Talk:List of town tramway systems in Japan

Style issues

I have added a cleanup tag, as the article needs some tidying up to bring it in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style as follows.

1. Japanese is not necessary for linked place names, and is generally discouraged in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)
2. There is no need to itallicize headings.
3. There is no need to link to years alone.

--DAJF (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to justify any of the above with reference to context (i.e. to this sub-list). I have therefore removed the tag. Ldemery (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain what you mean? I might be being a bit dense today, but I genuinely don't understand. As far as I am aware, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style applies to all Wikipedia articles, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) applies particularly to Japanese-related articles (such as this). As I mentioned in my comments above, it discourages the use of Japanese for linked place names. Is there any reason why this article does not come under these guidelines? --DAJF (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the reason (quote from the Manual of Style, Japan-related articles): "If the word is linked to an article which includes the Japanese script, then, Japanese characters are unnecessary in the original article, unless they appear in the context of a list or glossary". --Kildor (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now edited the article to bring it more in line with the MOS guidelines, so I have removed the "Cleanup" tag. --DAJF (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License revoked; this article must be purged

Because of persistent vandalism, on a large and growing scale, by an individual who identifies himself as "DAJF," I have decided to revoke the license for this article and demand that it be purged from Wikipedia forthwith.

Pertinent facts and circumstances:

1.) (a.) I, Leroy W. Demery, Jr., created this article, typed in the data, and referred extensively to my own research.

(b.) I acknowledge that others have contributed to this research and to this article, but assert that this fact is not germane to the license revocation matter at hand. I assert that most of the "skill, labour and judgment" (to reference a legal test used in the United Kingdom) used to prepare the work, prior to the beginning of the vandalism referenced above, was mine.

2.) It is a well-known fact that the copyright laws of the United States of America do not make clear whether the creator of a work, having granted previously license or release, or right under copyright, may revoke this license, release or right under copyright.

3.) Case law in the United States of America suggests that the creator of a work, having granted previously license or release, or right under copyright, might revoke this license, release or right under copyright "for cause." Such "cause" might include, for example, circumstances where the work has been used for purposes of libel or slander. Such revocation of license, release or right under copyright "for cause" might be enforced against a specific person or persons (i.e. natural persons, companies or corporations).

5.) Statutes and case law in the United States of America do not proscribe revocation of license, release or right under copyright "at will," enforced against a specific person or persons.

In other words, under United States law, I claim the right to demand deletion of this article from "Wikipedia," to impose stipulations as outlined below, and to enforce this revocation of license in a court of law (if necessary).

Stipulations of license revocation:

Within five working days of today, March 31, 2008:

1.) The Wikipedia article titled "List of town tramway systems in Japan" shall be purged forthwith.

2.) The stated reason for this purge shall be "at will" - that is, at the demand of the person who created the page (me).

3.) The article, once purged, shall not be replaced, nor reproduced, in whole or in part, on any Wikipedia page, nor divided among multiple Wikipedia article, nor published in any form by any employee or agent of the Wikimedia Foundation.

4.) With reference to the "dichotomy of facts, and expression thereof" as this term might be used in United States courts of law, I acknowledge that the facts and dates contained in the above-referenced page might be researched, for the purpose of preparing a replacement article, by some other person (or persons). However, this person (or persons) shall not duplicate the selection and arrangement of facts and information in the above-referenced page. In addition, this person (or persons) shall not reproduce any fact or information that reflects my "skill" or "judgment," or that cannot be referenced to any source other than me, or works authored by me, whether published or unpublished.

In the event of non-compliance by the date specified, stipulations 1.) - 4.) shall remain in force, with the following additions:

5.) Any work (as this term is used in U.S. copyright law) created by me shall not be used as a reference, or for any other purpose, in any Wikipedia article, nor in any other work published by the Wikimedia Foundation, its employees or agents.

6.) All other Wikipedia articles created by me, or those with most of the "skill, labour and judgment" provided by me, shall be purged forthwith; stipulations 2.), 3.) and 4.) above shall apply in these cases.

In some locations, the posting date "April 1" might appear; nonetheless, the above is not a joke. Ldemery (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have purged other material on this page because it is now irrelevant.Ldemery (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have in addition sent this, in the form of a hardcopy letter, to the head office of the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. Ldemery (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOREVOKE for a discussion of the implications such requests have on the entire project. -- BpEps - t@lk 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The essay in question is just that - an essay. It does nothing more than state the opinion of one, or more, individuals. I hold, and assert, an opposing opinion - the GNU Free Documentation License is revokable, and, under U.S. law, could not be otherwise. Note in particular the following statement: "The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the English Wikipedia and various other projects, has not to date expressed an opinion on this matter." That might reflect the fact that the text of the license does not address the issue -- contrary to what is implied in the essay. Please be assured that I have addressed these issues in my letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. As for the "implications such requests have on the entire project," these are not germane to the legal issues at hand. Ldemery (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, you can't revoke your contributions under the GFDL. So please stop with this behavior. Thanks SirFozzie (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So says you. I say different. Ldemery (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And you would be wrong. But more to the point, what IS the point? It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it", right there at the bottom of the page every time you submitted an edit. It's a bit late to be stamping your feet and threatening to take your ball home. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the opinion or you and of SirFozzie and Calton and me for that matter are largely irrelevant. As I mentioned in my talk page comment, you should wait until the wikimedia foundation receives your letter. If they believe your claim has merit, they may ask us to remove the material. But I think this highly unlikely and until and unless we receive a directive from them or from the courts, we are not going to be removing material because of a claim you make based on legal principles which go against the very tenet of wikipedia's copyright policies. In other words, there is no point bugging people who have no authority to do anything about it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your request to revoke the GFDL for your contributions has been considered and the community declines to accept it. If you believe your contributions are being used in violation of copyright, please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright for the next steps to take. Elfits (klat) 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Romanization of place names

I have addressed this issue directly on User talk:Ldemery, but as I am not sure whether User:Ldemery actually reads his talk page, I will also post similar comments here...

I have reinstated all of the romanized place names that were deleted in a long series of edits by User:Ldemery. They all appear correct to me, and there is no need for mass deletion. If any of the romanized names appear inaccurate, they can be tagged on the page for myself or other editors to check. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see

. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." "They all appear correct to me" does not obviate the need for citation. Ldemery (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the first time I have heard of citations being required for the romanization of Japanese place names, but I'll be happy to add links to provide verifiability. --DAJF (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Say what? Anyone with the slightest background in Japanese knows darn well - or should know, darn well - that, although pronunciations ("readings") of dictionary words are standard, those for geographic and personal names are not. To give a good example: 中谷. Contrary to your previous assertions, this is not a matter of "romanization," but of pronunciation, aka "phonetic transcription." The name above might be pronounced "Nakatani," "Nakaya," perhaps "Nakadani," "Nakiwa" or "Nakamaru," perhaps even "Chūkoku" or "Chūgoku." The fact that you have not heard of a "requirement" to check, and reference, phonetic transcription of geographic and personal names (other than those "widely known") does not obviate the matter at hand. Such checking is "necessary" (and, in the scholarly "hardcopy" literature, is expected.) The name above is a good example of one that you would have to check - and reference - even for a location in central Tokyo, unless "widely known." Ldemery (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done --DAJF (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your citation for 豆田 = "Mameda" illustrates the problem. You merely provided a link to the Japanese "Wikipedia" page that describes Mameda town - today. You did not establish that this reading was used 1.) locally, 2.) at the time when the tramway operated, and 3.) by the tramway operator. It was not uncommon to find localities - and businesses - which used "local" pronunciations ("readings") of place names. This practice has faded, but has by no means disappeared: in virtual defiance of Tokyo-based authorities, Kyoto clings to "Kyoto-ben" pronunciations of certain well-known place names. Thus: 豆田 might well have been "Mameda." It might also have been "Mameta." This being a Kyushu place name, it might also have been "Mameden;" "Zuden" and "Tōden" are, as is said, "unlikely but not 'impossible'." Ldemery (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in opening sentence?

Now that details of a number of tramway systems have been removed from the list, maybe the opening sentence ("It includes all tram systems, past and present.") will need to be modified to reflect the fact that it does not list all tram systems that have operated in Japan. --DAJF (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that most readers English would make the logical inference: that "all tram systems" in the opening sentence above refers to the title: "List of town tramway systems in Japan." The fact that "all town tramway systems" is a subset of "all tram(way) systems" should not require constant reiteration.Ldemery (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not require "constant reiteration", but it requires mentioning at least once. Ideally, the introduction should include a definition of "town tramway" to distinguish them from the other kinds of passenger tramways that are not included on this list. In the meantime, I have reworded the opening paragraph appropriately, since the statement "It includes all tram systems, past and present." was clearly incorrect and misleading. --DAJF (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Name of system"

The current column contains a strange mishmash of transcribed Japanese formal operator titles (e.g. Musashi Chūō Denki Tetsudō (武蔵中央電気鉄道), informal (nick)names (e.g. Kawasaki Shiden (川崎市電)), line names without operator titles (e.g. Nikkō Kidō-sen (日光軌道線)), English formal titles, perhaps official, perhaps not (e.g. Hakodate City Transportation Bureau), and English informal (nick)names and jargon (e.g. "Sapporo Street Car"). A uniform and explicit practice is needed, and this needs to be applied. Forthwith. Ldemery (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the previous blanks. To paraphrase a comment by yourself (User:Ldemery) in Talk:List of town tramway systems in Oceania, "Perfectionism is the enemy of the good." --DAJF (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uniform and explicit practice remains unspecified; obvious need for same remains; this is hardly "perfectionism." Ldemery (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima: August 6 and August 9, 1945

I have once again removed the statement "Operation suspended 6 August 1945 because of damage caused by atomic bomb attack. Service restored in stages from 9 August 1945." The cited reference does not address this.

The August 6, 1945 date is undoubtedly correct. However, absent a reference, with citation (perhaps even a brief footnoted explanation), the statement that "Service restored in stages from 9 August 1945" does not belong. Absent a reference, the statement is fanciful, indeed, preposterous, and has the distinct cachet of an "urban legend." Once again, please see WP:PROVEIT. Please see in addition WP:REDFLAG. Although not (quite) a "fringe theory," this is obviously an "exceptional claim" that requires a "high-quality reliable source" - a published reference, in Japanese. Ldemery (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion - not "town tramway systems."

The following are candidates for deletion from this list because they were (are), arguably, not "town tramway systems:"

Akayu, Tokyo-Kanamachi: Labeling these systems as "town tramways" seems far-fetched; see Wakuda.

Nikkō: More of a rural tramway than a "town tramway."

Ichinomiya: More of an electric light railway than a "town tramway."

Takaoka: Admittedly, a borderline case, but on the suburban or electric light railway side of the border.

Kyoto-"Keihan Keishin Line," Never a "town tramway;" certainly not so today.

Osaka-Kobe; Ōita - Beppu: Admittedly borderline cases, but on the suburban / intercity side of the border.

Karatsu: Suburban/rural in character.

Kitakyūshū - Nōgata: Electric light railway, never a "town tramway," certainly not so today.

Kurume-Mameda (phonetic transcription of 豆田 remains unverified): This entry needs to be reworked along the lines of Niigata - provided that such a service was in fact operated within Kurume. Neither Wakuda nor Haraguchi establish this.

Saga: Neither Wakuda nor Haraguchi establish that this was a "town tramway," rather than a suburban or rural tramway - or one licensed as a public carrier but in fact serving some military function. The latter might help to explain the curious lack of photographs; Haraguchi presented no photos and Wakuda stated that he had never seen one. Ldemery (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Closure dates - discrepancies between English and Japanese references

I see that a number of closure dates were deleted (rather than tagged) by User:Ldemery due to concerns about discrepancies between the English-language citations and Japanese references (notably Japanese Wikipedia articles). The reason for the discrepancies (in most cases, by one day) is because Japanese railway closure dates are normally given as the day from which services no longer run, whereas English railway closure dates usually indicate the last day on which services run. I personally think it would be acceptable to retain the full dates and explain the apparent discrepancies in a note in the article, but, for the time-being, I have simply reinstated the dates without specifying the exact day. This at least avoids any apparent contradictions between English and Japanese reference sources. --DAJF (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not the "source," it is the "article." Closure dates need to be presented according to well-established practice in English-language articles (and reference materials): the last day on which service operated. In this case, Japanese practice (there is "more to it" than just "the day from which services no longer run") is not germane to how information is presented in the English article. Ldemery (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the discrepancy between English and Japanese sources is not the problem, I'm confused as to why the dates were so hastily deleted. I have therefore reinstated those that are verifiable, and included an explanation at the top of the article which explains the difference in the definitions of "closure date" used by English and Japanese sources. --DAJF (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)