This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've been editing articles for a Japanese manga series Hunter × Hunter, and we've reached the problem of deciding what translations to use for names.
I've been browsing through the archieved "Fictional characters discussion", but it doesn't appear any conclusion was reached.
And there's no note on the acutal Japanese Manual of Style that addresses this problem.
Basically, Hunter × Hunter has existed mostly on the internet as scanlations only. The manga was licensed about a year ago. At the time it was licensed, there were about 22 volumes of Hunter × Hunter out, and all of them scanlated.
Now, ViZ has been releasing Hunter × Hunter, i believe they're up to about volume 10 now.
ViZ uses a different set of translations from the scanlation groups (which had all pretty much agreed on the same ones), and sometimes these translations are *very* different.
The point is, Hunter × Hunter is really not all that popular outside the internet. The fandom for Hunter × Hunter is completely internet based, and almost completely based on the scanlation version. Very few people actually use the ViZ translation of the name. Simple google tests can prove that. The Hunter × Hunter english fandom has one main center and i can also verify from experience that the ViZ names are just about never used (except when actually discussing ViZ name changes).
So is it okay to stick with the scanlation names, even though they are not official, because they are the common accepted ones amoung the majority of fans? ANd simply acknolwedge the ViZ variations exist in the appropriate spots?
I would go the other direction, using the official names and acknowleding the scanlation names. For example, for many many years, the only name the English-speaking world had for the main character of Final Fantasy V was Butz, but now that the official transliteration is Bartz, we prefer that, and note the unofficial in the text. --Golbez00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
ahh..actually, i was trying to ask what i should do, rather than what people think about it.
So considering the long discussion about fictional characters that occurred earlier this year, was there some decision or conclusion made about what to do in these circumstances?
I should mention, i do know about the guildlines over at the Anime/Manga project (WP:Otaku) regarding what version of names to use for fictional characters. (and was planning to follow them) But seeing the long discussion that occurred here, i just wanted to ask about the conclusions to that discussion. --Yaksha00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears to have simply died, rather than concluding. I don't see that any of the versions debated at the time ever made it onto the policy page. –Aponar Kestrel(talk)03:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-____- i really don't want to have to start another "do we have to use official names" debate, here or otherwise. I guess i'll just go ahead and follow the guildlines set out at the Anime/Manga project unless those change. --Yaksha06:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Dojo
For more specialized Japanese words where English-language speakers are often familiar with Japanese word usage, such as koi, sushi, haiku, anime, ronin, or dojo, the word is usually the same for both singular and plural forms.
I'm interested in seeing the word dojo treated as an english loan word on Wikipedia; particularly, I feel it should be pluralized as dojos and typed in non-italics. My personal reason for this is that anecdotally I find the plural form dojos to be the more common useage, and the useage of the plural dojo seems affected.
While it is anything but a household word across the English-speaking world, I do feel it is relatively common at this point. More compellingly, it is a term that is often applied (correctly or incorrectly as the case may be) to training halls for martial arts that are not Japanese in origin, or martial arts that have succeeded far enough from a traditional Japanese source that they have become Anglicized themselves. When I was a child I trained in a Korean martial art under an American who was trained by an American, and he called the school a "dojo." I do not have any reason to believe my instructor had a clue that the word dojo was even derived from the Japanese. I am sure my experience with this word is not unique.
Last but not least, I checked with Merriam-Webster and the word is listed there, pluralizable as dojos.
I just wanted to share my thoughts amongst Wikipedians and see if anybody has any thoughts on the matter. Transentient
Yes, Dojos is in common use amoungst english speakers. When the word is used in english to refer to more than one Dojo, i hear lots of people add "s" to it just out of habit. --Yaksha06:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hepburn Romanisation
I've just noticed that the MOS and the article on Hepburn romanization contradict one another when it comes to the long vowel ええ. The MOS says it should be typed as "ee" but the Hepburn article says it should be typed as "ei". Which should we use? Bobo1234511:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Names of criminals in the Japanese Wikipedia, or lack thereof
OK, this isn't exactly an MoS issue, but it's been puzzling me for a while and I'm sure somebody can give me an explanation -- so why doesn't the Japanese Wikipedia ever give the names of criminals, even if they have been convicted in a court of law? Eg. Takuma Mamoru, the guy behind the Ikeda Elementary School massacre, has no article and the article only refers to him as "37歳の男" and later "犯人", even though the guy was convicted of mass murder and executed two years ago! The article's Talk page has a reference to a 「犯人の個人情報全面抹消に関する件」(total erasure of criminals' personal infomation) but no link to anything that would explain this.
Mainstream Japanese media certainly seem to have no such compunctions, bandying about his name and everything they could dig up about him long before the conviction. (But, of course, they mosaiced out the handcuffs, so nobody would suspect him of being a suspect of something, heavens no.) Jpatokal16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This page give the policy in fair detail. A few cases where person information isn't censored:
Class A war criminals
Tainted politicians
Famous people who have released their real names (in the case of a stage name)
Criminal cases in which the accused publicises their own name
Terrorists
Famous victims of large accidents/incidents
Other than these, it seems that there are quite a few sensitive cases on jaWiki, and many of the editors are working towards promoting individuals' privacy, though others are simply working to remove incriminating information from various pages. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that 個人情報保護 and 民法709条 are invoked to justify this, but why can eg. Kyodo News or Yomiuri Shimbun then publish the guy's name...?! (And I'm not going to even get into how somebody convicted for stabbing little girls to death can hope to have much right to privacy.) Jpatokal04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really understand it either. I imagine that they are just trying to cover their asses while they figure out the legality of this whole "Wikipedia" thing. At least that's what I hope. I'll wait until I get an explanation from the ref desk. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you found any other examples like Takuma? His article is blocked, and the fact that his name isn't present seems to be the result of nothing but "wrong version" syndrome, which I imagine is quite prevalent on jaWiki. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added that information too. If you think you can improve the manner in which I posed the question feel free to edit it. I'm always worried I appear rude, prying, or presumptuous, especially since this is an admittedly touchy situation. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Masao-san gave a good explanation, and I must admit I somewhat expected the answer was so simple. You can read it on the help desk, but basically it seems that the ratio of admins to users, and/or the participation of admins in general is really lacking on jaWiki, which forces them to take extreme defensive strategies in many situations. In order to protect the names of people who lawfully have the right to keep it from the media, they have created blanket policies to keep the peace. A certain amount of the problem is most certainly created by bad-faith editors (at least by western standards), but in order to protect the peaceful existance of jaWiki itself I can understand (reluctantly) why they've given this up to the hot-heads (whom I would rather call "vandals", "POV editors", and all other sorts of problem groups of old men who I would rather not mention here). Hmmm... I'd like to think about this for a while. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
An admineditor on the Japanese wikipedia left an interesting note at Talk:Fusako Sano#Japanese interwiki. I admire the dedication, but I wonder what would happen if a reference (on the Japanese WP) was added from an article at Yomiuri's site for example (not a name, but a reference to an article which has the name)... Neier13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I find that note very interesting, so much so that I don't understand at all... maybe Kanjy has misunderstood jaWiki's policies? We have just established with Masao over at the reference desk that the names of such criminals are not being protected, but are simply left removed from articles because of the hoards of malicious edits that they can't afford to defend themselves against.
I dunno, this is all too Japanese for me. I understand the words and their meaning, but I can't figure out what they're saying, and I can tell that they're hiding something (i.e. they are keeping back something because they don't want to throw themselves into the crossfire with the vandals). It was so much easier when the only thing I worried about were their stupid image copyright rules. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Err, apologies, made a mistake. Fusako is, indeed, a victim, and not a criminal, and thus her name is protected by jaWiki. The thing is, the source you mentioned is an English source, and I must assume that the server for the news service is located in the US, making it legal. I can't find any Japanese news service that's ever said her name before. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Pronunciation guides
Someone had added nonstandard pronunciation guides to two articles (Yuri and Manga). They would have had to be converted to IPA as per the general MoS, but they would also have been totally redundant given the romanization, so I removed them for now.
What is our general take on this? When, if at all, do we want an IPA guide in addition to the romanization? Shinobu07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, IPA and romanization are different matters. IPA indicates pronunciation whereas romanization is a method of substituting letters of the Latin alphabet for native characters. Since the native characters are, in the case of Japanese, kana (which indicate pronunciation within Japanese), there's obviously a close connection, but leaving aside the particulars of Japanese, pronunciation and romanization are separate. As the example ryoute (look quickly before it's deleted) shows so clearly, the letters do not indicate the pronunciation. That example is not Hepburn, but Hepburn doesn't indicate pronunciation either, except when combined with a set of standard references such as "a as in the French chat (but ideally, recorded sound).
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) explicitly permits non-IPA pronunciation. In my opinion, we should not delete non-IPA pronunciation as long as it's correct and helpful. We don't have to convert anything to IPA; Wikipedia editors are volunteers and don't have to do anything at all. As usual, Wikipedia considers it helpful to add IPA (and I agree that some readers understand it, even if I personally am ignorant), so it's for some good to add it. But Wikipedia does not have a policy against other pronunciation systems.
You mentioned that for those two words the IPA would have been totally redundant given the romanization. If that's the case, then the word itself _is_ the IPA, so there hardly seems a need to repeat it. If pressed, we might invent a notation such as "IPA same" meaning that the IPA is the same as the word itself:
(which leads me to wonder how we would write an entry for same (鮫)).
I would discourage adding pronunciation for anything other than the title (allowing occasionally the exception of alternative names). By that I mean that we may give the pronunciation of "manga" in the article on manga, but not in the article on anime or Hokusai. Furthermore, I'd suggest that we be even stricter on pronunciation than on native writing (kana and kanji). We discussed permitting including the native writing of terms that don't have articles, but I'd say we should not put pronunciation of terms other than the article title, even if those terms don't have their own articles. Why the difference? Native writing helps the reader look up a term in another reference work (such as the Japanese Wikipedia) or recognize it if they find it in an English or other work. But pronunciation doesn't.
@pronunciation and romanization are separate: Not really. The romanization scheme we use on Wikipedia is very regular, and deviations are very rare. The example you cited is incorrect, by the way. There's iku (yuku), wo (o or wo), he (e), ha (wa), iu (yuu) and I think that takes care of the most frequently used ones. Note that we regularize the romanization in many cases to reflect pronunciation.
@explicitly permits: but not as a primary pronunciation guide: "Pronunciation transcriptions based on traditional English spelling are deprecated."
@the word itself _is_ the IPA: No. You're very wrong about that. Read up on IPA and romanization, please. The use of "IPA same" would be a very bad idea too, because that could lead people into believing that we romanize Japanese words using IPA. However, IPA guides are nearly always redundant, because they define the pronunciation as unambiguously as possible anyway. A problem with IPA and English based guides is that they don't deal with e.g. unvoicing, which sometimes happens, and sometimes doesn't.
Is clogging up the article with pronunciation guides necessary, when an explanation of the romaji system is always one click away? Shinobu02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, but I'm a little confused by the examples you used. 行く can be read as いく or ゆく, but they are distinct words and can be written reflecting this in hiragana. 言う (いう) can be read as ゆう, but they are really the same word, and the ゆう reading simply isn't standard Japanese (although I do use it). Dekimasu05:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Kabuki actors naming
I know we've been through this for sumō, but I have to ask again for Kabuki. What do people think about placing modern (post-Meiji) Kabuki actors in traditional name order? Here's my thoughts:
While some of the most famous actors are frequently referred to by only their given name (e.g. Tamasaburō), it is rare to see their names rendered in Western order (e.g. Tamasaburo Bando), and are rather awkward in my personal opinion when they are.
Stage names are not normal family names or given names anyway - they're special, and reflect the actor's guild and his theatrical (artistic) lineage.
Keeping the names in the same order would help preserve a continuity and consistency. Would it not be strange to list six or seven people under Ichikawa Danjūrō and then have the last few as Danjūrō Ichikawa?
I think the editors of the Utada Hikaru article use the "Stage name" idea to keep her name in Japanese order. But the actors' real names MUST be in Western order. WhisperToMe22:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What about sumo wrestlers, then? I know, that's a bad joke. I think it makes sense to keep the names in the Japanese form in this case. Still, it seems like a slippery slope. Dekimasu15:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be a broad exception. Wouldn't that mean any notable Japanese person who isn't famous in the English-speaking world? For example, anyone in the owarai project? --Dekimasu11:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I like consistency and dislike exceptions. I think that all people, regardless of their nation of origin, should have their name written in the same consistent order. Being consistent helps avoid misunderstanding and improves on clarity. For Wikipedia, as the first name is generally first followed by the last name, I think that this is probably the best for this case as well. Bendono05:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your view on this, and I love consistency as well. I really do. I've even been told I'd make a good archivist, because I'm so organized. But there are situations where putting names into Western order just for the sake of consistency makes them awkward if not outright incorrect. Again, with the case of Kabuki names, they're not even really properly surnames or given names; they're a special kind of art-name. Weird Al, just to take a random example, is not "Al, Weird". Weird is not his first name, Al is not his last name. The same goes for someone like Bandō Tamasaburō. His full name is "Bandō Tamasaburō", not Bandō (surname) Tamasaburō (givenname). Do you think that Western people should be listed in Japanese order on the Japanese wikipedia? Plenty of people like Miyazaki Hayao, Murakami Takashi, Murakami Haruki, and Koizumi Junichiro are just as well known by their names in Western order; I think it's perfectly fair to say that the majority of modern Japanese figures fall into this category. But some simply don't. LordAmeth11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Do you think that Western people should be listed in Japanese order on the Japanese wikipedia?" Western people are listed in Western order in Japanese anyway. WhisperToMe23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. In Japan, my name, even when written in Latin script, is officially in the following order: last name, first name, middle name. That is the policy of the immigration bureau and each municipal hall. Personally, I wish to write it in that order only when it is written in kanji / kana. When writing in Latin script, I desire first name, middle name, last name. But I do not make official policy. Bendono00:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The only reason your name was written that way was because the name had to do with legal documents. If you look at the Japanese Wikipedia, George Bush is still George Bush, etc. What I meant is that, a person of European and/or North American origin keeps his or her naming order in Japanese [1]. WhisperToMe00:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not clear that you were referring to Japanese Wikipedia. They have their own guidelines and are of little relevance here. Bendono02:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. If George Bush is always George Bush, even in Japanese, then Bando Tamasaburo or Nakamura Kenzaburo should be listed in Japanese order even in English. LordAmeth00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, the funny thing is that the standard for English names in Japanese is completely different than the Japanese names in English; BUT if Bando and Nakamura are stage names, they could be in Japanese order. WhisperToMe02:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting argument. Of course there are special cases to consider. Such as 紀貫之 (Ki no Tsurayuki). This is more like "Tsurayuki of the Ki family". The "no", while really grammar, should be recognized as part of his name and sounds awkward, even in English context, if missing. His entry is here: Ki no Tsurayuki. I think it is fine how it is and would not suggest "Tsurayuki Ki". There are many other famous people with "no" stuck in the middle of the their name.
I would also like to point out that encyclopedias, phone books, and such usually order people by their last name. I do not know the reason that Wikipedia does otherwise. (Not that I am suggesting a change.) Bendono02:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems kind of rude to rearrange the order of people's names. Also, using the family-name-first arrangement, it would be easier to maintain consistency throughout all the articles of Japanese persons. If we make using the given-name-first order the default, then people will make exceptions to this in cases where the person's name is more commonly known in the last-name-first order. Jecowa09:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
On islands / In islands
I have seen several articles that say that so and so is in Kyūshū, or in Shikoku. If we are talking about islands, shouldn't they all say on instead of in? Is there an appropriate global MoS for that somewhere? Even so, Hokkaido and Okinawa provide some interesting quandries, because "in Okinawa" is fine when talking about it as a prefecture and not an island (so and so was born in Okinawa, etc). I have no idea on how to start formulating a rule for those two, to differentiate between the "island" and "prefecture" in prose; but, Kyūshū and Shikoku seem fairly clear to me. Any thoughts? Neier00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"On" does sound a little more pleasant than "in" when the object of the preposition is an island. I don't know if there are any rules about that, though. I don't know where it would go for sure, but I would try putting it on the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style page and seeing what happens to it. Jecowa01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bobo. If we standardize everything, there'll be no more room left for writing style - and everything will become even more stiff and pedantic than it already is. LordAmeth12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Osaka City (not Ōsaka City)
I would like to create an entry for Osaka (忍坂). This is an old city in Nara Prefecture and it not Osaka city. There are some important historical and literary developments that occurred there. The entry Osaka is for a different city and conflicts. A simple solution is to move Osaka to Ōsaka and add a note to the disambiguation page. However, I am sure that some here will not approve. Please advise. Bendono04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this "Ossaka" though? In any case, even if they are spelled the same way in English, 大阪市 is what one usually refers to when using "Osaka". --Polaron | Talk04:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the reading is Osaka (おさか). It is listed as おさか (Osaka) in modern Japanese dictionaries such as 大辞林 and 日本国語大辞典. Also, The historical Man'yōgana 於佐加 clarify the reading as "osaka". Bendono04:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Please name it Osaka, Nara. If someone types the standard English spelling "Osaka" into their search box, they will - 99.9% of the time - be looking for the one in Osaka Prefecture. At worst, the page for Ōsaka should be at Osaka, Osaka just like the page on Sakai is at Sakai, Osaka. The "real" Sakai has more than 800,000 people, making it many times the size of Sakai, Gunma or Sakai, Fukui (which also use different kanji from the one in Ōsaka, but still are listed as city+state for clarity). Dekimasu05:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Are historic cities covered by the <city, prefecture> convention? The modern prefectures may not have been in place when the old city existed. Its territory is within Sakurai, Nara and naming it Osaka, Nara may give the impression that it is a current municipality in Nara. --Polaron | Talk05:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, although it would have been in historical Nara as well. On further examination, my Japanese-language denshijisho calls it "the old name of Otsusaka in Sakurai" (it's now written as 忍阪). Wouldn't it make sense to write the article under the new name and comment on the old name, or even write it as a section of Sakurai, Nara, just as the article for Asuka, Nara deals with the historical Asuka Plain as much as it deals with the modern town? Dekimasu06:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As I continue to think about this, I'm not sure that the place requires its own article (it doesn't seem to have one on the Japanese Wikipedia), but if you do make it, Osaka, Yamato is also a viable name to reflect the historical status. I'm not convinced it was ever a "city" as much as it was just a "place," but you may be looking at more detailed information than I have here. Dekimasu06:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Nara became a prefecture in 1887. I am interested in pre-9th century. The historical Osaka (忍阪) was part of Shiki no Kami no Kōri (城上郡), which is part of Yamato no Kuni (大和国). At present, this place generally corresponds with Ossaki (same 忍阪) found in Sakurai City (桜井市), which is part of present Nara prefecture.
The present definition of a city (at least a 市 in Japanese) needs to have a population greater than 50,000 people. I do not know the population in the 8-9th century, but I doubt that many historic places had that many people. I am not opposed to leaving out the word "city". However, Osaka, Osaka, Nara, or Osaka, Yamato does not necessarily mean city either, so is perhaps beside the point. Osaka (=Ōsaka) just happens to refer to the city as opposed to the prefecture or my Osaka (忍阪). Bendono07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I said (excepting the pronunciation of 忍阪, which my dictionary specifically states is Otsusaka now, rather than Ossaki). Certainly Osaka, Yamato or making a section in the Sakurai, Nara article are the best options. Dekimasu16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Old Japanese orthography wrote the geminate consonant as a full つ. Modern orthography writes it as a small っ. Bendono00:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Two hats
As some of the discussion above points out, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, not completely but to some extent, defers it to this page for Japanese usage, in addition to the normal purposes of Manual of Style subpages.
Therefore, in our discussions, it is often important to distinguish between the two or three different hats we wear; that is, the different roles we play in different situations. More effort is needed to keep clear the distinction between determining which spelling is going to occupy the one slot available for an articles name, usage within the article whose name is determined that way (which should almost always include variant spellings), and usage in other articles. Gene Nygaard13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The distinction between titles of articles and content of articles has always been noted. Whether or not the macrons-in-articles policy could be expanded to include the titles was the subject of a mediation early this year. However, I don't think that much thought has been given towards maintaining two spellings in articles, depending upon whether it is the subject or not. I'm going to try and digest all of the discussion in the section above now, to understand why that may (or may not be) a good idea... Neier11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
More on Osaka / Ōsaka
The entry on Osaka, Yamato is still coming up. However, I would like to bring up a few more issues that I think are relavent overall to some of the topics being discussed now. With a few exceptions, places are filed as Name, Prefecture.
Places called Osaka:
Osaka (小坂), Chiba
Osaka (小坂), Miyagi
Osaka (小坂), Ibaraki
Osaka (小坂), Kanagawa
Osaka (小坂), Nagano
Osaka (小坂), Gifu
Osaka (小坂), Shizuoka
Osaka (小坂), Hyōgo
Osaka (小坂), Wakayama
Osaka (小坂), Shimane
Osaka (小坂), Okayama
Osaka (小坂), Hiroshima
Osaka (小坂), Kumamoto
Osaka (小坂), Ōita
Osaka (尾坂), Kyōto
Osaka (尾坂), Okayama
Osaka (男坂), Nara
Osaka (御坂), Miyagi
Places called Ōsaka:
Ōsaka (大坂), Fukushima
Ōsaka (大坂), Ibaraki
Ōsaka (大坂), Tōkyō <-- No, that's not a typo. It's in Meguro-ku, Aobadai 3 & 4.
Ōsaka (大坂), Ishikawa
Ōsaka (大坂), Fukui
Ōsaka (大坂), Shizuoka
Ōsaka (大坂), Aichi
Ōsaka (大坂), Kyōto
Ōsaka (大坂), Wakayama
Ōsaka (大坂), Tottori
Ōsaka (大坂), Tokushima
Ōsaka (大坂), Fukui
Ōsaka (大阪), Ōsaka
With so many Osaka / Ōsaka, Wikipedia insists on special casing one of them in two ways:
1) Remove the macron
2) Leave off the prefecture
I still believe that the macron should be there. But, putting that aside, at the very least, specify which Osaka / Ōsaka it is by moving it to Osaka, Osaka (or Ōsaka, Ōsaka, or Ōsaka, Osaka, or Osaka, Ōsaka).
The current guidelines allow macrons on all except for one of the Ōsaka locations, so filing those will not be a problem. However, for the other 18 Osaka locations, they will need to be added to the Osaka disambiguation page. The Osaka page should contain the disambiguatin page and not default to the Ōsaka found in Ōsaka. Bendono10:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is that realistically speaking, no one inputting the search term "Osaka" is looking for anything but Osaka, Osaka and that's why the page is at Osaka now. With a few possible exceptions, none of these other Osakas will ever earn articles on the English Wikipedia. There is a link to Osaka (disambiguation) at the top of the Osaka page, so I don't see what the problem is. Dekimasu10:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not try to speak for everyone. When I search for "Osaka", I would expect to find several articles, one for each place. I would then choose the appropriate one from the list. I must note that I would not expect to find Osaka though, because I did not search for "Ōsaka". I think it is wrong to assume that a search for "Osaka" will default to Ōsaka, Ōsaka. It is not clear what the user is searching for and should rather default to the disambiguation page.
I also note that I was just reading "Japanese History: 11 Experts Reflect on the Past" (1996, Kodansha). The only term used is "Ōsaka", never once did I find "Osaka". The same is true of all words: macrons are used where appropriate, including daimyō and Jōmon.
I am willing, over time, to make articles on each of the Osaka and Ōsaka places. I have made special trips (solely because of the name) to a few of them and have read about the rest of them. Bendono11:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course you are free to make new articles, but to say that people aren't searching for Ōsaka, Ōsaka is disingenuous. Forgive me for speaking for everyone. Most people have not made special trips to places called Osaka solely because of the name. Of the 2000+ links directly to Osaka (as opposed to a redirect page to Osaka), I doubt that even five are to Osakas other than Ōsaka, Ōsaka. And if most people aren't searching for Ōsaka, Ōsaka, then why haven't any of those other articles been written? Dekimasu12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Articles for the other Osaka and Ōsaka do not exist yet. So it should not come as any surprise that you do not find links to them yet. Bendono12:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
From WP:Disambiguation: "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.... For example, the primary topic Rome has a link at the top to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome)." Dekimasu12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting example. A few weeks ago I searched for "Rome". I was expecting to find Rome, Pennsylvania. I eventually found it, but it would have been easier if Rome defaulted to the disambiguation page. That is the problem with primary meaning. I do not doubt that a majority of the links point to Rome, the capital of Italy. Never the less, it did not return what I was looking for. I would have prefered it to default to the disambiguation page. Bendono12:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what we have now at Osaka. The metropolitan area has more than 18,000,000 people. It should not have the same weight as a small town in Fukui or Tokushima. 大坂 even redirects to 大阪 on the Japanese Wikipedia. Dekimasu12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that making its page a disambiguation page would be similar to making the Paris page a disambiguation page so it wouldn't be confused with the other 25 articles about cities of the same name. People wouldn't expect any other Paris to be located at the Paris page, though they might expect it to be a disambiguation page which to they would currently find a link. Paris, France is famous world-wide, while a lot of people may not realize that the other cities of the same name even exist. Jecowa17:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You missed Ōsaka (逢坂), Shiga, probably because it starts おう instead of おお. Information loss even with the macrons! Dekimasu12:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah. That's another good one. There is an Ōsaka (逢坂) in Ōsaka as well! It's been years since I've been there, but I strongly remember it. 逢坂 is often used as pun in literature (Ōsaka, the meeting hill). The difference between おう and おお is historical. おう developed from あう which in turn developed from あふ. おお, on the other hand, developed from おほ. Bendono12:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Rashomon Gate
What's the best title for the article Rashomon Gate? The issues include macrons, mon or -mon, Gate or no Gate, and sho or jo. For starters, I suggest Rajō-mon. Fg207:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that this is the article on the gate, not the film (which is Rashomon (film)). Fg2
I personally vote for Rashomon or Rashōmon, with or without "Gate"; as a result of the film and the book, the name "Rashomon" is far more recognizable to the majority of Western (and possibly many non-Western) readers. I'm a MA student in Japanese studies, and even I would not have recognized "Rajō-mon" as referring to that. LordAmeth07:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The 1950 Japanese-language film using a movie set Rashomon is almost always transliterated Rashomon outside Wikipedia and sites mirroring it. The 2002 Parker novel in English is Rashomon Gate (subtitle probably doesn't appear on covers). The exact phrase "Rashōmon effect" (a term derived from the 1950 movie) gets no Google hits (vs. 16,500 without the macron) even within Wikipedia (at least until they catch up with some dummy who just strung them together for future crawling of this talk page). Gene Nygaard13:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with any title. It seems, though, that what English speakers are familiar with is the film, not the gate. So "best known in English" pertains most clearly to the film, rather than the gate.
In Japanese, the film and the book are written differently; the film (and the original Akutagawa book; I had not even known of another book) has 生 while the gate has 城 for the middle kanji. The former is shō but the latter is jō (and Rajōmon is the only pronunciation in the Japanese Wikipedia article for the gate). Indeed, before reading the Japanese Wikipedia I had thought the gate was pronounced "Rashōmon" and hadn't even realized it's "Rajōmon." So like Lord Ameth, I wouldn't have recognized the latter.
My guess is that speakers and readers of English will look for the film more than anything else; for the book second; and for the gate least of all.
So it might be worth moving the article on the gate to a new title, and moving the article on the film to Rashomon. For the very few people who want the gate, when they type Rashomon into the search box and get the article on the film, we can provide a disambiguation link at the top.
As for hyphenating, the reason I suggested it is along the line of Buddhist temples, which we agreed to hyphenate. Since the gate was not a temple, that's only a weak analogy, and personally I don't care. But as for "gate" I think we should avoid it, since that's what mon means.
So my suggestion is move Rashomon (film) to Rashomon (with or without macron); Rashomon (the gate) to either Rajōmon or Rajō-mon (without the pleonasm "gate").
As long as there is a macron for either Rashōmon or Rajōmon, I am fine with any title. I know that the movie is widely known in English. However, I do not think that the historical gate is widely known in English under any title. I have only read and talked about it in Japanese. Rashōmon seems to be the more common, colloquial reading, while Rajōmon is more formal, technical. Rashōmon is a little vague in that in could mean the old gate, an old Nō play, a book, or the movie. Rajōmon is unambiguous and specifically refers to old gate. A rarer Raseimon reading is also occasionally found, but it should probably be avoided. I have no opinion about suffixing "Gate". I created a few redirects to help with the other terms.
It's pretty clear that there are enough Rashomons for a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is fine by me either with or without the macrons in the page title. As usual, redirects can get readers there either way. Fg204:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Macrons revisited: Company names in railway line names / Company names in railway station names
I have 2 questions (I'm sorry it's tricky, so read carefully, please) ...
1. Do we use macrons in company names within railway line names?
Railway station names and railway line names as a whole are not company names. But if they include company names, do they count as company names or not? Based on WP:MOS-JA, we don't use macrons in company names.--Endroit05:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course I prefer the macrons, but that should not come as a suprise to anyone. I ride the Tōkyū Tōyoko Line everyday. I think I recall seeing it written in full with the macrons. I'll check tonight on my way home. Bendono05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at a few stations. All of them contain a train map which clearly displays "Tōkyū Tōyoko Line". Some stations, such as Shibuya, have signs saying "Transfer Tōkyū Tōyoko Line". Here is one supporting picture: . (Feel free to edit my post if you feel the picture should not be displayed here.) Bendono11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Coincidently, myself and LordAmeth have just come upon a similar problem to this as well. The Kyushu Railway Company and Hokkaido Railway Company both clearly use no macrons on their official websites. However when talking about the Kyushu Shinkansen and the Hokkaido Shinkansen, the former has an official website and uses the non-macroned title, whereas the Hokkaido Shinkansen has no website in English (as far as I can tell) and therefore I think we would be free to call it the Hokkaidō Shinkansen under the current system. Needless to say, that situation would be a bit inconsistant. If the parent company is macron-free, then surely its shinkansen project must be too.
As a solution to this problem, I would propose that the names of geographical place names within company names should be macronised according to the parent article of that geographical place (which in turn is already determined under the WP:MOS-JP). So, Tokyo Broadcasting System and Osaka Gas would remain as they are without macrons (because the parent Tokyo and Osaka location articles are also without macrons), but Kyushu Railway Company would become Kyūshū Railway Company (because the parent article is Kyūshū). What do people think? Bobo1234508:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As you may have guessed, I am a fan of consistency and macrons in general. But, this is where the world turns very gray... I don't see a compelling enough reason to override the current statement regarding company names and products, just because a company is named after a region/city/island. If we are intent on making corrections to company names, what happens to Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co.? Neier11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I very very rarely work with companies or with trains, so ultimately I leave it up to you. But my conception regarding these particular cases was not that they were companies named after places, but train lines named after places, leaving out the company step of the thought process. The Tōkaidō Shinkansen runs along the Tōkaidō, and is macronned accordingly. So, thus I assumed that things named after or taking place in Kyūshū or Hokkaidō would be named similarly. Official English-language company names aside, I think that it would be inconsistent to have some things macronned and some not... LordAmeth15:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Tokyu Group. Also look at the Tokyu Hotels website. This means Tokyu is not always macronned by default. So for company names, we DO have to look at the "Official English-language company name" or logos in each case, although as a general rule, transportation-related usage is typically macronned.
If a station name is official macronned, macron the station name. BUT, that doesn't affect the city or the involved company. WhisperToMe03:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To be clear: in places such as "Tokyo" and "Osaka", the macron is really there. Wikipedia chooses to make it an exception and write it without. It is because of these exceptions that indecision occurs in cases such as Tōkyō Station and Ōsaka Station. I find it ironic that Tōkyō Station is located in Tokyo. I think it would be much better to write places such as Tōkyō with macrons without exception. If a company use the place name in their company name without macrons, then and only then write it without macrons. I think that this is much more consistent, professional, and avoids exceptions. Bendono23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's a simple matter of fact that in the "transportation context", macrons are used for "Tokyo", as in "Tōkyō Station". But for non-transportation contexts, the macrons are dropped, as in Tokyo Station Hotel. (I believe JR used to operate this hotel, I don't know if they still do.)--Endroit00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Macron usage in romanized names varies by company. For example, Hankyu Railway signage ( and the company name) consistently omits macrons. Even if we are allowing macronned article titles (which I remain unconvinced is a good idea), we should use each company's standard romanization for the company's names and other proper names defined by the company (e.g. station names). -- Meyer05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cosplay International Photos
I've been currently trying to head off some arguments in the Cosplay article regarding the type of photos to use for its International Cosplay section. An initial picture had been posted earlier, but it was linked to an adult site, which I feel shouldn't be a very good representative for cosplaying in general. Earlier photos have also been removed by some administrators for vanity issues. Does anyone here have any suggestions regarding what photos would be most suitable? It would seem though, that every time a photo is posted on the international cosplay section, some accusations of vanity photos have arisen - would leaving the section devoid of photos be a better idea instead? Input would be much appreciated, thanks. Mirshariff01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, same problems with articles like Otaku and Japanophile. Are there any free-license pictures from some convention, like Otakon or Anime Expo? I assume there's some sort of "best cosplay" award or something like that, and a picture of an award winner would make a decent picture for the article, which consists now of mostly lolita on Jingu-bashi, half of which aren't even really cosplay at all. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hiragana for words that have kanji
Is there any policy about including hiragana in the first sentence for words that have kanji, but where the hiragara is more commonly used? Take for example Konjac. Kanji writing is 蒟蒻, but those kanji are uncommon, and the hiragana writing こんにゃく is more commonly used. (6 mil google hits, compare with 2 mil). We should have the kanji writing too of course, but I suggest including the hiragana as well in these cases. --Apoc240012:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I sympathize with you. I was thinking about suggesting that the hiragana be included when the kanji characters aren't jōyō kanji, just to make an easy standard... but since the nihongo template already has a romanization included, making that policy doesn't seem necessary. Anyone can back-construct the hiragana reading from the romanization. Since the point is really to show people what the more common term is, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be done on a case-by-case basis. Dekimasu12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree we examine each case. As you say the point is really to show people what the more common term is. Hard part is, that you've got to tell which is/are well-known: kanji, hiragana, or katakana? or some of them? all of them?
For this specific case, Konjac, either hiragana or katakana seems better, but since we do see the kanjis in several occasions (for example this jerry), I cannot say we need to remove those kanjis. Hiragana or Katakana? It's much more difficult. If I have to choose one, perhaps I'll take katakana form, per ja.wp convention that katakana is used for the articles of organisms (I believe this is why ja:コンニャク). --marsian15:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we do have to choose between kanji and a mora script. Anyway, the name will be written in katakana in Japanese if it is referring to the name of the organism, but when most people talk about this, they're talking about the food rather than the plant. And the plant will be written in hiragana too, if it's being talked about outside of a scientific context. So neither one is wrong per se, but the most common spelling is still the hiragana. It's not usually difficult to determine which uses are the most common for any given word. Dekimasu17:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
