over the o... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Komdori (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 May 2006 UTC.

How about something like this:
Long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can now click on the special characters below the Wikipedia edit box. You can also enter the HTML entity &#333; for ō, and &#363; for ū. In the case of katakana, all long vowels indicated with ー should be written with macrons when showing the Japanese pronunciation (e.g., Mall (モール, Mōru)). All other long vowels are written with without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Take note that some words such as Hiroomi (広臣, Hiro omi, (syllables split for this example)) and Hiroumi (広海, Hiro umi, (syllables split for this example)) do not contain long vowels and should therefore not use macrons.
How does that "sound"? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have occasionally seen "syllable" being used to mean "mora" — not in professional works, mind, but it still makes me a little leery of the term. I kind of prefer morpheme, since I don't think there can be an an intramorphemic occurrence of a broken double vowel. That being the case – well, that and my bad habit of fiddling with things – how about something like this?
Long vowels and macrons
Long vowels, except for i, are written with macrons: e.g., ō or ū. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can now click on the special characters below the Wikipedia edit box instead.
Take care not to use macrons across morpheme boundaries; these are not, strictly speaking, considered "long vowels". Thus all of
お母さん okāsan, 大潮 ōshio, 天皇 tennō, 宇宙 uchū
are correct use, but it would be incorrect to use macrons in any of
空揚げ karaage, 広臣 Hiroomi, 雇う yatou, 湖 mizuumi.
However, long i should always be written as ii for clarity and legibility, even within a morpheme: thus お兄さん oniisan, rather than onīsan. In the case of katakana, all long vowels indicated with ー should be written with macrons when showing the Japanese pronunciation: e.g., Mall (モール, Mōru).
Note the inclusion of 湖 mizuumi: this is to make sure that no one comes to the conclusion that syllable boundaries only occur on character boundaries (or only in names, come to that). Also, I may be in the minority about the acceptability of okāsan (and onēsan): how do others feel?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hepburn doesn't allow okāsan, onēsan, or onīsan, and though its not my opinion we don't use those macrons for Japanese on Wikipedia. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there are big differences between "modified" and "revised" Hepburn that have now been clarified on the Hepburn page. If going by "revised", it's permittable to use ī in words of non-Sino/Japanese origin, and all other long macroned vowels are permitted except for ē, which seems to be supposedly spelled ei for Sino/Japanese words?!?! If "modified" is used... everything screws up.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I like this version. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm weary about adopting a unique Wikipedian romanization scheme (I want to believe that there's somebody smart out there that's written a book about a good version of Hepburn) but this is good for now and will help clean up romanizations. I wouldn't advise karaage as an example though, it's actually being pronounced karage in many parts of Tokyo lately.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ruby

I'd like to specifically disallow ruby in all Japanese articles until it becomes more widely supported. Otherwise, we get articles like Dragons of Heaven which don't look very good in anything other than some versions of MSIE. In addition, ruby uses up a lot of space in an article, when something much more compact (like the currently accepted and widely-used {{tl:Nihongo}} template) would accomplish the same thing. Thoughts on adding this to the MOS-JA? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I heartfully approve. I'm afraid to edit Dragons of Heaven because the code is such a mess.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. I totally agree. --Kunzite 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. Doesn't even work in IE for me. Kill it now. —Nightstallion (?) 22:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No ruby, please. (Heck, I'm the guy who doesn't like macrons.) I do have a suggestion for people who want to do the kind of thing that's in the Dragons of Heaven article: Why not make a graphic of some sort. You can make the kanji look really interesting and put the ruby on them, then make a gif and include it in the article. Use the colors of the original production, and it will be a visually interesting addition. Fg2 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree to add the prohibition to MOS-JA. Maybe it can be reconsidered when more browsers display it correctly, but for now, it makes a mess of everything. Neier 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree, as per Neier and Nihonjoe.--Endroit 23:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, this seems so uncontroversial I've gone ahead and added it.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems that everyone is in agreement, how should we word it, and where in the MoS-JA should it go? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's already there. Fg2 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Names of modern figures/given and family name order

I recently started an article on the composer Dan Ikuma which was changed to Ikuma Dan, and I was referred to this article and the rule that:

For a modern figure (a person born from the first year of Meiji (1868) onward), always use the Western order of given name + family name.

Surely this imposes modern American usage in a way that is culturally biased? Wikipedia does not usually insist on American usage. As I understand the general policy, both US and other forms of English are respected. (I also wonder whether it is in line with the way Chinese and Korean names as treated.)

I suggest that it would be better to allow either native or American order, as appropriate, with the surname indicated in parentheses at the start of the article and a suitable redirect.

No doubt members of the Japan project will be more familiar with this question than I am – I assume it has surfaced often enough before – as I am usually writing about music rather than Japan or Asia. I would be interested to have responses and see if there is any support for changing the rule. - Kleinzach 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach, and thank you for commenting on the Wikipedia manual of style for Japan-related articles. Some months ago, after a protracted debate, the Wikipedia community agreed to use the Western name order for people born after the first year of Meiji. I don't recall that it was opposed on the basis of being American, and also, I believe some supporters were not American while some opponents were American. Furthermore, I don't consider the system American. The archives of the discussion are available for you to peruse.
Personally, although I prefer surname-given name order, I respect the decision of the Wikipedia community and feel that we arrived at the decision after an open, fair process with extensive input from many contributors, so I would not support changing it. I speak only for myself, of course.
Many issues arise, both new and old, and we'll welcome your participation in discussions of them.
Best regards, Fg2 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Leaving aside the question of whether 'given name-surname' order is American or not, I would like to re-open the debate.
My proposal would be to allow either 'given name-surname' or 'surname-given name' order as appropriate, with the surname indicated in parentheses at the start of the article and a suitable redirect. Regards. - Kleinzach 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You have to understand that this is an English wiki, so ideally, we should use language conventions that are already failure to Anglophiles and avoid language conventions that they are unfamiliar with. In the case of name order, it is given name-surname. It's also better to have a single name format for Wikipedia in order to avoid edit wars over name order, which will happen if both are permitted for modern figures. It's better to let sleeping dog lie on this one. But for more information, read the archives. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a bigger picture which has to be taken into account here.
(1) The existing rule applies dating back to 1868, so we are not just talking about modern figures.
(2) The Japanese government has conflicting policies on this. (In my own field, the NNTT publishes the romanized names of musicians surname first.)
(3) Edit wars on WP between English English and US English have been avoided precisely by not being prescriptive. What is familiar to Americans is not necessarily good for the encyclopedia, not necessarily consistent with NPOV. - Kleinzach 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The main reason it was decided as it currently stands was to give some sort of consistency to the articles on Wikipedia. Non-Asians have enough trouble with Asian names, and adding the name order question on top of that makes it even more confusing for those unfamiliar with these names (do I search for the name GN-SN or SN-GN?).
As the overwhelming method of writing names in what is termed the "Western world" (not just the United States, mind you) is "given name"-"surname", it was decided that would be the way we listed "non-historical" (or pre-Meiji) Japanese names as well. This method is very commonly (though not exclusively) used in Japan when presenting information in English, so it was adopted and accepted (overwhelmingly, I believe) here on Wikipedia. I don't think opening it up to discussion again will change anything as the large majority of people working on Japan-related articles support this format.
Additionally, the use of the {{Nihongo}} template still gives the name in both orders (as well as in Japanese), and redirects should always be employed for the opposite of however the article on the individual is titled. We encourage anyone finding an article that does not have appropriate redirects to create them for the convenience of anyone else who may be searching that way. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised that Meiji figures are regarded as non-historical! (Is that what you meant?) Actually I have just had a look at the main Meiji politicians (Ito Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo etc.) and I see they are all listed surname first, so it appears that the rule is not supported by contributors.
You say that the large majority of people working on Japan-related articles support this [given-name first] format. I am sure you are right and in many cases the (given-name first) format is best. I am suggesting, however, that it is not always appropriate for all Japanese active after 1868. - Kleinzach 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The style convention specifies given name first for people born in the year Meiji 1 or later. The Meiji leaders you named were born prior to the first year of Meiji, so the surname-first name order is consistent with the style convention. Fg2 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel we have got very far with this discussion. I respect those who choose the given-name first format. I would also like my judgement respected when i decide the other format is more appropriate. - Kleinzach 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
We do respect your judgement. However, in order to Wikipedia to maintain some sense of consistency and order, certain rules have to be adopted and followed by everyone participating in the maintenance of the site. I don't personally agree with all of the rules here (romanization of the particles ヘ, を and は, for instance) but I respect the fact that a general consensus was reached in order to establish them, and I therefore abide by those rules. We expect all editors participating to do the same.
That's not to say you can't bring something up again if you think there is a valid reason for a change, but it may be good to let things lie for a bit first before bringing this up again. It was only recently decided, so it wouldn't be good to try to change things so soon after they were established. It's considered good "Wikiquette" to not constantly hash on the same points right after a decision has been made ("right after" being relative, as it was decided 2-3 months ago, IIRC). Hopefully I explained this well. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was established two years ago. But I think it does come up often and no one has successfully constructed an argument as to why it should change. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The format for names of "historical" people was decided back then, but the format for "modern" names was only decided finally in February see change to MOS-JA here). Only half of the guideline had been established in the previous discussion due to lack of consensus, so that half ("modern" names) was left undecided until just recently. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
But I don't see a reason to break the rules here. The person described is a composer, a "western" occupation. I also moved Kosaku Yamada to its rightful place, and I added the Japanese too :) WhisperToMe 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
On one's own judgement: Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. --Edit page disclaimer. --Kunzite 23:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
To rephrase what Kunzite pointed out, if you do create Japanese related articles that don't comply with the MOS-JP, then other editors are well within their rights to make changes so that the article does comply with the MOS-JP. --TheFarix (Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of not having gotten very far with the discussion, please note from the archives that we discussed these issues for many months before reaching consensus. Fg2 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your advice.
I won't participate here any further. Clearly anything I write about Japanese musicians will be re-titled now that I have raised this issue. Your rule is not consistent with Wikipedia's approach to neutrality, but enough is enough, I don't wish to waste anybody's time any further. I will avoid this area in future. - Kleinzach 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how the order of a persons name isn't consistent with Wikipedia's approach to neutrality—which deals with maintaining a NPOV and avoiding bias. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe he is attempting to describe the concept of "international neutrality", in that by supporting conventions of each of the world's cultures, a technical neutral balance counteracting the systematic western bias of Wikipedia is achieved. An entirely unrealistic ideal, it won't help Wikipedia very much by arguing for it.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I heard the Spanish Wikipedia actually strives for that, and the encyclopedia editors sometimes use Latin names of things so it will be "internationally neutral". WhisperToMe 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't like the method that was chosen for names either. However a lot of work on articles was done and it would be a massive project to backtrack and it would be very inconsistent to open it up to any desired form. Also, as clarified above, one is really supposed to use ALL forms of the name when writing the article with either template:nihongo or by typing it out. You should use the preferred spelling by the individual as the main article, note the kanji and the provide a standard Hepburn romanized version after the name and then provide re-directs from basic spelling and name order variations. It's a bit more work, but it allows for better results.
This really does not equate to neutrality or having an NPOV or WP:CSB. It's consistency. It's no different from the policies used by the world's major libraries in the way they keep track of names with authority control. --Kunzite 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it sad that a person would avoid helping out with an area of Wikipedia simply because the majority of people helping out in that area (or at least those who care to give an opinion on the matter) disagree with him on one small point. Seems like a really bad way to go about one's life. Oh well... ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, which puts an interesting twist on this topic. I am writing about a series of novels being translated from Japanese to English, and the names are preserved in the Japanese order in the English translation. Should I then stick with the order of the English publication, or should I follow MOS-JA and swap the order of the names? Elric of Grans 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent move of Magiranger

While thinking I was reverting an error, it came to my attention that Mahou Sentai Magiranger was moved to Mahō Sentai Majirenjā to fit with the WP:MoS-JA ways of article naming. While I realize that this is important, is this really how the two are transliterated to each other through Hepburn romanicization (especially, because the Japanese-English spelling of Majirenjā is Magiranger [the way it is written in the Roman alphabet by the Japanese])?. Ryulong 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

MOS-JA does not allow for macrons over the letter "a". Therefore, instead of "ā" (with macron), you would use "aa". So the page has to be moved again to either Mahō Sentai Majirenjaa or Mahō Sentai Magiranger or something else. Never mind, I see that somebody did that already.--Endroit 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, macrons are fine for any katakana romanization. I've also fixed the title to Mahō Sentai Magiranger. Thanks for catching that, Ryulong. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Are there any examples where macrons are used for "a", "e", or "i" in article titles?--Endroit 03:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, about the Mahou to Mahō. Is this how all ou are dealt with? Ryulong 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There are exceptions. Quite a few are listed above in Romanizing おう and おお. --Kunzite 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article a little more, I think that the u in Mahou was important. Specifically, this line: When the Ozu siblings' names are put in order of age from oldest to youngest, the term "MAHOUTSUKAI" (Japanese for "magician") is formed by taking the first syllable from each of their names --- MAkito, HOuka, Urara, TSUbasa and KAI. How would Mahoutsukai be spelled in Hepburn romanicization? Ryulong 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Mahōtsukai, in Hepburn with macrons. 魔法使い breaks down as 魔 (ま, or ma) 法 (ほう, or hō) 使い (つかい, tsukai). The Japanese article is at ja:魔法使い. Fg2 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Gah... I asked the wrong question. If the pun is written in Romaji/kana for the original Japanese audience, how should the name be handled? Ryulong 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A simple explanation sentence or two should take care of it. It's fine to fudge the guidelines a bit when trying to explain something. For example, even though names are usually in GN-SN order, all of the character names in the Highschool! Kimen-gumi article are left in SN-GN order in order to keep the puns associated with the names. The guidelines should generally be followed, but it's okay to occasionally not follow them if need be for an example or something similar. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revision to the katakana rule

Currently the rule reads as follows....

In the case of katakana, all long vowels indicated with ー should be written with macrons when showing the Japanese pronunciation (e.g., Mall (モール, Mōru), Mahō Sentai Magiranger (魔法戦隊マジレンジャー, Mahō Sentai Majirenjā)).

I think a revision to the this katakana rule is in order. Rather than merely suggest a separate macron rule for katakana, it would be much clearer for everyone if we say something like this:

"If the Japanese word is in katakana, try to use the English spelling if available. For example, use Thunderbird (サンダーバード sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo. If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling of a 3rd country of origin exists, try to follow the MOS specific for that language. For example, Zhà cài (ja:搾菜 zāsai) should tend to follow WP:MOS-ZH rather than WP:MOS-JA. Otherwise, macrons may be used for "a", "e", and "i" as well."

--Endroit 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like this proposed revision. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I want to backtrack a little on the sentence "If an English spelling is not available....", and the sentence after it. Either delete those 2 sentences, or change the wording to:

"If the Japanese word is in katakana, try to use the English spelling if available. For example, use Thunderbird (サンダーバード sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo. If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling of a 3rd language-of-origin exists, consider it. For example, Homard (ja:オマール omāru rather than Omāru, and Zha cai (ja:ザーサイ zāsai) rather than Zāsai). Otherwise, macrons may be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".

Nihonjoe, if you agree, can you please think of the exact wording that would be appropriate, and do the honors for us (and change this rule)? Thanks. --Endroit 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've been doing that for all my owarai articles too so バッチリ！  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Updated. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Nihonjoe, I see that you revised rule #2 (the katakana rule). I trust that everyone will be happy with this wording now. My only concern was that people will butcher the 3rd-language words, and we should be forgiving when that happens. For example Janne Da Arc instead of fr:Jeanne d'Arc or Joan of Arc. Janne Da Arc is actually correct because of rule #7 (common spelling rule). As long as people understand such things and can apply common sense, this should be just perfect.--Endroit 14:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Stations with the same name

This is part of a discussion in the talk page over at the WikiProject Trains in Japan found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Style

Currently the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) says this in regards to naming of stations with the same name:

"Stations on private lines that have the same name as other train or subway stations in the same prefecture are disambiguated as PrivateCo Z Station. For example, the main JR station in Nara is at Nara Station while the Kintetsu station in Nara is at Kintetsu Nara Station."

I disagree with this format and the example given when we disambiguate.

The JR station name in Nara is simply Nara Station, while Kintetu's station is already named Kintetsu Nara (the suffix is in the official name) so there is no need to disambiguate "Nara Station" as the two have two distinctly different names.

Another example would be Kawasaki Station, and Keikyu Kawasaki Station, JRs station is simply known as Kawasaki Station, and Keikyu's station is distinctly named as "Keikyu Kawasaki Station" the suffix of the PrivateCo+name is officially in the station name and maps. Other examples would be Ueno Station and Keisei Ueno Station, Hachioji Station and Keio Hachioji Station, all these cases the official names already have the suffix added.

I think a format that we should use in the case where two stations share the same name located in the prefecture or city (but have different locations or considered different complexes or stations) would be something like Asakusa Station and Asakusa Station of the Tsukuba Express:

Asakusa station is a station of the Tokyo Metro, Toei and Tobu, but it is also the name of a Tsukuba Express station 600 m away (and considered a totally different station complex). The Tsukuba Express station doesn't suffix its name and the stations name is just Asakusa Station.

If we did PrivateCo Z Station in the format presented currently, the name of the station would come out Tsukuba Express Asakusa Station which would be incorrect naming of the station.

We don't disambiguate stations with the same name but in different prefectures with Prefecture Y Station , but rather we do Y Station (Prefecture) this is why I propose we do Station Name (PrivateCo) with the private company name in parenthesis, in the case there are two stations with the same exact name (where one company doesnt suffix it) in a same city or prefecture but are apart from each other. So when you disambiguate it would be Asakusa Station and Asakusa Station (Tsukuba Express). -Limitedexpresstrain 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • In the Japanese Wikipedia, the article on Asakusa Station of the TX has the title 浅草駅 (首都圏新都市鉄道), which follows the pattern Station (Company). What do articles in the English Wikipedia on railways in English-speaking countries do? And articles in the English Wikipedia on railways in other countries? Fg2 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In London, there is a Victoria station (London) (railways) and a Victoria Coach Station (long distance bus), but they merely use the respective "official" names. "Victoria Coach Station" is an official name as shown here.
In New York City, there is a Grand Central Terminal (long distance & commuter trains) and a 42nd Street-Grand Central (New York City Subway) (subways). The New York case clearly gives preference to the "Station (Company)" title.--Endroit 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In Hong Kong, they have Mong Kok (MTR) and Mong Kok (KCR). Also, Kowloon Tong (MTR) and Kowloon Tong (KCR). These are clearly in the Station (Company) format.--Endroit 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
In Paris, they have Gare de Lyon and Gare de Lyon (Paris Metro). They also have Gare du Nord and Gare du Nord (Paris Metro). The ones without parentheses belong to SNCF (which is similar to JR or JR East, etc.).--Endroit 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Another example would be the Washington Metro. There is a page for Union Station (Washington, DC) and Union Station (Washington Metro). One is a station of Amtrak and commuter rail (also it follows a similar format we have to different prefectures because there are many Union Stations in the US) and one is a station of the local Metro System. - Limitedexpresstrain 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a logical change to WP:MOS-JA that would help us differentiate between the official station names as used by railway companies and the article titles we use on Wikipedia. - Tangotango 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No objection from me. Fg2 21:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Character Discussion Result?

What was the result of the (now archived) debate? --Kunzite 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive, as far as I can tell. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
RfC or RfAr, then? Or shall we try again? --Kunzite 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
More of "the discussion just stopped" rather than no result could be reached. I think people got tired of it. I'm fine with trying again, but it may be best to come up with a proposal based on the comments already made, and then see what people think. The discussion was getting too huge for people to follow, I think. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems to happen a lot... partly I guess because people often walk in half-way into the discussion reiterating points of argument that have already been addressed 5 times in the preceding discussion. There has to be some way to limit distracting, unwarranted discussion to help the process along smoother.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  01:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at my past comments, I'm not sure if I was .. I don't know, I still feel my concerns were valid, but I probably made more of a mess than helped. To add my own modifications (the last sentence) to one version that was in discussion:

"For fictional characters and works of fiction (e.g. movies, novels, manga or anime), use the version of the name that is most commonly recognized by English speakers. This is often the official English-language version, but in some cases other versions may be more widely known. If several versions are approximately equally well known, reach a consensus regarding the most appropriate name on the corresponding talk page. In general, when several versions are equally well known, a translation or transliteration that corresponds with the existing policies of the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) is suggested. Always make redirects for all common forms of a name, be consistent in usage when the name appears in other articles, and use the same naming scheme consistently throughout all articles related to the series. In addition to redirects, note in articles themselves at least once when there may be more than one well known name."

I also think it should note something like, "take notice of recent English dubs and licensed anime where a new name may soon become more widely known". Still using most common, but just to put the idea in the editor's head that, hey, this could easily change and we do want these articles to be useful to all those new fans.

I think if we just keep playing with the wording on this we'll get something we can all agree on. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My main problem with this is that I don't want it worded in such a way that it overturns the Tessaiga decision by fiat. I can see how your wording *might* be interpreted not to affect it, but I don't think that's the most obvious way to read it. Ken Arromdee 14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggest inserting, near the head of the page:
As with any Wikipedia policy, these guidelines may be overridden by a consensus that an exception should be made: exceptions should be rare and have clear reason, but will nonetheless occasionally exist. Please check the Talk: page for an established consensus before making major changes to a page, and always attempt to form a consensus before making large-scale changes that will affect many pages.
(I don't really think we should have to explicitly state this, but, well...)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make another suggestion, while we're at it. As can be seen in Talk:List of Naruto video games#Game names (and other places), there's an idea floating around that regardless of what name is most well-known now, a name should be changed if a different name is expected to become more popular in the future. I'm strongly against this idea. It leads to "they came out with an official English version, so I anticipate the official English version will be the most popular"--i.e., it'll mean a defacto "always use the 'official' name no matter what" rule. I suggest making it clear that this sort of thing is not allowed, or at least, greatly reducing its scope. Ken Arromdee 08:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That's an official policy of Wikipedia. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Even if "they came out with an Envlish version" is verifiable, "the English version will be the most popular" is extrapolation. Fg2 09:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
One doesn't need a crystal ball to know that the majority of English speaking Naruto fans see it on TV, and a logical conclusion will be that they don't have game consoles that are modified to play games from Japan. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm getting really tired of having to explain something that I know you know. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Only if you also assume that fans learn information only from reading game manuals and never, for instance, by talking with other fans who know that a name has been changed. You might, in fact, be right for Naruto games specifically, but you can't assume this sort of thing as a general rule. For instance, the name "Usagi Tsukino" has proven extremely popular even though the majority of English material uses the names "Serena" or "Bunny". (She's named Usagi in the subtitled version, but for a long time there was no subtitled version and she was still known as Usagi--and that wasn't the version on TV, anyway.) Ken Arromdee 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I am in total agreement with Fg2 concerning the above (comment of 09:21, 25 June 2006). Future popularity should be documented in a future article, not a present one. If and when (even if it is almost surely "when") a new name becomes more popular, it should be used. Until then, it should not.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Not allowed? This is a logical conclusion. More than likely what is "well-known" for these fansubs and game translations is an extremely small part of the market. We can prove sales figures for these things, but we can't prove how many fansubs get downloaded. Thus, according to WP:V, that alone could be enough to use the English names.
WP:V is inapplicable. First of all, we require that *statements in articles* be verifiable. We don't require that *decisions about articles* be based on verifiable sources. It's perfectly acceptable, for instance, to look in Google, count Usenet messages, etc. to show the popularity of a topic, even though writing an article saying "I counted the messages on Usenet and..." would be prohibited. Second, you're looking for relative popularity. Finding sales figures for one and not for another doesn't show relative popularity.
I might add it's one thing to argue "the official names are more popular than the fansubs," and it's another thing to argue "the official names aren't more popular but we're going to use them anyway". Arguing that a name should be used because it's going to be more popular in the future pretty much means admitting that it isn't more popular right now. Ken Arromdee 02:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This does leave open a gray area: "it's difficult to tell, or there is no consensus, whether the official name or the old fan name is more popular". We can't very well go by predicted popularity here, because we'd have to do it on a case-by-case basis: for example, if Oniisama e were licensed tomorrow under the name of "To My Elder Brother", I'd bet quite a bit that "Brother, Dear Brother" would still be a more popular name than that for years, if indeed it ever passed it up; but I can't very well say the same about, say, Ghost Sweeper Mikami or Fushigiboshi no Futagohime. If we had to adopt a rule in these cases, I'd support "stick with the old name, because at least we know for sure that it was the most common at one time," but I may be in the minority there.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree that a blanket rule of "all english licensed anime will be more popular" is stupid. But Naruto? I mean, come on man. Lets just take this on a case by case basis. This works both ways, if we can't say "don't antisipate popularity" we also can't say "don't ignore possible popularity". -- Ned Scott 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We most certainly can say that. Time does not work both ways; that's almost one of its defining characteristics.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I'm saying we shouldn't make a guideline that says to ignore possibilities, which seemed to be what Ken was suggesting: "I suggest making it clear that this sort of thing is not allowed, or at least, greatly reducing its scope." For example, lets say, somehow, we get verifiable sources for what names in Naruto are most used, and lets say 10 games game out and the different English names all became better known to English speakers. Now lets say game 11 comes out and someone changes the name of the article, someone changes it back, and a revert war starts. The game has already been announced and pre-orders are already being taken.
Now we both know something that clear cut won't happen, but my point is, I'm supporting the lack of guideline in this case, in ether way. It should be dealt with on a case by case basis, as different animes have different markets and different fans. And yes, I'm not all for changing article names right away, but it is logical to assume that in a situation such as Naruto and others, that a naming trend will continue. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too sure about that: I point you to the concept of market saturation, and note that "Naruto video games" might easily be a saturable class of product. Mind, if preorders are being taken, and you can cite a reference saying that preorder volumes are comparable to, say, any other game in the same genre (or any of the previous Naruto games), then certainly! And if the new name follows a consistent pattern (Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4 having been announced as Clash of Ninja 4, for example), then that's covered by the consistency requirement. But in general we should avoid assumptions, even perfectly logical ones – especially about the future. "In Scotland, there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."
... also, this entire subtopic is beginning to feel like m:instruction creep.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It won't matter at all what we say here! You seem to be very disillusioned about the growing anime market in English speaking countries. It's growing so fast.. you don't know how out-numbered the fansub fans are. Do I like it? hell no. Do I think we should use Japanese names? yes! But this is Wikipedia, and we're trying to make something that is useful to the majority. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is stopping us from mentioning both names in an article, which should get rid of any confusion. All that's rest is the "real" fans being all pissy because the "good" name wasn't chosen. It's simple logic, it can be proven by sales numbers and nelson ratings, there you go. Should we wait on articles were it's been a recent license? Well, sure, simply because it isn't going to happen overnight. But you can't really stop it, because it's completely logical. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote: All that's rest is the "real" fans being all pissy because the "good" name wasn't chosen. Mr. Scott, I don't know who you're arguing against, but it's not anyone who's presented arguments here so far (otherwise you'd be in violation of WP:NPA). I strongly advise that you step back from the keyboard for a few moments to calm down, and then read and respond to the arguments that have actually been presented here, rather than the motives you appear to be ascribing to them.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean it to be offensive, rather, I would include myself to be one of the pissy fans! Sorry I didn't make that clear, I wasn't angry (spirited maybe, but not angry). -- Ned Scott 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding repetitive and/or stepping on toes, I still have yet to hear why the general Common Usage Policy does not apply here. This whole dialogue started because a rule had been inserted that emphasized "official" names over commonly used names. Support existed for overturning this rule and going back to common usage. If the only question left is which version is the most common, aren't we wasting our time and brain cells trying to create an all-encompassing rule when none exists? I'm not terribly familiar with the nuances of this area, but from the many examples and exceptions raised there appears to be no hard and fast rule--every case has a different "optimal" solution. So why bother creating some complex rule that is hard to interpret and is of no practical use? Why not use the common usage rule, and when a disagreement breaks out about which version should be used, reach a consensus on the talk page? Pretty much everything that's been proposed here (common usage, redirects, consensus on talk page, consistency, etc.) is already common policy, and hopefully common sense. I just don't see why the need exists to craft a new rule which is essentially a clumsy, creeping version of the classic Common Usage policy. In short: it doesn't seem like we need to create a new policy when the old one works just fine. CES 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A dispute over naming in Naruto game articles

At Talk:List of Naruto video games#Game names, there seems to be something of a disagreement about whether to use Japanese names for Naruto games when official English-language release names are available. Further input would be appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement of name order in Matsu Takako article

This singer and actress perfers to use Matsu Takako as her stage name, and not Takako Matsu. It is the same with Utada Hikaru, why is this being changed back constantly when Utada Hikaru's article remains the way it is? Is there some special tag i should include?--Bakahito 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru's article defies all logic, and it would be almost impossible to change it back (it has been tried many times) because she had so many fans overseas before she even debuted. If you can find some source that claims Matsu Takako is the way she officially spells her name in English then you have a case, but other than that you must follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). If you want to enforce the rules over at Hikki, then good luck to you.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't exactly agree with how Utada Hikaru's article would defy ALL logic, but anyways, sources that I have gathered are the following:
  1. Universal Japan Discography page You can see all her album CD covers here (besides the latest BMG release), they all have Matsu Takako instead of Takako Matsu.
  2. Universal Japan Profile page Once again, you can see Matsu Takako instead of Takako Matsu on the top of the profile, even the webpage says Matsu Takako on the top of it, the picture right below it also says, Matsu Takako Official Web Site.
  3. Official Fanclub Profile Matsu Takako once again.
  4. Official Sony music Taiwan page Matsu Takako on the flash as well as the album cover, and also the title of the page.--Bakahito 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you mentioned the Official Fanclub Profile, you might be interested in the home page of that site. There, she uses the order Takako Matsu. The Profile page you cited has the romaji directly beneath the Japanese, and Japanese order of the romaji matches the native script. On the home page, without the Japanese, she selected Western order for her name. Fg2 07:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, about Takako's article, could you please not use the nihongo template for every single Japanese word? Overusing templates like that is very bad for Wikipedia's servers, and you should only use the nihongo template (along with other templates) at most a handlful of times per article.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that depends on how cacheing works and whatnot... it's possible that it may not be adding to server load at all... the nihongo template is something used for the convience of editors as well as for consistency of JP-related articles and extra usefull information to the reader... -Aknorals 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I am aware why it is used. If it isn't subst'd then the server will be called for every instance. It may not be as dangerous as using templates for your signature, but if many articles start to use the template in the same way it will start to cause troubles. There have already been discussions on the nihongo page and others about this issue, and the general consensus is not to attempt to use the template more than a handful of times in an article. It shouldn't be needed that many times anyways. Sorry if my comments sound harsh today, I'm finding it hard to phrase my English.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised to read that the naming of/in Utada Hikaru defies all logic. Putting aside matters related to her new surnames (correctly so, as she doesn't appear to use them much in public life), it puts the name order of this I think primarily Japanese singer in the normal Japanese order, which happens also to be the order primarily used for her in her home and major but I think secondary market of the US. It does indeed conflict with the MoS, which says For a modern figure (a person born from the first year of Meiji (1868) onward), always use the Western order of given name + family name but says this with no reasoning whatever. So I'd say that the MoS is daft and the Utada article very sensible. (The Utada article does have some bizarre elements, notably the slavish [and very Japanese] retention of FULL CAPITALS for some song titles. [Meanwhile, my copy of Bend Sinister says "BEND SINISTER"; should I care?]) -- Hoary 07:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the "normal Japanese order" really SN-GN? When written in roman letters the "normal[usual] Japanese name order" is GN-SN. (Or at least it's that way in most of the Japanese-language print literature that I own that contains Japanese names written in romaji.)
Actually, on rereading, I'm surprised the MoS says this: I'm at a loss as to why we would want to use anything other than the form of the name most commonly used amongst English speakers, as per all the other MoSes. Admittedly this is usually difficult to determine, which is why we have the 'GN-SN' guideline, but shouldn't that just be a fallback?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And, yes, we do have strange caps problems: Yoshitoshi ABe--Kunzite 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Oh, I see, it's discussed above on this very talk page. Then we must follow the rules, I suppose. But personally I'm happy to see that Utada (whose music doesn't interest me) and Matsu (of whom I'd never heard) have somehow broken free of a rule that strikes me as stupid. Is the "normal Japanese order" really SN-GN? Yes. Or at least it's that way in most of the Japanese-language print literature that I own that contains Japanese names written in romaji. Japanese-language literature that contains Japanese names written in romaji constitutes a minuscule percentage of Japanese-language literature. -- Hoary 07:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Hoary, it looks like just Utada's breaking free. Here's why. "Utada Hikaru" is a stage name, so to speak, of "Hikaru Utada". WhisperToMe 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, as I told Hoary, a lot of English-language literature from Japan uses Western order. E.G. check out this newspaper by the Mainichi Shimbun – http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/ WhisperToMe 19:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that a reputable source mind you. They think the plural of Driver's license is "Drivers' licenses". It has also been established that Japanese news sources in English are geared towards readers in Japan, and thus often sway from international standards.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
o.O Major English newspapers in Japan are not reputable sources because they pluralize a word differently? I hope they do the same thing with "courts-martial" and "brothers-in-law" The Library of Congress has even established that spelling of the word as a subject heading for cataloging: "150 Drivers' licenses [May Subd Geog] [1]" --Kunzite 11:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You're taking it out of context. It is completely logical to say "150 drivers' licenses" when you are talking about the driver's licenses of 150 drivers, ("drivers'" and "licenses" are separate entities) but not when you are talking about "the driver's licenses which are theirs", as there would be one too many pluralizations. Anyways, I shouldn't use that as an argument, I just meant to imply that small details from newspaper sources such as the stated translation from Mainichi Shinbun (which would be a reputable source in its original form) should be screened with a careful eye.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute at Kohta Hirano

User:Bakemono and I have traded off edits (Kouta Hirano vs. Kohta Hirano). I have requested protection of the page, and would appreciate input on the Talk: page from, well, people who aren't me or User:Bakemono.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I take your position, Aponar Kestrel. I agree with the fact that it needs to be "Kohta Hirano" WhisperToMe 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Argh. What a damn pain! He's trying to "revert" the edits the wrong way, and causing me to take several minutes to sort out what he did to the pages. <grumble>. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, where'd the edit history go? o.O -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, there it is. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Bakemono and Schrödinger are is totally screwing up the edit histories with the way they are doing thigs. It's going to be a royal pain to sort out. I encourage anyone interested to please come participate in the discussion. The more, the better, as a broader base for a decision is better. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? When was the last time I edited the main article or moved the page? About two weeks ago, by the looks of my contribution history. I'm not screwing anything up. And I don't think I've ever moved the page "the wrong way" like Bakemono is doing. Schrödinger 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, sorry. I'd forgotten I'd posted here, too. The same apology applies here as you are correct in that you weren't playing with the whole cut-n-paste moving thing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Think nothin' of it. Schrödinger 03:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles/Archive_8&oldid=1265518205"