Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 17

message: Several months ago, we had a discussion on the inclusion of spaces in names, which resulted in a concensus to split the kanji in the introduction (小泉<SPACE>純一郎) etc.  The MoS currently has that in the WP:MOS-JA#Names of modern figures section; but not the WP:MOS-JA#Names of historical figures section.  I can't see any reason or discussion on separating the usage of the SPACE between two cases, so I think it should be added to the historical figures section.  I would change it myself, except, I just reverted an edit to Tokugawa Ieyasu which had removed the space.  Even though he is the example listing in the historical names section (with the space), adding the sentence to the MoS directly after reverting an edit like that might be considered bad form. Neier 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done for consistency's sake. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces in names (recap) 

message: Are you talking about a transliteration system? If so, it must be a transliteration of Kana script which is devoid of long vowels. If not, it must be a transcription of the Japanese language and you must reinvent the whole wheel of the syllabary or phonology. But then I wonder how you can talk about anything but the language of a specific time and region or a dialect. Please read Talk:Romanization of Japanese#An Extended-Hepburn System Kmns tsw 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Qestion to Rocky7-san 

message: On April 1, both Hamamatsu, Shizuoka and Niigata, Niigata became designated cities.  In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/City naming#Group 1: Designated cities with unique names, we somewhat reached concensus to move some city articles to their name without , Prefecture.  So, I was WP:BOLD and already moved Hamamatsu because it met the same criteria (Hamamatsu was already a redirect to Hamamatsu, Shizuoka).
Niigata is similar to Shizuoka, in that the DAB page links only to the prefecture and the city.  In those two cases, I think that we could redirect the DAB to the city, and put a  tag on the top that points to the prefecture.  DABs for other cities, such as Kawasaki, are more complicated, and should not be changed.  Opinions? Neier 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed for both.  Fukuoka, Fukuoka is similar, though there are more uses.  Kawasaki, Kanagawa and Sakai, Osaka should probably stay where they are due to the obvious fact that "Kawasaki" could quite easily refer to the company and "Sakai" could easily refer to the Iron Chef or some other Japanese person.  I've updated Template:Regions and administrative divisions of Japan and included it in both articles. -- Exitmoose 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The change to Hamamatsu seems a good one. (I'd thought that Hamamatsu was also a fairly common surname, but ja:WP can only come up with one, and a mere 「アイドル・タレント・女優」 at that.) I hadn't thought that Niigata-shi was overwhelmingly more salient than Niigata-ken, so I wonder about changing Niigata from a dab into a redirect. -- Hoary 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hamamatsu is fine, but Niigata, Chiba, Fukuoka, etc. should really be at the doubled titles. For that matter, so should Kyoto and Osaka. We've had this discussion before too... I'll try to find a link. The problem is that when people link to cities, they often link in the format Sakai, Osaka rather than the format Sakai, Osaka. Then we would need to go in and fix the links all the time, even when the pages aren't dabs. I have fixed the Fukuoka links in the past, and I've just signed up at WP:DPL to fix the links for Chiba, and I know that killing those dab pages will do more harm than good, so please wait a second while I find the old discussion. (Sakai actually seems as though it would be okay to move. I maintain the links there as well and 90% go to Sakai, Osaka; the other 10% go to Sakai Project. Almost no one links to family names without personal names because they would have been linked with the full name higher in the article, or the article is about that person.) Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. There is further applicable discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/misc14#Designated cities. Please read through it if you can. Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City names 

message: Another editor moved Itchō Itō to Itcho Ito last night.  Tetsuya Shiroo uses a doubled o instead of an ō, but the name "breaks" between the os: 城 (Shiro) 尾 (o).  I believe the first article should be returned to the Itchō Itō title, but I am unsure if the romanization of Shiroo should be changed to Shirō.  Advice? -- JHunterJ 11:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it back, but am unsure about Shiroo. Isn't that different from a long o? —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phonetically, no, I believe it is a long o.  The Wiktionary rules seem to indicate it should be written with the macron; I think the only potential snag is that it's in a proper name that happens to be "split" on the os. -- JHunterJ 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to stay out of person naming discussions (related to macrons), but, on Nagasaki's web site, there is a letter in English, signed Iccho Itoh (which probably explains where CNN came up with their romanization).  So, for Wikipedia's title, I would rule out Itcho Ito without macrons, because it doesn't match his preferred usage OR our MoS.  As for the Iccho vs Itchō debate . . . I'll see you all later. Neier 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and since the second o obviously comes from its own 尾 kanji, the Wiktionary page says to don't macronize in that case, but to use a diaresis (ugh).  We don't do the diaresis here, so, it seems that leaving the two oo is ok. Neier 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that last note -- I missed it in the Wiktionary rules.  I may copy this part of the discussion over to the Shiroo talk page. -- JHunterJ 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why may you not use macrons?  The guideline against macrons appears to me to apply to article titles that are in common English usage (Tokyo), not to names not in common English use (Itchō Itō). -- JHunterJ 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with this.  Of the five rules, Iccho Itoh probably (probably) matches rule #1.  But, having one's name spelled incorrectly by various press outlets does not mean that the name was used "on behalf of the person".  Until Monday, an article on the mayor of Nagasaki would not have met the requirements for common-usage to get around the macrons.  And, I don't think it has met them yet anyway.  There is no reason to have Itcho Ito.  We should choose between Iccho Itoh and Itchō Itō. - Neier 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neier, then use Iccho Itoh, because nobody used Itchō Itō WhisperToMe 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think the recent reports of Itoh's death are enough to count as common usage in English, but the previously mentioned letter on the Nagasaki web site is a clear example of rule #3 (personal names are not trade names, so not rule #1), so Iccho Itoh should be the preferred spelling here. --Meyer 04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Iccho Itoh it is, Meyer! :) WhisperToMe 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tetsuya Shiroo]] and [[Itcho Ito]] 

message: Wikipedia has no system for its names for historic capitals of Japan. We have
*Asuka Kyō (red link in succession box in Fujiwara-kyō)
*Fujiwara-kyō
*Kuni-kyō
*Naniwa-kyō (red link in succession box in Kuni-kyō)
*Heijō Kyō
*Nagaokakyō
*Heiankyō
*Fukuharakyō (red link in succession box in Heiankyō)
They're also written variously in piped links in articles.
As you can see, the questions include
*Space, hyphen, or neither?
*Capitalize the "k" in "kyō"?
Out of the various possibilities, these are in use:
#space, uppercase
#hyphen, lowercase
#no space, lowercase
In addition, of course, there's the English word "Tokyo" for the modern (not historic) capital.
Suggestions?
Fg2 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously we need a standard. I'd suggest the hyphen, with a lowercase "k", as this helps to better distinguish elements of the placename. We currently use a hyphen for "-ji" and "-dera", and I imagine that we would use a hyphen for "-jō" if we weren't just calling everything X Castle instead of X-jō. But as a second choice, I definitely prefer the no-space and lowercase, as "kyō" is really part of the name, someting of a suffix, and not a word unto itself. LordAmeth 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with LordAmeth. I think "hyphen, with lowercase 'k'" would be best and in keeping with the formatting used for similarly-formatted names (as mentioned). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That style (#2) works for me. Out of the bunch, the only article I started was Nagaokakyō, and I probably named it by following a red link (although the memory grows dim). Which is to say I'm not wedded to style #3. Fg2 06:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to add, but, #2 is the one I prefer too. Neier 10:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree. Consistency with -ji, -tera, -in and others makes hyphen in these names sensible. Moreover, that is the approach adopted by the one scholarly journal style sheet I found (http://monumenta.cc.sophia.ac.jp/MN_Style.pdf, see section 5 of Stylistic conventions). I second approving hyphens here as the standard. However, to complicate matters, section 5 of Capitalization and italicization in the same document proposes no hyphen in names of temples, i.e., "Kiyomizudera" and so on... Stca74 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of historic capitals 

message: This template seems to have caught on recently. It's now transcluded in ~300 articles, up from 5 or so when I first started using it late last year. However, it's now appearing in articles that might not need it - Motojiro Kajii (this revision), for example, already uses the Western order predominantly, and makes the Japanese order clear using Template:Nihongo.
This seems a good time to establish some usage guidelines for the template, ideally including a mention on this MOS page. The choices would be:
# Use in all Japanese biographical articles, to eliminate any trace of ambiguity. (Which would mean even including it in articles like Junichiro Koizumi and Shigeru Miyamoto)
# Use only in articles where the name is mainly given in Japanese order, or where there's some exceptional source of ambiguity.
# Scrap the template entirely and come up with a new way of resolving name-order ambiguity. 
I'm currently following 2, but I wouldn't be violently opposed to 1. In any case, I'd like to find out what the consensus is so I know I'm not flying in its face. - Ben Ram 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be instruction creep to me. I don't see any reason to include it in any article as long as we always follow the convention of referring to the subject of the article by the family name anytime other than the initial reference at the beginning. I think the intentions behind the template are good, but I don't think it should be used.  ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The number of times I've had to correct (both Japanese and non-Japanese) biographical articles to refer to the subject by the family name suggests that even many editors are unaware of that convention, so I don't think it's safe at all to assume that readers will be familiar with it. We don't want to make the Manual of Style required reading to understand Wikipedia. - Ben Ram 11:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that point.  An alarming number are also wrongly ordered in the category sort (including comma!), like (made up examples) Junichiro, Koizumi or .  But, I don't see how the template helps that problem.  I think that #2 is the best option, but, I also think that the wording of the template needs to be changed to reflect  that fact.  Something like This name is listed in traditional/historical Japanese order.  The family name is ...' - Neier 11:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the template is changed as per User:Neier's suggestion, then I agree. However, with so much confusion about Japanese names, and wikipedia's current practice of using western style for people born post-Meiji and Japanese style for pre-Meiji names, I think that it should be routinely applied to ALL Japanese bios. --MChew 08:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a Wikipedia editor that rarely touches (or reads) Japan-related articles, but I just came across this template for the first time and found it extremely useful.  Please add these to as many articles as possible! Calliopejen1 02:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Japanese name]] 

message: I have reworded the preference rules which previously specified only macron usage to apply to spelling in general. Generalizing the rule explicitly makes it a standard by which we can make decisions like "Hirohito-or-Emperor-Showa". --Meyer 02:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern figure name preference rules 

message: There's sort of a debate going on in the Koda Talk Page about how Koda's name should be written. Personally, I prefer her name being written Koda Kumi as opposed to Kumi Koda, and here's why:
Her original name is "Koda Kumiko" (神田來未子), but when she debuted as an Avex artist, she decided to respell her name as "Koda Kumi" (倖田來未). As someone else in the talk page stated earlier, this is a nickname and should be followed as such. Also, when her products are released, Avex writes her name in English as "Koda Kumi" and not "Kumi Koda".
Also, according to the Pseudonym section: In the case of an actor, athlete, author, artist or other individual who is more well known under a pseudonym, use the pseudonym as the article title, and note the additional names they may use (e.g., birth name, other pseudonyms), following the standards above. So, I'm guessing we should go ahead and go with Koda Kumi. If we should not, please tell us so there is a conclusion to thsi confusion. XaiTerran 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Kumi is just a shortened form of Kumiko, I don't see how it warrants an exclusion to the rest of our naming rules.  The Pseudonym section is what keeps the article at "Kumi Koda" and not "Kumiko Koda".  Neier 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Many Japanese women whose names end in 子 omit that from their names in everyday contexts, and it doesn't have to carry a special meaning. Even accepting that the 倖田來未 spelling is a stage name and that the stage name is the most common form, we can still identify one as the first name and one as the last name, and that should be formatted GN-FN under the MOS rules. I think the current title is acceptable (give or take a macron). Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Her original name is "Koda Kumiko" (神田來未子). I don't think so. I think it's much more likely to be Kōda Kumiko. Calling her Kōda Kumi would be fine with me, but refraining from reversing the names of Japanese people seems a repugnant notion to lots of right-thinking folk who argue over this bit of the MoS (see "Utada", above). Incidentally, I notice that with "JUICY", "MAROC" and perhaps others, the Kōda article sports wacky capitalization. -- Hoary 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess the verdict is that the article is Kumi Koda then. Thanks guys. XaiTerran 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koda Kumi?