Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 18

message: Does this guideline clash with Naming conventions (use English)? I am in a debate regarding anime names - one side wants the JP name and uses this to back them up, I say to use an English name if at all possible based on Naming conventions. Does this guideline state that even if there's an English name, a Japanese-related article should use the JP name? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section of the MOS pertaining to modern figures says to use an official English trade name, if it exists.  I think we've also discussed on this talk page that it includes manga and anime release names. (one example: Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi redirects to Spirited Away).  Of course, redirects from one to the other are recommended. Neier 07:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Fictional characters has a long discussion on which English name to use, if more than one (official, or a more common "unofficial" English name) exists.  Neier 07:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification. 

message: As you may know, the name for Iōjima recently officially changed to Iōtō. Perhaps I should write from いおうじま to いおうとう. The official press release is here: . There are several possible romanizations:
*Iōtō
*Iwōtō
*Iwoto
*Ioto
*Iwō Tō
*Iō Tō
*Io To
*Iwo To
There are several issues to contend with here:
#Retain or loose the historical w.
#How to deal with the tō: attach or separate with a space.
#Long vowels (ie, macrons).
There are at least two conflicting English language resources. Japan Times lists "Iwoto" while Yahoo lists "Iwo To". It should be noted that neither publications will respect vowel length.
Comments? Bendono 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I think we can lose the "w."  There's no reason to keep it now that the name has changed from one with an accepted English spelling (Iwojima).  Unless we're going to call the article Iō Island (which I don't think we should), Iōtō looks like the best choice.  Exploding Boy 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the purpose of this thread to discuss the overlong alternate titles in the lede, or to change the title of the article? I don't believe that the decision should have a bearing on the location of the article, since the island will overwhelmingly continue to be called "Iwo Jima" in English regardless of the decision by the JGS. As far as the lede is concerned, I think we can remove any of the alternate names that incorporate the historical "w" when we're talking about the Japanese form. Dekimasuよ! 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is rather unsightly. It should be replaced with a single form from above. However, until a specific and consistent spelling can be decided upon, there will continue to be constant spelling edits. That is the purpose of this discussion. At this time there are no plans for a move request (at least from me). It is entirely so that all of the unsightly alternatives can be avoided. Redirects have been created for all of them. I propose (and originally wrote) Iōtō based on いおうとう from the press release. Bendono 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take no issue with Iōtō. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article should be moved, however.  Iwo Jima is no longer the name of the island.  See Mumbai.   Exploding Boy 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but this is not the best place the discuss that at this time. In fact, there is already discussion at []. If and before a move request is decided upon, we need to decide upon a consistent spelling from above and eliminate the alternatives. At this time, I would just like to focus on choosing a single spelling from above. The rest can be and are redirects. Bendono 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I[w]ōtō 

message: Some kids at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh%21#yu-gi-oh_the_abridged_series want a fan work to be mentioned on the article page. I stated that mentioning it would not be notable. WhisperToMe 20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the subject of an article has to be notable. Facts mentioned within an article merely have to be relevant to the subject. (See WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). So the question is whether this fan work illustrates some important facet of Yu-Gi-Oh - audience involvement, popular perception, etc - and whether a reliable source exists. - Ben Ram 04:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are fan works to be mentioned in anime articles?

message: This recent edit to Kuwabara caught my attention. It struck me as a mixture of welcome and unwelcome. It was certainly surprising, and it took me to this talk page, in which a relevant discussion was going on.
In the edit, Japanese personal names are switched back to the Japanese order (which delights me, though I acknowledge that I'm in a minority here) but a borderline (hybrid) Japanese personal name is switched too. The editor seems to be conscientiously following this MoS, and particularly its section on piping.
Others here might be interested to learn of this enterprise. (I'm not a participant, backer or opponent; at this point I'm merely a bemused onlooker.) -- Hoary 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal names in DAB pages

message: I think we need to add something to the MOS-JA which indicates which of these should be used. I personally don't care one way or the other because, IMHO, they both mean the same thing and one is just trying to be more politically correct. So, let's discuss this. Which should we use in Japan-related articles? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a single term is to be used, I would say that BC/AD should be used mostly for the reason that it's the most prevalent term already used amongst Japanese articles at the moment (e.g. Japan, History of Japan, etc). Changing them all to BCE/CE would be political-correctness gone mad IMHO - WP:MOS indicates that BC/AD is fine to use. John Smith's 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should override WP:MoS. Editors make the choice when they create articles. Fg2 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One is not overriding WP:MOS by deciding on a general use policy to make articles in the same area consistent. If you simply don't want to have a general use policy say so - but don't try to claim this goes against MOS when MOS doesn't go into consistency across articles. I actually raised this (consistency across articles) on the MOS talk page a while ago - there was a discussion about it, but no "oh, you can't do that" reaction. John Smith's 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See this Yahoo Japan dictionary entry for "BCE" (in Japanese).  It says BCE is mainly used in the United States.  Therefore, I suggest NOT using "BCE/CE" AT ALL unless the topic is restricted to the United States.  At least, always use "BC/AD" for any Japan-related topics, and never "BCE/CE".  I would support an entry to WP:MOS-JA to that effect.--Endroit 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why it should cause any bitterness. That seems a bit extreme when talking about something like this. And many language-specific MOS here have more specific guidelines about some points of usage. The whole point of WP:JA and WP:MOS-JA is make all Japan-related articles consistent. Specifying which one of these dating formats should generally be used is part of that, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE/CE vs. BC/AD use in articles 

message: *A related matter has come up regarding History of Japan. There are two discussions here and here. John Smith's 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related matter

message: Which term, "kanji" or "Chinese characters", is preferred for Japan-related articles? Should there be a mention of preference in MOS/Japan? My feeling is "kanji" is preferable, as it's more accurate and less cumbersome, and it should be wiki-linked so a reader unfamiliar with the term can look it up. It's essentially a technical term which is appropriate to use in the context of articles talking about a particular field (ie Japan). Also, it can be more technically correct, as "Chinese characters" can refer to simplified or traditional, or to characters whose meaning has changed between Chinese and Japanese (compare "好" in Japanese meaning "like", in Chinese meaning "good").
The opposite argument is that "Chinese character" is more accessible and easily understood by the average reader, who shouldn't have to check meanings of terms used to understand an article. So, is "kanji" accepted as a word which has entered the English language yet?
I'm asking here because I'm having an attack of guilt after changing an editor's choice of "Chinese characters" to "kanji" in an article, but realised that the same issue may come up in any Japan related article and that it might be desirable to have a common usage across the board. --DrHacky 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should generally use "kanji" in Japan-related articles as that is the Japanese word for "Chinese characters". If you link to the article kanji in the first instance of use in an article, then people will be able to figure things out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kanji" vs "Chinese characters" 

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Anime- and manga-related articles) has been created to help organize all anime- and manga-related style issues in one spot and to keep the WP:ANIME page from becoming more crowded. Please come participate in discussions if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS-AM 

message: Readers, editors and miscellaneous other enthusiasts of this MoS page may have noticed some strange fluctuations over the last day or so, in the template that tells people that it's part of MoS and what this means. There's been this version (and minor variants thereof) and this version (and ditto) -- and [yawn] something of an edit war between them.
So which do you like, and why? I have my own distinct preference. Not unusually, I seem to be in the minority. Join the "debate" and enjoy clobbering me into submission, uh I mean reaching a consensus on the optimum solution in an adult fashion. -- Hoary 01:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoary, I haven't been visiting the page enough to notice the templates. Which one do you prefer? Fg2 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'll know which one to vote against without even bothering to look at the two? [inscrutable facial expression] Just keep reading below! -- Hoary 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I like the latter a little better - it seems more professional to me.  This may sound dumb, but what exactly is it used for? --Eruhildo 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever it is, it's plonked at the top of every MoS page. If you're asking for the actual purpose of doing that, I'm tempted to say that there seems to be a certain kind of WP editor who just loves sticking templates on things -- but that would be most uncharitable of me, so I shan't say it. But of course you prefer the latter one: the former one is my choice. I prepared the way for it in this criticism, and then I commented on it in this invitation. It doesn't seem to be very popular. -- Hoary 09:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's some rule that the template must be there, why not remove it, or replace it with better wording? Fg2 20:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Various people are trying not only to improve the wording but also to make the meaning a bit closer to what they think it should be; of course their preferences are mutually incompatible. Some of these people were getting pretty upset about it when I last looked. Remove the template, and your edit would be reverted and you'd likely be dubbed a vandal. Ah, the joys of MoS.  -- Hoary 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that, for Wiki-wide policy and guideline pages, it's a good idea to have a template at the top explaining that that is what the page is: a policy or guideline which applies Wiki-wide in regard to its particular area of concern. I should note that I prefer the slightly longer one (whichever that one is).  ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That fluctuating template at the top

message: Some people apparantly claim that the section "Names of companies, products, and organizations" justifies keeping characters like ∞, ♥ and the like even though MOS:TM expressly forbids it. I've been around long enough to know why this section was inserted (I've followed the discussion back then) and it had to do with issues of spelling and romanization (things like "ō" versus "ou", "o" and "oh"). It was at the time definately not intended for things like this. In my opinion odd characters like I mentioned earlier are a style / logofication issue and should be subject to the same rules as ALL CAPS, which that section also never intended to cover. I would also like to note that I'm in good company: see Trademark, Schmademark. Shinobu 14:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the section obviously refers to romanization variants. I have tweaked the wording to clarify this. - Cyrus XIII 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this page's section "Capitalization of words in Roman script", while only explicitly mentioning capitalization, does link to WP:MOS-TM and one would also assume that general guidelines (on trademarks, no matter were from) trump more specific ones (on articles related to a single country). What I do take issue with these days, is not WP:MOS-TM being routinely applied to all things formatting but the confusion this occasionally creates. Since one may argue that as soon as something has its own, inherent/trademark text formatting, the guideline applies and many other formatting related guidelines (like this one) derive their rationale from and link to it, so technically, its application is all good and well. But cases such as the one we're discussing here, show that there is genuine scope for confusion and that WP:MOS-TM might be in need of a more generally themed successor, that explicitly says "yep, applies to pretty much anything" right away. - Cyrus XIII 07:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy characters in "Names of companies, products, and organizations" 

message: Jefu removed the following image from Emperor Juntoku.  His explanation for this decision was tersely worded.
:Current revision (12:35, 19 September 2007) (edit) (undo)
:Jefu (Talk | contribs)(Remove essentially meaningless picture)
I can guess about Jefu's plausible arguments, but I leave it to him to make them here so that others may offer suggestions or comment.
This is a "portrait" representation of a 12th century emperor.  I believe that this image was appropriately posted by 1549bcp in 2005.  Moreover, I would expect other Hyakunin Isshu "portraits" to metastasize in this and other Wikipedias. 
For information beyond what you can find in the internally-linked article (and in the two external links which are posted at the bottom of that page), here are three useful web sites: 
* Hyakunin Isshu described (in Japanese)
* Hyakunin Isshu described (in English)
* Nintendo museum exhibition
In my view, this specific image adds depth to Wikipedia by exemplifying an interesting strategy for bringing Japanese history and literature to life across the centuries between then and now. 
If a better likeness of Juntoku becomes available, this one can be replaced -- of course; but in the absence of anything else, it's hard for me to see how anyone can assess this visual aid as meaningless. --Ooperhoofd 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved thanks to Insomniacpuppy who posted a 15th century image of Juntoku. --Ooperhoofd 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your perspective was not unexpected, nor is your supporting explanation without merit.  At root, I think your view of Wikipedia is too cramped. I suspect we can anticipate having to deal with the differences in our points-of-view on an image-by-image basis until you come to recognize that your criteria need to be re-modulated. --Ooperhoofd 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let me try a different approach then. Please explain why you think this image has any particular relevance to an encylopedia (i.e. factual) article about Emperor Juntoku, and please explain how you would distinguish it from any of the many other purely imaginative depictions of him (I have seen at least two completely imaginative sets of depictions of all of the Japanese emperors since coming to Japan, and I'm sure many others probably exist). In addition, please look again closely at these depictions of Emperor Juntoku and Emperor Go-Toba. If you look a them objectively, I think you will agree that 1) they are more akin to cartoon drawings than renditions of actual people, and 2) because of their cartoon-like nature, they are very nearly indistinguishable from one another, other than the fact that one has been made to look a bit heavier than the other (due to the missing chin line). In my opinion, inclusion of them would cheapen the value of Wikipedia, not add to it.-Jefu 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating images for relevance

message: An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Too many (allegedly) regional subpages about consolidating all regional style guidelines into one. Fg2 10:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on consolidation of regional Manual of Style guidelines 

message: In the Using Japanese in the article body section, it starts with In a narrative article.  I seem to remember that the narrative language was put in, in order to preserve lists of terms/places/people which could benefit from having all the kanji appear in one page.  In other words, if someone was looking for a specific sumo term, or train station on a particular line, the article would facilitate that.  Recently, some lists like these have been edited to remove the kanji.  What is the current feeling about lists (not narrative paragraphs) with the kanji? Neier 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that we should minimize the use of Japanese script in ordinary text, providing the Japanese for the term that is the subject of the article, and (if it is helpful) for other terms that don't have articles. Articles can include a glossary or glossary-like section, separate from running text, and Japanese can be appropriate in such a section. If, as an example, an article on a rail line has a table that includes the station names in Japanese script, it seems all right to me, as long as it doesn't make the table excessively wide or complicated. Fg2 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems, the matter is handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, List of Kuge families contains kanji, while the List of Han doesn't. Having kanji in the former article makes sense because there are many red links in the list and it would be simply a loss of information if we removed those kanji. In the above, Fg2 gives his personal opinion but it seems that it is actually the consensus among the Japan-related-articles-contributors (including me). Like the minimizing the use of kanji, etc. I guess, to add to what he said, the manual of style would ought to say that you should not remove kanji accompanying red links because that would be a loss of information. -- Taku 09:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For lists and other "non-narrative" forms, I would not oppose the inclusion of kanji, even for terms/places/people/etc. that have a linked article.  So for the List of Kuge families, for reasons of both practicality and aesthetics, I see no problem with having kanji next to each family's name, regardless of whether the family has a separate article.  Likewise, for train stations in articles like the Tōkaidō Main Line#Tokyo area ... although others (e.g. Yamanote Line) don't have the kanji.  I say "not oppose" rather than "support" because honestly I'm a bit indifferent myself ... for the average English-language reader the kanji adds no value, and for those who can read Japanese, the Japanese Wikipedia page is usually just a click away.  That being said, seeing how this really does seem to be dealt with on a case by case basis as Taku says, I wonder if we should have a guideline in the MOS for non-narrative forms, given that the MOS implies that they should be treated differently from narrative forms but gives no advice on how to deal with them? CES 12:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice. This modified version merely states exactly what is done currently, but it's always a good idea to note that in the MOS. -- Taku 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kanji in lists