Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 12

message: For more specialized Japanese words where English-language speakers are often familiar with Japanese word usage, such as koi, sushi, haiku, anime, ronin, or dojo, the word is usually the same for both singular and plural forms.
I'm interested in seeing the word dojo treated as an english loan word on Wikipedia; particularly, I feel it should be pluralized as dojos and typed in non-italics. My personal reason for this is that anecdotally I find the plural form dojos to be the more common useage, and the useage of the plural dojo seems affected. 
While it is anything but a household word across the English-speaking world, I do feel it is relatively common at this point. More compellingly, it is a term that is often applied (correctly or incorrectly as the case may be) to training halls for martial arts that are not Japanese in origin, or martial arts that have succeeded far enough from a traditional Japanese source that they have become Anglicized themselves. When I was a child I trained in a Korean martial art under an American who was trained by an American, and he called the school a "dojo." I do not have any reason to believe my instructor had a clue that the word dojo was even derived from the Japanese. I am sure my experience with this word is not unique.
Last but not least, I checked with Merriam-Webster and the word is listed there, pluralizable as dojos.
I just wanted to share my thoughts amongst Wikipedians and see if anybody has any thoughts on the matter. Transentient
:Much as it makes me cringe, "dojos" is in more common usage. Let's hear it for the uninformed masses. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dojos is in common use amoungst english speakers. When the word is used in english to refer to more than one Dojo, i hear lots of people add "s" to it just out of habit. --Yaksha 06:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dojo

message: I've just noticed that the MOS and the article on Hepburn romanization contradict one another when it comes to the long vowel ええ. The MOS says it should be typed as "ee" but the Hepburn article says it should be typed as "ei". Which should we use? Bobo12345 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:MOS-JA states that "Wikipedia uses the version of Revised Hepburn romanisation described below," and then proceeds to explain different variations. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hepburn Romanisation 

message: I have seen several articles that say that so and so is in Kyūshū, or in Shikoku.  If we are talking about islands, shouldn't they all say on instead of in?  Is there an appropriate global MoS for that somewhere?  Even so, Hokkaido and Okinawa provide some interesting quandries, because "in Okinawa" is fine when talking about it as a prefecture and not an island (so and so was born in Okinawa, etc).  I have no idea on how to start formulating a rule for those two, to differentiate between the "island" and "prefecture" in prose; but, Kyūshū and Shikoku seem fairly clear to me.  Any thoughts? Neier 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "On" does sound a little more pleasant than "in" when the object of the preposition is an island. I don't know if there are any rules about that, though. I don't know where it would go for sure, but I would try putting it on the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style page and seeing what happens to it. Jecowa 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In prose, shouldn't it be in the XYZ region as opposed to in XYZ ?? Neier 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this more a personal style issue, rather than one that needs to be dealt with in the MOS? Bobo12345 12:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bobo. If we standardize everything, there'll be no more room left for writing style - and everything will become even more stiff and pedantic than it already is. LordAmeth 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On islands / In islands 

message: As some of the discussion above points out, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, not completely but to some extent, defers it to this page for Japanese usage, in addition to the normal purposes of Manual of Style subpages.
Therefore, in our discussions, it is often important to distinguish between the two or three different hats we wear; that is, the different roles we play in different situations.  More effort is needed to keep clear the distinction between determining which spelling is going to occupy the one slot available for an articles name, usage within the article whose name is determined that way (which should almost always include variant spellings), and usage in other articles.  Gene Nygaard 13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between titles of articles and content of articles has always been noted.  Whether or not the macrons-in-articles policy could be expanded to include the titles was the subject of a mediation early this year.  However, I don't think that much thought has been given towards maintaining two spellings in articles, depending upon whether it is the subject or not.  I'm going to try and digest all of the discussion in the section above now, to understand why that may (or may not be) a good idea... Neier 11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two hats

message: I've been currently trying to head off some arguments in the Cosplay article regarding the type of photos to use for its International Cosplay section. An initial picture had been posted earlier, but it was linked to an adult site, which I feel shouldn't be a very good representative for cosplaying in general. Earlier photos have also been removed by some administrators for vanity issues. Does anyone here have any suggestions regarding what photos would be most suitable? It would seem though, that every time a photo is posted on the international cosplay section, some accusations of vanity photos have arisen - would leaving the section devoid of photos be a better idea instead? Input would be much appreciated, thanks. Mirshariff 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, same problems with articles like Otaku and Japanophile. Are there any free-license pictures from some convention, like Otakon or Anime Expo? I assume there's some sort of "best cosplay" award or something like that, and a picture of an award winner would make a decent picture for the article, which consists now of mostly lolita on Jingu-bashi, half of which aren't even really cosplay at all.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosplay International Photos