Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2011

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: 02:04, January 28, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (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

Transcription of Tosa Nikki by Fujiwara no Tameie


I have a question concerning the 1236 transcription of the Tosa Nikki by Fujiwara no Tameie ([1], [2]). According to this book (page 94), the 1236 transcription today only exists in the form of a copy from 1600. On the other hand, I did not see this statement (that the document) is a copy from 1600) anywhere else. So my question is: Is this National Treasure from 1236 or from 1600? ([ some more info on the same object). bamse (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just found the following here: 『土左日記』の写本は、従来、この為家本を忠実に臨模した青谿書屋本(大島雅太郎氏旧蔵、現東海大学所蔵)が、貫之自筆本の本文を最もよく伝えた最善本とされてきた。本書はその親本にあたり、昭和六十年に重要文化財、今回さらに国宝に指定された. I am not sure about the exact translation, and would appreciate help by somebody more fluent in Japanese. (This discussion might help with translation.) Thanks. bamse (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It's 1236 manuscript, 為家筆本 [3]. 1600 manuscript is 青谿書屋本 (Seikei Shooku-bon) in Tokai Univ library. [4] While the size of 為家筆本 is 16.8 x 15.3cm (see page 4, 青谿書屋本 is 17.3 x 15.9cm (see 一六). According to this page (see 2000/8/12), 為家筆本 is a 1984 find. Oda Mari (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Would have been strange if the treasure was a secondary copy from 1600, but that Kornicki book really confused me. bamse (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


template:Mahjong has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese translation needed

I found some information that could help to add creation information to some articles I've been working in: This one, this one, this and this ones, but it's all in Japanese so it may require a person who knows Japanese to check it. I know it would be more suitable to ask at WP:Anime, but sadly there are no translators there. Anyway, Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Gunma town name - "Shin" or "Shinmachi"?

An editor insists that the former town described in the article Shin, Gunma should correctly be named "Shinmachi" in English. I suspect the problem arises due to confusion between the fact that the article is about the former town, which should be named in accordance with standard Wikipedia policy, rather than the present district in the city of Takasaki, which may or may not be correctly called "Shinmachi". Can someone else please have a look, and perhaps add some input to the talk page? Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, I think the common practice should prevail over our policy. It's not Shin-machi but Shinmachi. "-machi" is inseparable from the name, unlike other towns. ja:新町 lists other Shinmachis. For example, another Shinmachi in Nagano Prefecture is now part of Nagano City. We would have to name all these towns "Shin"but it's strange. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely Shinmachi. See my comment on the article talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Google cannot find articles with macrons

Hi! Anybody noticed what Maculosae tegmine lyncis observed here? Can it be fixed? bamse (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised this with Village Pump, and they are suggesting a word with the Google engineers... Or some kind of list of keywords? (Try Zuihōden/Zuihoden & Ōtsuka Museum of Art/Otsuka Museum of Art in Google to see the issue), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mfd Hello! Project

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project. Thank you. --Kleinzach 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How to cite dictionaries


Is there a citation template for citing information from online dictionaries? I am particularly interested in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten and 国史大辞典. bamse (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can get an absolute URL for the entry, then you can use {{cite web}}. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I used {{cite encyclopedia}} together with the "url" parameter which also works. For some reason, it does not support "trans_title" though. bamse (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It does now (I just added it). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Importance of Tōdai-ji

I was thinking the article on Tōdai-ji should have a Top-importance rating. I'd like to open the floor to comments and objections. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Based on this, I'd rather go with a "high" since I am not sure how well known it is among non-Japanophiles, and I doubt that it is "known in the majority of the world". bamse (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It's one of the most important temples in Japan and the most important one in Nara. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well if that's the case, why don't we beef up the article, get it promoted to FA, and spread the word, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. I'd join in this project if others do as well. Could contribute a bit to history, architecture and possibly sculptures. bamse (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not, if others do; on the history front, I see the table of 'Major historical events' ends in 855, presumably that can't be right (didn't something happen at the end of the Heian period?); on the architecture front, there are many ICP buildings too; there are indeed many great sculptures (shame about image restrictions), and I'm sure other ?artefacts? also; I think the Shōsōin should have its own section rather than a brief mention as it's uber important; there's nothing on festivals/rites such as Omizutori etc. The last quality check flagged refs and 'accessibility' as the main issues; I guess the former is ok if tedious to resolve, while the latter may need more thought/effort, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I did the assessment; I've been working on assessing Japan articles in the Unassessed category, but this is, I think, the first article I found that I thought deserved Top-importance. In the assessment, I X'd References, because as is probably obvious, there are a number of claims sprinkled throughout the article that need references. I gigged "Accessibility" because there are a number of terms which need brief explanation, like the Shuni-e festival or Kukai, the monk. They're linked, but a reader shouldn't have to follow 2 or 3 links in a short paragraph. A short gloss should satisfy most of these. I kind of teetered on X'ing "Coverage", because as Maculosae points out, it seems like there's a gap in history between the 9th and 20th centuries. SO - am I seeing a majority opinion here? I note only one dissenting statement on the issue of "Importance", and a unified call for improvement of article content. Shall we leave discussion open for a couple more days? Boneyard90 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Tōdai-ji is super important for Japan. My dissent on top importance is based simply on the definition in the importance scale I linked to above, which requires being well known and important outside of Japan as well. Possibly this definition needs to be reformulated. Anyway, don't take it as a strong dissent, having it as top importance article is perfectly fine with me. So who is going to improve this article? bamse (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Done. I think it's about time the definition or criteria for Top-importance needs to be revised to include topics that have defined Japanese history and culture, even if they are not known outside Japan. After all, how many non-Japanophiles know about Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Hideyo Noguchi, or the Genpei War? (all Top-importance)
On the other hand, I think the list of Top-importance articles should be reviewed and culled. Are Aomori city, Sapporo, Takeshi Kitano, and Studio Ghibli really core topics on Japan? Boneyard90 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess the question is, how (and for what) are the importance ratings used on wikipedia? I don't know the answer, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment tells me: The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). So significance for Japanese history and culture is not a good argument here, even though I'd love to see articles on Japanese history and culture to be regarded as "top". Honestly, I doubt that many editors care about these importance ratings and rather contribute to articles that are important to them or interest them. In my opinion, the present importance ratings could simply be automatically extracted by analysing the article traffic statistics, so they don't really provide any additional information. So, instead of having importance ratings depend on "general interest", some kind of importance rating (in addition to the existing one) based on significance for Japan would be more interesting in my opinion. bamse (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts, I think, though it would be tough to evaluate the importance of a new article based on number of views. I merely brought this up because I thought Todai-ji deserved Top-importance, and the guideline state: "No member should give [Top] rating to any article without first getting Project approval from the other members." Boneyard90 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I am going to be there on Saturday so I can take some extra photos of the inside if you guys think we can use them. There are also some really neat scale models behind the Dai-butsu that show what it looked liked before each of the two fires I can get shots of. I can take some shots of people going through the hole in the support post as well of course. I just don't know if that is so usable here. Just let me know if you have any requests. I am not a super good photographer but I do have access to some nice equipment at least. I am not sure if it can be considered the most important temple in Nara though. Certainly it is the biggest tourist attraction but from historical, political, and religious perspectives Kōfuku-ji seems much more significant. But that is not really a topic to discuss here I suppose. Colincbn (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Both temples are included in the seven greatest temples of Nara: Nanto Shichi Daiji. Kōfuku-ji used to be really powerful and bigger than it is now, but many structures have been lost due to a series of fire. That's why Tōdai-ji comes out on top today. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm still confused with the importance rating. Who is the "average reader of Wikipedia"? Among the articles mentioned above, I feel that all except Takeshi Kitano and Studio Ghibli qualify as top-importance, and even these two are very important for fans. I guess objective assessments are really hard. As bamse says, perhaps we need different criteria, at least in this WikiProject. I personally focus on adding images, sources and translations to articles of my interest. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

At least in the Nara period, Tōdai-ji seems more important than Kōfuku-ji to me. But I agree that both are great temples and the Kōfuku-ji article deserves to be more than a stub. I left my picture wishlist at your (Colincbn's) talk page. In addition pictures of the scale models would be nice to have as well. Thanks already! bamse (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Re Boneyard90: I think number of views/day is generally good indicator of "general interest", though I agree that some factors should be considered such as temporary spikes in the view number (due to appearance on the main page for instance), or the way readers get to an article (directly or through a wikilink from another article). bamse (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think there are enough photos of Todai-ji already; there's even one of the pillar with the hole in it. This issue was commented on back in 2008, see Talk:Tōdai-ji#Too many pics.
As for importance, it's true, it is subjective. I use the stated guidelines, but also ask myself such questions as:
  • How much did this topic influence the culture, history, people of Japan?
  • Was this subject a "first" or "most" in its field? And how important is this field?
  • How many people did this topic affect? (a small minority, a fair amount of the population, a fair amount and some on the international scene, a mjority in Japan, everybody in Japan...)
    • For example a "first" of minor effect in a sub-genre of lolita-porn-anime is still going to rate "Low" because its such a restricted sub-set of people that are involved.
    • However, while pachinko is not well-known in the West, it has still had a major influence on Japanese culture, sociology, family issues, crime, electricity consumption...
Subjective, but I do try to remain consistent. I hope I have allayed any concerns that I might be too arbitrary in my evaluations. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Fully agree with your way of assessment. As for too many photos, the discussion you linked to is about the Tōdai-ji article where the pictures to prose ratio is indeed too high at the moment. This could be fixed by the necessary expansion of the article. While I agree that there are sufficient images available for the Daibutsuden, Big Buddha, etc, I would like to remind that Tōdai-ji is a big temple with lots of buildings and some of the lesser known ones or interiors are not yet adequately represented with images on commons. Of course we don't want all those images in the Tōdai-ji article, but images are also needed for other articles such as Lists of National Treasures of Japan or articles related to Buddhist architecture. So please anybody who has the opportunity, please contribute images of less photographed things related to Tōdai-ji (or Japanese stuff in general). bamse (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
On the image front there are indeed still many buildings without photos, as per the Todaiji talk page, plus all the statues etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of Top-Importance articles

I move that the following articles be downgraded from Top-importance:

  • Aomori, Aomori - Great city, but has not significantly altered the history of Japan, and I would argue it is not well known outside of Japan.
    • Suggested downgrade: Mid.
  • Sapporo - Slightly more influential in Japanese history as the capital of the Republic of Ezo. Mostly known outside of Japan for the beer, the ski slopes, the 1972 Winter Olympics, and the annual Sapporo Snow Festival.
    • Suggested downgrade: High
  • Takeshi Kitano - Popular comedian and actor who's on multiple TV shows and ads for English schools, though notability outside Japan is doubtful. While notable and popular, his effect on Japanese culture and/or the entertainment industry can be debated.
    • Suggested downgrade: Mid or High.
  • Studio Ghibli - Animation studio that has produced some of the most recognizeable and celebrated works of modern anime. Not sure how many people would know the name of the studio. While the name might not be known, cinematic anime would be quite different without the studio.
    • Suggested downgrade: High.

I'm all ears, folks. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All fine with me. bamse (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd give a higher rating than High to Sapporo. It's the largest city to the north of Tokyo. It was the seat of the Hokkaido Development Commission (ja:開拓使) and. has been the political, economic, and academic center of Hokkaido. Also, it hosted international events like the FIFA World Cup, and the Toyako Summit and the APEC meetings (the main venue was Yokohama).
* Has a large impact outside of Japan? Yes.
* Known in the majority of the world? Probably no, but if you look for information on these international events, you will most likely know this city --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with downgrading Aomori, Aomori to High, but not to Mid as it's a prefectural capital. Sapporo is quite well known internationally, so I think it should remain at Top. Same with Takeshi Kitano who has achieved significant notability outside Japan. The same goes for Studio Ghibli, which is arguably the most well known animation studio in the world outside of Walt Disney Animation. I think it should remain Top. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Before taking action, I suggest that this discussion remain open for one week from its initiation. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So after one week, here's how I read the trend of opinions: Aomori is moved to High importance, Sapporo stays at Top, Takeshi Kitano and Studio Ghibli both downgrade to High (two editors in favor of downgrades, one against, one had no opinion). Boneyard90 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese nuclear weapon program

There is a notice at WT:MILHIST about Japanese nuclear weapon program. (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so much a notice as a request. You can find it here: WT:MILHIST#Neutrality review request: Japanese nuclear weapon program. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 21, I am proposing the merger of Category:Onsen with Category:Hot springs of Japan. --Bxj (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Please follow the link and add your vote there if you'd wish. --Bxj (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fukushima explosion.jpg

File:Fukushima explosion.jpg has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

MEXT document on Japanese names

According to Google Translate talks about Japanese names

But what is MEXT saying about how they are treated in English (bottommost part?) - Does it say who established the given name - family name order? What is it saying about the survey results? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The document just says that the practice of writing in the GN-FN order was establishd during the Meiji-era Westernization. As for the survey, it asked how the Japanese names should be written in English, after noting that in English newspapers and magazinesm, Chinese and Korean names are commonly written in the FN-GN order. The result was: should be kept in the FN-GN order (34.9%), reorder them in the GN-FN order (30.6%), not sure (29.6%) --Kusunose 03:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'll post the info to Japanese names article WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)