Jump to content

Talk:Japan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Azntokki (talk | contribs)
96 edits
Line 150: Line 150:


::I requested it. The reason is the continuous vandalisms by anons. The semi-protection started on July 29[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=147778053&oldid=147759192], and was previously from June 24 to July 8[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=140312863&oldid=140312657]. --[[User:Nightshadow28|Nightshadow28]] 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
::I requested it. The reason is the continuous vandalisms by anons. The semi-protection started on July 29[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=147778053&oldid=147759192], and was previously from June 24 to July 8[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=140312863&oldid=140312657]. --[[User:Nightshadow28|Nightshadow28]] 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this article still semi-protected? It should be unprotected. There is no reason why this article should be semi-protected, as other countries are not. [[User:Azntokki|Azntokki]] 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

Revision as of 04:44, 24 August 2007

Featured articleJapan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 15, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 18, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 12, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0

WikiProject iconJapan FA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of 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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 15:23, October 20, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Template:FAOL

"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of May 7, 2024

What's new?

Articles for deletion

  • 13 Oct 2024 – List of ASEAN countries by IQ (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Chaotic Enby (t · c); see discussion (7 participants)
  • 28 Sep 2024 – Western Armenia Government in Exile (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Yerevantsi (t · c); see discussion (10 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

checkY Sweden,[a] formally the Kingdom of Sweden,[b] is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
☒N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail and duplication

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article.

Example:

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,936 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles shoukd be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Notes

  1. ^ Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. ^ Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ

"Japan" v. "Nippon"

Would be useful/interesting in the article to mention when the term Nippon as opposed to Japan would typically be used. Tempshill 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is English name, Nihon/Nippon is Japanese name. More interesting perhaps would be when Nippon is used rather than Nihon. Samatarou 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific war

Is there any problem to describe the Kota Bharu landing in addition to the Pearl Harbor attack?[1] Since the main purpose is occupying Southeast Asia for the resources and the Pearl Harbor attach is just strategic purpose, it is appropriate to add the Kota Bharu landing. Jjok 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. This is not a history page - it is a general page on Japanese history. The page is already long, so I do not see why we need to add a point on this. There is a link to the Japanese history article. John Smith's 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization vs Human Occupation

It got a revert back from human occupation back to civilization? Civilization doesn't just mean 'People lived there.' As defined, a pastoral or otherwise semi-agricultural hunter-gatherer society is not a civilization. Civilization is a specific way of life unknown to the people of japan in 10,000 BC. Also, the word was linked to the civilization article that defined it contrary to the meaning it was given.

"The first signs of civilization on the Japanese archipelago appeared around 10,000 BC with a culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of pit dwelling and a rudimentary form of agriculture." was linked to - "..Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities... Beginning a mere 10-12 thousand years ago in the Middle East..." etc.

If a word is going to be mis-used, or used in the vernacular, it probably shouldn't be linked to the real definition. Maybe put in quotes or something.

Matkuna 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the date for occupation was farther back than 10,000 BC, however hunter-gatherers still did not live in "civilizations". They have a Band society or a tribe. Society would also be an accurate word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matkuna (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I invite them to take a look at Civilization#Development_of_early_civilizations; Chinese civilization begins around 2200 BC - Japanese not until long after that. Yayoi period maybe, or Kofun period. Though I would personally argue that "Japanese" civilization, as in something with definitive connections to later medieval, early modern, and modern Japanese society, did not emerge until after the Kofun period, around the 6th century CE at the earliest. LordAmeth 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan as official language

I read, that Japan is not the official language of Japan, only the language speaken by most of the people. Does anyone have more information to this? Eggwadi 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese is the de facto official language, but it is indeed not lawfully accepted as the official language. The Japanese just never seemed to see any particular reason to accept a law that states the obvious - i.e. Japanese has always been so prevalent and unchalenged in its role as official language that there never really was a need to do this. Thus, there is no actual official language in Japan. This is just one of history's quirks, it doesn't have a deeper meaning or anything. TomorrowTime 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC or BCE?

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

I am not a Wikipedia master, and therefore couldn't find the appropriate avenue to register this comment. That being said, I have a simple question: I edited the article on Japan, in an extremely minor way (under an anonymous profile), in that I changed one usage of BC to BCE. Now, not only do I think BCE and CE are more scholarly terms than BC and AD, the crux of the issue is that BCE is used a handful of times right before the BC that I changed. Therefore, it screams of inconsistency. Again, I also feel that as many people reading about Japan (including myself) might not be Christians, it is undesirable to list the dates that way. So, when my change was reverted, I merely wanted to point this out to the administrator who barred my revision (John Smith's), but I was unable to find a link to contact this person. Now, I am usually only a reader on Wikipedia, but occasionally I see things like that, and I feel compelled to alter them. Regardless, I just don't feel the deletion of my change is justified, in terms of the consistency of the article without it. Thank you, Billshattner@yahoo.com

Wikipedia's Manual of Style deals with this subject at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Essentially, either is acceptable, and usage should be consistent within the article. However, one format should not be replaced with another unless there is a substantial reason for the change. I would further note that both the AD/BC and CE/BCE conventions are commonly used by scholars in academic/professional journals, law reviews, and books - one is not more "scholarly" than another. Thanks for voicing your concern - I hope I addressed it adequately. --Tim4christ17 [[User

talk:Tim4christ17|talk]] 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

From a non-Christian perspective, I prefer the BCE/CE as I do not like the "year of our lord" designation. While it does not bother me that much, it is slightly offensive. I'd rather not have to define time by someone else's god. Showers 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the change was for consistency, I'd support it. We're inconsistent in several places and I've (arbitrarily) chosen to change them all to BCE. Dcoetzee 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says not to change without a substantial reason. To the best of my knowledge, this edit has the first use of BC (by which I mean no prior use of BCE) and the article should continue to use that style, absent a substantial reason. So I've reinstated the AD/BC system and made the article consistent within that system. Of course, both systems have supporters and opponents; the policy though is separate from the article on Japan and the right place to discuss it is on the talk page of the policy.
Finally, to Billshattner, you're welcome to participate in editing, policymaking discussions, and other aspects of Wikipedia, either with a user name or anonymously. We arrive at policies by consensus of the community, and when you find a matter you want to establish as policy, or a policy you want to change, Wikipedia has talk pages where you can voice your opinions freely. For established policies, you can also peruse the discussions that led to them. These are often in archive pages, accessible from the talk pages. You'll find links to policies at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Whether you're a casual reader, an occasional editor, or a frequent participant, Wikipedia welcomes you. Fg2 11:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fg2 - keep BC. John Smith's 11:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Dcoetzee 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think BCE/CE is better and I don't find the "someone happened to use BC first so he wins" reason very compelling at all. If you are talking about changing an already consistent use of BC/AD to BCE/CE, which is what I think the policy really addresses, I might feel differently. Here, however, a mixture of both happened to crop up over time, and the inconsistency needed to be resolved. The BC/AD moniker is a very Western/Christian-oriented one, and its use in an article about a clearly non-Christian nation seems all the more odd to me. I don't feel that strongly about this, but thought I'd throw in my two cents.-Jefu 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jefu here. Likewise, I don't feel too strongly about this, but if we're gonna be consistent, BCE/CE would make more sense, in terms of neutrality. TomorrowTime 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether you find it "compelling" or not. It is wikipedia guidelines to go by the spelling, etc first used after a stub, unless there is a specific reason to use something else (e.g. American English in American articles, British English in UK articles, etc). Consistency is required inside articles, not between them, for spelling, etc. "Neutrality" is also not a reason to change it, especially as BCE is not neutral to those what want BC or BCE. John Smith's 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it is important to actually think about a rule, rather than simply applying it blindly. First, I doubt that the rule contemplated the need to go back through three years of editing history in a given article to determine which convention to use, which is just another way of saying what I said above -- that the intention was to prohibit the unilateral substitution of one consistent use with another. And the unilateral substitution of one consistent use for the other is not what happened at all when billshattner@yahoo.com first edited the article to make it consistent. It is, however, precisely what Fg2 did when he changed billshattner@yahoo.com's conflict-resolving consistent choice of BCE/CE to an equally consistent BC/AD). Second, I'll bet dimes to dollars that the intent behind the rule was really about avoiding edit wars. But is one going really going to flare up here? The article likely remained peacefully inconsistent for several years (I haven't checked the history in detail). Is there anyone out there who feels so strongly about using BC/AD (for some compelling reason other than the fact that someone three years ago happened to type "BC" into the article) that they are willing to begin an edit war over it? The point here is that Fg2's changes to what billshattner@yahoo.com did (which I think was a perfectly reasonable thing to do) were quite likely unnecessary and arguably as much in violation of a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's policy as what billshattner@yahoo.com did, if not more so.-Jefu 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not convinced about your point. John Smith's 09:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget MOS promotes coherence between topic and style (like British-English for a British Topic). In that case, it is only natural for a non-Christian topic to use a non-Christian datation method. Imposing an "overtly Christian BC/AD" (per MOS) on non-Christian topics fundamentally goes against MOS policy. PHG 02:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misinterpreting MOS. We've been over this before. It does not say anywhere that BC/AD cannot be used for "non-Christian" articles. John Smith's 11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


For those interested, there is a discussion and vote going on at Talk:History of Japan page on the appropriateness of BC/AD or BCE/CE for Japan-related subjects. PHG 06:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

403 error

This link http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/iguides/disputes.htm, supposably about Japanese territorial disupes, is broken. 124.183.144.253 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan second economy of the world?

People, Japan is the THIRD economy in the world, after the EU and the US. I've changed it, but somebody changed it back. This inormation is NOT correct, the list used as a reference is clear enough, I would say, so I am changing it back again. --Robster1983 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added the sentence that Japan is the second country by nominal GDP, after the United States. The information in the article is now correct. --Robster1983 14:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When articles talk about economies, it means countries. The European Union is not counted as a unified economy - it is more an "illustrative" example. John Smith's 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
First of all: I was already on this talkpage trying to discuss about this, before you were. So the warning is been given, in my opinion, too hasty. Second: in order to keep things straight, than change the name of economy into country. That is correct. Economy is not 'just' a country, furthermore, the EU is, in first place, 'an economical entity', so it sure as hell can be called the first economy of the world. However, I stand corrected if the article states that Japan is the second country by GDP nominal. Would you agree with that? --Robster1983 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, where does it say that an economy automatically means country? Not even the article on Wikipedia says that economy=country. :-s --Robster1983 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew the warning because you hadn't reverted three times.
I can see from your profile that you are "proud" to be European, so may I suggest that is somewhat colouring your attitude towards this? It's important to put aside personal preferences.
The European Union is a co-operative body that makes many decisions on various issues, including economic. However it is not a unified economy so should not be given that status through implication.
Whether or not the wording is modified, the European Union should not be mentioned. Also do not put the word country in inverted commas. John Smith's 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now you're not making any sense. "Second largest country by GDP". That sounds horrible. If you can't come up with something better than that I will revert it back. John Smith's 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a look at the list of countries by GDP nominal, it only refers to countries! And the EU is on that list, although not ranked (which I think is the correct thing, for, indeed, the EU is not a country). And why sounds country so horrible, if, according to you, it means the same thing? It is the truth, it is the second country by GDP nominal. But if talked about economy, the EU's economy is larger. Even Newsweek calls the EU an economy ( see [2]). And why are the people pro-EU always have 'colouring attitudes', but the (British) Eurosceptics have not? On continental Europe economy most of the times stands for the EU economy, for that IS our economy. However, for now I will leave this discussion, but I am going to get to the bottom of this, because at this moment I can't say that you're wrong, but I can't say that you're right either. But one other thing: I still do not appreciate the warning, you were way too hasty with that one. Before warning someone, and threat that person, and saying that that person should visit the talkpage, it would be a very wise decision to visit the talkpage yourself, and, if necessary, engage yourself into the discussion. I wanted to resolve this on the talkpage, but it was you who came with a warning. --Robster1983 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you calm down. It's regular to give a 3RR warning - I removed it once I saw you had only reverted twice. I'm not sure why you are unable to accept that point.
Whatever your thoughts about Eurosceptics, that is not relevant to the discussion given that no one here has identified themselves as one. If someone had a tag or something on their userpage showing their hostility to the European Union, I would have made a similar comment.
As to the article, I have changed the wording to something much more crisp, yet is still correct. Trust me, your last edit was awkward, even if it sounded fine to you. John Smith's 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the change, which I think is indeed everything you say: much more crisp, yet still correct. So thnx for that one. I still, however, must try to find out in what perspective the EU-economy can be placed, but that is not relevant to this discussion :-) What I didn't like about the 3RR Warning, is that I left a message on this talkpage, to start the discussion, but no one responded to that, yet I got that warning. So I felt attacked by that, for I wanted to do this by the rules of Wikipedia. Whether or not I reverted three times, assume good faith, talk about it on the talkpage, let me know what is upsetting you, what you think about it, and try to resolve it before warning me like that, for I always try to play by the rules of Wikipedia. I can understand your point of view, but at first, you didn't let me know, so I couldn't understand either. :-( --Robster1983 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Europe is NOT considered as a single economy for the purpose of economic computations or rankings. Europe is more or less a united market with a single currency now, but with its multiple governments and policies apparently falls short of the "single economy" definition. As far as I know, official comparisons do rank Japan as No2 (at least nominally) and list European countries individually, although some un-official comparisons (newspapers etc...) do mention Europe as a block. PHG 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change of references

can we please only use english references? I mean, this link http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AB%E3%81%BB%E3%82%93%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86&dtype=0&stype=1&dname=0ss is useless to me 124.183.101.89 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sufficiency in rice production

I remember reading that Japan is self-sufficient in rice. This makes cultural sense; might this not also make sense for inclusion in the article? Perhaps after one of us finds a citation. --Ancheta Wis 10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Could anybody please explain why this article is semi-protected? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but I am used to seeing a reason given for the semi-protection given on the talk page. This makes it easier to determine whether an article still needs protection. I feel this would be useful, as it is wiki policy that the default condition of an article not be protected (i.e. You should unprotect an article if you can.)

-- trlkly 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because IPs keep vandalising the article. John Smith's 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I requested it. The reason is the continuous vandalisms by anons. The semi-protection started on July 29[3], and was previously from June 24 to July 8[4]. --Nightshadow28 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article still semi-protected? It should be unprotected. There is no reason why this article should be semi-protected, as other countries are not. Azntokki 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan&oldid=153294438"