Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Japanese Macrons

message: 2. Next, If there is anything you all agree on, please list that.
:I believe (though it's never been discussed, so I may be incorrect on this), that we agree on the following:
:*No use of "oo/uu", as it is rare; it also tends to look odd to the average person unfamiliar with this style of romanization.  In cases for these, they would always be used as redirects.
:*No use of "ô/û", as it is also rare; publishers have used these before, but it is noted by many that it is not correct use of Long O and U in Japanese.  In cases for these, they would always be used as redirects.
:*Usage of "oh/uh" or "ho/hu" if it has already entered the English language in that manner. (Noh, Apolo Anton Ohno, Tenjho Tenge)
:*Usage of "o/u" if it has already entered the English language in that manner (Tokyo, Osaka)--み使い Mitsukai 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears correct to me. (^_^) --日本穣 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the French Wikipedia has been converting circumflexes to macrons, but I don't know what French-language web sites generally do. As for "no" ou, oo, etc. the next section has some circumstances in which those methods have advocates, even within the Hepburn system. An example is Hiroo, which has its o's in different kanji. Fg2 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed that this had been discussed already after I saved the page. :) I have no problem with treating special cases as special cases. — BrianSmithson 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Things that all are in agreement with currently

message: I share some of the same concerns as Bathrobe above.  However, after seeing "crème brûlée" in many English dictionaries, and after hearing that "Māori" made it into New Zealand English WITH the macron, I have decided not to look back.  And so I agree with the spirit of Nihonjoe's Proposal.  However, I request that the following amendments and additions be made:
(addendums removed)
:Comment from your mediator - All, again I feel you are getting off on tangents with the addendums. I'd like to request that for the purpose of this case, we stick to the original proposal and make a decision. After that, you are free to deal with details such as those addressed in the addendums on the policy page. I feel confident that those details can be worked out by this group, however, we are here to decide the main issue first and foremost.  For this reason, I have removed the addendum data from the page so as not to distract from the goal. Please feel free to read it in the history and move it to the policy page once a decision has been made. Thank you. pschemp | talk 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to Nihonjoe's first 3 proposals.  I agree to the 4th proposal as well, except for the part about the List of English words of Japanese origin.  The List of English words of Japanese origin should only be used as a secondary source, because it is a wiki, and open to any unexpected changes.  And so, I will agree on the above proposals, on the condition that we discuss this and other issues I had (removed by Pschemp for now), before we close mediation.  Thanks.--Endroit 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really annoying to have one's comments DELETED from a page like this. A message would have sufficed without deleting others' comments (a cardinal Wiki sin in my opinion). I'm done with this moderation; good luck, all. — BrianSmithson 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments were not deleted, they were temporarily removed for the sake of clear focus on a resolution.  Sorry if that was not clear. Nothing on wikipedia is ever really gone and anyone who wants can read the history. As the mediator it is my right to take whatever action I feel neccessary.  Your action has rendered the entire case uncloseable so I would urge you to reconsider. To that end, as a show of good will, I will put them in a section below. pschemp | talk 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know that the mediation would be unclosable if someone decided to say to hell with the whole thing. In order to prevent this outcome, I'll stick around. And whlie I understand that article histories are available, I strongly, strongly disagree with removing comments from discussions such as these. Strike them through if you must, but, please, never remove them. — BrianSmithson 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your reasons, but you can see that since I re-added them this group has gone off on tangents again, as I feared. My actions were only to prevent this, from happening, hopefully the group can stay focused up here. pschemp | talk 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Endroit, this mediation is for the decision of where the main articles go. You can either agree or disagree, but it is not the place to hash out the rest of the myriad of details. That is for the policy talk once the dispute on article titles is settled.  Mediation is not designed to resolve all the little details, it is designed to give you a starting point to work together from as intelligent editors. You may bring up your secondary source suggestion as a condition, but the discussion of all those other issues is not the point of the mediation, nor is it an acceptable condition on your agreement.  However, an acceptable condition would be that you would like the issues to be discussed after the main issue is agreed on, on the policy talk. I think everyone involved here realizes that there will be many, many details to hash out, but if you don't find a starting point, it will never get done.  Please consider this carefully.  pschemp | talk 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly urge Pschemp & Briansmithson to reconsider.  I only ask you two to allow me to discuss my issues here later.  Others can respond, ignore, or disagree, and that would be fine.  We are in this mediation together because we failed to discuss these issues before.  It would be a great dis-service to NOT discuss these issues again.  I think the important thing is for us to understand each others' points of view.  We are not necessarily disagreeing with each other.  Thank you very much.--Endroit 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Endroit, I'm not saying you can't discuss. I'm requesting that we come to consensus on this one main issue FIRST, and then you can discuss the rest later.  We need a starting point, otherwise nothing will ever get solved by this mediation. One step at a time is how you fix a large issue like this.  The bogging down in details is why it has dragged on so long already. pschemp | talk 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endroit's Requests