Talk:Kanji Kentei

message: ===Untitled===
This page seems to use both "semi-2" and "pre-2" to talk about 準２級. I suggest that one or another is chosen as the standard for use throughout the page. Incidentally, the Eiken uses "pre-2" and "pre-1" as the English description of 準～級.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.102.62.110 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure a consensus has been reached on this, but the article currently uses Semi-1 and Semi-2 for  and . I also agree that Pre-1 and Pre-2 are much better, and more commonly used. Maybe there was a change made and somebody reverted back to using Semi ? Not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed the remaining Semi-2 and Semi-1 to Pre-2 and Pre-1. Also changed Grade to Level in the Test level and skills section so that the wording is consistent with the rest of the article. However, I did find that the foundation does use both Grade 2 and Grade Semi-2 as the English names of  and  according to FAQ 3. In my opinion, both Pre and Level are much more natural sounding and easier to understand and based upon my experience as a translator Grade and Semi seem to be the work of a non-native English speaker. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Japanese word for semifinal is  so I am guessing this might be why Semi-2, etc. was used on the  website. Semi-2 and Semi-1 seem very much like something spit out by some kind of translation software. I cannot think of any context where something such as Grade Semi-2 would be proper or natural. Other standardized tests also seem to prefer Pre over Semi; For example, the Test in Practical English Proficiency uses Pre-2 and Pre-1. As for the word grade, the Japanese word  is often translated into English as grade  and rank  as well as level. I have a feeling that grade was simply chosen without giving much thought to context and how it would sound in English. The JLPT, for example, uses the word level. This, however, is not a major sticking point and I think the most important thing is to be consistent throughout the entire article. So, one or the other has to be picked. If others feel differently, please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: This page seems to use both "semi-2" and "pre-2" to talk about 準２級. I suggest that one or another is chosen as the standard for use throughout the page. Incidentally, the Eiken uses "pre-2" and "pre-1" as the English description of 準～級.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.102.62.110 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure a consensus has been reached on this, but the article currently uses Semi-1 and Semi-2 for  and . I also agree that Pre-1 and Pre-2 are much better, and more commonly used. Maybe there was a change made and somebody reverted back to using Semi ? Not sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed the remaining Semi-2 and Semi-1 to Pre-2 and Pre-1. Also changed Grade to Level in the Test level and skills section so that the wording is consistent with the rest of the article. However, I did find that the foundation does use both Grade 2 and Grade Semi-2 as the English names of  and  according to FAQ 3. In my opinion, both Pre and Level are much more natural sounding and easier to understand and based upon my experience as a translator Grade and Semi seem to be the work of a non-native English speaker. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Japanese word for semifinal is  so I am guessing this might be why Semi-2, etc. was used on the  website. Semi-2 and Semi-1 seem very much like something spit out by some kind of translation software. I cannot think of any context where something such as Grade Semi-2 would be proper or natural. Other standardized tests also seem to prefer Pre over Semi; For example, the Test in Practical English Proficiency uses Pre-2 and Pre-1. As for the word grade, the Japanese word  is often translated into English as grade  and rank  as well as level. I have a feeling that grade was simply chosen without giving much thought to context and how it would sound in English. The JLPT, for example, uses the word level. This, however, is not a major sticking point and I think the most important thing is to be consistent throughout the entire article. So, one or the other has to be picked. If others feel differently, please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The kanken information packet (2009) is a source for a lot of information, including: the number of levels, the percent of test takers who pass each test, the percent of questions required to pass each test, the time allotted for each test, and the types of questions on each test.  Maybe that fixes most of the citation problems? 211.120.119.94 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: In 2010 Japanese government introduced a new Joyo Kanji list consisting of an additional 196 and removal of 5 kanji. Kanken was changed to reflect this change. For example level 2 no longer test Jinmeiyo kanji.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.193.30 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information outdated 

message: Not sure why there is a separate sections for Notes and References . One of the links listed under Notes is no longer valid. The other link still is active, but it'snot being used to only to cite the name of the test and nothing moreanything specific in the article. In addition, the only item under References does not contain any link at all and is not even referred to in the article itself. There are quite a few Japanese websites (including the 's website) that could be used to source material on this page if a sufficient number of English sources cannot be found. Some of them can be found on the exam's Japanese Wikipedia page. I think the Notes section should be scrapped altogether. References then can be added according to Citation Style 1 using Cite Web, Cite Book, etc. Anybody have any other suggestions? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes/References

message: The name of this test is  and not . The Japanese word  can take the meaning of test or examination , so the article as written seems to say Japan Kanji Aptitude Test Test. The official site for the test refers to the test as  so I think its best to use that name instead. If anybody feels differently, please discuss. Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Name

message: No information (not even the name) is given for the organization that administers the test. I think that at least the organization's name is certainly relevant enough to be mentioned. The  does not have an English website, but the same organization also administers the BJT. The BJT does have an English website and according to the Contact Us page, the  is using Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Public Interest Foundation as its English name. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the Foundation does not have an English version of its website, FAQ 3 does give the English name of the organization as Japan Kanji Aptitude Testing Foundation. However, I am not sure how up-to-date this information is because the name given is different from the one given on the same organization's BJT English website. I added a sentence to the lead about the administrating organization, and used the name given on the BJT website because I think it's probably more recent than the Kanken website. What do others think? - Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Test Administrator

message: There was a reference to the average-ability college student being likely to pass pre-2 with a small amount of study. I have the new problem book （８級問題集）and it has the statistics in the back. Only a third of candidates passed pre-2 in the most recent two sittings so I think the unsourced statement is not accurate. Interestingly only 3.8% passed pre-1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbenjamin (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for cleaning that up. I tried to make it better awhile ago, but you are right in saying that something like that should probably be properly cited; otherwise, it might be considered to be nothing other than original research. My personal feeling is that statement was true at one time, even with respect to , but probably is no longer so these days because of computers, etc. Now, all you have to do is type what you want to say in romaji, hit enter or  and let the computer do the rest. Even so, you still see lots of mistakes because people don't have to actually write characters out like they once did. BTW, Are you planning on taking ? It seems so long ago when I took that one. The lower levels are pretty straightforward so I found that studying old tests, etc. was really good practice. You might want to go over old tests for  and  too since you will be expected to know those characters as well. Good luck - Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average people passing pre-2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kanji kentei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020915105642/http://www.kentei.co.jp/ to http://www.kentei.co.jp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified