Wikipedia talk:Japanese Wikipedians' notice board

Japanese Naming Order

A sugggestion: Over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/Naming order there is a vote on possible changes for what I thought was already a pretty good Wikipedia standard -- "use the form of a person's name that is most widely known and used by English speakers". Unfortunately there have been a few Eurocentric individuals who have suggested that every name be in Given Name-Surname order. I would like to see a few more votes for some common sense on this subpage. gK 07:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. I can't speak for the others, but I'm not Euro-centric. Our readers are Euro-centric, however, and it's them I am catering to (or trying to). Noel (talk) 01:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some people have recommended that default for Japanese names to be used in the English-language Wikipedia should be the GN-SN order, even when that person has never been known or referred to in that order. Although it is a highly loaded phrase, the only adequate description for an attitude like that, in my opinion, is Cultural imperialism, and I can see why some of our Japanese, Korean, and Chinese user/editors have been upset with such an opinion.

The registered user/editors for the Wikipedia are probably a fairly good representation of the regular "reader" population for the Wikipedia. If you look at the information that they have put on their user pages, you will see that there are fair percentage of them are not native-English speakers, nor do they live in countries where English is the dominant language. Although many of the initial policies for the Wikipedia were developed with the assumption that the main audience for the English-language Wikipedia would be native English speakers, I think that assumption deserves to be challenged since the Wikipedia is truely becoming a World Encyclopedia.

Recommending that the default for all Japanese names is GN-SN so that some native English-language speakers don't get confused is also making the assumption that knowing a person's last name is very important, when the real issue is "how do we make sure we have identified the correct person". For example, pre-Meiji Era individuals are almost exclusively known in their SN-GN order, so that is what people are going to type in the search field when they do a search on the Wikipedia. Even modern individuals, if they are not famous (or at least not famous outside of Japan) will most likely be known in their Japanese name order. As I research this issue, I am starting to thing that the Encyclopedia Britannica policy, where the article name for all Japanese persons is in the Japanese name order, may actually be the best policy for the Wikipedia as well. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 04:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello GK, I agree that having a standard helps people be sure they have gotten the right person. My proposed standard is SN-GN for people born before 1868; GN-SN for those born in or after 1868. It's a clear standard, and easy to implement. I wrote a draft of a page that would explain it if it should become policy. Take a look at (article removed). I'm interested in hearing the reactions of Wikipedians. Fg2 06:40, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Here is my problem with the proposed Meiji divide. My knowledge about Japanese names is mostly for Japanese haiku and tanka poets. Every one of those poets, including the post-Meiji and even the living ones, are known almost exclusively by their SN-GN order, except for a very few, such as Ban'ya Natsuishi, who are very active in international haiku organizations and also publish in English. Even someone like the tanka poet Tawara Machi, who is well-known in Japan, is practically unknown outside of Japan, and then is mostly known by her SN-GN order. That is the reason that I am now leaning towards the solution that the article name should always be SN-GN. Redirects are easy to create. Some indication (still to be decided) of a person's last name within the article is easy to create. But always using the SN-GN order is the most clear and unambiguous standard that the Wikipedia can use. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see why this is such a debate. Japanese use SN-GN in all documents, official, business, personal-- everything. The only time Japanese use GN-SN is when they are trying to go out of their way for westerners, and trying to fit into western constraints. Because Japanese given names are not readily distinguishable for westerners (i.e. John, Thom, Bob), then they conformed to the GN-SN so unknowning westerners knew which was GN and which was SN. However, this is no longer the case, in my experience. Most people who deal with Japanese (or Koreans or Chinese) now have a basic understanding that name order is SN-GN. I don't think there should even be a Meji divide. I vote strongly for SN-GN in all cases. The redirects can be put in place where needed. If anything, we can perhaps have a {{Asian Name Order}} that can be included on all these redirects that gives a short explanation.Davejenk1ns 11:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may be true that most people who deal with JP/KR/CN know the name order but that leaves out the other 99% of the readers. The English wiki should follow English conventions. The Japanese wiki should follow Japanese conventions. (IMO, that is). Note that the vote is not only about the title, it is also about names within the text so your redirect solution won't work there. Personally I think it would make sense to make all names (not just JP) SN, GN for the URL and title like you would find in most encyclopedias and name listings. Mdchachi|Talk 15:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "English conventions"? Do you mean English naming order (GN-SN)? Or do you mean the most common way of representing Japanese names in books, academic publications, newspapers, etc. when written in the English language? Those are two very different things. For example, consider Fujiwara Teika, the compiler of the important Japanese poetry anthology Hyakunin Isshu. That SN-GN order is clearly the most likely way that you will find his name in any publication. If you search Google for the reverse ("Teika Fujiwara"), you will find that almost all of those listing have a comma between the two names (that is "Teika, Fujiwara" or "GN, SN", which the opposite of what you are recommending) and that version of the name is in addition to more common "Fujiwara Teika".

re: "most encyclopedias": Give me an example. The Encyclopedia Britannica, which is usually considered the most authoritative encyclopedia in the English language, uses the SN-GN order exclusively for their titles, including people like Kurosawa Akira (Akira Kurosawa) who are well-known in the English-speaking world by their GN-SN order. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 04:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant the most common way the English-speaking world organizes human names in lists. They do it in SN, GN (with the comma) order. For everything from book catalogs to encyclopedias. Your Fujiwara example is an example of what happens when an error is perpetuated. Some editor along the way didn't know what he was doing. You're not claiming that they knowingly intended to refer to him as GN, SN are you? Mdchachi|Talk 21:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again I ask, what encyclopedias? I've already mentioned Encyclopedia Britannica. I just checked at Encarta, and except for those modern Japanese that are well-known in the West such as Akira Kurosawa, the names are in the Japanese name order including the post Meiji divide Japanese poets Tawara Machi, Ishikawa Takuboku, Yosano Akiko, Miyazawa Kenji, Masaoka Shiki, Hagiwara Sakutaro. Encarta is inconsistent, however, since they have Mifune Toshirō (SN-GN) instead of Toshiro Mifune. These are modern Japanese authors that I found in Western name order: Ryu Murakami, Haruki Murakami, Banana Yoshimoto. Encarta is very inconsistent since Tawara Machi (SN-GN) and Banana Yoshimoto (GN-SN) are contemporaries. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 13:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an English speaking person living in Japan, I write my Romanji name First Name Last Name. When I right my name in Katakana, I write it Last Name First Name. If we use George W. Bush as an example, if you do a Wikipedia search on Bush George, there is no redirect to his page. You can however find his entry with either George Bush or George W. Bush. Also, his title page is "George W. Bush". English articles should be titled FN LN, and a redirect used for those who might search for an article with LN FN convention. Revmachine21 11:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your example of George Bush is insufficient, if not inapplicable. Of course George BUsh would appear as George Bush, because that is his name order in his home country (USA), his mother toungue, as well as the language of the article (both English). You admit that you use the convention LN GN when you write your name in Japanese, because that is the convention for Japan and Japanese. (I do the same, BTW). I still base my position on the most clean, consistent solution: always post in LN GN for Japanese names. Otherwise we will always be arguing exceptions, strange rules (Meiji divide?), or some other strangeness. Certainly some people will post GN LN, but editors can either 1) edit into LN GN format, 2) create a redirect, 3) correct the link into the existing LN GN article (most cases). We do the same for French, German, and European names (with their accent marks, graves, umlauts, etc.). Would we also force those names into standard 26 letter format for the benefit of the "English"? No. To do so with the Japanese (or Chinese or Korean) is potentially just as culturally offensive.Davejenk1ns 12:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I work for a German company in Japan, who as a matter of corporate policy, avoid any special characters in the spelling of their proper names in order to have a uniform, standardized and completely international operation. So when we have a German guy come into town, his meisi are printed up avoiding the funny German characters. This is a commonplace practice in international business and not culturally insenstive. This is just the way English & international business is done. Münster becomes Muenster, Schloß becomes Schloss etc.

Furthermore, you look at the front page of the Japan Times today at the "Koizumi to keep pressing Pyongyang" article first paragraph, I quote "Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Saturday...". Note the GN LN format, in a newspaper published in Japan with a Japanese editor-in-chief. Again, in English with GN LN standard.

I also checked other online Japanese publishers like Mainishi and Asashi Shimbum. They use the GN LN order when publishing in English. Enough said.... Revmachine21 13:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the difference here is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I saw somehere someone noted Britannica uses SN-GN (LN-GN) formats. If you look at some English publications on Japanese history or cultures like Go, you can find they are using SN-GN. In fact, the other day, I was reading an article about Go in mathematics and it refered to Japanese scholars in SN-GN formats just like for other Chinese and Korean people, even they are contemporary figures. In sum, we have contradicting cases about the convention of Japanese names in English writing. -- Taku 18:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have started a new section Japanese_name#Japanese_names_in_English. It is very mottainai (shameful to waste) that many interesting observations are buried in the talkpages! -- Taku 19:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I just checked the Britannica as well as the Yahoo & Encyclopedia.com online encyclopedias. Britannica used the SN FN format in the article but the Yahoo & Encyclopedia.com used SN, FN in article titles and inside the article, they used FN SN as in the case of the Junichiro Koizumi article where they refer to Yoshiro Mori. The article about Yoshiro Mori referred to Keizo Obuchi. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be set rules in all encyclopedias.

Also, I checked my home library for books about Japan and again, they were split, one used SN GN, one GN SN. I stick to my original recommendation of using GN SN for articles. When in Rome, do as the Romans do... Revmachine21 01:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'When in Rome, do as the Romans do...' Go ni itte ha go ni shitagau. (When in the village, follow the villagers). Actually, that would argue for SN GN, as that is what Japanese do. Davejenk1ns 02:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Time for a vote and a decision

Okay. I think it is time for a vote/decision. How do we resolve this? Revmachine has his opinion, Taku, Gk, and I have ours-- we have each made our points, presented evidence (encyclopedias on the one side, newspapers on the other). I think we need to set this out and go with it. Do we vote? (huzzah for LN GN!!!) Davejenk1ns 02:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LN GN

• Davejenk1ns 02:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

GN LN

I are having a poll right now :) Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/Naming_order. I don't know why people started this debate here not there. -- Taku 02:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Taku is correct in pointing out that there is already a poll going on at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/Naming_order, which is where I think that the poll should stay. Before that poll was set up, and even after the poll had been started, there have been debates on the subject of Japanese name order for Wikipedia articles that have also occured here, on the Talk page for the Naming_order subpage, on the Talk page for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) article, on various User and User Talk pages, in the Talk pages on a number of Japanese-related subjects, and even under the Request for Deletion on a particular article.

I am glad this debate is going on because it has helped me become clearing on my own opinions on the subject, and actually made me change my mind. This debate has already been going on for awhile, and for something so important, I think that it should continue for awhile longer. Until things are settled, it is probably fine to continue to follow the suggestion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles - "use the form of a person's name that is most widely known and used by English speakers". [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 04:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no ideal solution

In my humble opinion, I think that all Japanese names SHOULD follow the English naming conventions, with redirects from the Japanese order, and little boxes to the side explaining (with kanji) the person's surname, given name, and in which order it most often appears. Inconsistency isn't great, and either way is going to create some inconsistencies with what is most often read. At least if we keep it consistent, with a little frame explaining what is most common, with redirects, everyone will get to the information, and get a nice little explanation of Japanese naming conventions, and what the most common usage is.

In cases where the most common usage is in doubt, Googlewar is your friend... Akira Kurosawa: 672,000. Kurosawa Akira: 192,000. That way people can be informed as to the most easily recognizable use, as well as which name is which. It'd be a good compromise that would stick to the official wikipedia policies, as well as providing the information on Japanese naming that really is integral to understanding Japanese names.

--Joshua Maciel 00:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Stubs & Categories

I just discovered Template:Stubs. Would it be useful to create a template:Japanese-stub and also a Category:Japanese stub to help keep track of, and better organize, those Japanese articles that need work? See also: Wikipedia:Stub categories

Actually these stubs have been created, but the names were slightly different from what I was looking for. There is Template:Japan-stub and Category:Japan-related stubs.

Also: I found that there are already some Japanese related articles in Category:Historical_stubs, including Prince Hisaaki. There are also Japanese biographies listed at Category:People stubs, such as Abe Nobuyuki. There are a few Japanese articles in Category:Geography stubs, including Osa, Okayama. I found a single Japanese related article under Category:Literature stubs: Takizawa Bakin. gK 23:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would we like to gather these separated stubs under Category:Japan-related stubs with {{Japan-stubs}}?--Aphaea 02:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's leave the other stubs, but also add the {{Japan-stubs}}. It's probably not the "wiki-way" to have two stubs, but maybe it will attract a few people who are not primarily interested in Japanese topics to edit a few of the articles. gK 03:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note that {{stubs}} is now just a REDIRECT. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting and its Stub types list. --AlastairIrvine (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Japanese categories

I was just at Category:Japanese language, and it looks like there are entries there that should have been in Category:Japanese terms instead (e.g. Moshi moshi), but someone with a good knowledge of Japanese should be the one to do the recatogorization.gK 05:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay-- I took a swipe at clening this up. Many of them are specific terms to Geisha or kimono (someone was busy...)Davejenk1ns 07:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

If the terms are too obscure, maybe we should think about a VfD for each one of them with a recommendation that the information first be merged into the appropriate larger category (geisha, kimono, etc.), plus a possible copy to the Wiktionary. The best thing would be to gather up a list, nominate them all at the same time, and make sure that all the Japanese Wikipedians are on board for voting for deletion so they don't get outnumbered by the inclusionists [1]. gK 09:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Authors and Writers

There are two categories that seem closely related,

1. Category:Japanese authors and
2. Category:Japanese writers.

Should we merge these, or should we insert text to help authors of articles choose which one to place an article in?

If we want to match what has been done with other language/nationality categories, they should are all be under Category:Japanese writers. Under that should be the subcategories Category:Japanese poets and Category:Japanese novelists. There could also be a Category:Japanese dramatists and playwrights to cover Noh, Kabuki, etc. Then all those List of Japanese authors can be hidden in a new Category:Lists of Japanese authors. To do all of that, however, would be lots of work. It would be much easier to just merge everything into Category:Japanese authors. [Also: Unless someone can think of someone to add to it, the Category:Japanese historians should probably be deleted since it is currently empty.] gK 12:07, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am for to merge them. --Aphaea 02:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should merge them, but under which category? The easier choice (authors) or the way most of the other Wikipedia categories are structured (writers), which will require much more editing? gK 03:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the latter; unity helps us greatly to collaborate each others IMO. But I don't want to make a dicision too rushly. If necessary, we will have a vote. Or we would wait to make a general concensus. --Aphaea 06:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm nominating Japanese authors for deletion. Oliver Chettle 08:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

more under Category:Japanese people

I was just looking at this category and it is a real mess. For example:

Category:Japanese sportspeople --> Category:Japanese people

Category:Japanese athletes --> Category:Japanese people by occupation --> Category:Japanese people

Both Category:Japanese sportspeople and Category:Japanese athletes have a bunch of subcategories, so it will be a real mess untangling them. For example, the both have Category:Japanese baseball players, but only the first one has Category:Olympic swimmers of Japan (which only has one person in it).

Somewhere in the Wikipedia, or maybe it was Media-Wiki I saw a tool that allowed one to show a tree of linkages for a particular category, but now I can't find it. It would really help straiten things out. ;-) [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Japan-related stubs?

I was going through some of the Category:Japan-related stubs to see what there was, and if there was anything that I could un-stub (I did de-stubbed Tsubouchi Shoyo - see [2]). One of the japan-stubs is for Hiro Yamagata. The Wikipedia article doesn't say much, and the English page on his official website shows a person with a certain amount of arrogance and self-importance, but has nothing that shows he might be worthy of a Wikipedia article. Is this just a vanity entry, or is he someone that can have something more written on him?

Also: I couldn't find anything on Fukuda Eiko in English that wasn't connected to the Wikipedia.

Finally: Does the Iwakura Tomomi article have enough in it to remove the stub template (although it would be nice to add a picture of the 500 Yen Japanese currency that carries his portrait)? Another candidate for removing the stub template: Kakinomoto no Hitomaro

Cleanup: I added the cleanup template to the Kabuki article. The article needs some better organization and more info. It doesn't even mention the famous Kabuki dramatist Chikamatsu Monzaemon (whose article is another japan-stub). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As for Hiro Yamagata he is popular but imo not a great artist. Perhaps he is worthy to have a stub but I can't expand it by myself ... I haven't heard Fukuda Eiko, later I will try to get info after I engage more important themes

Thank yhou for your comment on Iwakura Tomimi. I feel happy it doesn't seem to be a stub. As for Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, I would like to replace stub templte to expand. We can refer his works more closely, I think.

Chikamatsu Monzaemon could be a good candidate for JCOTW? But now it would be better for us to change this collaboration from COTW to the collaboration of this forenights(sorry I missed the right word ... meaning two weeks. --Aphaea 15:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

re: Chikamatsu Monzaemon: The best strategy might be to start with a fixup of the Kabuki article and add in some of the important actors, playrights, plays, etc. that the article is missing. Then start attacking any related topics that are stubs or red-linked, such as Chikamatsu Monzaemon. (BYW: It was interesting to find out that Tsubouchi Shoyo who I just de-stubbed has a Kabuki connection. I knew about his novel writing and criticism through comments made by Shiki, but I didn't know about the rest of his story.)

I've also been turning any Japan-related {stubs} that I accidentally run into into {japan-stubs}, but if anyone want's some real mindless work to do for awhile (instead of thinking hard about rewrites and fixups for Japan-related articles), they can go through Category:Stub and Category:Substubs looking for articles to convert. ;-) [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 17:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I moved some substubs into Japan-stubs' pool. And tried to add some edits. I think there are more substubs untagged. As for geographical stubs I will make a proposal. --Aphaea 07:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the author Hiro Yamagata listed is more accurately a translator. He has a lot of translation credits if you look up his name at amazon.co.jp (assuming it's the same person). I think Aphaea is referring to the artist who is probably more famous than the "author". See http://www.ilec.or.jp/jp/store/yamagata.html and www.schwarzenegger.com

There's a bio of Fukuda Eiko here if anybody feels like translating it.

Mdchachi|Talk 22:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. BTW if we translate materials out of wikipedia, it would be a copyright violation? Translation is a derivative work ... --Aphaea 03:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a literal (chokuyaku) translation would violate copyright but if you summarize or rephrase the information then there should be no problem. Mdchachi|Talk 19:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Japan-related Feature Articles

Just out of curiosity, I tried to go through the list of past feature articles, and find any existing Feature Articles that had some relation to Japan. The bold titles were featured on the main page. Some else should probably also take a look at the list because it is l-o-n-g and I may have missed something (I almost missed the Go article. Also, I didn't look though the archives to see if there were any Japan-related articles that didn't make it. (see also Category:Wikipedia featured articles). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 13:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Japanese toilet Japan general election, 2003

Feature Articles with a Japanese connection, but not primarily about Japan

Buddhism History of Buddhism Tea

World War II related

Attack on Pearl Harbor Battle of Leyte Gulf Operation Downfall

Game Related

Bishojo game Go (board game) Goomba Super Mario 64

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates--Japan Related

Swastika

Vote on prefecture article format issues

Please vote on a couple of prefecture article format issues at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japanese_prefectures#Vote on picture placement and symbol/map placement in infobox. -- Rick Block 02:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Japanese clans

I have noticed that articles for Japanese noble families (samurai clans) are not standard in their naming. Some, like Minamoto, Taira, Soga, and Nitta are titled using just the family name. Some, like Kujo family, Nijo family, and Ichijo family have 'family' in the title, and some, such as Miura clan, Chiba clan, and Hatakeyama clan have 'clan' in the title. I would not be surprised if there were some out there titled 'name (clan)' or 'name (Japanese clan)'. Any thoughts on what the standard should be? Any volunteers to do the title changes (page moves)? Thanks. LordAmeth 20:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops there seems to be confusions but I'm afraid you are confused with clan and family.

For samurai clans, it should be classfied as belows:

• Clan - Munamoto, Taira
• Family - Nittta (it is a family belonging to Minamoto clan), Soga[?, iirc Fujiwara]

Fujiwara clan and families were labelled once "family" but I moved Fujiwara family to Fujiwara clan. Kujo, Nijo, Ichijo are branches of this clan, and in Japanese they are never called as "shi"(clan), so I think there is no problem around them.

Samurai clans would be problematic, because the naming convention in Japanese isn't logical: and in the Edo period, family (-ke) was used to designate each daimyo (and their han), not a group in blood under the same myoji, like kuge, so I think it is better to call all those "clans" or here we go logical and call Minamoto clan, Nitta (and so claimed their blanch Tokugawa) families.

Perhaps it is good to have Names in Japan or some alike. Any opinion? --Aphaea* 21:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

ORANGE RANGE

I noticed today that the article for Jpop band Orange Range was a stub, so I went to add to it, translating from the Japanese Wikipedia. Essentially, I added little more than a list of the band members and their albums, but it being a band, I'm not really sure what else there is to say.

Anyway, getting to the point. The article seemed to indicate that the band was accused of plagiarism in an interview a few years back. I may be reading/translating this wrong, of course, but there's a list of bands and songs at the bottom of the Japanese article that seems to be a list of which Orange Range songs are copied (plagiarized) from which other songs. I went and read the interview, and there really doesn't seem to be anything criminal or scandalous in it. The closest it comes to accusing the band of plagiarism is a section where the guitarist talks about imitating (drawing from) many styles of music.

Could someone look at this, and help me figure out what the story is, whether or not they're being accused of plagiarism, whether or not it's a big deal, etc. Thanks. LordAmeth 22:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. I think some of the plagarism accusations are plain silly. However, it seems that there definetely were some issues. Atsi Otani 05:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

One the subject of Orange Range and plagiarism, feel free to check this flash movie which pretty-much outlines the issue with that. It's Japanese, but I'm sure you can figure out what the point of it is. It basically plays Orange Range clips followed by songs by other artists from which Orange Range seems to have lifted the melody, rhythm, etc.

--Joshua Maciel 00:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

link spam?

The anon IP 220.58.224.240 (talk · contribs) has recently added a bunch of links to various Japanese-related articles. I've looked at several of them and although they are not for a commercial website, most of the linked webpages seem to be of fairly low usefulness and not necessarily that closely related to the article that it was linked from (for example, a link an essay of dining al fresco in Japan added to the Cuisine of Japan article. Could someone else please take a look and offer a second opinion before I go and delete all of this anon editor's recent additions. BlankVerse ∅ 05:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed some of the obvious ones. Frankly, any addition by an anonymous IP address doesn't require a debate (IMHO). Davejenk1ns 05:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I often see good article edits by anons, but the percentage of garbage that gets added to the External link sections by anons is very high. There's one person who keeps adding the same very poor personal name definition website to ALL of the Wikipedia articles on names, including where the link definately doesn't belong. And then the amount of true commercial link spam seems on the increase lately as well. I was just wondering if I was overreacting to this group of links. BlankVerse ∅ 08:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italics?

Is there a standard for italicizing foreign words? For that matter, is there any kind of standard for capitalizing Japanese words (or any other language that doesn't itself involve capitalization)?

For the most part, I have been italicizing less common words (daidairi, horō, honmaru), and leaving alone (un-italicized) more common words like samurai, ninja, katana. But there are some in-between words, like Shogun, daimyō, harakiri, sakura, which I'm not sure what to do with.

What do you think? Thanks for any suggestions you might offer... LordAmeth 15:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor of italicizing Japanese words that are not in the English language. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) specifies treating as English words that have become part of the language (e.g. Tokyo, Fuji) so I agree with you that they should not be italicized in English. I capitalize the first letter of place names in English, and if they're common in English I write them without macrons but I like your suggestion to write the Japanese in lowercase italics (e.g. Hokkaido (北海道 hokkaidō)) and think I've done so a couple of times. I haven't checked Merriam-Webster or OED but I'd bet "shogun" is in it (I'd lowercase it unless it's the title of an individual, e.g. Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu, but the Tokugawa shoguns). I would not use a macron over the first vowel. "Daimyo" I've looked up and found, and because it's in authoritative English dictionaries I've removed macrons from it. (Some of them I'd put in myself...) "Harakiri" is probably in the dictionaries. I don't know about "sakura" --- but it's worth a look. "Ninja" has, I guess, become common in pop culture. Dictionaries are slow to pick up on that, but it seems hard to deny that it's part of English, at least for a generation or two to come. I would definitely not capitalize them. I've changed "Noh" to "noh" (only to see it changed back), for example; I think it deserves to be capitalized as much as "Theatre" or "Cinema" (that is, not at all unless it's at the beginning of a sentence). One of my pet peeves is writing surnames in all caps. If there are any Japanese who don't recognize that "Suzuki" is the surname and "Taro" the given name, it might serve them well, but the system of writing surnames in all capitals is not part of the English language. Likewise, I recommend not capitalizing on'yomi. Of course, about half the battles wind up going against me so we'll see what others have to say! Fg2 11:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sumo!

Is there anyone interested in helping me come up with a standard for the Sumo wrestler's individual pages? I am really interested in getting the sumo pages up to date, being an avid fan, and generally thinking the world could use more sumo information.

I want to try to come up with a standardized format of listing height, weight, win-loss records, bouts in makuuchi, etc. to create a standardized format for sumo wrestlers on wikipedia for years to come. Since there are plenty of English language sources for sumo information (at least the basics) you wouldn't necessarily need to be able to speak any Japanese, and just help me input the blasted things.

Preferrably someone who has a clue as to how to make a good-looking info box, so that we can get started on standardizing the list of active sumo wrestlers page individuals, and possibly tidying up that main page to give a little more information (specifically the kanji for their names).

Since sumo is on TV in Japan bilingually (at least for makuuchi bouts), it would be nice to have easy resources for English speakers in Japan to be able to decipher the slew of kanji that fly across the screen, as it makes sumo viewing infinitely more enjoyable. Anyway, I hope that someone else shares my enthusiasm to expand a part of the Japan-related info on wikipedia.

-Joshua Maciel 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Requesting help from the Japanese wikipedia community

Hello all, I'm here because of a (I assume) mutual acquaintance of ours, Flowerofchivalry. While I'm not sure what he does at the jp wikipedia, his actions here at the en wikipedia has generated a lot of ill will.

He is active in a series of disputes in articles regarding the Nanjing Massacre, where he claims, among other things that the Nanjing Massacre never happened, and that this theory is believed by the majority of the Japanese people. Well, I'm here to hear your opinions about that.

Additionally, he also accused me of trying to bring ethnic Chinese editors into the dispute, while there is nothing wrong with that, I thought I should reciprocate by alerting the Japanese wikipedia community to this dispute.

A few links to this debacle: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flowerofchivalry (a list of what we summarised to be FoC's main points is listed at the bottom), Talk:Nanjing Massacre, Talk:Nanjing Safety Zone, Talk:Iris Chang.

I'd like to request your help in this matter by confirming just how much is a majority. ;) Thanks. -Hmib 19:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing? Hm, not very active, this noticeboard is...

Saying things like that is unlikely to endear you to people.--DannyWilde 00:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

Hmib is a POV pusher, and he is trying to vanish the idea which he does not favor. His assertions are very similar to those from the Chinise Communists. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a place for communist's political acts.

I would like to ask you to help me and Wikipedia.

--Flowerofchivalry 19:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is debated in Japan. Flowerofchivalry is correct in saying that many Japanese people believe that the Nanjing massacre and other such atrocities never took place. For example, the governor of Tokyo, Shintarou Ishihara, has repeatedly stated this view point. Try checking out the archives of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper, where Ishihara has a column. The Sankei Shimbun, Japan's most right-wing newspaper, has also printed several articles alleging that such atrocity stories are false, for example saying that the atrocity photographs are fakes, and so on.

Whether this non-believing group is a majority or not would be hard to prove. I'm acquainted with members of the current Japanese military forces (so-called "Self Defence Force") who believe that the war in China was a war of liberation against Western colonialism. (Note that the Sankei Shimbun is compulsory reading for the SDF). On the other hand I'm also acquainted with Japanese people who take the opposite view. I know one Japanese man whose father fought in the war and (apparently) brought back photographs of atrocities.

It might be worth pointing out that very few of the younger Japanese people have much knowledge of any facts about the second world war, and the "majority opinion" about the events of the second world war is unlikely to hold much value. I'm afraid I also don't know enough history to be able to comment authoritatively on the matter myself either.--DannyWilde 00:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Still, I was asking for what the majority opinion is, which FOC has stated to be, that it did not happen. Majority means, 50% or more. Since FOC has to have a source for this statement, there must have been a study of it somewhere, so I think that would be a good place to start? FOC, where did you get that gem? -Hmib 06:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable comment.

--Flowerofchivalry 07:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Majority does not means 50% or more. Talk to your math teacher.--Flowerofchivalry 06:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion list

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know about a list of Japan-related items on Votes for Deletion. It's part of WikiProject Deletion sorting, and you can find it here. I hope you can use it to track and contribute to Japan-related deletion debates. If you find the list useful, please also help keep it up to date.

By the way, new deletion sorters are welcome and needed. Join us!

Cheers,

-- Visviva 03:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The Five Elements

I just completed a barebones version of an article on the Five elements (Japanese). I felt it needed doing, and I was quite curious/excited to see what I would learn in research. However, this topic has become quite new-agey, and inextricably tied into (1) new age Eastern Medicine and the like, (2) fanciful, mystical notions of the powers and abilities of ninja, and (3) fictional, fantasy concepts of eastern magic, particularly in anime and comicbooks. I found it quite difficult to find any reliable sources on the true historical/cultural origins and meanings of the elements. Thus, I think the article could use some help overall. In addition, there are a few specific items I wanted to add but could not find...

• I know that, much like the Chinese elements, each Japanese element is associated with a direction, a color, and a gazillion other things; I could not, however, find reference to which element is associated with which thing. Also, I was particularly interested in the Japanese elemental associations of the Phoenix (Bird), Tortoise, Dragon, and Tiger. I am not positive which element belongs to which creature, what the names of the creatures are (I think the Phoenix is called Suzaru or Sezaru?), and what the myth/legend/story is behind these creatures, if any.

• I was unable to find proper categories to add this article to. Admittedly, I didn't search too deeply, but none of the categories of Five elements (Chinese) have parent categories with Japanese-appropriate sub-categories. You follow that? Basically, while the concepts of the Japanese elements are strongly derived from Chinese philosophy, I don't think they belong in Chinese categories. If anyone knows of the proper categories to place this in, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for any help you can offer. I hope that with a team effort, we can push past all the acupuncture-newage-ninja-mysticmagic nonsense and produce an article that details the true religious/spiritual historical/cultural origins and meanings of the Japanese five elements. LordAmeth 01:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Five Elements

I just completed a barebones version of an article on the Five elements (Japanese). I felt it needed doing, and I was quite curious/excited to see what I would learn in research. However, this topic has become quite new-agey, and inextricably tied into (1) new age Eastern Medicine and the like, (2) fanciful, mystical notions of the powers and abilities of ninja, and (3) fictional, fantasy concepts of eastern magic, particularly in anime and comicbooks. I found it quite difficult to find any reliable sources on the true historical/cultural origins and meanings of the elements. Thus, I think the article could use some help overall. In addition, there are a few specific items I wanted to add but could not find...

• I know that, much like the Chinese elements, each Japanese element is associated with a direction, a color, and a gazillion other things; I could not, however, find reference to which element is associated with which thing. Also, I was particularly interested in the Japanese elemental associations of the Phoenix (Bird), Tortoise, Dragon, and Tiger. I am not positive which element belongs to which creature, what the names of the creatures are (I think the Phoenix is called Suzaru or Sezaru?), and what the myth/legend/story is behind these creatures, if any.

You might be thinking of suzaku (ja:朱雀). Fg2 02:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• I was unable to find proper categories to add this article to. Admittedly, I didn't search too deeply, but none of the categories of Five elements (Chinese) have parent categories with Japanese-appropriate sub-categories. You follow that? Basically, while the concepts of the Japanese elements are strongly derived from Chinese philosophy, I don't think they belong in Chinese categories. If anyone knows of the proper categories to place this in, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for any help you can offer. I hope that with a team effort, we can push past all the acupuncture-newage-ninja-mysticmagic nonsense and produce an article that details the true religious/spiritual historical/cultural origins and meanings of the Japanese five elements. LordAmeth 01:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Taika Reforms

Some time ago, I created an article on the Taika Reforms. User:Arrigo has decided recently to move them to Taika Reform, and now to Taika Era Reform. I have continuously changed them back, and attempted to explain my logic to him. Now, I realize that changing them back doesn't make me any better (less unilateral or whatever) than him, but I am hoping that I can get some feedback here as to what the title of the article should be, and how to block people from continually changing things even after repeated explanations. Do I get any kind of special authority over the article being that I wrote it?

-I don't have enough sources to say for sure what the general consensus is among academia as to the name of the Reforms. Sir George Sansom calls them the 'Taikwa Reforms', using a 'kwa' sound that is not found in the standard romanization system. In any case, I have not seen them referred to as the Taika Era Reforms anywhere - that would be like calling the Taisho Democracy "Taisho Era Democracy" or the Meiji Constitution "Meiji Era Constitution". Just seems silly and unnecessary to me.

-As for Reforms vs Reform, Arrigo argues that WP policy states that article titles should be in the singular. Since the Taika Reforms were a set of reforms, involving multiple articles and multiple changes to the socio-political structure, I think the plural Reforms applies better. Though, again, I don't have many sources, they all use the plural. And I just think that his blanket assumption that all things should be singular ignores obvious examples like the United States of America and the Bill of Rights (not the United State and Bill of Right) - if the event is called the Taika Reforms, call it the Taika Reforms. I understand it's a bit tough, since there's no plural in Japanese, and so we don't know what connotation is intended, but I think a little common sense should be applied, not just automatic obedience to blanket WP policies.

So, anyone who would like to offer their opinion, I appreciate your input. Even if you disagree with me, I hope a consensus (or at least some informed discussion) can be reached, so this edit war between me and Arrigo can stop. Thanks. LordAmeth 01:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I favor "Taika reforms." No "kwa," no "-era" and one "s." Fg2 07:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This sort of article-specific discussion should be presented at Talk:Taika Reform. The discussion's influence will be nil here. 217.140.193.123 17:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here ... added my comments on the talk page for Taika Reform. CES 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Name those bugs!

I uploaded some sound recordings of chirping insects but I don't know which insects they are. If anyone can identify them, please let me know here and/or on the image pages for the files.

The sound files are here:

• Media:Musi-No-Koe2.ogg
• Media:Musi.ogg

The "image" pages are here:

• commons:Image:Musi-No-Koe2.ogg
• commons:Image:Musi.ogg