Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/March 2013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:54, August 23, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Discussion archives for WikiProject Japan
2006 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Task force talk archives
Active and joint task force talk pages
Descendant and related project talk pages

Discussion on Meta regarding WebCite service[edit]

Please come participate in this discussion: meta:WebCite. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is still going in. Please come participate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mitsubishi A6M Zero[edit]

I've set it to high for now, but it occured to me that Mitsubishi A6M Zero should perhaps be a Top class article? I think it meets the criteria. Cckerberos (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: The image of the Zero is an unmistakeable icon associated with Japan & World War II. Furthermore, the Zero's advanced design enabled the military to make rapid advances and dominate the skies for a time. The Zero significantly affected, and is strongly representative of, Japan and its history. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as a top priority article for the reasons already given. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it might be an icon and be important to Japan's military history, but it is by no means as well-known or central to the Japanese culture as, say cherry blossoms. Top priority articles are critical to understanding Japan, and I doubt any single vehicle model can be that central. But High priority, that I can support. --Pitke (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's definitely not as central to Japanese culture as cherry blossoms (although I'm not sure that it's not more well known... there are no doubt millions of non-Japanese who know a Zero by sight but have no particular knowledge of sakura). But in any case, I think you're setting the bar a little too high and a number of current Top class articles would have difficulty meeting it (Noguchi Hideyo isn't exactly critical to understanding Japan, for example). Cckerberos (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Please help AKB48 articles that are being destroyed. I can't fight the admin. Please do something. I think there are people who intentionally don't want to understand anything about how Japanese industry works. Read this: Talk:AKB48#Alert: AKB48-related articles are being destroyed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the other advice you received, you shouldn't try to "fight", but rather discuss. Find out his motives, convey relevance and significance, and prepare to offer concessions. On a related note, I agree with the goal or intent of the admin, if not necessarily his hard-charging method. I think a good amount of that J-pop fluff should be culled. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Official pages are perfectly fine for EL, even if the record label has "buy this" links on the page. They are, after all, in the business of making money, so it's not surprising to have something like that on the official page for an album. As for "fluff" being culled, certainly that's good, but if there are reliable sources for the material then in no longer can accurately be called "fluff", regardless of anyone's personal opinion on the topic. There are certainly plenty of notable topics on Wikipedia about which I couldn't care less. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The original Manatsu no Sounds Good! article seems to have been overloaded, listing 36 members on a single track, for example. But the editing seems to have been done indiscriminately, removing not just that but also standard things like the Japanese track names. Cckerberos (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it was overloaded. I think it contained exactly the amount of information that was necessary. There is no reason to artificially limit the amount of information in the article. Drmies thinks that 100 people are too many, but why? It's only his personal opinion. I am trying to assume he is acting in good faith and not destroyng the articles intentionally... --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a discussion Drmies started: Talk:Manatsu no Sounds Good!#Fan detail. He explained why he removed the info. He seems to consider track listings and lists of personnel (members) "fan detail" and the external links to King Records website "spam links". He also doesn't seem to think highly of the group, suggesting that they "hop around in bathing suits" (probably instead of actually singing, why else remove the lists of members who sing on each track?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Do all 36 members actually sing on the track? I've never heard it, but a quick look at youtube videos suggests that only about 7 members sing, with the rest dancing along. Cckerberos (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
They all have microphones, don't they? But I will explain... In this particular single, basically, they are divided into groups who take turns to sing. The choruses are sung by all the girls altogether. I have also replied at Talk:AKB48, linking a photo of the liner notes. Who sings what is listed there. Therefore, everything can be sourced from the liner notes. I think Drmies' arguments about about "balance", "common sense", etc., are totally unacceptable, cause they all ultimately come to "I don't like it". The arguments are not based on the Wikipedia guidelines for musical releases. Also, he didn't even try to discuss his changes beforehand. I also noted there at Talk:AKB48 that the tracklist is incorrect now. And even the Japanese title of the single is incorrect. I think he unwillingly vandalized the pages, and his changes must be reverted to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Drmies' edits are somewhat problematic, but much of the issue is with an apparent redundancy. I've restored the tracklisting to Manatsu no Sounds Good!, but removed the tracks which are found on all versions from the type-B and theater edition listings. Ideally, this should be done for all of the pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Listing every singer on each track is somewhere between unnecessary and extremely excessive. I kind-of explained this on Drmies talk page, but one thing that "fans" need to remember is that we actually don't want to include everything—that is, we are definitely supposed to have less information than speciality wikis, fansites, and even official sites. Listing all 48 members on a single track entry as "singers" is excessive for Wikipedia, as it begins to reach WP:NOTEVERYTHING/WP:TRIVIA levels. We certainly should not link every single to the corresponding company page, as that violates WP:EL (specifically, only one official link per page in most cases). While this problem can occur anywhere on WP, JPOP (and, probably moreso, KPOP) pages seem to attract fans who want to include every possible detail because they find it important. That, however, isn't our mission. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the inherent nature of AKB48 as a money making machine is at odds with the content needed to adequately cover them as an encyclopedia. It would certainly help if we only linked to the official site for the single, but there may not be one and each edition of the single has its own page. However, the list of singers seems to be relevant with the various personnel lists on various other pages on songs. What Drmies should have definitely not done is remove all but one track listing from the page, as there are other B-sides on other editions, as well as not removing the native Japanese title of the song. or even its stylized title on other articles as I've found. His nomination of Virginity (song) also seems to be supefluous, as he claims that a chart topping single does not pass WP:NSONG. While I won't say that the articles are perfect, there's an entire maternity ward being thrown out with the bath water in these edits.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of WP:BIAS. With the massive media exposure AKB and its knock-offs have in Japan, I have no doubt that there has been more than enough information put forward in magazines, interviews, etc., to enable a full article to be written on each one of their singles. It's easily managed for all the US Billboard hits, right? But that information isn't in English, probably isn't on-line (given how much Japanese publishers hate the internet), and probably isn't available for free. And those things present massive barriers to most editors. Cckerberos (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
And AKB48 is just a knock-off of the original massively-huge Japanese girl singing group, Onyanko Club. Face-smile.svg That said, if everyone in the group is singing on a particular song, we don't need to list anything special. It's only if a part of the group is singing, and I would recommend only doing it in the prose of the article rather than in the track listing. And if people can be combined into specific subgroups and we can then just list the subgroups instead of each member thereof, that's even better. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New project recognition awards[edit]

Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention the two new awards: the Barnstar 2.0 and the Barnstar of National Merit. The first is just a different version of the Barnsensu and can be awarded as people see fit. The second is a project award which can only be awarded by consensus of the project. The criteria are spelled out there. Anyone who wishes to do start a nomination for the latter (or give out the former) is welcome to do so. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that the project is coming up on its 7th anniversary in a little less than a month (17 days, to be exact), so I thought it would be good to recognize people for being longtime contributors. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Combining the Ryukyu Kingdom and unofficial Ainu-Mosir flags seems a bit off for the Barnstar, IMO.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I included them because this project includes those areas and they have their own flags (even if one is still somewhat unofficial). I wouldn't be averse to having Ainu and Okinawan/Ryukyuan task forces if there are the people to support them and work in those areas. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea, though I'm not sure of the implementation. Rather than blocking the Rising Sun, perhaps move them to the upper left and upper right points of the star? (Also, I believe we already have an Ainu task force.) Cckerberos (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
And so we do (the task force). I'd forgotten about it. As for the award image, I'll play around with it a bit and see what I can come up with. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hōō Tomomichi[edit]

(Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sumo) Hi. I'm looking for help with the article on sumo wrestler Hōō Tomomichi. The Japanese Wikipedia claims that he died two months ago but that claim was added by an anonymous editor and is unreferenced so it's possibly bogus. Since I don't understand Japanese and can't even write Google queries in the Japanese writing system, it's very difficult for me to look for sources and I'm hoping someone from this project can help out. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the title of that article as no apostrophes should be in the name. I wasn't able to find any source on a quick search, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Empire of Japan as a birth place?[edit]

Is it correct or accurate to label the birthplace of Japanese persons born in the 19th century as "Empire of Japan" even when they were born on mainland Japan? My question arises after seeing the Jiroemon Kimura article (on the world's current oldest person) and changing his birth place from Empire of Japan to Japan only to have it reverted (with no explanation). I'm no history expert, but I thought the country has always been called Japan even when it was part of a much larger empire. Can someone put me right? --DAJF (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Empire of Japan" indicated that period when the Emperor had political control, and was not a mere figurehead or puppet, the Imperial military was in an expansionist phase. This term became especially relevant as external colonies were established, such as in Korea, Formosa, and Manchuria. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what the sources say. If they give nothing more specific than "Empire of Japan", then that is what we would use. If they give more specifics as to where in the Empire of Japan, then that is what we use. And yes, if they were born in Japan, regardless of when unless it was before "Japan" was established, then we use "Japan". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. That confirms what I suspected was the correct usage. --DAJF (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
If I may ask, is there an official Wikipedia guideline regarding this or is this what the WikiProject has agreed upon? The reason I ask is because most articles list birthplaces of people as the state that governed the locale at the time, rather than the present-day equivalent. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

NICT's Kyoto Corpus[edit]

Was a little surprised not to find something on this in the search of the talk page archives, so I thought I'd make sure everyone knows about it. A couple of years ago, NICT translated the text of about 14,000 articles on the Japanese Wikipedia into English to serve as a corpus for machine translation/language translation (if you use 英辞郎, they'll sometimes show up in the results). They released the translations under CC-BY-SA; they can be grabbed from [here]. The translations aren't perfect and they stripped all the images and citations from the original articles (which, being from the Japanese Wikipedia, didn't exactly have that many in the first place), but there's a lot of stuff there that we don't cover at all. I've tossed up a set of links to the original ja articles included here if you'd like to see what all's there. Cckerberos (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for help editing the "Infobox Japan station" template[edit]

Someone asked about this on the template's talk page over a year ago, but it would seem to be a good idea to tweak the template so that it automatically adds the pages it is used on to the corresponding "XXXX establishments in Japan" category, based on the year of opening inserted in the infobox. I've had a look, but I am really not confident enough to tinker with the complex syntax of the template myself. Could anyone have a go? Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • One of the best places to ask for help with template issues is User talk:TheDJ.  Railways fan and helpful template expert Redrose64 is one of those who stalks this page.  LittleBen (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like my department. I'll have a look when I get back home. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 11:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not difficult for an infobox to categorise articles - {{Infobox London station}} populates subcategories of Category:Rail transport stations in London by fare zone according to the value in |fare_zone= and |fare_zone_1= - but such practice is discouraged by WP:TEMPLATECAT. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a very good point. In that case, probably the best thing to do would be to remove the existing Category:Railway stations opened in XXXX from the template, and then make a request at WP:BOTR to have a bot populate the relevant categories. Is anyone aware of an existing bot that could do this, by the way? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I wasn't aware of the guideline discouraging the use of the infobox to categorize articles, but if that's what it says, then I guess we'll just have to do it the old-fashioned manual way. While I was familiar with the "Railway stations opened in XXXX" categories, I only recently discovered the "XXXX establishments in Japan" categories, so I'll try and add more stations to these categories in the future as I come across them. --DAJF (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You have to bear in mind that there are over 4000 transclusions of the template... Adding all the categories manually would take a great deal of time and effort. Much better to let a bot do the hard work for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Akita (dog), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talkcontribs) 21:35, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Hideki Tōjō[edit]

Hideki Tōjō has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Hideki Tōjō -- (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fusō-class battleship/archive1[edit]

Just a pointer to one of my FACs that you guys may be interested in. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Two for the price of one: now Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Fusō/archive1 as well. The technical stuff may not be of interest, and it's not necessary to read it (or to do anything you don't feel like like doing at FAC, as long as you say so), but the story of what she and Yamashiro did is pretty rousing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles[edit]

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

East Sea[edit]

The usage of East Sea is under discussion, see talk:East Sea -- (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


A new user created a rather long article Kazusushoku-Hisai that strikes me as original research, if not a hoax. Not only is the name of this supposed kami spelled multiple ways throughout the article, the kanji given are for Hokusai, not an octopus god. I cannot find any English references and can't seem to find anything in Japanese (searching using kana, since the kanji are a mystery). There are lots of references in the article, but the Kasulis page, for instance, does not talk about what the article says it talks about, and the web links are just about octopus culture, not about this supposed god. Can anyone confirm this kami even exists before I mark it for deletion? Michitaro (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a joke, albeit an elaborate one. I think you should go ahead and mark it for deletion. Cckerberos (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It should be speedily deleted. Oda Mari (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


I was just looking at Sino-Xenic and Kanbun and Japanese literature#Ancient literature (until 794) and wondering if there was anyone interested to flesh out a bit with examples of the transitional/co-existence period - such as the Kojiki's Preface vs the body of the Kojiki text? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The uprising in the Iga Ninja[edit]

Please help with translation and the addition of Article. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a thing? I need to find a more detailed history book. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Russian source given is apparently a book on ninjutsu, which raises a few red flags, to say the least. But this was a real thing. Just swap in "local population" for the word "ninja". Cckerberos (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Тэнсё Ига-но ран. Как уже говорилось, в период Сэнгоку-дзидай провинция Ига оказалась «бесхозной». Здесь не было даймё, и всю ситуацию контролировала коалиция госи. Лишь во второй половине XVI в. группа влиятельных госи решила для прикрытия «посадить на престол» выбранного ими «даймё» Никки Дандзё Томоумэ. Никки реально никакой властью не обладал, и положение его всецело зависело от настроения «избирателей». А настроение это было чрезвычайно переменчиво. В результате, Никки оказался попросту вышвырнут за пределы Ига. Однако, Ига занимала чрезвычайно выгодное в стратегическом отношении положение – через нее проходила важнейшая дорога Токайдо, и претендентов на нее было хоть отбавляй. В числе положивших глаз на «бесхозную» провинцию был и могущественный властитель соседней провинции Исэ Китабатакэ Нобуо.....Таким образом, владения рода Ода вошли в соприкосновение с провинцией Ига. При взгляде на эту «бесхозную» территорию у Нобуо не мог не разгореться аппетит. Тем более, что еще приемный «папа», Китабатакэ Томонори, приложил немало сил, чтобы прибрать ее к рукам и даже в качестве своего опорного пункта в Ига выстроил на горе Симоками Тодзимару-яма в г. Набари мощную крепость. В результате Нобуо стал составлять планы захвата Ига. Однако покорить гористую провинцию было не так-то просто. Ведь ее контролировали воинственные госи, славившиеся своей искусностью в ратных делах. В повести «Иранки», созданной предположительно монахом из Ига, о них говорится: «С древних времен лучшие воины Ига вызывали восхищение своей армией. По-скольку в своей жизни они не руководствовались обыденными мотивами, они не обращали внимание на смерть и превращались в сущих злых духов, когда сталкивались с врагами. Они не испытывали поражения, которое считалось бы величайшим позором». Тем не менее Ода Нобуо твердо решился действовать и, когда представился удобный повод – в 1579 г. к нему явился видный самурай из Ига Симояма Каи-но Ками с жалобой на некие «безобразия», творящиеся в провинции, и попросил наказать виновных, приступил к претворению своего плана в жизнь. Первым делом он приказал своему вассалу Такигаве Сабуробэю принять меры к укреплению крепости в Набари, которую, по примеру «папочки», решил использовать в качестве своего плацдарма. Замок Маруяма стоял на холме, высотой в 180 метров, с весьма крутыми склонами. С одной стороны его стены нависали над рекой, что делало штурм с этой стороны совершенно нереальным. Однако некоторые оборонительные сооружения были еще недостроены, а Такигава, вместо того, чтобы все делать в тайне, начал строительство с таким размахом и роскошью, что это тотчас привлекло внимание местных госи. Дзи-дзамураи понимали, что Ода Нобуо готовит вторжение в их земли. Поэтому их предводители собрались на совещание в монастыре Хэйраку-дзи близ замка Уэно и, несмотря на то, что между различными кланами существовали значительные разногласия и даже вражда, сумели договориться об организации совместного отпора агрессору. Во главе коалиции встали знаменитые дзёнины Фудзибаяси Нагато-но Ками и Момоти Тамба Ясумицу. После непродолжительных совещаний они и разработали единый план действий. Несколько ниндзя устроились на ра-боту в качестве простых строителей и через несколько дней уже вызнали замыслы Нобуо и все уязвимые места замка. И все же мощь возводимой крепости внушала госи немалые опасения. Поэтому на совещании было решено напасть на нее еще до завершения строительных работ. Заодно планировалось «устранить» и Такигаву Сабуробэя. В июне 1578 г. соединенные войска госи севера и юга провинции Ига во главе с Момоти Тамба неожиданно напали на замок Маруяма. Враг был застигнут врасплох. Ига-моно без труда ворвались в крепость и принялись истреблять ее гарнизон. В этой ситуации часть воинов Оды была блокирована в Маруяма-дзё, часть во главе со своим начальником вырвалась из замка и сосредоточилась в близлежащей деревушке.[1] Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

About the title[edit]

Then first off, I would propose changing the title to Iga ninja uprising, or since gerund should be avoided if possible, I could suggest Iga ninja revolt, Iga ninja rebellion, or Iga ninja insurrection. Also, we could translate directly what's on the J-wiki page: 天正伊賀の乱, which I would translate as Tenshō Iga Revolt. Any English language sources out there? If not, we're breaking ground here. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I linked one in my comment above. Cckerberos (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You did, but I didn't see any formal name. Based on the terms used in that source, we might call it the Iga invasions or Iga campaign, since it was part of Nobunaga's larger effort to subjugate all of Japan. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with any of the suggestions above, including the direct translation of the jawiki title. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are the three main titles I propose, and editors can discuss or vote:

Boneyard90 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

乱 is better translated as "war" in this case. Another Japanese name I've found for this is 伊賀平定 ("Pacification of Iga"/"Iga Campaign"). I don't know which name is in more common use. I don't think we're likely to find much in English on this apart from the article in the book I linked; it's only given a sentence or two in the Japanese books I've checked, and they tend to be much more in depth than English sources. Using Amazon to get a bit of a better look at the article than what's on Google Books, I found this sentence "The emergence of the ninja tradition was in fact the result of a harsh defeat at the hands of Oda Nobunaga's army...", which suggests that ninja shouldn't be used in the title. Cckerberos (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A.M. Gorbylev. Invisible way: the true story of ninjutsu. Tenshō Iga no Ran. ( Candidate of Sciences of the History A.M. Gorbylev) The uprising in the Iga Ninja seen in the context history ninja. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you're posting the second link to show that A.M. Gorbylev, the author of the first link, has a Ph.D.? That's fine. I see that in his book/article, he also uses the name Tenshō Iga no Ran (at least that's what I assume "Тэнсё Ига-но ран" means). Cckerberos (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Iga campaign - Nobunaga no was a legitimate ruler of the province of Iga, so it was more a question of foreign invasion, than the suppression of the uprising. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like somebody came up with their own solution. The page was blanked, and made a re-direct to Iga Province. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Historical stuff to work on[edit]

On the main project page, I moved content from the page of a banned user to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people so we could have it outside of userspace. Anyone is welcome to work on any of the articles there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryūkyū province and domain[edit]

Shikai shaw redirected Ryūkyū Province to Ryūkyū Domain. In effect, this is a merge which assumes a false dilemma. This isn't an either-or issue; and red flags are raised by comparisons with Karafuto Province -- see here?

This merge causes an anomaly in Template:Japan Old Province and other articles. I wonder if Wikipedia:Third Opinion is not the best way to move forward with this kind of problem? --Ansei (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Is it a mistake not to point out possible real world consequences of this small wiki-dispute? This is suggested at the top of the page here:

"The status of Ryukyu is ambiguous when looked at from the perspective of modern European international law, although there appears to have been no serious issues concerning the status of Ryukyu at that time." -- Fassbender, Bardo et al. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, p. 483.

Is this about point-of-view? --Ansei (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think there is an issue here. Shikai shaw is the one who first moved the article on the "han" to "Domain" and then created an article on the province, but later decided there did not need to be multiple articles, so he got rid of the article he had made at "province" and restored the redirect to "domain" as it would have been a content fork.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Ryulong -- yes, thank you. The wiki-term "content fork" helps to focus the issue, especially WP:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV.

Stepping back and a wider perspective may help a bit.

Although the 3rd paragraph of Provinces of Japan does not have cite support, can we agree about the draft words of Takanoha, who explained in 2004: "At the Meiji restoration, soon after Han is legitimized as administrative units, they are replaced with Fu (urban prefectures) and Ken (rural prefectures). While, provinces as the address system are not abolished but augumented on the contrary. As of 1871, the number of prefectures are 304, while the number of provinces is 66, aside from Hokkaido and Ryukyu Province. Boundaries among these abundant prefectures are very complicated and not aligned to those of provinces ...."

  1. The Han system began in the Edo period and ended in the early-Meiji period.
  2. The number of domains (han) and the specific boundaries of each changed many times.
  3. The cited sources suggest that Ryūkyū Domain existed between 1872 and 1879; and no one disputes that the article belongs in Category:Domains of Japan.
  1. The system of Provinces of Japan began in the 8th century.
  2. The number of provinces and the specific boundaries of each changed many times.
  3. There are reliable sources which suggest that Ryūkyū Province existed before 1945. Is there disagreement that Ryūkyū Province belongs in Category:Provinces of Japan?
I don't know what points need to be highlighted or explained better, but perhaps it is simplest to argue that the POV of the sets of all articles about Japanese domains and provinces do not need to be mutually exclusive. In other words, the POV of an article about a specific domain and another article about a geographically similar province don't require either/or decision-making. The appropriate and necessary POV content forking is not resolved by
  1. Adding Category:Provinces of Japan to the current article about the domain
  2. Removing Ryūkyū from List of provinces of Japan and Template:Japan Old Province
If I try to develop a new article to replace the redirect page, will you add it to your watchlist? --Ansei (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
There's Ryūkyū Province, which was established in 1872 and solely consisted of Ryūkyū Domain, also established in 1872. The domain ceased to exist in 1878, but the province continues to exist. You're arguing that the two are distinct and each is not just another name for the other, right? The problem is, while perhaps Ryūkyū Domain should be a section of a Ryūkyū Province article (rather than the other way around), I'm not sure if that legal distinction is enough to justify two separate articles. I'm also having difficulty finding anything on Ryūkyū no Kuni as a distinct entity separate from Ryūkyū-koku or anything showing that it had any kind of formal legal existence. The Japanese article on the province just states that 琉球国 was used "as a geographical name in the same way as" the old ritsuryō provinces, which suggests that the name was informal. Cckerberos (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's difficult to see the two as being worth separate articles. You mention here that there are important differences between the two, but after reading the Japanese articles and looking after online, I can't see any that couldn't be resolved with a sentence or two of clarification within the domain article. Cckerberos (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
@Cckerberos -- If I try to develop a new article to replace the redirect page, will you add it to your watchlist? --Ansei (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Cckerberos (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is an "under construction" headnote at Ryūkyū Province and Ryūkyū Domain. There are also small changes at History of the Ryukyu Islands#Satsuma domination, 1609-1871 and at History of the Ryukyu Islands#Ryūkyū Domain, 1872–1879. Please comment. --Ansei (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find ontological differences that require two separate articles you should just merge them back together.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
@Rylong-- I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "ontological differences". The cited sources show that
  • Ryūkyū Province (1609-1947) has a centuries long history which starts in 1609, as shown by cited sources.
  • Ryūkyū Domain (1872-1879) has a very short history of less than a decade with a very specific start date and specific end date which are verified by cited reliable sources
Given these historical facts, I would guess that questions about ontology are only a follow-up subject.

From a 17th century perspective, any ontological issues play out in the patterns of a classical East Asian dialogue which asks "when a white horse is not a horse?" That article's edit history shows that Keahapana wrote here in 2007 that there is sometimes a Western bias in parsing whether "a white horse is not a horse". I wonder if there might be a 21st century bias in ontology questions about Ryūkyū Province? Maybe this kind of issue "entails diverse philosophical concepts including Platonic idealism, Substance theory, logical intension or comprehension versus extension or denotation, and the Primary/secondary quality distinction in epistemology"?

@Ryulong, when I read your words, my first thought was about When a white horse is not a horse#Interpretive context. I guess this is not what you meant, but it is on point. --Ansei (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My English is failing me lately (a hard thing for a native speaker). If there are no historical or functional differences between the domain and the province then there is no reason to have two separate pages for them, which was exactly the case we had before the page move.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
One historical difference is the dates -- 1609-1945 is not the same as 1872-1879.

The structural difference between the province and the domain is part of what motivates my investment of time in this small article, but this is difficult to explain. I guessed that specific date differences + cite support would be enough to defend the need for two articles. --Ansei (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The latter is a subset of the former though. And we should really ask ourselves if 7 years of history where the islands were only called a different name is worth creating a separate article for.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Ontological differences

Can this be explained in a simpler way?

When the Ryūkyū Domain was created in 1872, Japan's feudal han system had developed in unique ways. The domain was a political and economic abstraction based on periodic cadastral surveys and projected agricultural yields.[han 1] In other words, the domain was defined in terms of kokudaka, not land area.[han 2] This was different than the feudalism of the West.

  1. ^ Mass, Jeffrey P. and William B. Hauser. (1987). The Bakufu in Japanese History, p. 150.
  2. ^ Elison, George and Bardwell L. Smith (1987). Warlords, Artists, & Commoners: Japan in the Sixteenth Century, p. 18.

@Ryulong -- does this provide a satsifactory answer to the ontology question you asked? -- Ansei (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we forget the fact I used the word "ontology"? I probably used it wrong. My question is that is it necessary to have a separate article on one short 7-year period of the history of the islands?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. In my opinion, the answer is yes. We need both Ryūkyū Province and Ryūkyū Domain. In part, this is explained in a major re-write of Han system. If needed, I can try to explain with reasons which are more difficult to write about simply.

In my opinion, you earned everyone's thanks by using the word "ontology". It was an outside the box catalyst. The term helped me to look at Japanese provinces and domains in a fresh way.

In addition, the word suggests tactics and a strategy for creating and defending a new article on a related subject -- Ryūkyū region. Perhaps this summer we can work together on this?

In the meantime, I wonder if Ryūkyū region should be a redirect to Ryūkyū islands? As you may know,

Looking ahead, any perceived need for content forks is not yet married with sources supporting it. In my opinion, there appears to be a need for this -- for example, compare MNI (Market News International), "Update: BOJ: 8 of 9 Japan Regions Cut Views; Economy Weak," January 15, 2013; retrieved 2013-3-28. --Ansei (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Japanese film[edit]

{{Infobox Japanese film}} has been proposed to be eliminated, see WP:TFD -- (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

N518484998 146142 6541.jpg[edit]

file:N518484998 146142 6541.jpg (Japanese curry) has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Image issues[edit]

Several images from the article Black Thunder (chocolate bar) were deleted this morning at Wikimedia Commons, apparently for being non-free use images (it was an inadvertent violation). I opened discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, requesting help finding a solution, yet I only get the redundant "not allowed" formula answer. There are numerous images of brand-products, so what was wrong with the Black Thunder images? How can I get an acceptable image uploaded? Can anyone help? Boneyard90 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Daikon (Japanese radish)[edit]

Daikon has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Daikon -- (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)