Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:JAPAN)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:44, June 2, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Discussion archives for WikiProject Japan
2006 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Task force talk archives
Active and joint task force talk pages
Descendant and related project talk pages

Use of His Imperial Majesty to call the Emperor of Japan[edit]

Recently a user ImperialMajestyIsWrong mass edited pages related to the Emperor by changing the title from His Imperial Majesty to simply His Majesty. Although he may be correct by citing to the IHA website, other nation heads calls the Emperor as HIM(His Imperial Majesty).

My view is that the title of "His Imperial Majesty" is the actual former title viewed and known to many sovereign states, and is officially and commonly called as such. "His Majesty", on the other hand, may possibly be a domestic title used by the IHA(Imperial Household Agency) to call the Emperor.

Title called by the British Monarch to the Emperor formally:

To put it simply, Imperial Majesty is used by many nation sovereign heads and common people to address the Emperor formally. While the IHA themselves calls the Emperor simply as Majesty. What do you guys think? - (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If the IHA is using "His Majesty" on their official English page, then I think that's good enough. We would need to make sure that was the most common way to refer to the Emperor, as WP:COMMONNAME would overrule even how the IHA referred to him. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as a common name issue. After all, we are not talking about an article title. IHA is the authoritative source and we should follow that. Fernando Danger (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME overrules any other name guidelines on Wikipedia. If IHA is so authoritative, then it should never disagree with WP:COMMONNAME, right? If few reliable sources even care what IHA is indicating to use, then we go with the most common name used in reliable sources. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is part of a guideline for determining article titles, namely WP:Article titles. I don't see the relevance. If you don't think IHA is authoritative on this subject, well, then who is? Fernando Danger (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I never said that IHA wasn't authoritative. I merely stated that we go by the most common usage, regardless of what IHA states. In all likelihood, whatever IHA states will be the most common usage, but that may not always be the case. As COMMONNAME determines what the article title will be, it therefore determines usage beyond the title, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Japanese archaeologists[edit]

Hi, can somebody create a list of 10-20 missing Japanese archaeologists from here to be started? It's for Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, everybody is welcome to join in and suggest further Japanese topics for future months!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Is there some way to figure out what the missing ones are without clicking through them one by one? Also, clicking through a few of them shows that quite a number of them are entirely unsourced (pretty typical of ja.wp). This will be problematic with the BLPs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea of course is to translate and then source externally and verify..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody translate and expand Yusuke Hashiba more fully?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order?[edit]

The current MoS-JA specifies we should use the FAMILY–GIVEN name order for those born before 1868, and GIVEN–FAMILY for those born 1868 or later, unless trumped by WP:COMMONNAME. This leads to situations on the edge where, within a single article, certain figures will be FAMILY–GIVEN and others GIVEN–FAMILY—as in Kanae Yamamoto (artist), where Hakuei Ishii is described as the son of Ishii Teiko. Such an example consciously follows the guidelines, but appears to be a sloppy mistake.

Should MoS-JA be amended to allow uniform name orders in cases like this? And how far should this be taken—should an article on Japanese history have both "Tokugawa Ieyasu" and "Shinzō Abe"? How broad should the grey zones be? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "mixed" articles are obviously inconsistent and confusing. The MoS should be a "Manual of Style", and the first rule of style (George Orwell, I think) is "Break any of these rules rather than commit a barbarity". The guideline of pre/post 1868 is not necessarily one I like, but it is clear and reasoned, but it should be used to determine the name order used within an article. I also think that every article involving Japanese names should have a headnote explaining what is going on. If there is an article about Shinzo Abe's comments on Tokugawa Ieyasu, well, again the headnote should explain. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So every Japan-related article would have a hatnote that explains the 1868 issue? IMO, that would put an absurd amount of emphasis on a convention that only Wikipedia follows. Other encyclopedias use family name-given name across the board. In my view, we should do the same. Fernando Danger (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No—Britannica uses both: Kazuo Ohno vs Mishima Yukio; Abe Shinzo in his own article, but Shinzo Abe when mentioned in others. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Having said that, I'm not opposed to changing the MoS to FAMILY–GIVEN across the board, but that should be determined in a different RfC. Let's please not muddy the waters. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The hatnote should say something like: "In this article Japanese names are written in Family-Given order" (or vv), with a link to an article that explains the source of confusion. This is not a question of putting emphasis on a convention, it is about letting the intelligent but not Japan-informed reader know what is going on. If there have to be some names one way, others the reverse, then this really should be clarified. Incidentally, a much simpler approach really is to do something like underlining the family name (a passport convention at least at some time). Imaginatorium (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • There is an international standard (if only I knew the name for it) where surnames are capitalized in citations. It seems pretty common in parts of Europe, and I've seen it with some frequency in English documents from China and Japan. I doubt it would gain traction in running prose on Wikipedia, but I think it would be an elegant solution to introduce names as {{smallcaps|Tsuge}} Yoshiharu → Tsuge Yoshiharu. Perhaps even a dedicated template? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that something should be added to the MoS stating that uniformity of name order within an article is preferred, with the order used for a given article determined by its primary subject(s). It wouldn't be a perfect rule (I'll admit that seeing "Ieyasu Tokugawa" would be a little jarring) but I think it would be an improvement over the status quo. I suspect that incremental improvement is the best that can be aimed for; so long as the MoS calls for using different orders in different situations we'll always have edge cases. Cckerberos (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You'd be surprised how common "Ieyasu Tokugawa" actually is—even in an Ngram it shows up with surprising frequency. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The Shingikai mentioned allcaps for FN, and you see it sometimes in bibiliographies and on meishi. If we did that I agree that it could get annoying in body text. Maybe only the first instance in a biographical article? And if we did that we should use a template (ultimately a CSS style) because actual allcaps would mess up the metadata. About the order, I agree with Imaginatorium that names (at least modern ones) should usually have an order hatnote. In most cases {{Japanese name}} should do. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It's too bad {{Surname}} is taken—that's be the easiest template name. Maybe {{Surname caps}}? And restrict it to the first instance—or even restrict it to the first instance of any Japanese name, with the understanding that other Japanese names in the same article follow the same convention. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I too would support a Wikipedia decree of one or the other across the encyclopedia, but as long as the order differs from one article to another, I think it ought to vary within an article as well. The reason is that the rule appears to be one not of writing style, but of naming style. The idea appears to be that the writer doesn't choose a person's name, the person or the society in which he lived does. Saying what we call a person depends upon who else is mentioned in the same article seems pretty odd to me. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • In the case of the Ishiis mentioned above, neither yet has an English Wikipedia article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I adamantly oppose using ALLCAPS or smallcaps for any naming. I think the current guideline is very clear, and gives preference to the most commonly used in reliable sources, even if it is someone born prior to 1868. If it can be established in reliable sources that the 1868 divide no longer exists (it did almost 10 years ago when this MOS was established), then we can just go with WP:COMMONNAME without any fallback. The current wording is meant to catch anything not covered by COMMONNAME. As for naming order differences within an article, does it really matter? If people are interested in someone whose name order might be opposite that of the article topic, they can go to that entry and read up. If there isn't currently an article for that person, they will still be able to find the info on the person as they will have the full name. I don't see that it's a huge cause of confusion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow WP:COMMONNAME for the title (it's policy, and trumps any made-up 1868 "convention" that only exists on WP and hasn't even been vetted by WT:MOS; i.e., that's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Thereafter, use a consistent format within the article. And, no, don't use small-caps or all-caps. In reference citations, use |last= and |first= to obviate the issue there.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:COMMONNAME is what is followed. There is no made-up convention here. It was established because that's what academic articles and other reliable sources were doing at the time it was created. It was vetted by those who knew what was going on at the time it was created, so there's no need to say it has no standing. It's been what's used for almost 10 years, so (if nothing else) it's the defacto standard since everyone is using it as a basis for such decisions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: this is not a LOCALCONSENSUS issue, and there is far more to the issue than you're aware, and I think eveyone here will assure you that using COMMONNAME for evey single last article will result in thousands of endless talkpage battles over what's "really" the COMMONNAME for any particular figure: for isntance, the current prime minister. Is his COMMONNAME "Shinzo Abe", because that's what the vast majority of widely-read newssources use (and thus what most readers will expect)? Or is it "Abe Shinzō", because that's what the vast majority of specialized articles (and thus RSes) use? And repeat for every single Japanese bio article—and it's guaranteeed to be fight after fight as each figure has a different balance of newssources vs specialized sources. Every "solution" to this problem is "wrong" in some important way, and we're trying to figure out the most workable solution to avoid the endless talkpage bickering. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • You're making the frequent but serious mistake in supposing that, for COMMONNAME purposes, news sources are not reliable, or at least are less reliable than specialist ones. The exact opposite is the case. The very point of WP:COMMONNAME / WP:UCN is use the most common name in English usage, not the "most favored by academics". See WP:Specialist style fallacy for details of why this "use academia-approved names and styles" approach is irrational when applied to Wikipedia. And if most sources give the name order as Shinzo Abe, but we know the first part of that properly has the diacritic, then the article title here should be Shinzō Abe. The rationale for the name order has nothing to do with the rationale for including the diacritic; they're totally severable arguments. We wouldn't have "endless talk page battles" over this sort of thing if people would actually pay attention to RM and AT discussions and their results. The entire purpose of that erstwhile guideline is to do precisely that, and codify as best practices some standards based on observation of what WP has been deciding via consensus and why. I appears to be failing in this regard, and is instead codifying whatever is wanted by whoever yells the loudest and longest on insular talk pages like this one and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Overly topical style and naming guidelines have a strong tendency toward domination by the argumentum ad nauseam tactic. This is the very crux of the LOCALCONSENSUS problem, and it's why more and more style discussions are centralizing at WT:MOS, and naming discussions not involving style at WT:AT.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @SMcCandlish: You're making the frequent but serious mistake in supposing that, for COMMONNAME purposes, news sources are not reliable, or at least are less reliable than specialist ones.: I made no such supposition—I presented both POVs as an example of where this will quickly boil down to endless "discussions" about which name order is best for each article, depending on the mix of newssources vs academic sources and the feelings of involved editors as to which deserves more weight. You'll notice I took no position myself. You're no doubt unfamiliar with the endless talkpage battles over name order that already occur with Japanese names—taking away a default will only multiply and lengthen those—and I doubt you'll find a WP:JAPAN regular who disagrees with that assertion. COMMONNAME utterly fails with Japanese names, as both configurations are typically very common—sometimes even on the same page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Curly Turkey: Then the obvious answer is to give the names in the order they really are in real life for these subjects, the native family-first order of Japanese, since the English-language sources are so inconsistent that they even contradict each other from sentence to sentence. This conclusion appears to be inescapable. If there is no determinable common name [order], then using the native name form, which is to be found in reliable sources and is consistent, must, per WP:V trump a WP-invented "convention" based on an arbitrary date.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the obvious irony of using LAST= and FIRST= to clarify, um, which is last and which is first? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, we could easily solve that by adding |下= and |上= parameters. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I've long had a problem with the "|last=" and "|first=" parameters' names, myself. While something like "family" and "given" should be aliases to them, it's still really obvious what their purpose is, and they do their job adequately. The objection to the parameters on the basis of their names is essentially the fallacy of equivocation, in this case the changing of the definition of "first name" and "last name" on the fly to present an absurdity we can all see through. Everyone here, I think, knows full well that "first name" and "given name" are, in English, synonymous, and "last name" and "family name" and "surname" are synonymous. No one could seriously believe they refer to the order in which they appear even when we know that a particular culture uses the opposite ordering used in Western cultures. Even most school children probably would figure that out, and I see no evidence that actual WP editors are too confused to use the parameters correctly.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • If you don't know enough about Japanese names to know which is surname and which is given name, perhaps you shouldn't be working on article about Japanese topics? It's really not hard to figure out. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The irony appears to have passed you by, but we are not concerned with the problems of editors, but with the problems of readers. A passing Icelander who sees that Hakuei Ishii is described as the son of Ishii Teiko might reasonably be excused for the misunderstanding that Japanese names work like Icelandic ones, where Hans Jensson is the son of Jens Eriksson (excuse errors: I do not actually speak Icelandic). I think the convention for Chinese names is more or less universal that they are not messed with; what proportion of the population thinks that Mao Tse Tung was Mr Tung I do not know. But the fact that Chinese names have the family name first is common knowledge, and having discovered it, the problem is conquered. With Japanese names, the principle is different: just planned confusion: names are or are not written backwards, and only an expert can tell. That is why, I believe, WP should provide explicit help on every relevant article. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • There's no irony involved. I was speaking of editors, but the same applies to readers. If we are providing both names, it doesn't matter which order they are in as anyone who spends an hour or even less looking into topics about a Japanese person will be able to figure out pretty quickly which is the surname. Regarding providing help for people, we can co-opt the little ? created by the {{Nihongo}} template and give basic instruction there. That is found on almost every article about a Japanese topic, so it would require minimal effort getting it into articles since it's already there. Right now, it links to Help:Installing Japanese character sets, but it could just as easily point to Help:Japanese, which gives a quick rundown of the basics regarding Japanese names, and so on (including a link to Help:Installing Japanese character sets). I think that would actually be a good idea since there is less of a problem with installing Japanese characters now than there used to be (most modern OSes have Japanese enabled by default, as far as displaying the characters when browsing). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
                • Nihonjoe, your humour chips appear to be deactivated—the "irony" is the suggestion of using the "|last=" parameter for the part of the name that comes first (the parameter is not "|surname="). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • To get back to what User:Imaginatorium said earlier, the very problem here appears to be that we are doing something consistent with Chinese (family name first, followed by give name[s]), but not doing this for Japanese. The result is confusing to readers, and to editors not steeped in that erstwhile guideline. It appears to be based on an arbitrary date, and is not even being used consistently. On top of this, it's leading to cases where different styles are being used in the same article based on the birthdates of the persons to whom the names apply. I have to strongly suggest that this whole idea is a dismal failure and must be abandoned. Just use family name first, except in cases where the WP:COMMONNAME is unequivocally the other way around and be done with it. We have simple templates for the latter kind of case so that we can construct lead sentences of the form "Givenname Familyname (Japanese: Familyname Givenname) is...", thus obviating any confusion of the "This person is Japanese, so that first-occurring name is the family name, right?" variety. No problem, all fixed, please move on.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I wrote the section on naming in English for the Japanese names article. The sources I used say explicitly that the common naming of Japanese people in English is different from those of Chinese and Koreans. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Many of us would like to see it go all FAMILY-GIVEN (especially those of us who live with that style day-to-day), but (a) there's much opposition to that (which is how we got here in the first place); and (b) it seems to fly right in the face of COMMONNAME, as newssources overwhelmingly use GIVEN-FAMILY. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
                • That's not entirely consistent, though. It appears to done more frequently by some English-language publishers than others, done more today than it was a few years ago, and done for some subjects more than others – possibly because the subjects favor it themselves, or because some publishers feel it's become conventional in specific contexts (e.g. for government figures and for actors). As an example, Shinzō Abe uses that name order officially in English-language publications of the Japanese government, including his own official website.[1] The artist Hajime Sorayama now does likewise on his own official website[2]; though I know from my own memory and bookshelf that he was more often referred to as Soryama Hajime until comparatively recently (and his earlier-edition art books gave his name this way), most coverage I can find via Google today now uses Western name order. WP:COMMONNAME would require us to use this Western order for both subjects. That doesn't make it a default for everyone. News sources are not the only reliable sources, either. If we don't settle on the native Japanese name order of family-first, then we probably should have no convention at all, especially not one cut in half by an arbitrary date. Simply follow WP:COMMONNAME. It can usually be determined through an n-gram search. For unusually new subjects (e.g. newly notable young actors) the sources cited in the article should be enough to figure it out. If there are hardly any to cite, cf. WP:N and WP:AFD. >;-)

                  But let's be realistic: If, as Curly Turkey suggests above, this solution is not actually tractable, because too often the sources are about evenly split, and any given English-language source may even contradict itself on the same page, then the obvious solution is to do what the native language does (family first), and dispense with any attempt to try to figure out (WP:NOR) what the "true" common name may be by further weighing and constrasting various sources that are themselves trying to figure out what they should do. The clear fact of the matter certainly seems to be that the two forms in English-language sources are in flux (even "transition" is a stretch, since it implies that the trend toward given-first will be permanent, a WP:POV we are not in a position to prove). Far too much weight is being given to what, right now various news sources are doing. If the there isn't clearly a WP:COMMONNAME case to be made, without question, for the subject at hand, then use the native name order. Very simple solution, nothing to argue endlessly about. Apply a basic principle: Go back to what we know is a certain fact. We know what Japanese name order is. We may get conflicting hints from different kinds of sources what the "preferred" rendering is in English (but preferred by whom, according to whom?), and this is indeterminate, so we should not rely on conflicting sources that don't agree on a matter that ultimately devolves to a form of POV pushing about how Japanese names "should" be rendered by Westerners.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

                  • It's not only the news, but also the vast majority of non-Japanologist/non-Japan-specialist publications use Western order for modern Japanese people. Remember that Wikipedia's audience is the average person, so the naming order should reflect what one would expect the average Joe to see. If there is a split with any subject on how many sources use Western naming order versus Japanese naming order, consider the audience of each publication. John Power wrote an article in The Indexer where he says: "However, Japanese almost invariably give their names in the Western order when using Western languages. This practice, also universally followed in Western newspapers, magazines and most books, became established in the Meiji period (1868–1912), when Japan was opened up to the West." and he identifies "scholarly publications" and especially those by Japan specialists as the main exception. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am preparing my own proposal here. Fernando Danger (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting proposal—I look forward to seeing it proposed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, please ping participants in this and related discussions when you introduce that as a proposal.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to comment on best practices here; but as an intelligent reader/editor who is semi-literate in Japanese and Japanese topics and could conceivably stray into these articles -- I have on my desk a book on early Japanese art I was considering working from when I signed in today -- my thought is just that the more clarity, the better. If this requires a hatnote so be it. If the date is arbitrary perhaps this should be addressed. If the practice was brought over from articles about Chinese topics, this may be wrong. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How to report an OR article on Japanese Wikipedia?[edit]

Hello. How do I report an OR article on Japanese Wikipedia? On Korean Wikipedia, you go to [3]. Peter238 (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure what page someone should actually go to if they want to report OR, but good luck getting anyone to take action on the Japanese Wikipedia. The majority of content on the Japanese Wikipedia is unsourced original research, the vast majority of biographical, geographical and popular culture-related articles are overwhelmingly unsourced. Frankly, I don't think jawiki contributors actively care about cleaning up original research, it permeates throughout their articles. --benlisquareTCE 11:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll try anyway. Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the issue of ruby character usage on Wikipedia[edit]

As of Mozilla Firefox version 38 released this month, there is now full support for ruby characters in Firefox browsers. This means that as of present, all major browsers (Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, Opera) now have full support for HTML ruby.

With this in mind, should ruby characters now become the standard for Chinese character (kanji/hanja) glossing on Wikipedia, or at least an acceptable option for editors? Previously the use of HTML ruby was discouraged due to the rationale of WP:ACCESSIBILITY (they wouldn't display properly for many readers), but now that this is ancient history, the issue should be revisited and rediscussed. Proponents of HTML ruby have argued in the past that having hiragana and hanyu pinyin gloss displayed above individual Chinese characters would assist readers who are not too proficient in Chinese and Japanese, but have some small degree in familiarity.

In the case where there is consensus for a new way to use ruby characters on Wikipedia, WP:MOS-ZH and WP:MOS-JA will need to be updated to reflect this. Currently on the Korean Wikipedia, hiragana ruby annotations are the site-wide standard for Japanese text (see example article). --benlisquareTCE 22:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Ruby would be nice, but (a) it should not be required (b) the text should under no circumstances rely on it---the text should be just as readable if the ruby for any reason fails. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • An acceptable way of using them would be allowing them to be an optional thing for editors who choose to use ruby characters for glossing when writing articles. In this case, it wouldn't be a definite requirement for all editors to use, but it wouldn't be discouraged/prohibited at the same time (like it currently is). Ruby characters can by all means be used alongside the existing romaji gloss; readers who prefer the romaji can use the romaji, and readers who prefer the ruby can use the ruby. --benlisquareTCE 00:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way---how is ruby support on mobile browsers? There are a lot of them, and they make up the majority of browsing today. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's Google Chrome for Android, Default Android web browser, Mozilla Firefox for Android. For transparency's sake, I performed these tests on a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 running Android 4.4.4. In all three cases, HTML ruby displays as intended, appearing above the kanji (if a browser doesn't support ruby, it defaults to placing the annotation text on the right hand side of the main text within the same line, enclosed in parentheses). I don't have an iOS device (iPhone/iPod/iPad), so someone else would need to test those. --benlisquareTCE 03:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Why would we need to use furigana at all? Whenever kanji appears, it's usually in parentheses with accompanying rōmaji, so what's the point of adding furigana? And I wouldn't say that using furigana is a "site-wide standard" at Korean WP. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's value added at little to no additional cost, and absolutely no existing value lost. Imagine a country with a healthcare scheme and a pharmaceutical benefits scheme; since the healthcare scheme exists, why would it also need a pharmaceutical benefits scheme? Well, for some individuals, the PBS would help them better, since the terms of the healthcare scheme may not benefit them for their particular instance. The same applies here; those who use the accompanying romaji aren't affected by the ruby characters and can continue to use the romaji, but those who use the ruby characters are the ones who reap the benefits from the new additions. There are some people, myself included, who find romaji difficult to read because Roman letters don't form perfect squares by syllables: as an example, my brain needs to process exactly when a syllable starts and when a syllable ends, which takes additional effort. Even as someone who is not a native Japanese, I find hiragana gloss more readable than Roman letters, even though they both perform the same intended function.

The point I'm getting at is, if there's multiple ways to help different people, why not offer both alternatives if they're not mutually exclusive and don't negatively impact the usefulness of one another? There is nothing to lose from this, and no downsides involved. For some it might come down to personal preference, but for others it might be a more honest usability issue. Not all users follow the same useability patterns (c.f. Jakob Nielsen's "Introduction to Useability"). --benlisquareTCE 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Since it was just added, I would recommend waiting a few months just to allow time for everyone to be upgraded to a browser which supports it. I see no problem having it available as an option. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88: One use case would be when blockquoting, say, poetry—it would be enormously useful even for those who read Japanese to have the furigana in such a case, especially when unusual or obsolete kanji or readings are present. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Benlisquare: ok, well if we do implement furigana, then when will it be used? The only times I've personally seen furigana used were for either rare kanji or for written Okinawan (you know, so Japanese speakers don't read Okinawan like Japanese). On the Korean WP page for Japan, they used furigana for 日本国, one of the most commonplace phrases to come across. My point being, do we only use it for rare/special kanji, or do we use it for all kanji? I strongly oppose the former, but ther latter is fine with me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Can it be dependent on the article's official website, like if the subject adds the expansions for better accessibility? If they don't bother, then it's not a big deal to leave it out. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 06:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The furigana would be most useful in cases of unconventional or uncommon readings, or if a particular kanji is rare in the first place. For instance, ja:五省 uses furigana to gloss characters for clarity. For common words (e.g. perhaps up to elementary grade 6 within the List of jōyō kanji or something along those lines) I'd personally think that there wouldn't be much point in adding the ruby characters, but ultimately I'd leave it to the discretion of the editors involved with the article and whatever consensus they establish among themselves. Dictating who can use what under what circumstances eventually becomes WP:KUDZU, so I'd suggest that the Manual of Style inform editors to use their common sense when deciding what to gloss. --benlisquareTCE 13:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Mobile support is a good thing to ask about, but I'm skeptical that cell-phone browsing is the majority of Wikipedia reading today, even if it accounts for a substantial portion of overall Internet traffic. Do we have any proof that mobile browsers dominate Wikipedia reading? I'd be amazed if this were true, given what Wikipedia is and what purpose it serves (i.e. fairly long-form text reading). While I use WP myself on my cell phone a lot, I rarely go past the infobox or lead, and save most detailed reading for later on a larger device. Am I some kind of dinosaur? And "mobile" can be misleading. My tablet is a "mobile" device, but runs Windows 8.1, and I use the full version of Firefox on it, not some limited-functionality mobile browser.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it would be helpful in cases of ateji, especially since there is a trend in popular culture and baby names to pronounce kanji completely differently. (eg. とある科学の超電磁砲レールガン and 七音どれみ) However, I am a bit concerned how ruby would appear in-line, since it would increase the spacing between lines (see the effect above?). I would therefore recommend that ruby not be used in prose except in the first line. _dk (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess it would work optimally as long as the gloss is used within the first line of a subsection or the lead paragraph, or if it's used within a dot-point, numbered line, image caption, wikitable or list. Perhaps people wouldn't even notice it that much if it was at the first line of each paragraph, since the gap becomes truly obvious mostly when they appear between two lines mid-paragraph, and surely enough it isn't as problematic as {{MongolUnicode}} used in Mongolia-related articles. Though, what are the chances that MediaWiki:Common.css can be tweaked so that the ruby text is displayed a bit lower, enough to minimise the increase in whitespace above? Also, seems like that is always the first example people come up with when demonstrating ruby characters. Railgun shows up every single time, truly a mystery of the universe. --benlisquareTCE 14:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be okay with making furigana an optional choice but not mandatory. Its inclusion would be helpful for the people described above who can read kana but not kanji and who have trouble with romaji. I suspect that that's a rather limited group, though. There would also likely be places where using ruby for romanji would be beneficial. --Cckerberos (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Most people don't use current browsers, so to suggest this problem is "ancient history" is way off the mark. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is ancient history though, IE and Chrome have supported ruby for a long time. The recent change in Firefox is just sweeping away the dust that's left with a broom. Even if a user is using a 2 year old Chrome client (keep in mind that even with non-admin Windows privileges Chrome auto-updates itself, unless you specifically disable it), they can still view HTML ruby tags. We're talking about a transition from an existing 70% to a future potential 95% browser usage share now supporting ruby. --benlisquareTCE 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support adding Ruby characters since there are some kana aspects that don't show up in Hepburn: o-o vs. o-u (おお, おう), and also the distinction between the two "zu"s which, in Nihonshiki, are rendered "zu" and "du" (ず, づ). WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I must oppose. These characters are not standard in Japanese. Including them would clutter up the text and mislead readers as to what standard usage is. The "Why don't we use all the latest bells and whistles?" approach violates the basic principle of good style, which is to be clear and concise. These characters represent the Japanese version of a pronunciation guide. Pronunciation is better given using Latin characters. Who is this supposed to benefit? Readers who know kana, but not Latin characters? Fernando Danger (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Using ruby wouldn't preclude using romaji as well. You could use both. This is just discussing whether we should remove the prohibition in the MOSJA so they can be used in some cases. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why I suggest they should be limited to usage as an "extra", from which the text should be entirely independent. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I presume that "ruby usage" means adding furigana to Japanese text within en:WP. This seems to me an almost universally bad idea. en:WP is an English language encyclopedia: of course, unlike traditional lang=en encyclopedias it has almost no technical restrictions on adding foreign character sets, and should quote the original script wherever reasonable and helpful. However, ("outside the quotation marks") it should be written in English, using the vocabulary and writing style of English, in which there is no convention of writing a phonetic rendering parallel to a word or phrase. So the only place I can see it being appropriate is a quotation of text, itself including furigana, or in a article on furigana. There is a technical issue that has already been mentioned: CJKV typesetting works on different principles, and for equivalent readability would us a kanji font size bigger than the roman. In other words, plain kanji already do not fit in standard spacing, let alone with furigana. I absolutely oppose adding furigana because it might help the Japanese beginner; compare [4] which uses furigana very effectively, but this is because it is a Japanese learning site. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose also, mainly for the reasons given by Imaginatorium. Let us not forget that this is the English language wikipedia. Furigana would be perfect for a "Simple Japanese" wiki, if one like the Simple English wiki existed. It may be appropriate when quoting archaic texts, but in now wya should it become a standard. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So in other words, you don't "oppose"? Nowhere within the original post was a proposal made; I opened with a brainstorming suggestion, with two different options (either using furigana everywhere, or only using it to gloss in circumstantial cases), and it sounds like you're actually in support of the second option. (Why are we WP:!VOTE-ing in the first place? This is no WP:RFC) --benlisquareTCE 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose using furigana in the main text or even the lede of articles due to its use in standard Japanese being restricted to learner's books or rare/unusual pronunciation of kanji, however, I would support using it for block quotes of poetry, archaic Japanese, and other Japonic languages (see Onna Nabe for an example of where it could be useful). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about using furigana in the lead for rare/unusual pronunciation of kanji then? _dk (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No, Template:Nihongo would be better. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, WP:MOSJA#Ruby needs to be reworded, regardless of which template works better for expressing readings for rare kanji. MOSJA currently does not prohibit ruby text because of how it looks or how it's used, it's currently prohibited based on technical aspects (browser rendering) which are already long overdue. --benlisquareTCE 11:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with Imaginatorium and Sturmgewehr88, on the main point and on Sturmgewehr88's response to Underbar dk's question, just above. Furigana wouldn't generally seem to add English-speaker value to the English-language Wikipedia (especially given the problems it would introduce), even if some special cases like Onna Nabe may be exceptions, where we are quoting or illustrating the use of furigana (This means I agree that technologically it's okay for such cases, even if there's not a good use-case for broader deployment).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, what's everyone's overall attitude towards using furigana as gloss within classical text or poetry, especially if modern native Japanese texts themselves use them to aid readers? The usage of ruby characters should be situational (e.g. for cases where even native readers would resort to using furigana), and thus it should be left to editor judgment. It would really be helpful if I could fix up Gosei (meditation) by making the text read "至誠しせいもとかりしか", without WP:MOSJA explicitly telling me that I cannot do so. With the way MOSJA is currently worded, it's overly authoritarian and does not allow editors to use their own discretion, since it directly prohibits the use of ruby characters solely on technical grounds. Since the technical aspect has now changed, you cannot use the same rationale to prohibit ruby characters, and so MOSJA needs to be changed. --benlisquareTCE 11:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see a Requests for comment on this such as the following.

Should Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby be edited to read as follows...
Ruby either with HTML markup <ruby> or the {{Ruby}} templates may be used in the following...
  1. In blockquotes where the quoted text includes furigana
  2. In infoboxes (example "黎明(れいめい)のアルカナ" in Dawn of the Arcana)
  3. Where the romanization of Japanese used may produce an ambiguity
  4. If a kanji has a rarely used reading or nanori (example "手塚(てづか) 治虫(おさむ)" in Osamu Tezuka)

All other use must have consensus established in the articles talk page beforehand.

If anyone has an alternative proposal please be so kind as to present it. – Allen4names (contributions) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions about a book written about the Japanese school of Manaus, Brazil[edit]

Hi! I found out about this book:

Does anyone know more about the background of Mitsutoshi Miura? What kinds of connections did he have with the school? Who is the publisher? Was this sold in regular Japanese bookstores? Was the Japanese School of Manaus involved in the creation of this book? How would the title and name of the publisher be translated?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: Names in infobox[edit]

There are at least five name fields |name=, |native_name=, |birth_name=, |alias=, |other_names=

Which field should the Japanese name be in? For example George Takei (who's birth name is Hosato Takei (武井 穂郷 Takei Hosato?)) uses this format:

| name = George Takei<br/>武井 穂郷
| birth_name = Hosato Takei

Which field should the birth name go in, and how should it be formatted? E.g. should Romaji and kanji/kana be included? Should Romaji be formatted given-name first? should nihongo template be used, or brackets? E.g:

| name = Runa Akiyama
| native_name = あきやまるな
| birth_name = Teruko Akiyama (秋山照子)

What order should the name be in the infobox? For example Arisa Andō showed "Andō Arisa"

Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Something like this (a couple of them just filled with random stuff just as an example):
| name = Runa Akiyama
| native_name = あきやまるな
| birth_name = Teruko Akiyama (秋山照子)
| alias = The Amazing Runa, Lois Lane
| other_names = Teru Akiyama
It is explained pretty well here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, so is George Takei article's use of <br/> is technically incorrect? I kinda like how it's displayed, but in terms of bot-friendly data, I think it's better to put them in their own fields? —Msmarmalade (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be in the appropriate field. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Draft:Amuse Museum?[edit]

Can someone who can read Japanese please assist in perhaps adding a few citations to this draft so it can be published: Draft:Amuse Museum? Or if it is not Notable, please note such at top of draft? Thanks for your time! MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to Amuse Museum because it is definitely notable. I'm working on improving the refs now. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Progress on improving articles[edit]

I've created (a few days ago, anyway) a section on the main page showing the progress we've made on improving articles under this project. Here's the chart:

Get all articles Featured class: 0.2% complete
Get all lists Featured class: 2.2% complete
Get all articles at least A-class0.2% complete
Get all articles at least Good class0.6% complete
Get all at least B-class2.4% complete
Get all articles at least C class9.2% complete
Get all articles at least Start class49.4% complete
Assess all articles99.8% complete

If we can work on assessing all the articles, that would be great. I've been trying to get them down to zero (meaning all of them are assessed) for the last month or so. There are only about 180 left to be assessed under the main project, with under 50 additional in descendant projects (these are not included in the chart above). If a bunch of us do about 20 each, it won't take long to finish them up.

Thank you to everyone who helps make this project amazing. I appreciate all of your help. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yūichi Nakamura (actor) listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Yūichi Nakamura (actor) to be moved to Yuichi Nakamura (actor). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Asako Toki listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Asako Toki to be moved to Toki Asako. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Mio Tomonaga[edit]

The Mio Tomonaga stub is two sentences long, but those two sentences have 25 inline citations. So, if you want an article to flesh-out and you don't want to search for sources, this is your big chance. Glancing through the refs, it looks like they are pretty much in Japanese. Any help is appreciated. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Source check needed on draft[edit]

Please could someone check how good the references at Draft:Act Yasukawa are? I don't read Japanese, but if the references are good, then I think they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)