Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/January 2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk & archives for WP Japan
Project talk
Task force talk/archives

↔ = joint task force
Old notice board
Related talk/archives
Search the archives:
V·T·E

FA Nomination

I have nominated the article Lady Saigō for Featured Article status. Comments are welcomed at the FAC discussion page. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Followup: this one is waiting for a third support. Opinions welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of kigo merge to Kigo??

I posted a comment on Talk:List of kigo a few days ago. The existence of a separate page for this seems redundant, since the Kigo article is already basically a narrative list. Any ideas? elvenscout742 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem keeping both pages, since there seem to be plenty of common examples to comprise a separate list, but the number of examples on Kigo should be culled or deleted altogether. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thing is, the list seems to be based on the somewhat flawed understanding of the Japanese word kigo. There are thousands of kigo, many of which have only the loosest relation to their assigned season, and if we tried to provide a comprehensive list it would be extremely long. That's not a problem in itself, but if it remains as it is now (providing images and descriptions and so on), then it would become a monster. If we are only providing a few classical/representative/notable examples, then really that just belongs to the article Kigo. Also, if the list were to be turned into a pure list of words and what their seasons are, we are getting into WP:NOTDICTIONARY territory (most Japanese dictionaries mention the relevant season in their entries for all notable kigo). elvenscout742 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the last part, overlapping with dictionary format, is a real concern; neither is the monster list possibility. Not every Wiki-list has to be comprehensive, and from what I've seen, most are not. I agree that some of the descriptions and images can be culled to reduce the clutter. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ōmishima, Ehime/Ōyamazumi Shrine

I was here yesterday, these are both fascinating topics with not enough written on them in English. My Japanese is still very poor, can someone help beef these 2 (Ōmishima, Ehime, Ōyamazumi Shrine) up? Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves Kamakura (disambiguation), Tales of Moonlight and Rain, Densha Otoko (film)

Three Japan-related requested moves in progress:

JoshuSasori (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori, while I appreciate your posting reminders here about move requests, there is a place on the project page itself here for you to post such reminders. It is also troubling that you have a tendency to invite other users to these discussions, and then accuse them of harassing you when they don't support your side of the discussion. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you not add your recent requested moves (for example, Tadao Sato, Kindai Eiga Kyokai, and Tales of Moonlight and Rain) to the above page? JoshuSasori (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of it until just now when I began to sympathize with a previous user who had requested you to stop opening topics on this talk page for new move requests, and went to check the project page if there was any more appropriate alternative. In fact, at the time I made the request for Tales of Moonlight and Rain (is over a month ago "recent" in Wikipedia time?) I thought that specifically coming to WikiProject Japan to ask my fellow Japan scholars for help and not going to every possibly relevant WikiProject with the same information would violate WP:CANVAS, so I decided to leave it to the community in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Toasty

On 9 August 2005, esteemed Wikipedia contributor 24.157.87.20 created an admirably concise article on one Tadhiko [sic] okawa [sic]:

Tadhiko [sic] Okawa was a Japanese artist best known for his 1983 recreation of the Mona Lisa from bits of burnt toast.

Years have gone by, and the article on Tadahiko Ogawa now tells the world:

Tadahiko Ogawa was a Japanese artist best known for his accurate 1983 recreation of the Mona Lisa from bits of burnt toast.[1][unreliable source?]

It does however sport a link to this dodgy looking page.

Is the WP article on Tad(a)hiko Ok(dakuon)awa so bad it's good, or should it be toast? -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

TO seems to now be a faculty member at Shukugawa Gakuin College: ReaD database entry. I assume this is the same man because it mentions "Woody Mona Lisa" as one of his works. This JST page in Japanese is linked from there. Here are some cool pictures of TO and his work. JoshuSasori (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I just had a search for sources, and while there are a few mentions in books and news articles, they all seem to be about the toast Mona Lisa. I don't think that fact alone is worth making a biography about, so I would support merging it somewhere, but I don't think it quite falls under WP:BLP1E, so an AfD might go either way. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles Need Renamed

The article Kansai Kannon Pilgrimage should be given its REAL name "Saigoku 33 Temple Pilgrimage" like the Chugoku 33 Kannon Pilgrimage. Kansai Kannon Temple Pigrimage is, as stated on the article Talk Page, not even used colloquially to refer to it let alone as the standard. The last temple isn't even in Kansai.

Also, the article Kibitsu Jinja should be Kibitsu Shrine like all the other shrines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.83.129.3 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be a big help if you could supply a reference which supports your claim. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, for the second point, it's Wikipedia policy to use "shrine" instead of "jinja" and 2 different users brought it up on the talk page. I assume the WikiProject Japan is aware but if you need me to find the page where it states that, I could try.
As for the Kannon Pilgrimage, it's hard-pressing (if not impossible) to find reputable sources that support the current name. One bit of proof is simply that "Saigoku" is the name. 西国= 'Saigoku', not 'Kansai'. It's described in the "Traveler's Guide to Japanese Pilgrimages" [1]the homepage of one of the temples says Saigoku [2], actually all of these books say "Saigoku" [3]. It seems that many more have mistakenly used "Saikoku" [4]

Nihongo template

Could a user fluent in Japanese check the transliterations at List of literary works published in Asia Raja? I don't read Japanese, and my transliteration is based on the commonly used Indonesian styling of the centre's Japanese name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The whole word "啓民文化指導所" appears in Google books here. There is more information in Japanese here. There is a picture in romaji and a text in English here if you scroll down. The Wikipedia usage is to write shidōsho with a bar over the first o like "ō", which is slightly different from that in that text. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. If I ever get around to making an article on the institution I know where to turn. I am (vaguely) aware of the o/ō convention, but not speaking Japanese I wouldn't know if it's shidōsho, shidoshō, shidosho, or shidōshō, and the sources did not use an over bar (sp?). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That phrase 啓民文化指導所 (?keimin? bunka shidōsho) is a curious one for me to search for within Japanese dictionaries, partly by the wayside of the question here. Yes 文化指導所 ([ぶんか　しどう　しょ bunka shidōsho] Error: {{nihongo krt}}: transliteration text not Latin script (pos 1) (help)) checks out as simple to find in the dictionaries and the most obvious correct reading (in hiragana and romaji, in other words the correct reading and pronunciation).
Hence from the 啓民 dictionary check, i tried and got keimin as one of many possible combinations of readings.
Therefore, back to the question here, is it certain (from sources) that it is read as and pronounced as shown in romaji as keimin (Japanese: けいみん (hiragana))?
The first kanji character 啓 is used in several kanji compound words to give those words the meaning of enlightened or similar meanings; (and as a single kanji word alone, not in a compound word, WWWJDIC gives for it, for example: "disclose; open; say").
Of course, the second kanji character 民 is a more commonly known kanji, meaning people, nation, etc., (eg. WWWJDIC: "people; nation; subjects"). On this question, ultimately it is just my curiosity for checking the dictionary sources when i can quickly find tricky examples, as we discussed elsewhere on whether WWWJDIC is or is not a reliable dictionary source. So, just curious here! ——--macropneuma 12:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The final kanji of the word, '所' is written "sho" but not "shō", so the book with the two overlines is in error. The '導' kanji might be written either "do" or "dō". The "dō" version with the extra line above the o, called a macron, is the usual way it's done in English-language Wikipedia, but the "do" version is widely used too. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kamakura

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Kamakura#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone should also mention that Kyoto was moved against consensus, as well, to Kyoto (city) and there's a discussion about that as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Importance scale question

I recently attempted to change[5] the importance of the article Ugetsu on WikiProject Japan's importance scale from "High" to "Mid" to match its source material, but was immediately reverted without explanation[6]. I was motivated by the fact that within the scope of Japanese society and (pop) culture, the film is significantly less important than the book, and seems to have only attained its "High" rank based on its importance in world cinema outside Japan. Within Japan, the film is relatively obscure, while the book is a universally known classic. If this is the case then the film should have a "High" ranking in WikiProject Film, not WikiProject Japan. In order to clear up the relative discrepancy between the book and film, I then changed the ranking of the book[7] (not a sockpuppet -- I don't know how to log in on my phone), but now this book ranks above the probably more important The Love Suicides at Sonezaki and Chūshingura, and the definitely more important Ogura Hyakunin Isshu. Can I get some clarification on what the criteria for these importance scales are and how they are determined? elvenscout742 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, my concern is that to be "High" or "Top" on WikiProject Japan's concerns, the article's topic should be of high or top importance to Wikipedia's coverage of things Japanese. I just noticed that the film is already "Core" to WikiProject Film. Can I get some input of JoshuSasori's unilaterally deciding that this film is more important than the book on which it is based and, by extension, The Love Suicides at Sonezaki? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Ugetsu was marked as "high importance" by User:Doctor Sunshine, not me. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I know that, but he/she also never provided a justification, and you are the one who still didn't provide a justification when I presented an opposing argument. The number of articles covered by this project has more than doubled in the intervening 6+ years, and given how a lot of articles have probably been deleted or merged[8] ... well, things change. Additionally, at the time, the Tales of Moonlight and Rain article didn't exist (it split from Ueda Akinari the following year[9], which was only assessed last year[10]). All in all, I have no idea what inspired Doctor Sunshine to rank the film as he/she did, but given that he/she has made no edits in over 3 years, I don't think it's worth invoking the original assessor in this case. Are we basically in agreement, though, that it should go something like (from least important) Ugetsu (film)<Tales of Moonlight and Rain<Oku no Hosomichi? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, JS, according to the project page you're not supposed to assess articles unless you are a member of WikiProject Japan. I know it's just a formality, but if you want to revert me or any other WikiProject Japan member when we re-assess articles, you may wish to become a member yourself. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
No article should be marked as Top importance without a discussion by the project. Any of the others are open to interpretation by individual project members unless someone disagrees, in which case there should be a discussion (kind of like this one). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Good, good, I'm all in favour of that! (By the way NJ, I noticed on Talk:Rashōmon that you posted several years ago in favour of moving the page. I decided to be bold and posted a formal move request, if you are interested in participating.) elvenscout742 (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

With or without macron?

There have been several articles moved to macronless article name recently and I've seen that kind of move before. I thought about it.

Basically, Romanization dose not need sources. The Hepburn is one of the ja Romanization systems and we adopt it. We only have to follow the system. The information about someone in his/her official site or printed books on him/her can be well-sourced information and should be used in his/her article, but the romanization on the official site is not. I don't think almost all sources specify thier Romanization policy/MoS and the system they use. Their Romanization is unreliable. Even if they specify, that is thier policy/MoS, not ours. Our MoS says "use the Hpburn". Why should we follow other sites' or books' MoS? What if someone's official site specifies that they use the kunrei or nihon-shiki? Which one should we give priority? The official site's kunrei/nihon-shiki or our Hepburn? Some editors may say the majority of sources support macronless names and it's a matter of our "common name" policy. But I think the policy should be applied to the totally different names like Sea of Japan vs. East Sea, Senkaku Islands vs. Diaoyu Islands or Ogasawara Islands vs. Bonin Islands. Not this with or without macron name. I think this is a matter of strict vs. less strict transcription. I support the strict transcription because it's precise. As for our macronless names, I don't want to put macrons on Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, etc. They are household names in English speaking countries. You can see them on newspapers and hear them on TV almost every day and they will be that way in the future. But most of the modern personal names will not survive in decades. As for Tsurutaro, his name is not a household name in en speaking countries even today. I think our exceptions should be kept a few. The fewer the better. I suggest articles moved macronless titles should be moved back to macroned titles. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY what I have been saying! I would add that a lot of these "official English websites" are produced by freelance translators who get paid the same whether they bother with macrons or not, or, worse, Anglophone web-designers who are given the text and don't even understand why Japanese romanization uses macrons. Additionally, technical restrictions on passport information pages means that virtually every Japanese person who has a long vowel in his/her name and has ever traveled abroad has some "official" name that doesn't have a macron, but it doesn't mean we should follow that rule. The problem is that the MOS appears to have been modeled on general English Wikipedia guidelines regarding "reliable" or "official" sources, without consideration to the special status of Japanese topics. The only way around this is to amend the MOS, but there would need to be overwhelming consensus to do that... elvenscout742 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Why should Japanese topics be treated as different?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Because "reliable sources" are preferred on Wikipedia because they tend to have more accurate information, not because they spell things a certain way. This is essentially the same national variants of English. I found that twice as many reliable print sources use the spelling neighborhood as use neighbourhood, but Wikipedia policy specifically bans attempts to move the article Neighbourhood. When it comes to different ways of romanizing Japanese names, they often drop the macron solely because of their own style preferences, which clash with Wikipedia style preferences. There isn't actually any reason we should spell any Japanese words except very commonly-known names and possibly the names of living people any different than the standard Hepburn. The preference for "reliable sources" clearly shouldn't apply to how we romanize words in Japanese. Otherwise, redirects for variant romanizations would only be making allowances for unverifiable original research -- isn't that ridiculous? elvenscout742 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, I just noticed that the current tendency explicitly violates MOS:FOREIGN, which directly states that for words whose native spellings are not in the roman alphabet, we should use a systematic romanization style except when there is a common English spelling. Obscure Japanese authors and the like clearly don't have "common English spellings", even if one considers the no-macron spelling to be a "common English name" rather than just a simplified/inaccurate romanization. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an amusing piece of circular logic: because our style guide says to use Hepburn romanization, we should alter our style guide to Hepburn romanization. I imagine that things are much easier for Russian or Korean Wikipedians: when they want to put a Japanese name in their language they simply use the straightforward rules for transcription. Too bad we cannot do that since Japanese people express preferences about how to write their names in English. JoshuSasori (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You have a much too liberal definition of "preference", as demonstrated by what must be more than a dozen move request in the last few weeks. You seem to think that if a musicians latest album uses no macron, but his earlier album used a macron, it means his current preference is not to use a macron -- even when they sign their own name in roman with the macron. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Re the question Why should Japanese topics be treated as different?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) ...I've been watching this from the sidelines as a Japanese speaker/reader/resident, albeit decades ago. My answer to that question would (1) other articles do not follow majority sources. If we did, Beyoncé Knowles would be at "Beyonce Knowles." not to mention all of the 100,000s of Czechs, Croats, Icelanders, Maltese articles which are 100% at accurate titles. (2) however, Japanese is a romanization, it is not simply whether sources have font limitations such as Beyoncé Knowles, or some fonts missing accents off capital É as Talk:Édouard Deldevez, it is also an issue of what the project MOS decides. If WP JAPAN decides to have a MOS for Hepburn romanization at the level of how en.wp treats Czechs, Croats, Icelanders, Maltese which aren't romanization, you can do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN/WP:HARASSMENT on Japanese cinema articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This discussion is closed. Please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


One user has been following my edits to numerous articles on Japanese cinema very closely and marking virtually every edit I make, including the addition of Wikilinks, as questionable. All of my edits to Tadao Sato, Kuroneko, Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff and Double Suicide of Sonezaki have been closely scrutinized and many of them have been whitewashed out of existence by this one user who, has also been consistently unwilling to compromise. In the case of the latter article, the user went so far as to move the article from its original title to a questionable English title (that comes from a vaguely NY Times review rather than any official source), apparently just to remove my attempt to provide a translation of the Japanese title à la Ran (film) from the article.

I am posting this here because I have already tried WP:ANI, WP:RSN, WP:NORN, and gone to an objective user for informal mediation, but I am not sure where to go next. I was wondering if anyone has any advice on how to deal with this issue? Thanks!

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's review how this spat started. What happened was that you went through my list of created pages and started moving them to blatantly incorrect names. You also added your own absurd original research conclusions to multiple articles. You vandalized Ugetsu by first moving the page to Ugetsu (film) then changing the redirect to point to Tales of Moonlight and Rain, without making the slightest effort to change any of the affected pages. There are currently two editors on Sansho and three editors on Ugetsu who strongly disagree with you about the change you have made to the lead section. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, my first interaction with you was on Talk:Ryo Kase, where you ignored my argument and made assumptions of bad faith about my motivation for opposing the move, and showed with an embarrassingly inaccurate argument that you were more interested in moving the page regardless of the evidence[11], and then made another ridiculous personal attack and again ignoring my argument[12]. There was no "vandalism" to Ugetsu -- I made a move that I saw as justified by the existence of a far more notable book of the same title. You however made several bad faith reversions/edits such as upping the article's importance on this project's scale despite not being a member of this project. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then on this page you tried to hide behind "I didn't change it, some other user assigned this rating 6 years ago and I merely reverted you", but the user in question is no longer active on Wikipedia, has never been a member of this project[13], and also never provided any justification for the importance. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move at Talk:Shōtarō Ikenami

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Shōtarō Ikenami#Requested move to Shotaro Ikenami, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Romanized titles of Japanese films given in bold?

I noticed a number of articles on Japanese films given the names of the films in the format "English Title (日本語表記のタイトル, Rōmaji Hyōki no Taitoru)". This appears in accordance with WP:NCF's guideline for naming foreign films, but the only example given is a Spanish film, where the foreign title in Roman lettering is actually an official name of the film. However, this is not the case with Japanese, Chinese, Korean etc. films, where the official title is in a different writing system and romanized title is something Wikipedians have added.

It is actually convention on Chinese topics never to italicize or bolden Chinese text, and I'm pretty sure Japanese topics work the same way. With regard to the romanized titles, MOS:J encourages giving the Japanese for the article title, but hardly any articles give these "Japanese titles" in bold. I was wondering why should film articles be any different?

I posted this on WikiProject Film as well, to see if I can get some clarification, or if this actually is a real problem maybe we can work out how to fix it.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They shouldn't be any different and whoever has been formatting the pages this way is wrong.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
At least with WPJ, we don't bold the Romanized version in most cases. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but I'm not thinking of any at the moment. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed it a couple of times in the last few days, noticeably at Rashomon (film) (with that one the Japanese title only differs by its use of a macron!), but the offending article that tipped me off that this was a trend was Seven Samurai. I can understand the logic behind wanting to bold all versions of the article title, but in this case that would include the Japanese text as well as the romanized text, which doesn't work... Also, the users who are formatting the pages may be wrong, but they actually appear to be acting in accordance with WP:NCF at the moment. Can we get them to clarify or change that? Or do we have a guideline we need to change? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost all of Kurosawa's films have this problem, which might well be the result of editors who like world cinema but don't know WikiProject Japan's guidelines. (Evidence is found in the consistent use of five apostrophes to both bold and italicize the text, when the Nihongo template makes the latter redundant.) I can't honestly find any reason not to fix this, so I have removed the bold lettering from most of them already. Working on the rest. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Variant title" of Scandal (1950 film)??

The opening sentence of this article currently includes two readings of the Japanese title 醜聞 -- sukyandaru and shubūn. The use of "aka" implies that Shubūn is actually a variant title for the film, but this isn't actually accurate. The Japanese name of the film is 醜聞（スキャンダル）, and it is not actually called Shubūn. (I'm not sure if Japanese people who write about the film routinely forget to include the furigana, causing Japanese people to routinely misread the title.) I am loath to remove it, though, since it is actually the normal reading of the kanji in the Japanese title, and provides an explanation in a footnote. I'm also not sure if Japanese people who write about the film routinely forget to include the furigana, causing Japanese people to routinely misread it. Any suggestions? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rhapsody in August had the same problem, but didn't even provide an explanation. I changed it to say "or", but this is still wrong, as the official Japanese title is not kyōshikyoku but rapusodī. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we allowed use jidageki as an adjective?

A bunch of articles I've been looking at just now made me cringe. "Yojimbo (用心棒, Yōjinbō) is a 1961 jidaigeki (period drama) film" and so on. Doesn't the word jidaigeki literally mean "period(adj) drama(n)"? So isn't "jidaigeki film" a little redundant? I recently added "is a Japanese period film" to an article, and was accused of adding WP:EASTEREGG links, but I can't honestly think of a better way to both include the correct genre of the film in the opening sentence and write good prose. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:JARGON -- avoid it if possible -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
But in an article on Japanese cinema, shouldn't we include the actual genre (the one under which it is generally categorized and discussed in literature) in the opening sentence? I am in favour of including a wikilink in the format "'''''XYZ''''' is a 19XX Japanese [[jidaigeki|period]] [[action film]]". WP:JARGON refers to the prose of the article, so it doesn't actually apply to hidden links like this. Anyway, my question was whether it is actually grammatical in English to use the word as an adjective. (I know the Japanese actually use "時代劇映画", but this seems to be a noun-noun compound more like "アニメーション映画".) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I would agree that creating wikilinks like [[jidaigeki|period]] is not overly helpful to the reader, as explained at WP:EASTEREGG. As a casual reader, I would say that "XYZ is a 1961 Japanese jidaigeki (period drama) film" is a logical way of wording the intro, as it introduces the Japanese genre "jidaigeki" together with an easily understandable English definition, so readers only need to click on the link if they want to delve more into the intricacies of jidaigeki. Sorry if I'm missing something, but I'm not sure why you say jidaigeki is being used as an adjective here. As jidaigeki is being used as a genre, isn't "jidaigeki film" a noun-noun compound just like "action film" or "horror film"? Why is this problematic? --DAJF (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think [[jidaigeki|Japanese period film]] or something similar would avoid the easter egg problem. I have nothing against saying jidaigeki directly, but I wouldn't use it as an adjective. I also can't think of a way to use jidaigeki directly without making awkward prose, but maybe I'm just not being creative enough. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 06:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually like Mr. Stradivarius' suggestion a lot. The problem, though, is that it doesn't work when the film fits into other genres, and Wikipedia editors who are more familiar with world cinema would rather say "horror film" or "drama film". "XYZ is a [[jidaigeki|Japanese period]] [[drama film]]" is extremely awkward. I would normally be inclined to just not mention jidaigeki in the opening sentence, but the fact is that we are required to mention the genre in the first sentence, and the genre as conceived by the film-makers, the studio, and everyone in Japan, is jidaigeki, with "drama film" being added later by (mostly western) critics. The same problem arises from Japanese ''[[jidaigeki]]'' (period drama), whether or not the word "film" is used after it -- the sentence just gets really cluttered, especially when one or more other genres are added. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, without noticing the responses here, I went and added the same easter egg link to Ugetsu. Since someone has actually explained why [[jidaigeki|period]] film is problematic, I guess I'll stop, but if you are interested the above article is the second most problematic of the ones I am referring to (after Rashomon (film)). (As an aside, in Irish English "I went and added" expresses regret, similar to 投稿しちゃった！ in Japanese.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
What I usually do in those situations is make the link [[jidaigeki|Japanese period drama film]] and then fit the link to drama film in somewhere further down. Or you could string the sentence out and say something like "Yojimbo is a 1961 Japanese drama film, and is an example of the jidaigeki (period drama) genre." — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 06:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I had a go at rewording the start of Ugetsu, although I'm perfectly happy for it to be reverted or altered if people don't agree. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 07:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Macrons in the titles of disambig pages?

This has come up on both Talk:Rashōmon and Talk:Saito now. For Japanese words (including the names of people and places) that could be spelled with or without a macron, do we have a policy which to use on the disambiguation page? I was working under the assumption that we should default to the macron, and most of the users who posted on Talk:Rashōmon seemed to agree with me, but it seems there is a very large number of disambig pages that actually use the "most basic form" (no macron) even when most of the articles listed use a macron. Was there already a consensus established on this somewhere else that I am not aware of?? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, you use the lowest common denominator; this would mean the disambiguation page should be at the macronless title, and the macronned version would redirect to it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, what Nihonjoe said. If you want to see the guideline, it's at WP:DABNAME. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 07:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for the info, both of you! My misplaced move request at Talk:Saito has been withdrawn, but I think "2" at Talk:Rashōmon should stand because there aren't really "unmacronable" articles there... (Additionally, I wish one of the users who opposed the former move would have cited policy specifically.) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
You would have to prove that Rashomon (play) was macroned when it played in New York, or that Dr. Heider used a macron to name Rashomon effect, or that a Mandarin language album Rashomon (album) should not use Mandarin romanizations, but instead should use Japanese romanization. Pinyin is not Hepburn -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You make an excellent point, although the Mandarin romanization for that album would be Luó Shēng Mén, according to the article. "Rashomon" seems to be the English or romanized title. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If what JoshuSasori below seems to believe is true (and the article implies it is), then the title is not "un-macronable", and in fact it probably should be "macronned", if it is a Chinese reference to the Akutagawa story or the Kurosawa film or other such. I have not seen any evidence that any of the plays based "ultimately" on Akutagawa's stories are anywhere near as notable as the stories themselves. Rashomon (play) is essentially a list of individual works that don't merit their own articles, and for the title of the page to be "unmacronable" all of the plays would need to be spelled "Rashomon" with no macron. We would also not be violating WP:NOR if we were to choose to correct Dr. Heider's spelling to Rashōmon effect, as they are just different romanizations of the same word, and the macron is more accurate. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
(For the record, the above is a response only to the anon, not to JoshuSasori. I briefly considered posting it to the anon's talk page, but it probably belongs here anyway. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC))
If you think the play article isn't notable, nominate it for deletion. As for renaming the psychology article, that is most definitely a violation of WP:NOR. It isn't a Japanese article, MOSJAPAN would never apply. Why would you ever think that MOSJAPAN applies? Are you suggesting we rename Little Tokyo, U.S.A. to Little Tōkyō, U.S.A. next? Or SS City of Tokio become SS City of Tōkyō ? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT) It's not an article, it's a list. Sometimes articles that are nominated for deletion wind up getting merged into lists. If there is evidence that the plays can stand on themselves as articles, please create those articles before making silly hypotheticals. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability and deletion guidelines. Please explain why spelling something the correct way is a violation of NOR. Please also read WP:MOSJ and the article Tokyo -- even the JAPANESE Tokyo (again, the only important one) doesn't use macrons. You are now the only one who actually opposes the move, and your arguments are just getting sillier. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, as a fun aside: it seems a lot of Americans who make films for initial release in Japan at a company owned by another company based in Tokyo have very little idea what Tokyo actually is.[14] I giggled when I first saw that film. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, you make very good points. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(JoshuSasori has been moving my above comment based on the supposed "original order", but his comment is meaningless "agree" stuff, and I was only responding to the ISP, not him. We had an edit conflict, so I couldn't be responding to him. I wouldn't mind my comment being moved without my consent, if some actual talk page guideline was cited as a precedent. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC))

MOSJ issue with municipality-names

The Manual of Style says that we should For cities, use the form [[{city-name}, {prefecture-name}]]; for example, Otaru, Hokkaidō. Exception: For designated cities, use [[{city-name}]] without appending the prefecture unless disambiguation from another city or prefecture is necessary.

I can understand the exception for designated cities, although I think it would be better if we made the exception for cities that have the same name as their prefectures and used, say, Okinawa (city).

However, a more significant issue is one I recently raised in the current move request at Talk:Kamakura. We have a huge number of articles on Japanese municipalities where either they are the only usage of their name, or they are the clear primary topic, and so we have [[Name of city]] redirecting to [[Name of city, name of prefecture]]. This seems somewhat counter-intuitive, since the only reason we need the prefecture name is for disambiguation. Other countries' municipalities don't seem to follow this convention (Tubbercurry, Huludao, etc.), so why do we? Having a redirect from a simple form to a complex one just seems wrong...

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't a similar issue happen with the names of several United States municipalities? For example, the city of Orlando in Florida is clearly the primary usage of "Orlando", but the article is still located at Orlando, Florida, because of some weird pre-existing standard on when you only refer to a city by its name in the American press. I don't see why Japan should be treated any different.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, Japan isn't America. The Chinese and Irish examples I gave demonstrate that this is not some Wikipedia-wide thing (or at least it doesn't appear to be), so why should we apply the weird pre-existing standard on when you only refer to a city by its name in the American press to articles on Japan? I'm not sure where that American standard comes from, but mightn't it have something to do with America's status as a federation of what were originally independent states? Japanese prefectures have never really worked that way, anyway. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
With U.S. cities, there is often another town somewhere in the world with the same name. In particular, there are British editors who feel that the "original" town in England should be primary, for example Boston, Lincolnshire as opposed to the one in Massachusetts. With Japanese cities, I don't think we have to deal with any of that kind of nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly on this one. There's no good excuse for applying U.S. geographical terminology outside the U.S.
Peter Isotalo 12:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Before I continue, Elvenscout may I ask why you brough this discussion here instead of WT:MOS-JA in the first place? This seems to be an issue with the manual of style rather than one that needs some sort of pre-argument with the WikiProject. And secondly, I never said that the standard exists and is because of the American MOS. I'm saying that a similar issue happens with American cities. For whatever reason, it was decided (at the MOS page) that only the cities that fall under the umbra of City designated by government ordinance need only be referred to by their singular names, unless there is some need for disambiguation from other topics (although I don't know why we have Shizuoka, Shizuoka and Saitama, Saitama). The example you give for Okinawa, Okinawa might be suitable, as might be removing the prefecture names from other prefectural capital articles, unless, again, there might be other article that there's disambiguation needed (eg. Matsuyama, Ehime). I am not sure the same can be said for all the smaller cities and towns dotting Japan (eg. Ginowan).—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
We have Shizuoka, Shizuoka because you moved it there less than a week ago.[15] Lord knows why, though, since Shizuoka City seems much more logical. Unless you're from the U.S., I suppose.
Ryulong, you seem to be at least somewhat familiar with the dealings here. Why doesn't the MOS-JA simply say "use <place name> for unambiguous place names and disambiguate in other cases according to the following stnadard"? What's the point of names like Shibuya, Tokyo, Moriyama-ku, Nagoya, Kōhoku-ku, Yokohama, etc?
Peter Isotalo 15:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I brought this here rather than to WT:MOS-JA because I was not proposing a change to the MOS. I wanted to ask members of the project why the rule is this way in the first place. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, we shouldn't be using disambiguators just because there is possible ambiguity. Where there is ambiguity, we should establish if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think since Matsuyama, Ehime is a prefectural capital, it is likely a primary topic and would be moved to Matsuyama if the guideline were to be changed. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"Matsuyama" is a common Japanese surname.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it's unlikely that any one person named Matsuyama is a more primary topic than the city. In fact, I just noticed that right now Matsuyama redirects to Matsuyama, Ehime, which just seems bizarre to me. English Wikipedia also apparently only has three articles on people named Matsuyama at the moment. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You know, you're right about all of this. It's unnecessary to have disambiguators for unique city names. The wards that Peter Isotalo points out are a different story (although arguably "Shibuya" is the primary topic).—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Summary: a renaming project would achieve conformity to various MOS, but it would be a misguided use of time and resources.

The project would require careful research and evaluation of a very large number of articles in order to rename, disambiguate, and provide data clean-up to all the articles which contain a link to a municipality. This would indeed achieve conformity to the Wikipedia standards.

However, the larger issue with Japanese municipality articles is that they're a big collection of stubs. Articles on municipalities often consist of only a few sentences and typically have outdated statistics. These articles also have the crappy situation of high readership statistics, but little useful content for the reader. There are few editors expanding content on municipality articles outside of the tourist cities (Kamakura, Kyoto, etc.). The rest are in sorry condition, and the time required to rename most of the municipalities would be better spent on article expansion.

Question: what's more important to English-language readers of Wikipedia: renaming articles, or actually discovering content in those articles?

Expanding these article is what I'm going back to this morning. I wish others would do the same. ---> Prburley (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the article for the city of Okinawa mentioned in this discussion is a stub article. As is the article for the Okinawa Islands. The article for Okinawa Island is brief, and the article for Okinawa Prefecture hasn't had any expansion of content beyond a few sentences in years. All have a high readership. In lieu of a renaming project and discussion thereof, would anyone care to expand these articles? ---> Prburley (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
While I do agree with everything you have said, I have to point out that "we have better things to be doing with our time" is not a good reason for fixing the MOS. The only immediately necessary concerns if we were to amend the MOS would be moving the actual pages, which I can't believe would number more than around 1,000. Fixing redirects can be worked on later. Additionally, having the MOS say something is different from immediately forcing everyone on Wikipedia to stop what they are doing and fix a bunch of MOS violations. Anyway: I'm moving this discussion over to WT:MOS-JA as per Ryulong. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

About trivias of Tokugawa Ieyasu

It seems much content inzh:德川家康#逸事and ja:徳川家康#人物・逸話 is poorly cited and caused my doubt. I tried to ask in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 8 but there are few useful advises given. Here is some trivias as in the Chinese article(some are different from that in the Japanese article)

.... --Inspector (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Seemed the palmistry, height and weight information originates from Kunōzan Tōshō-gū.--Inspector (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Music of Japan

The article Music of Japan has been on my watchlist for years. To put it politely over that time it ranges from poorly referenced mess, to a totally unreadable mass of original research. It's also become a dumping ground for AFD mergers, which magnifies the problem. This article has been marked as top importance for this project but it appears to be totally ignored and has been in desperate need of attention for years on end. I have gone through this article and attempted a clean up a few times in the past but this is really not an area I have much knowledge in. It would be nice if someone with a bit of knowledge about the subject could craft this into an article that at least makes sense. Ridernyc (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a mess. You are welcome to become an expert on the area by doing just what you suggest. I don't know that we currently have any experts (or even very knowledgeable people) in that area. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That said, the article does contain some good bones, so there is a base to work from. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, help me please

I'm a 55 year old Japanese citizen with a keyboard bought in America, I don't know how to put it to write in Japanese and I don't want my article of the murderer Hiroyuki Tsuchida deleted. It may even in the interest of this project that the page not be deleted because it deals with otaku and hikikomori stuff. Can any of you please find a source in Japanese about the murder for me and give it to me? Thank you. Kotjap (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Japan. I have edited and made some corrections to the article you wrote. It is short, though I am sure the subject has enough notability and will not be deleted. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the subject fails our notability guideline for criminals and so it will most likely be deleted or redirected. Kotjap, please don't let this put you off contributing though. Once you get a hang of Wikipedia's notability guidelines you should be able to write things without them being deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 02:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia conference in Tokyo on Sunday 3rd Feb.

Information (in Japanese only) is here. LittleBen (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I had known about this sooner. As it is, booking flights now would be really expensive and I already have stuff planned for the weekend. 残念... — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 02:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sisters of the Gion!?

I just noticed that this film and its remake both have "the Gion" in their titles. I'm reluctant to request moves for these articles, though, since I have been caused quite a bit of stress in the last couple of weeks over similar issues. I'm pretty sure there is no "the Gion" in real life, the studio's official website gives a different title for one of them in English[16], and the films are both pretty obscure outside Japan. It does appear to have been released on DVD under this title[17], but still...

WP:UE clearly doesn't apply here because of the conflicting sources and the obscurity of the subject matter.

elvenscout742 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I say leave it. If it was released under that title in English, and a reader is familiar with it, then that's the title he'll enter in the search field. It sounds funny, but that's how it was translated at the time of release. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why does it matter?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It matters enough to ask about here (and possibly where In ictu oculi suggests below), but not enough to actively seek a move or anything, because "Sisters of the Gion" just sounds weird. I came here to see if anyone else thought so. Almost all of the Google hits for "the Gion" are in the form "the Gion Festival" or "the Gion district". I don't mind much either way, but it just looks really funny. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It does look funny, but more importantly it looks badly sourced. The first remotely competent print source I found for the 1936 film had "Sisters of Gion" - obviously a book author with a brain and some knowledge of Japanese, rather than a wikipedia editor following WP:駄NAME. There are some wp editors who believe that building the encyclopedia is best served by shovelling up all the garbage out there in sports-ref-blog.com, IMDB-type sites, DVD-pirate-shop-websites and then reproducing it. I'm from the other school on that. So what I'm saying is, something like the earlier macro discussion really, is that as a project - which I'm not super-interested in, I washed my hands of Japan in the 1980s, you guys need to decide whether you want to be reproducing 駄作 from web-sources, or be こせこせ about print sources, that's all. Your project, not mine. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It may be dormant (?) but see polite suggestion under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Japanese cinema task force. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's not your project, then why are you adding opinions and trying to influence articles or policy? Boneyard90 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Because it's been spilling over into WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:RM? WikiProject... Rhyming Mariners? Rwandan Money? Royal Marmalade? Perhaps "WP:RM" is not as commonly recognized an abbreviation as you believe. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok, yeah, it came to me a little while later. Well, then, I thank you for your suggestions, advice and encouragement; I'm sure we'll keep it in mind as we decide how to handle the present and future situations. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
As a long-time IIO watcher, I think I can clarify what is going on here. You see, IIO feels he has to vote against me in every RM. So whenever a Japan-related RM comes up, he is put a difficult position. The petty feuds of this project are forcing him to deal with subject matter that is clearly beneath his dignity. He knows all too well that very few aspects of this country are worthy of being be anywhere near an encyclopedia. Kauffner (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
人は見かけによらぬもの. If someone wants to believe this, believe it. However it's simple enough to check the current Japan-related RMs Talk:Tales of Moonlight and Rain, Talk:Torajiro Saito, Talk:Rashōmon, Talk:The Downfall of Osen#Requested move 2, Talk:Double Suicide of Sonezaki, Talk:Shōtarō Ikenami, Talk:Jūzō Itami, Talk:Ugetsu, Talk:Kindai Eiga Kyokai. I see the first 4x RMs where Kauffner "followed" me, 1x where only I posted, 3x where only Kauffner posted, 1x where neither posted.
As regards "The petty feuds of this project are forcing him to deal with subject matter that is clearly beneath his dignity" - that's a rather unpleasant spin. What I said was, having seen similar before in other projects, it might be better if the issue between Joshu Sasori and macropneuma, Elvenscout etc/ could be sorted out at project level rather than at RM, that's all. If people think that's a bad suggestion, then it's a bad suggestion and can be ignored. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
JoshuSasori has been banned indefinitely for disruptive behaviour. This doesn't put an end to the debate over macrons, but it does mean there is now no one going around as many Wikipedia articles as he can making requests to move the pages from macronned to unmacronned spellings. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been "Sisters of the Gion" as long as I know, and that is how it is referred to in English on the Criterion DVD, at film archives, and by most film scholars. Michitaro (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@Michitaro. No worries, then that's good. The above was overstatement on my part based on the first source I encountered - Isolde Standish A New History of Japanese Cinema 2006 Page 61 best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
@Michitaro. I had only ever heard of it in Japan, but bought a copy (outside Japan) early this week. Sure enough Artificial Eye has "Sisters of THE Gion" - you were right, mea culpa. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

CD covers listed for deletion

Please someone look at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 31, at these nominations:

I'm asking here cause I'm afraid that people there wouldn't understand how CDs are released in Japan and that all covers are important and there's no way to choose. Actually, at first I illustrated the articles with regular edition covers, but then I decided that, since Oricon prefers to use Limited A edition covers in the charts, I will put Limited A above. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/January_2013&oldid=1159328789"