Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Saneatsu Mushanokōji

I don't know anything about this guy, but I was looking up a reference to him, and read the Japanese article first. According to the Japanese article, his name -- while usually read Mushanokōji -- was actually Mushakōji, although the reading was occasionally given incorrectly. The man himself appears to have been pretty sure it was Mushakōji. The English sources listed give Mushanokōji, but it seems that might not be accurate. I'm not really sure what to do with this one. Doceirias (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ja.wiki says his surname was once pronounced as むしゃのこうじ, but he apparently said it was an error in how people were pronouncing it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What do actual reference say? The following Japanese references at hand have entries for Mushanokōji Saneatsu:

• Nihon Rekishi Daijiten
• Nihonshi Jiten
• Kin-gendai Bungaku Jiten
• Britannica (Japanese)
• Mypedia
• Nikkoku
• Daijirin
• Daijisen

None of them attempt to even note an alternative reading, so the point is rather moot if even relevant. The Japanese article neglects to give any references. By the way, this has nothing to do with the MOS-JP. Bendono (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a source. Oda Mari (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a decent source for any additions we might want to make about alternative readings, but do people think it's enough grounds to move the article? Doceirias (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Other languages

The Other languages section currently says a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). That's actually rather misleading: even if it were Japanese, ドウモイ would be transliterated doumoi, and even if not Japanese, ドーモイ is still dōmoi. Is there a better example of what this is trying to say, or should it just be nuked? Jpatokal (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ドウ is "dō" in Hepburn romaji. The section should say not to use Hepburn romaji for Ainu or Ryukyuan or whatever other languages use katakana as their alphabet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. (Didn't you learn anything from last time?) For foreign words (incl. Ainu and Ryukyuan), ドウ is IPA /doɯ/ (two distinct vowels), while ドー is the long vowel /doː/. The only exceptions are a limited number of Japanese words used primarily in scientific names.

ja:長音符 puts it well: 長音符は主に片仮名で外来語（例：テーブル）や擬音・擬態語（例：ニャーン、シーッ）の長音を 表記する場合に使われる。現代の日本語の表記では外来語や擬音・擬態語以外で片仮名を使う場合は限られているが、外来語や擬音・擬態語以外では、片仮名表 記であっても原則として長音符は使わず、下記の平仮名と同様の方法で長音を表す（例：シイタケ、フウトウカズラ、セイウチ、ホウセンカ、オオバコ）。(emphases mine) Jpatokal (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The section has nothing to do with that block of text or that discussion we had twice, because this manual of style never changed and it still tells people that if it's ドウ or ドー, for all intents and purposes it should be written in Hepburn as dō if it is a Japanese word or one of the loan words the Japanese language has acquired over the past 200 years of foreign interaction (and let's please not go through that shit again). The "other languages" section is just describing what one should do with words of Ainu or Ryukyuan origin, such as アイヌモシㇼ being romanized as Ainu mosir (even though sometimes アイヌ is "Aynu" and other times it's "Ainu") and not Ainu moshiri, and ウチナー being romanized as Uchinaa and not Uchinā.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ryūlóng is correct: that section only applies to non-Japanese languages which use katakana. It applies to nothing else. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly, but what I'm saying is that the section as written makes no sense.

First, Ainu has an "accepted standard transliteration" directly into romaji, so according to the MoS we should be using "Aynu", not Ainu. And in fact we already are: see eg. Ainu language, which starts off with "Ainu (Ainu: アイヌ・イタㇰ, Aynu itak)". See List of Ainu terms for a handy cheat sheet of correct romaji spellings.

Second, if we use it as an example anyway, a "direct katakana to romaji translation" of アイヌモシㇼ is A-i-nu-mo-shi-r in Hepburn, or A-i-nu-mo-si-r in Kunrei. So is that section trying to say "use Hepburn", in which case it's redundant, or "don't use Hepburn", in which case it doesn't define what, exactly, should be used instead? (JSL!?) Jpatokal (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that all pages on the Ainu/Aynu on the English Wikipedia appear to be using the Japanese spelling (full sized イ), but this appears to be the fact for all websites that try to write in the Ainu language (because the smaller sized katakana outside of the vowels, tsu, and the Y's are near impossible to type). But the section says that the methods for romanizing those languages (which is not direct romaji for Ainu, but it is for Ryukyu) should be used and not Hepburn or Kunrei or anything. Your example for "a-i-nu-mo-shi/si-r" is not Hepburn or Kunrei, because the "r" phoneme does not exist in the language those systems are meant to romanize. Right now, the only issue that you think exists is that Hepburn means that ドウ should be dou and not dō, even if it is used in a gairaigo word. This is not the case. If it is in nihongo, wasei-eigo, or gairaigo, ドウ is dō.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep using this weird phrase "direct romaji" -- what exactly does it mean? Katakana is a language-independent script, converting it to another script requires transliteration, and the acknowledged transliteration standards for converting katakana into Latin script are Hepburn and Kunrei. So do you mean one of these two, or something else?

And while you're at it, can you please explain why you disagree with the MOS and think that ドウモイ should be spelled dōmoi, while simultaneously holding the opinion that ウチナー should be uchinaa? Jpatokal (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Direct romaji" is effectively Wapuro or modified Hepburn, but doubling the vowel with ー instead of writing "[vowel]-". Also, I do not disagree with the MOS at all. In Japanese (Nihongo), ドウモイ is dōmoi in Hepburn romaji. There's nothing in the MOS that says that it should be written as "doumoi" as you believe. In Okinawan (Uchinaaguchi), ウチナー is Uchinaa because there is no standard method of romanizing the Okinawan and other Ryukyuan languages, so we go with the wapuro method.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Now that's a remarkable piece of chutzpah -- because until you started screwing around with it yesterday, the MOS stated (bold mine):

If no accepted standard transliteration method for that language exists, and the word is generally written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi").

Your definition of "direct romaji" is nonsensical, since we're transliterating from kana into Latin. The issue is thus not "how to write a long vowel", but "how to represent the kana ドウ or ナー with Latin letters". And you're really tying yourself in knots here anyway, since if we "go with the wapuro method", then ウチナー is uchinaa and ドウモイ is doumoi! (ドウモイ, in case you didn't realize, is also an Okinawan word.) Jpatokal (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My arguments are based on the fact that the word ドウモイ if it existed in the modern Japanese language it would be parsed as dōmoi in the romaji systems we use on the English Wikipedia. I am not saying that ドウモイ is dōmoi in romanizing Okinawan, which is why the table uses that word. The wapuro/modified Hepburn method is used only for the Ryukyuan languages. Revised Hepburn is used only for Japanese and Aynu/Ainu has its own method.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, now you're finally starting to make some sense, and I'm glad to see you've changed your mind regarding Ainu and you've admitted your mistake re: domoi.

Now please explain why we should use modified Hepburn for Okinawan, instead of revised Hepburn? In addition to the obvious advantage of staying consistent, the macroned spelling seems more common as well: Google gets me 21,900 hits for uchināguchi, vs under 7000 for uchinaaguchi. Jpatokal (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Both modified and revised Hepburn are for transliterating nihongo. There is no method for transliterating uchinaaguchi. Some people use Uchinaa. Some use Uchina. I was recently watching a video of a man teaching the language, and while he referred to it as uchinaaguchi (there were English subtitles), in various points when his speech was being subtitled in the English alphabet, the ー was used but the romaji did not make note of that extended vowel. I mentioned modified Hepburn because it appears the closest to what was originally meant by "direct kana to romaji", and wapuro produces its own problems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope: transliteration is the process of changing from one script to another. Since the kana used to write Okinawan are the same as those used for Japanese, the same transliteration systems can be used as well. But you didn't answer the question: why use modified, when we use revised for everything else on WP? Jpatokal (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not right, just look at talk:Kiev the script conversion is from Cyrillic to Latin, but "Kiev" is Russian while "Kyiv" is Ukrainian. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a different language. The rules in one don't apply to the other. And I only suggested modified Hepburn because it is the closest to what was meant for "direct kana to romaji" as it was originally written. Okinawan is not Japanese. They are related, but it is not a dialect. If there was a standard method to romanizing Okinawan, it'd be in use on the English Wikipedia. There isn't one so we have to decide on one. Because it is not Japanese, we do not use the system we use to romanize Japanese on this project. We use something else to show that it is a different language, in the rare instances where it is used (sata andagi, Okinawa Prefecture, Ryukyuan languages, etc.).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- you're arguing that you intentionally want to adopt a different style of Hepburn "to show that it is a different language"? How does that work when the word has no long vowels, and isn't that why we slap tags like "Okinawan:" or "Ainu:" in front of any non-English terms? Jpatokal (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not Japanese. Let me bluntly ask you this: Why the fuck should we use a Japanese romanization system to romanize it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Kana is originally a Japanese script.

2) Both revised and modified Hepburn were originally designed for transcribing Japanese. Jpatokal (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Uchinaaguchi uses kanji/hanzi, hiragana, and katakana in a method that is extremely separated from mainland Japanese. So we shouldn't use the system that we use exclusively for Japanese on this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm increasingly puzzled by your assertions.

1. Both modified and revised Hepburn are used for Japanese and for Okinawan (cf. the Google search above, which returns hits for both).
2. Modified and revised Hepburn are phonologically identical, the only difference is in the rendering of long vowels. Both are thus equally suited (or equally unsuitable) for rendering Okinawan kana. Jpatokal (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okinawan and its related languages do not have a standardized method for romanization. To show it is different from Japanese, we here at the English Wikipedia, in the rare instances where we do discuss the languages, should use a different method to romanize it than we do for Japanese. Because most people who romanize the Okinawan languages use the "double all long vowels" instead of macrons or circumflexes, we should use that rather than revised Hepburn. The closest this comes to for methods that we do have a name for is modified Hepburn. That is why I suggested that name, because it is effectively the name for the method that was in use beforehand, such as at Okinawan language, sata andagi, Okinawa Prefecture, etc.

Exactly what about what I'm saying is confusing? Because we use Revised for Nihongo, we should use something else for Uchinaaguchi, and that something else is generally Modified.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Points

1. a different romanization method would be useful to indicate that it isn't Japanese, if you use a wapuro like system as Ryulong suggests, that's fine by me, and would be useful in pointing out that it is different, especially in articles that use both Japanese and Okinawan/Ryukyu terms.
2. just because it uses the same script does not mean it automatically uses the same romanization. Just look at Ukrainian, which uses the same script as Russian, but different romanizations. This is where the arguments that take up Talk:Kiev come up... where Ukrainian romanization is "Kyiv" and Russian romanization is "Kiev".
   • If you want an example of romanization closer to Japan, look at tongyong pinyin and hanyu pinyin, both used for Mandarin romanization, but for different countries. (well, formerly for Taiwan, and the mainland, respectively).

76.66.195.196 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the "Okinawan:" and "Japanese:" label more than enough to indicate what language we're talking about? There are plenty of words that will look identical in revised and modified,

There is an accepted standard of romanization for Ainu, and we are using it. However, there is no standard that we've been able to find for Okinawan languages. Jpatokal (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop going around in fucking circles, Jpatokal. Okinawan and the Ryukyuan languages don't have a standardized method. We know that. And this has nothing to do with indicating that an item is in either language. The thing is that in general when the Okinawan language is romanized, they go with writing ウチナー as Uchinaa instead of Uchina, Uchiná, Uchinà, Uchinâ, Uchinä, Uchinǎ, Uchinā, Uchinã, Uchinå, or Uchiną. So for all intents and purposes, we should use the system that uses that method of indicating extended vowels which is, as far as Wikipedia's articles on romanizing Japanese is concerned, "modified Hepburn". Except for the handful of phonemes unique to the Ryukyuan languages (てぃ ti, とぅ tu, をぅ wu, くぃ kwi), modified Hepburn will be fine as a romanization method for Wikipedia when it comes to romanizing these languages, and any other language spoken in Japan that is not Japanese or Ainu. This is what the MOS said before Nihonjoe and I's slight rewording for clarity, and until you thought that it was a travesty that we're not using revised Hepburn for a Japonic language's transliteration.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Got cite for "in general when the Okinawan language is romanized..."? As stated earlier, Google gets me 21,900 hits for uchināguchi, vs under 7000 for uchinaaguchi. And oh, we're having this discussion because I questioned the MOS's odd choice of words. Jpatokal (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you click the Omniglot link? Also Google makes no determination between letters with or without diacritics, so therefore you are getting all of the results for "Uchinaguchi" in addition to the ones you are getting for "Uchināguchi". To be more accurate, here's a search for uchināguchi -uchinaguchi (84 hits). So technically, the most common search result is for "Uchinaguchi" (18,800 hits). But this method does not show the extended vowels. Therefore, we should use the method that shows extended vowels and has the next highest hit count: "Uchinaaguchi".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ikimono-gakari -> Ikimono Gakari?

Recently, the article Ikimono-gakari has been edited to change the name first to Ikimonogakari and then to Ikimono Gakari. I reverted the changes based on the [www.ikimonogakari.com official website]'s use of "ikimono-gakari" as the title string and the lack of either "Ikimonogakari" or "Ikimono Gakari" anywhere else on the site (to my knowledge; I used various search strings on Google: see: "Ikimono-gakari" [1] and "Ikimono+Gakari"). I did this based on my understanding of MOS:JAPAN#Names of companies, products, and organizations, which favors the official Romanizations over what is "common". I pointed to the MoS in my edit summary explaining the reversion.

After I made this edit, the article was moved by a sysop to Ikimono Gakari with the justification that this is the more common name for the band. I'm concerned about the move for two reasons:

1. I don't believe its actually been established which is the more common Romanization; no sources were supplied to substantiate that. So far, the only thing I can find is that Google suggests an autocorrection to Ikimono Gakari, which is hardly official. In fact, searching for the term "Ikimono Gakari" on google will list sites that use "ikimono-gakari" and vice versa as well.
2. Even if it is more common, it seems [[MOS:JAPAN#Names of companies, products, and organizations|that is not relevant]] to how we Romanize articles as long as there is an official reading. And since the official homepage ikimonogakari.com only has the version with the dash (ikimono-gakari), I believe the move does not conform with this manual of style.

However, the user that moved it is a sysop, so this is beyond my level of comfort in attempting to apply the MoS, so I've posted here in order that either my understanding of the MoS can be corrected, a more official source of which I am unaware can be revealed, or, consensus can be reached on how the article should be named in a way that reflects the MoS guidelines. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the band use? That's always the one that is used regardless of any fandom spellings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Their website uses ikimono-gakari and a discussion post in Talk:Ikimono-gakari has been made to the effect that ikimono-gakari is used in their albums as well.

-- Joren (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL#Non-English games

This guideline set basically says that if the translated title resembles the original Japanese title in anyway, the romaji version of the title should be omitted. This was brought to my attention after Jinnai reverted my edits to the lead of Bishōjo game after I added "Bishōjo gēmu" and "gyarugē" to the lead. Basically, I don't think anyone does this on the project at all and I think it conflicts with the manual of style here. I'll be raising the issue at WT:VG in a bit, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference last time this was discussed陣内_Jinnai 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on that page concerns this discussion. That was concerning a specific romaji spelling. Not when romaji does not need to be included.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The last time it was brought up, WP:VG basically stated, "Bugger off." They don't give a damn about what WP:MOS-JA says. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its because it feels unnecessary when the item is item is an English word or it uses romaji, but without the special characters. Possibly also the tone taken that MOS-J superceded the VG guideline didn't help.陣内_Jinnai 04:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The romaji should be included unless it is exactly identical to the "English" name of the subject. That is why you don't see romaji used on Tokugawa Ieyasu or Bishōjo. It should never be taken into account whether or not the names are similar, because the Japanese language doesn't merely take loanwords from English, and while geemu (game) is most certainly English in origin, teema (theme), buranko (swing), etc. aren't. The romaji is meant for pronunciation purposes, and when you have something like "galge" and don't give the romaji, no one is able to tell that it's read as gyarugee.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, style guidelines with a broader scope are applied first and generally supersede those with a more narrow scope. WP:MOS-JA generally has a much broader scope that project-specific guidelines such as that used by WP:VG. This is the same for any time where guidelines may contradict. For WP:VG to override MOS-JA only on video game articles is not good, and Ryulong gives above some good reasons why. Including the romaji is not going to ruin the video game article, and it will enhance the usefulness of the article. It doesn't detract in any way. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This does appear to be turning into another "bugger off" situation. Especially because Jinnai has cited a discussion that has nothing to do with this issue at hand, and is merely trying to use it to his advantage due to its length and complexity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ninonioe - VG guideline's scope is probably larger than MOS-J as it includes not just video games, but those items releated to them. I would also say that it was never stated clearly why romaji was needed for names for English words during that whole discussion I cited even though it was brought up. The Japanese characters, yes its clear. The romaji, not so much.陣内_Jinnai 16:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to spell my name. You didn't even come close, and I know you know how to spell it. (^_^) MOS-JA applies to any Japan-related article, and since any video game that was originally published in Japan is automatically Japan-related, it's covered. There are around 30,000 articles that are tagged as part of the project, and I know there are others which haven't yet been tagged. The romaji is needed because it shows how it's said in Japanese, something not always obvious, even for experts. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, no one from the WT:VG thread is coming here because they're being insular and stubborn.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that this is a big racist argument seeing as they refer to it as "English spoken with a bad Japanese accent", considering the fact that Fainaru Fantajī was absent from every single Final Fantasy main series video game page (FFX-2 still had the text from the last time I put it there). This has been rectified. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, please be civil. The VG project is not trying to be racist.

As I stated on the VG page, the romaji seems like overkill. Katakana is intended for Japanese to accommodate foreign words via its regular phonemes. It seems like a technicality to include the Japanese pronunciation for words that are intended to be pronounced in English or any other native language. I'm sure there are exceptions, like those you listed above, but for the most part I think it is unnecessary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

It's not only a pronunciation thing but it's a "how are these non English characters read" thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

Also, I must admit that I'm playing catch up with the discussion, which seems lengthy and fragmented. Is there a collection of links to previous threads? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

If you have the Kana version, why do you need the Romaji version? If it's almost the same to the international version or English version, then the Kana version is all that's needed, no? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a fair number of people in the world (I dare say "most") who can't read kana, so the romaji assist in those people reading them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But "ファイナルファンタジー" is intended to be read as "Final Fantasy". I would think that adding in "Fainaru Fantajii" would cause more confusion. As you said, most people can't read kana. That being the case, why would they know the Japanese syllables associated with the kana to read and pronounce the romaji correctly? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

"Final Fantasy" what "ファイナルファンタジー" is intended to be read as, as you say. It is not what it is read as. That's where this manual of style comes in.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider that splitting hairs as the words are loan words from English. Mind you, I'd consider that a valid argument for exceptions, but not for common words an average reader on an English language site would know.

Regardless, if the reader has no context for Japanese kana, how would they be able to properly read or pronounce the romaji? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

That's what this manual of style is for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You've said that twice, but I don't think I follow. Does {{nihongo}} provide a link to the manual of style as a reference for readers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

(editconflict)I agree with Guy. That's trying to split hairs without larger consesus (beyond this page) which ultimately just confuses the reader as they aren't clear which one is corrent to pronouce it as. It doesn't serve much purpose because ファイナルファンタジー is not suppose to be pronounced "Fainaru Fantajii"; it is meant to be pronounced "Final Fantasy" because those are English words. That Japanese vocabulary isn't adapted perfectly to English does not need to be emphasized as anyone pronouncing it "Fainaru Fantajii" when they could pronounce it "Final Fantasy" would just look stupid.

As exceptions to the rule, its a valid argument. One of those might be modern naming schemes for indivisuals. As some broad-all-encompassing statement, no and I don't think it would have much support outside here and the few daughter wikiprojects. The most comprable MOS to this, WP:MOS-ZH is not so rigid. By stating "there are no exceptions" you are trying to elevate (atleast that section) above a guideline to policy because guidelines are suppose to guide, not dictat, with allowances for exceptions. Coming here it seems those here are opposed to any form of exception even when it is a narrow one like English-loan words using katakana.陣内_Jinnai 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Guy: Well, it provides a link to Help:Installing Japanese character sets, but the purpose of the template is to A) Show the English name of the subject, B) Show the Japanese name of the subject, and C) show the method by which the Japanese name of the subject is read. You and Jinnai keep saying "but ファイナルファンタジー isn't meant to be pronounced as Fainaru Fantajii" but that's what the Japanese call it in their language, and it is their game.

@Jinnai: Why do you and Guy keep referencing the fact that "the Japanese can't pronounce the English name"? It does not matter if the title is a series of loan words or simply something in English that they decided to write in katakana instead of English. The fact of the matter is that it does not make the article worse to include Fainaru Fantajī Tuerubu in the lead paragraph. Articles on anime whose titles don't differ that much in English and Japanese don't seem to have any sort of problem using the redundant romaji as those at WP:VG feel such content would be. Why should Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy be treated any differently from Dragon Ball or Eureka Seven or One Piece? They shouldn't. It's Japanese text and as a courtesy to our readers we should include the romaji equivalent at all times unless the romaji equivalent is completely identical to the English title. There should not be any leeway to say that "it's not our fault that the Japanese language lacks the phonemes required to say 'Final Fantasy'". Hell, I've even just found that we don't even give the romaji for "Famicom" because of WP:VG's guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Or for that matter, none of Nintendo's hardware have romaji.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't consider "no harm" a strong argument for including something. Regardless, I believe that including it would do some harm by confusing those not familiar with romaji. Since the reader has no context for interpreting the romaji, it's superfluous to them.

Also, can you think of an instance where the Japanese romaji and English alphabet match up exactly? The two languages have different sets of syllables that follow different pronunciation rules. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

I think this is the problem when it comes to people like Guy and Jinnai who could read the kana: they couldn't understand why the Romaji should be there, citing is as redundant. It's like saying '"ˈpliːsiəsɔər" is unneeded because we know how to pronounce "plesiosaur"'. That's the closest analogy I could come up with, and that's unfortunate. — Blue。 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I concede that could cloud my judgement, but I am trying to view this from a perspective of someone that cannot read the romaji properly. I believe that "Fainaru Fantajii" can easily be read as "Fein-ar-u Fant-agee" and "Doragon Kuesuto" as "Dora-gon Ku-S-utoh".

Perhaps if I offer a solution to my concern, that will help move this along. The average English reader does not know that Japanese follows a consistent pronunciation system for vowels and what those are, that the Japanese "R" is pronounced as a slurred "R" and "L" (call it what you will, but those familiar with Japanese know what I'm talking about), that there are a few foreign syllables that Japanese doesn't handle well, or that combinations of letters doesn't alter the pronunciation of syllables like they do in English.

If this information was easily provided to them when they read the romaji, then my concern is of no issue to me anymore. As Bluerfn alludes to, a link similar to Wikipedia:IPA for English would be good. However, I'd rather not have readers leave the article they are reading to understand how to reader "Fainaru Fantajii" when "Final Fantasy" is perfectly acceptable. I believe this makes reading the article more difficult than it should be. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

Now you're just going insane with this Guy (how someone would go from "Fainaru Fantajii" to "Fein-ar-u Fant-agee" when "Final Fantasy" is a centimeter away). Believing that adding romaji would only confuse the reader is beyond ridiculous. Romaji exists because all non-Latin alphabet text on Wikipedia should have a romanization with it if the direct Romanization is different from the Anglicization. That's why there's such text as Moscow, Beijing, Seoul, etc. Japanese-made video games should not be treated any differently just because a WikiProject exists that finds text like Fainaru Fantajī, Gēmu Bōi, and Doragon Kuesuto redundant when the lay reader probably won't.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I pose a similar question to you then, why would someone need to see "Fainaru Fantajii" at all when "Final Fantasy" already there? I still maintain that the layman does not have the proper context to read the romaji. Knowing how to pronounce an English word using Japanese syllables does not aid the reader in understanding the topic. It simply provides them with a string of characters that they will likely interpret using English language rules.

Also, the city names you mentioned are technically loan words from other languages to English, not English words loaned to Japanese. You have no argument from me about including romaji for words of Japanese or non-English origin. But unless you provide some context for understanding the romaji similar to IPA does, I believe confusion is the likely outcome. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

"Final Fantasy" is not the text in question here. "ファイナルファンタジー" is. Why should we provide a disservice to the reader to omit the romaji name of the title simply because it was always the Japanese approximation of the English title? Surely this would mean sweeping changes across the project to articles like Dragon Ball, Bleach (manga), Becky (television personality), Kamen Rider Double, Ultraman, Shuchishin, etc. Again, there is nothing about video games that makes them special. And two guidelines, one broadly focused and one made by a sizable WikiProject, should not conflict like this.

And anyway, even if there were to be some sort of change to {{nihongo}} to incorporate a link to any Help: or project based pages, it would have to entail teaching how to read Hepburn romaji which is fairly straight forward, even if it relies on the macron.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because the intent of "ファイナルファンタジー" is to be read by the English reader as "Final Fantasy" not "Fainaru Fantajii". As for sweeping changes, you exagerate. The proposal is narrow here-English loan words that use kana. As to sylable usage, the link with {{nihongo}} actually could be updated to link to a more appropriate help topic on Japanese pronunciation.

Finally to an earlier argument, "do no harm" is not a good reason. That reason is touted by people who want to create tons of plot-only or nearly plot-only (with only non-notable coverage) of works and elements. That argument doesn't fly there and it shouldn't fly here. There should be a notable benifit to reader and for having the romaji for English loan words generally doesn't meet that threshold imo.陣内_Jinnai 05:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is not what "ファイナルファンタジー" says in Japanese. The benefit to adding "Fainaru Fantajī" provides the reader with how the name is read in Japanese, not in English or "English spoken in a thick Japanese accent". I'm not saying "Final Fantasy" should be pronounced as "Fainaru Fantajī". I'm saying "ファイナルファンタジー" is pronounced as "Fainaru Fantajī" (fa-i-na-ru-fa-n-ta-jī) in Japanese, even though it is an approximation of the English words "Final" and "Fantasy". Because not everyone knows how to read Japanese, the romaji should be included because otherwise we are saying that "ファイナルファンタジー" is pronounced as "Final Fantasy", and that is providing a disservice to the reader. We are showing the reader what the name is in Japanese which is done on every article that features Japanese text other than ones on video games that have been subject to this bad guideline at WP:VG/GL.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break 1

(undent) We've had this discussion before, and my opinion is that we provide a disservice to the reader if we ram obscure, useless crap into the first sentence of every article. Tell me, what should the "Final Fantasy" article start with: by defining what it is, or by telling a hypothetical set of users fluent in Hepburn but unable to read katakana how to pronounce if they're pretending to be Japanese? Quite frankly, I think even the katakana are not particularly important and should be shunted out of the way into the infobox. Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the freaking title of the game, that's why it's important. That's why we have {{nihongo title}} to save time on typing ''''''''''.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See, that's the problem: you refuse to see the romaji as useful, instead coming to the discussion calling it "useless crap". It isn't useless, and it serves a very useful purpose by providing the pronunciation of the title for those unfamiliar with kana. Using {{nihongo}} also provides a link for those who can't view the Japanese title so they can install/activate the correct fonts. Including the romaji 1) does no harm, 2) does good by providing the transliteration of the kana, and 3) makes the entry much more complete. Inclusion of the romaji doesn't need to be "notable"; it never has and it never will. Just because it doesn't benefit you doesn't mean it doesn't provide a benefit to others. Without the romaji, the entry is not complete. Excluding it just because you feel like it, or just because you see to have an aversion to romaji of kana, is not a good thing. There has not been a good reason presented to completely ignore MOS-JA here. If an entire project wishes to ignore these guidelines, there needs to be a very, very good reason for doing so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm using "Fainaru Fantajii" as an example, I think this issue extends to all romaji. It is presumptuous to think that the average reader will be able to read the romaji as it should be read. A link to provide them that knowledge will alleviate that, and I believe other editor's concerns about it's inclusion.

Is adding such a link an unreasonable request? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

I don't even know how I landed here. I was just making my first ever post in a discussion page on "Jujutsu", and then I arrived here. This is an interesting discussion. I think, after all, it is how much Wikipedia is willing to offer help to people who comes here to explore knowledge. Including romaji spelling of a Japanese game that uses English words is of course no use to someone who doesn't care. But for someone who wanted to know a bit more about a tiny, far east country just because he/she learned a game title was produced in that country, it really does matter. If the existing romaji spelling wasn't the best way helping out these people, what other way could be more helpful. I always learned that westerners were more apt to find solutions whereas our admins (shame, what a shame) will want to look for reasons not to. You could always shut your doors easily. That's up to you. Honjamaka (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Romaji is useful in many, but not all, cases and I would not want to see it removed entirely. In general i'm for more info to help with translation and, FE, if the code would allow it I think we should have a way for {{nihongo}} to display furigana.

It is with respect to English loanwords that its usefulness often becomes dubious.陣内_Jinnai 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If the original name is comprised of "English loanwords", why shouldn't romaji of these loanwords be used? Sometimes the pronunciation is drastically different once it becomes a Japanese word.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is a valid argument for exceptions like remote control (リモコン, remocon) or apartment (アパート, apaato). But not for words that are close approximations like final (ファイナル, fainaru). The Romanized spelling differs from the English spelling, but the pronunciations are close enough that the need to know the proper Japanese pronunciation is negligible.

Regardless, without a link to explain Japanese pronunciation rules or some IPA equivalent, the romaji carries the possibility of confusing the layman. As you said, it's not incredibly difficult to learn, but without the tools to learn it I believe readers would be inclined to use English pronunciation rules. Where are we on exploring this addition to {{nihongo}}? I think this would be a valid compromise. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

It does not matter if the pronunciation is similar or are close approximations. It is still romaji that should be written out. In the handful of cases where the titles are similar (the Final Fantasy games, the Mario games, the Dragon Quest games) it does nothing to benefit the article to omit the text from the lead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can clone the romaji by just envisioning a japanese person trying to say the English word, then I regard it as totally fake and edit will it out. Simply adding regional dialect doesn't make it something new. Then there is absolutely no reason to leave it in. The article shouldn't be a Hooked On Phonics lesson in the middle of random topics such as a video game. An example (possibly a bad one) that comes to mind to (maybe) illustrate the point: in an anime some people were saying individual characters, very loosely "seh, eeh, gahk", then would say it as a word and pronounce (loosely) "sayigaku". So, which is it? Take out the extra Us, L to R flips, and whatever other common nuance, then you get the original English word. Ok... so why would anyone put this romaji stuff in? Yes, it is just confusing.

Also, I REALLY like the idea of having alternate languages in the infobox. Ridding the starter paragraph of clutter that people can't even read or care about would be awesome. Odokee (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a regional dialect or a Japanese person trying to say the English word, and it is most certainly not fake. It is a standardized method by which to romanize Japanese text which should be required on all articles unless the romaji name is being used as the article title because it is effectively the English name, which is only ever the case with historic Japanese figures or the past two emperors. Nothing you say Odokee is even remotely correct. You may not care about the Japanese text, but other people do, which is why it's included everywhere. There is nothing that makes video games so special that they get to ignore this manual of style by implimenting their own for Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And referring to it as "fake Jap talk" is most certainly inappropriate, Odokee.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it fake was going a bit to far, but yes, it appears to hallmarks of dialect. At the very least, one does not need to know how a Japanese person pronounces an English loanword in most cases (again exceptions can exist). Its the same as a Japanese person not needing to know the way we go about pronouncing their words in most cases.陣内_Jinnai 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break 2

After a brief discussion on this topic with User:Ryulong, I have reviewed this thread in its entirety. I think this is a very close issue and there are strong arguments on either side. Coming to this discussion as an unaligned editor (i.e. neither a member of WP:VG or WP:JA), I hope my views will be helpful. I have condensed them into a collapsed frame below since they were a bit lengthy. To give an in-a-word summary: I think the best compromise is to alter the nihongo template to provide an additional note for Hepburn pronunciation (per Guyinblack25's earlier suggestion). I have given an example of such a notation in my solution #2 below. -Thibbs (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Third party view

• For years I have been forgoing the addition of the romaji transliteration to nihongo templates when the transliteration is nearly identical to the English pronunciation. Like User:Guyinblack25, I too believe that this practice leads to confusion in the average reader. Because this field is listed as "optional" in the documentation accompanying the template I have always opted to use simply the English term followed by the Japanese approximation. The "disservice" to readers of failing to provide them with the proper Japanese pronunciation is, in my opinion, more than outweighed by the disservice to readers of giving the incorrect impression that 「ドラゴンクエスト」 is properly pronounced in Japanese as "Dora-gon Ku-S-utoh" (to use an earlier example). My use/nonuse of quotation marks on the term "disservice" is intentional here as in the first case the disservice is defined by a failure to provide extra information whereas in the second case it is the creation of false information. Clearly this issue only affects those who do not know the rules of translation, transliteration, and pronunciation, however this group of readers makes up a substantial portion of the Wikipedia readership. I don't think I'm far from the mark in assuming that the large majority of readers of English Wikipedia do not know these rules. Without looking to any other solutions, then, I think the question boils down to whether or not there are more readers who know katakana or who know Hepburn romanization. Luckily there are other solutions. So far in this thread we have seen suggestions of:
  (1) the creation of an official exception in MOS-JA to allow the omission of romaji transliterations of katakana transliterations of English if the English term already supplied was the loan-word adopted by the Japanese. Thus, for example, 「New スーパーマリオブラザーズ Wii」 could be written as New Super Mario Bros. Wii (New スーパーマリオブラザーズ Wii) rather than New Super Mario Bros. Wii (New スーパーマリオブラザーズ Wii, Nyū Sūpā Mario Burazāzu Wī). This solution presumably would consider terms like 「リモコン」 not to represent a transliteration of "remote control" but rather an altered transliteration requiring the use of a romaji field in the nihongo template.
  (2) the alteration of the nihongo template to include notations that would clarify matters for the layperson. For example instead of the current "elevator (エレベーター, erebētā)" we would have something more like "elevator (エレベーター^?, erebētā^?)"
  (3) the alteration of WP:VG/GL#Non-English games to bring it into conformity with MOS-JA without any other actions. This solution would almost certainly necessitate the alteration of the nihongo template's documentation as well to reflect the idea that the Romaji transliteration field is mandatory unless identical with the English field. Given the arguments advanced by User:Ryulong and User:Nihonjoe concerning the nature of the romaji transliteration and its usefulness to a certain segment of the readership as well as their arguments concerning the breadth of WP:JA, I find myself drawn most strongly to solution #2. I think that consistency is above all the most important factor and as long as we are consistent with our approach it isn't that big of a deal. I recognize that editors who are used to one set of style guidelines will be reluctant to adopt a new set so if this issue cannot be resolved then I suggest 3rd party arbitration. Most people coming to this discussion will have already made up their minds about the issue and its placement on the MOS-JA talk page already gives it a certain inescapable bias just as its placement on the WP:VG talk page would produce the opposite bias. Finally I would like to ask all editors who are currently engaged in this discussion to refrain from making large numbers of edits on the topic of this discussion before a consensus is reached. For those that think romaji is superfluous please refrain from removing it until this discussion is finished. For those who are adding romaji to articles, please refrain from this while discussions are under way. I think it's best to attempt to preserve the spirit of WP:BRD in all discussions that aim for consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, I was curious what those that wish to omit the romaji transliterations would favor doing in mixed situations like "Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (ファイアーエムブレム　暁の女神, Faiā Emuburemu: Akatsuki no Megami)" I assume everyone agrees on the idea that 「暁の女神」 should have a romaji transliteration to "Akatsuki no Megami", but I imagine there might be disagreement on what to do with the katakana portion of the name. What does WP:VG prefer? Perhaps "Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (ファイアーエムブレム　暁の女神, Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami)" is best? I've never known how to deal with these mixed words/phrases properly. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Third party comment: I agree with Thibbs. Unless consensus has been reached, removal and additions should probably cease. Ryulong in particular has been on a binge of additions despite lack of consensus. It seems counter-intuitive to debate these changes while at the same time making them. DKqwerty (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support option 2 as proposed by Thibbs, though I think that WP:VG/GL#Non-English games ought to be brought in line with WP:MOS-JA as well so we don't keep running into this issue. They (the two style guides) shouldn't be disagreeing in the first place. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the second proposal as well. Though I recommend a creating a page in the Project namespace. Article space is not meant to be used as a how-to and project pages can include links for IPA pronunciation.

@Thibb's one more things- I would include the romaji if any non-katakana script is used. But I haven't given it any thought about Romanization like "Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami". I'm inclined to agree with that format, but I'm unsure at the moment.

@Nihonjoe- We're allowed to have our own opinions. Some of our best consensuses have come from disagreements. They aren't fun to deal with, but we're better off because of them. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinions. I've never said that anywhere on Wikipedia about anything. I'm not sure how you read that into anything I've written. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my misinterpretation then. However, I can't help but feel that the opinions expressed by VG project members have not been welcome. I apologize if that assumption is incorrect. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I've clarified my comment. I was referring to the two style guides, not to members of the VG project. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The second option is good, but rather than creating millions of links to Hepburn romanization, a link to a new Help: page or some project page would be better. Also, Putting "Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami" in the third {{nihongo}} parameter should not be done, as it's pretty clear from all of the discussion here that it should be "Faiā Emuburemu" there. The third parameter should be entirely romaji. Not some mix of English (or whatever other originating languages) and Romaji. And Guyinblack, this would never have been an issue if a video game only guideline conflicted with the guideline for the entirety of the Japanese language and its use on the English Wikipedia. No article on anime, television, music, etc. does what WP:VG does. This should be an issue of conformity as well as benefiting the reader.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong- Editors and guidelines are allowed to disagree. So long as we try to reconcile those differences. I will leave it at that as I have no desire to rekindle a polarized discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I know editors and guidelines are allowed to disagree (I have voiced my issues with this MOS and some others in the past), but two guidelines should not contradict each other.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, back on topic to the proposal, I believe that adding [[Japanese language|Japanese]]: and [[Hepburn romanization|Romāji]]: to the {{nihongo}} family templates might be useful. This is how {{zh}} works, even though Chinese has more systems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose this as that would be even more intrusive. There needs to be a balance here, and that goes too far the other way. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If the second solution is adopted, I am also in favour of something like "elevator (Japanese: エレベーター; Hepburn: erebētā)" instead of "elevator (エレベーター^?, erebētā^?)". Fully spelled notations are a bit longer but they are much less confusing than those tiny question marks that you have to highlight to see where they link to. The first time I browsed Wikipedia I didn't even realize those were question marks. They are so small that the dot of the character usually blends with the stroke (when the nihongo template is actually used, not in this example). We here are all used to seeing Japanese characters, but how does a layman knows it's Japanese if they see "?" instead of "Japanese". ALL other languages on Wikipedia follow the "Language:" format (example: 4x4 Hummer, Chiang Kai-shek, Ragnarok Online, Gandhi, etc.). There is nothing special about Japanese that warrants a different treatment IMO. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand that Thibbs's second proposal is a good compromise choice, I'm not sure if it's really the best option. I readily admit the fact that I am not well versed in Japanese pronunciations and culture, and so when a title like Fainaru Fantajii comes in front of me, I usually want to see why that title's different from the English one only to find that it's just a borrowed term from English and that it's pronounced in the same way. I understand that I might be opening a firestorm of criticism against me for this statement but I feel that I'm probably representative of most English readers who don't understand what the romaji title might represent. I feel that titles with Romaji that are redundant to the English title really don't need to be included in the article as they will just serve to confuse readers. So before we decide on a choice, I'd like to make sure that we're all taking the same steps forward and not moving into a decision without being fully sure of the result: I want to be sure that this help page will be clear in explaining romaji, and I want to be sure that adding redundant Japanese titles that borrow from English is really necessary. Right now, I'm not fully convinced that they are. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By your argument, we should not bother to include "ファイナルファンタジー" either, because it is merely a redundant Japanese title of the English title we have already. Again, there is nothing that makes anything about video games unique such that they should ignore this particular manual of style. The only time any romaji would be redundant would be if it was identical to the English parameter, which is why we don't have Naruto (NARUTO—ナルト—, Naruto) at Naruto or Kiseki (奇跡, Kiseki) at Kiseki (Kumi Koda song).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that "ファイナルファンタジー" should be included when the video game was originally released in Japanese. I think it signifies to the reader that it was originally a Japanese release. However, I don't think the romaji needs to be included if the Japanese title is literally supposed to be copying the English title's pronunciation. I understand your point, that you feel people may not understand what the katakana is saying; but if you list the romaji translation which is just trying to copy the English title, I'm afraid people will just get confused. Nomader ^(Talk) 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But then why do you think Fainaru Fantajī should be excluded, when it is what the game is called in Japan when they talk to each other about it and write about it in the media? It's not copying the English title's pronunciation. It's the Japanese title's pronunciation. The only way we can clarify it is if we modify the nihongo templates and provide links to "Japanese language" and "Hepburn romanization". This way, much like the Chinese and Korean languages are treated, we will clearly show what the text is and there should not be any confusion and we give the reader all of the information necessary on understanding the language. There should be no reason to omit anything just because one project believes that romaji of waseieigo is redundant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What people write and talk about in Japan in their own language is not the concern of the English language Wikipedia. Japanese might have commonplace, established loan words such as those for coffee or apartment but an off-the-cuff mangling such as "ファイナルファンタジー" is no more Japanese than "Nihongo" is English. It's a katakana transliteration of an essentially English title. Including the katakana is useless, transliterating a transliteration back into Roman script even more so. bridies (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still Japanese text and there is really no reason to not include the Romanized name just because it is similar (and not identical) to the Anglicized name. It is only redundant if it is identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think one argument that could be made in favour of the "Fainaru Fantajī" exclusion is that while "FINAL FANTASY" does appear in the Japanese logos, "Fainaru Fantajī" doesn't. Only "FINAL FANTASY" (in big) and "ファイナルファンタジー" do.[17] This suggests that even the Japanese are supposed to be pronouncing the name as "Final Fantasy". Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat of an example of Furigana. The smaller katakana is explaining to the Japanese citizen who cannot read English how "FINAL FANTASY" should be read in their language. Of course, the Japanese solely use the katakana in their media for the whole, and the ENGLISH names for the individual titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an example of an English title with a katakana transliteration underneath and further evidence that the "Japanese" text is redundant and that the verifiability concerns put forth cannot be dismissed. bridies (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And consider this: if this hypothetical Japanese person cannot understand "Final Fantasy" they cannot understand (the meaning of) "ファイナルファンタジー". All he's gained is a transliteration and approximate pronunciation in a phonology he understands. What does that say about the argument that it is a Japanese language title? bridies (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The page title still uses the katakana as do the Japanese media. The Japanese Wikipedia exclusively uses the katakana title for their page titles when they could use the English alphabet titles and merely do as you have been talking about. They don't for a reason. And we should use the katakana for that same reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that they are a Japanese encyclopedia, and as such, their article titles should be in Japanese unless no katakana title exists. We are an English encyclopedia-- as such, I have to agree with Bridies in that the romaji really isn't necessary in titles which are just approximations of English pronunciations. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, how Japanese language media or Wikis handle such issues as English and/or transliterations has no bearing on our practice. At the risk or repeating myself: all you're saying is that they transliterate the English into katakana, which is absolutely no reason for us to include those transliterations, let alone transliterate them back into Roman script. bridies (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It should at least be how this Wiki treats Japanese text. They don't transliterate the English into katakana. They use the katakana title that the developers use. Why shouldn't we provide the romaji for that name? Just because it resembles the English title? That really makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They do not need romaji because the katakana is a transliteration in and of itself.陣内_Jinnai 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Guyinblack asked for further opinions on the WP:VG talk page, I'll state for the record that I support option 1 and oppose option 2, largely for reasons already given. It is redundant information and contrary to what Ryulong said on the WP:VG talk page, filling up the very first line of an article with redundant information is harmful. I also think the lack of verifiability is a concern to at least some extent, as mentioned below and by Dave Fuchs on the WP:VG talk page. I watch over ABA Games and I remember people edit warring over transliterations without it ever being established whether the developer was even referred to by anything other than the purely Roman "ABA Games". bridies (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break 3

And as an aside to an earlier aspect of this discussion: it seems that for when the English name is different from the literal translation of the Japanese name, why is the English name included in the nihongo template as the first parameter and not separate them as is done in some anime articles? For example, I'd rewrite the first sentence of Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn as follows:

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, originally released in Japan as Fire Emblem: The Goddess of Dawn (ファイアーエムブレム　暁の女神, Faiā Emuburemu Akatsuki no Megami)...

Thoughts?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because precedent has always been set like that for video game articles. But I really prefer your re-written version, it seems to me that it makes the most sense and makes the alternative Japanese title more obvious to the reader. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these kinds of titles ARE supposed to be separated (see The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for instance). Many editors just lump together all the titles in the templates even when they are totally different >_< I spend a lot of time separating these titles when I find groups of related articles that make this mistake. It's a very widespread mistake. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The formatting at ALttP is terrible though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in these cases, the Japanese title in a nihongo template should be separate, but some of your recent edits deviate from the intended usage, Ryulong. Note that games like Link's Awakening were never released under an English title in Japan, so it should actually read:

• The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, released in Japan as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island")

...unless the English title is official and commonly used in Japan, like It's a Wonderful World. If the translation of the Japanese title is not official, it is to be enclosed in quotation marks. However, I feel we have not discussed sufficiently enough yet how to treat official translations. Personally, I think it should read:

• Lufia, known as Estpolis Denki (エストポリス伝記, Esutoporisu Denki, officially translated as Biography Estpolis) in Japan Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

...with a reference always included for the official translation. Also, there were no strong objections to putting not commonly used foreign-language titles in footnotes if the length of its nihongo template would hurt the readability of the lead paragraph (as is the case with the Oracle games). However, I did not add it to VG/GL back then. Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting in the half-assed translation with romaji is not necessary when there's a literal translation. It should be clear that the title is the one in Japanese text rather than the one in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is not a translation but the phonetic title with the proper names written out in their intended form. However, I think it is misleading for readers when they read...

"The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, released in Japan as The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima) [...]"

...because the game was not released in Japan as "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island". It was released as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima, and "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island" is an unofficial translation of that title. I am currently proposing a new Non-English games section on VG/GL, so feel free to join there and to discuss how these issues are handled. Prime Blue (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary issue: lack of citation

If this is the wrong place for this discussion, please forgive the transgression.

I also think a lack of citation with many (and all that I've seen) nihongo templates is a problem. For example, this series of edits represents the addition of ten pieces of unreferenced information (never mind the already unreferenced Japanese characters). While all of this may represent simple fact to those familiar with Japanese, this is still the English encyclopedia; a foreign language translation like this should probably be sourced, no? I mean, where are these translations coming from? If the sources aren't up to WP:RS, why exactly are we including the info? If the sources do meet WP:RS, why not cite them? Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but it seems a simple and obvious oversight to just include this information unreferenced. However, given the current state of many articles employing the template, it's understandable why unreferenced information is assumed to be okay. DKqwerty (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Literal translations don't need to be referenced, and neither do romanizations. To require that would be insane. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then how the hell do I know when some anon. is adding translations that they're not just adding nonsense? How do I (not only as an editor, but as an information seeker) know that these "literal translations" aren't just made-up bullshit? DKqwerty (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's where WP:AGF comes in. It's not as if people are running rampant through the wiki and placing bad translations and romanizations into it. If you ever question the translation or romanization of something, ask at WT:JP and someone there will be happy to check it for you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See, now that seems insane to me, that I have to go begging people to tell me if a translation is accurate of not. It seems far more sane and logical to simply reference every translation (though I have no idea how that would be possible). Granted, it would have been easier to just reference them from the start and now it would just be a gigantic and unmanageable task, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that there's no way to verify this without asking someone. And how exactly is a non-editing reader supposed to know to ask WT:JP whether something is correct or not? I had to make a thread on an MOS talk page just to find out there's even a location to get translations confirmed; the average non-editing reader isn't going searching for help by way of MOS talk pages and project pages. Wikipedia isn't about asking someone for verification, it's about providing it upfront in an easily accessible and reliable manner. I know the reality of these video game articles is that so much information goes unreferenced, but that doesn't mean we can't at least start forming better habits. Or am I asking too much here? DKqwerty (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, assuming good faith and assuming accuracy are two different things. I can assume someone is trying to be helpful and thinks they know what they're doing, but that doesn't make it so. Instead, I prefer WP:V: should I really have to request a translation check every time Ryulong goes on a translation binge (without any edit summaries by the way) when I have no indication he can actually speak Japanese besides the "ja-1" userbox on heis user page? I don't get it. DKqwerty (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of editors with knowledge of Japanese, I'd say this would be of little concern as it can be easily verified. We also allow untranslated foreign language citations for article sourcing in Good and Featured articles. The topic title is not a big stretch from that.

I understand your concern though. But it is part of a bigger trend of un-experienced editors just doing what they do. All topics have articles that don't properly reference content. But the experienced editors provide the necessary sources what the reader to verify the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Actually, two of our featured lists, Harvest Moon titles and Kirby media both cite the romanji and the katakana throughout the list. It's not too difficult if you can find the official Japanese site of a game, usually you can cite the page in order to cite the katakana in the article. I don't think it would be a bad idea to make sure people weren't throwing random words in Japanese out into obscure Japanese video games. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for my edits to List of Mario series characters would need to be referenced because all I did was add romaji names to where they were not before. This is because we have a standardized method by which to transliterate kanji, hiragana, and katakana and that should not need to be referenced at all. I doubt that references should be needed for romaji for even the articles you cited. Likewise, titles of articles should not need to be referenced either. Why should you be required to verify what something is called?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are many reasons-- it would make sure that people putting up random translations weren't just putting up nonsense, and it would make sure that the most accurate translation available was posted. It wouldn't hurt to verify the proper Japanese name for a character through reliable sources, would it? Nomader ^(Talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The source media would be the reliable source in all cases, and that should be enough to verify that something within it is called whatever it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Translations have not been subject to verification even in cases of feature article candidate promotions. I see no reason why we should start now for Japanese translations.陣内_Jinnai 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both you and Ryulong on this point, in that the source material should be more than enough. As someone who doesn't write Japanese particularly well, I've just always used referencing to be able to write the correct katakana in articles; however, per both of your comments, I feel that people who speak the language sufficiently should be just fine translating the source title. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this matter to death before. Though I warned people, consensus was heading in the direction of decisions on a case-by-case basis. Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)