Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 10

Names in Kanji next to the person's article link

Hi, in Yuki Kajiura's hired vocalists' section, the Kanji names of the various parties are included in the list. I suggested that they be removed since anyone that cares could just as easily click the link to the article to find the name (which I understand would not work if said vocalist did not have an entry), but another editor mentioned that it's not really obstructing anything, so they ought to say. What is the proper way? --Remy Suen 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The MOS indicates that the kanji should not be there if an article exists on the other end of the link in question. If no article exists, having the kanji is fine until such time as the article exists (this can actually help people find information in order to write an article). Hope that makes sense. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to remove the kanji from the linked (and existing) articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have heard mention of this "one click away" rule but for some reason I cannot find it explicitly in the J-MOS. Am I missing it, or is it not written out? CES 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I am having difficulties locating it. I see edits citing the MOS removing stuff, but I can't seem to find it on the page. --Remy Suen 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it ever made it into the MOS, here's the archived discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/misc7#Using_kanji_with_links_to_other_articles --Kunzite 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this has now been added to the MOS-JA. See this section. Thanks for digging out that discussion, Kunzite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up to begin with was the treatment of lists ... I had been thinking, and the past discussion appears to agree, that lists and tables should be exempt from this "one click away" rule. The version that Nihonjoe created indicated that all text (narrative or otherwise) falls under this rule, so I changed the version to the exact one proposed and agreed to in the linked discussion. The following section was also proposed and a consensus was reached, but never really approved of officially. I would like to suggest that it be added to policy:

In the context of a list of words, Japanese characters can be added even if the list contains links to other articles. For example, kanji for each train station of a particular railway line, a list of Japanese eras, or Akira Kurosawa movies. In these cases, pronunciation guides via the {{nihongo}} template are not necessary – especially if the pronunciation is available in the linked article.

CES 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think something indicating it's only fine to add the Japanese if it is necessary for the article or will improve the article in some way. There are many, many lists which don't need the Japanese, too, so I don't think it should be acceptable for all lists. It should have to be demonstrated that it improves the article or is necessary for the article, IMHO. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are all going to have different ideas of where it is necessary or would improve the article. Here's my thoughts. If it is reasonable to expect that someone may access an article (like Kurosawa movies, sumo techniques, eras, etc) to search for a member of the list (movie title, explicit technique, specific era) where only the kanji is known, then the kanji should be listed even if each movie has its own link. Yes, I realize that the utility of this is pretty much limited to people with some Japanese ability; and it is why I would not fight too hard for it if there was much opposition. Neier 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel similarly ... for me, as a personal example, it is helpful to have the kanji for works of fiction, as the title of translated works often differs. Having all of the original kanji in one list makes searching for a title much easier than clicking each link. And in general, I believe this rule was thought up to prevent clutter and redundancy in sentences where every other word had a kanji/kana explanation ... for lists this is usually not an issue. CES 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to streamline the above proposal. Comments? Neier 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In some lists or tables, Japanese characters are acceptable even if the Japanese is already documented in a separately linked article. For example, the kanji in the list of Japanese era names may be useful to someone scanning the list for a particular era (in kanji), rather than having to click each era individually to find the appropriate one if the correct romanized form is unknown. In lists and tables, a pronunciation guide via the {{nihongo}} template is not always necessary – especially if the pronunciation is available in the linked article.

It'll always be a judgement call, but I think those are good examples to illustrate the thinking.

Separately, on the issue of Japanese names, I agree with supplying the kanji for the person whose name appears in the article title. For example, in the article on the present prime minister, "Jun'ichirō Koizumi (小泉潤一郎)." Also, if the name is of a person who does not have an article, it's often useful to provide the Japanese, such as "Susumu Nikaidō (二階堂進)." But with names that are links to articles on the person, as with other terms, in running text, I suggest not providing the kanji, since it's only a click away. For example, "Yasuhiro Nakasone (中曽根 康弘 Nakasone Yasuhiro) was Prime Minister of Japan. He was succeeded by Noboru Takeshita. Nakasone was noted for his policies ... ." (no kanji for Takeshita because they're in his article.)

These two issues come together in lists. In List of Prime Ministers of Japan, the names are not presented in Japanese script, but it would be fine (in my opinion) if they were. Lists that are important references, glossaries, and certain limited other contexts are places where the Japanese script is often helpful to many readers.

Just because something is in a list doesn't mean it's beneficial to provide the Japanese. For example, a list of events associated with Tokugawa Tsunayoshi might say "1680 Appointed Naidaijin. Decree appointing him Sei-i Taishogun handed down. 1705 Appointed Udaijin." and so forth. (The Japanese Wikipedia has such chronologies in many articles on historical people. See ja:徳川綱吉#官職位階履歴 for one example.) The kanji for the offices like Naidaijin and Udaijin belong in the articles on those offices; repeating them in the article on Tokugawa Tsunayoshi is unnecessary and in my opinion undesirable.

When I say "glossaries," I mean sections of articles where the author is defining terms. See Japanese tea ceremony#Equipment for an example. Notice that the author provides Japanese script for the terms being defined, but not willy-nilly for all the Japanese words. I advocate the style the author used in this section for glossaries, whether stand-alone articles or, as there, sections of longer articles.

Fg2 06:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Uzumaki Naruto and name order discussion for fictional characters

Someone on the Anime and manga Wikiproject put in a "rule" that all fictional characters must be in GN-FN.

Someone then proposed to switch the order of Uzumaki Naruto to Naruto Uzumaki (see Talk:Uzumaki Naruto) - Normally I support GN-FN - But in Naruto's case, the English manga (by VIZ Media) uses FNGN, AND the series is not set on Earth. It is set in a fictional world inspired by pre-Meiji Japan. FNGN is more common on Naruto fan sites.

Some people erroneously state that the MOS for people also applies to fictional characters. Some point to the rule inserted in the Wikiproject. What shall we do? WhisperToMe 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that fictional characters are not bound by the normal rules of time and space, why not stick to the general Wikipedia rule of common usage? Personally I think that common usage should apply to "real" people as well, with the Meiji-split rule applying only when common usage is in dispute, but that is just my opinion, not MoS policy. Common usage would, however, be consistent with the final versions of the fictional characters policy that we'd been working on (with no resolution) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Fictional characters CES 02:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But that would make the articles inconsistent with the guideline for real people. I think we need to stick with GN-SN (with Meiji where applicable to period dramas) unless there is a really good exception. --Kunzite 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that the Anime uses GN-FN. I also don't recall the fictional name usage delving into the name-order debate. (Though I could be mis-remembering.) I DO think that fictional characters who have Japanese names should follow the established naming pattern unless there is a very good reason not to follow it and not following it is well documented in the text of every affected article. I am simply applying the pattern that was laid out in the MOS-JA to a group of article that were currently lacking a concise set of rules (even though I've begged for them twice and name order wasn't a problem with the creation of those rules.)

I also wish to say that I did the proper thing by attempting to gain concensus on this issue by filing a batch move request. --Kunzite 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"You neglect to mention that the Anime uses GN-FN." Sorry about that. Anyway, I do remember someone mentioning High School! Kimengumi as an example of reverse order to show puns. I'll have to find the edit relating to that. WhisperToMe 04:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be me who mentioned Kimengumi. The reason for not following the guideline in that article is clearly spelled out at the top of the listing of characters (to keep the puns, as you wrote above). I think that guidelines should generally be followed, but if there is a really good reason for not following them (as in the Kimengumi article), it should be clearly explained in the article (or on the Talk page) why the guideline is not being followed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My good reason is that the English manga release uses FNGN, the internet fanbase generally prefers FNGN, AND Naruto is not set in modern day Japan. WhisperToMe 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The English anime uses GN-SN and Naruto is also not set in a pre-Meiji era nor is it inspired by a pre-Meiji era with it use of nontraditional clothing, radios, televisions, video recorders and other modern appliances seen through the series. So your points are moot. Also relaying entirely on the internet fanbase is not a good method to determine "common usage", especially when the anime series is still a fairly recent addition to the Toonamie lineup. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been on Toonami since September 10, 2005 - almost a year ago. It's not like Naruto just began. In addition, the Rurouni Kenshin and Samurai Deeper Kyo anime series both use GNFN, yet the manga series (of both) use FNGN. WhisperToMe 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because there are other articles don't follow the existing guidelines and may need correction doesn't mean Naruto should get an automatic reprieve from having the same guidelines apply to it. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "Fatzisiu"?

I found this after seeing a picture of a pre-Meiji Japanese robbery...

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13051/13051-h/13051-h.htm#i32 - Obviously the author is using an antiquated romanization system - But what does he mean by Fatzisiu Island? WhisperToMe 07:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything at that link. Probably Hasshū (八州), an old name for the Kanto. Also Kan-hasshū (関八州), the eight provinces of the Kanto. See ja:関東地方. My guess is "Fatzi" = Hachi and "Siu" = Shū. Now, about "island" ... it could be just a mistranslation. Or there could actually be an island ... Fg2 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I found the link, and I found the magic word "banishment." That suggests Hachijō-jima. So "Siu" is jō in this case. Non-standard, but looking through the article, I see other oddities. This is in the same league. Quite probably Hachijō-jima. Fg2 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The book says the island is on the "northern coast" of the empire - Maube the book is wrong? :) WhisperToMe 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, when it mentioned the LONINS (which the book dubbed as criminals) robbing the palace 1, I figured they were Ronin and moved the picture there. WhisperToMe 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the author meant ronin but I don't think his illustration shows ronin. Judging from their dress, I'd guess they're samurai. But it's just a guess. Fg2 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I redirected "Fatzisiu" to "Hachiojima" - We need to redirect as many of these obsolete romanizations as possible. WhisperToMe 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My favorite is "Woxu" (see Hasekura Tsunenaga), meaning Ōshū (奥州); the nearest equivalent we have is Mutsu Province. But "Fatzisiu" is right up there! Fg2 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Woxu" would be a Mandarin Chinese romanization which would be said "Ōshū" or "Oshu" in Japanese. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's Portuguese or Spanish, "wo" for modern "o" and "x" for "sh." I don't know Mandarin (then again, I don't know Portuguese or Spanish); maybe there is a similar system in use. Fg2 06:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected Woxu to Oshu EDIT: It turns out I used "Wuxu" instead - I deleted that... WhisperToMe 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested addition.

Fictional characters should be added to the name order section to clarify a position that I think we already have a bit of agreement upon. --Kunzite 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand what you wrote above, your proposal is Given name - Surname, except for period characters. I would guess that all literature published before Meiji 1 would be period characters, and so SN-GN. Literature set in later periods might be tricky, as characters might not have clear birth eras. Certainly, for jidaigeki set in Edo or earlier, there's no problem. For anything set primarily in postwar Japan, we might just as well say GN-SN. So Meiji - Taisho - early Showa is the time frame that would pose the most difficulties. Not sure if we have to be as specific with fiction as with real life. Fg2 07:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming order in relation to works of Western origin

Copied and pasted from FAC talk page, where I was told that this would be the best place to put it:

Recently, the subject of naming order has become a point of contention regarding an article's FAC debate (though the issue is discussed on its talk page). Basically, the argument is based around the subject of whether Japanese or Western naming order (family name before or after given name) should be used in an article about a work of Western origin which happens to use Japanese naming order, in relation to its Japanese characters. This issue is currently not covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) nor any of its derivatives, and as such has been left up to individual interpretation. To prevent the debate from becoming any more heated than it already has, I am submitting it for discussion here. JimmyBlackwing 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I figure I should probably go ahead and repeat my comment from before:

"Hm. Well, given that this is the English Wikipedia, most people are going to assume that it's using the Western order of given name followed by family name unless told otherwise. Unless a notice was provided to indicate that it was using a different order — or the Japanese order was inherently relevant to the work itself in some way — I'd think the Western order should be used. I don't really have a preference for one or the other being demanded at all times — allowing it to be a matter of stylistic preference for the editors seems best — but without clarification, I'd say it should be Western order so as not to cause confusion." Ryu Kaze 03:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unless a notice was provided to indicate that it was using a different order" I want to include Japanese order with a note in the case of Megatokyo. How does that sound? WhisperToMe 04:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the work was originally written in English, and since the work originally put the names in a specific order because the author(s) wanted to do it that way, that is likely the name order most well known to the English-speaking world for those particular characters. There is no transliteration involved, so the WP:MOS-JA doesn't apply. Because Wikipedia generally tries to use the most commonly-appearing form (or in this case, name order), Surname-Given Name should be used for any Megatokyo characters whose names appear that way in the series. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping sort this out. I will work this into the article JimmyBlackwing 06:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would place something like this at the beginning of the list of characters: The authors of Megatokyo chose to use "Surname–Given Name" order for characters of Japanese origin. We have maintained the same format here so as to avoid any confusion regarding these characters.

Something like that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree on that. Just because the characters don't apply to MOS-JA doesn't mean they shouldn't follow the western name order. The only reason we do it here is for constancy for our readers who are used to seeing names in that order, so it's not just Japanese related topics that should follow this advice. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned before, if a certain order is inherently relevant to the work itself, it makes sense to use that order, even if it isn't the Western order. Since Nihonjoe has informed us that this work — originally in English, no less — uses the opposite order by choice of the work's creators, it does qualify as inherently relevant to the work. The editors of the Megatokyo article would just be remaining consistent with the work itself, which is generally what is expected when dealing with works of fiction.

If any notice was given, by the way, JB, the one that Nihonjoe brought up would definitely be the one. Ryu Kaze 12:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see this logic. Don't Japanese animes and such choose to use their naming order? It has nothing to do with where it was made or if the creator prefers it or not. The entire point is for consistency. The fact that we use western naming order for Japanese names is inconsistent with all of their works, fact or fiction. This is a double standard. Trying to get around this on a technicality that "it's not Japanese" completely misses the point. -- Ned Scott 13:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the situation correctly, I think the difference is that these characters could be argued to have never been named in anything but the surname-given name order. Characters in Japanese-made works have had their names transliterated from Japanese into English, with the inevitable result being that the order is altered for the Western world. That seems to have never been the case here. For the Western world, the order always was surname-given name instead of given name-surname. It's a unique situation, really, and one in which the surname-given name order can't be easily disregarded since it's not a matter of cultural custom, but, rather, a matter of artistic expression. It would be like taking a direct quote from a work of fiction and correcting any mistakes in grammar. You wouldn't actually be quoting the work then. Or at least not accurately.

I think the situation is also similar to what we had to do with Final Fantasy VII. Though the character Aerith Gainsborough's name is spelled like that, the original English localization of the game used "Aeris" instead. Though this was corrected for later titles (and far more titles in English have the character's name as "Aerith" than they do as "Aeris"), when discussing just Final Fantasy VII itself, we have to use "Aeris" and keep her name as "Aeris" in quotes from the game so as to remain consistent with the work we're detailing. Ryu Kaze 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't give exception to artistic expression. If we did, we'd support putting colors in article titles, and adding background music.

"Characters in Japanese-made works have had their names transliterated from Japanese into English, with the inevitable result being that the order is altered for the Western world."

There are several hundred anime articles about works that have no official English translation that use western order. The guideline applies to all works, it has nothing to do with the translation of the fiction. And we're not quoting their work (if you were quoting a specific passage or dialog, then you would keep it the same), we're discussing topics and elements of fiction.

I have not heard any reason why these articles should be excused other than because they're not Japanese. Why would the arguments for the "original" naming order not be valid for Japanese related articles? If they're such good reasons, then why would the naming order be changed in any article, fiction or not? The guideline is put here simply because of organizational methods, but if need be we can extract it to a general naming convention guideline. Trying to cling to this technicality is ridiculous. -- Ned Scott 13:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone made a comment above about how these characters have never been named in anything but SN-GN order, and I agree with that. This is not the case of making an exception for just this one comic; if it were, I'd say no. But fictional works as a whole should be allowed to keep intact the name order or style created by their creator. Why should Wikipedia put the name in an order or style different from every other reference to the character, especially the original source? If there were a fiction series that had nothing to do with Asian origins whatsoever, but chose to put its characters' names in SN-GN order, would we leave that intact? LordAmeth 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the point I was making above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If there were a fiction series that had nothing to do with Asian origins whatsoever, but chose to put its characters' names in SN-GN order, would we leave that intact? Not at all. Hungarian names get transposed as well. --Kunzite 08:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

But other than Hungarian names... WhisperToMe 15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If, per the MOS, we don't defer to 1) how real-life Japanese spell and order their names, or 2) how Western translators adapt Japanese works, why should we defer to a Western author's order for his fictional characters? Since this is such a unique example, I wouldn't mind using surname then given name, but I lean in favor of applying MOS-JA.--Monocrat 16:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's silly that we should use Western order for all Eastern works that use Eastern order, but we would use Eastern order for Western works that use Eastern order. It's nothing if not inconsistent. Nifboy 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is key. More than that, though, I think how we handle the names of real, breathing Japanese should be how we treat fictional Japanese, of whatever origin.--Monocrat 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is the objective when it can be applied accurately. I made the same argument regarding using "Aerith" everywhere initially. Every other article about the character uses "Aerith", but considering that the work the Final Fantasy VII article itself is detailing has her named "Aeris" and the quotes from the game we were using as references featured the "Aeris" spelling, I was ultimately convinced that it is inappropriate to use anything but what was originally there.

Standards are great because of the simplicity they can provide, but this case seems to me to be one that lies outside conventional naming matters. As such, I think it requires a more personal examination. In this case, I think we should — as Monocrat put it — "defer to a Western author's order for his fictional characters" because that article is discussing his work that focuses on those fictional characters.

By the way, Ned, this line made no sense to me: "We don't give exception to artistic expression. If we did, we'd support putting colors in article titles, and adding background music". You're talking about artistic expression of editors. I'm talking about the artistic expression that is the subject of the article in question itself. Ryu Kaze 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with using a contrary convention because of "artistic expression" by the author of the work. There are certainly traditionalist/nationalist mangaka who would prefer that their names and the names of their characters stay in Japanese order. Why should we defer to a Western author and not the Japanese? Why not be consistent? That's what a "manual of style" is for, isn't it? Is anything lost by flipping the names? I don't see anything. Shouldn't they be written both ways per the MOS-JA and then refer to the character by the first name? i.e. "Kenji Nakamura (中村健二, Nakamura Kenji) likes to eat hot dogs and play pong for hours on end. Kenji also likes long walks in the park...." This article is for the general public; shouldn't the names should be in a format that most people can easily understand? --Kunzite 08:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the Japanese order/artist's intended order is acknowledged at least by way of the nihongo template, I guess I don't really have any issues with how it's conducted. What you said sounds fine, Kunzite. Ryu Kaze 14:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kunzite, that's exactly what JimmyBlackwing proposed awhile back. I have a problem with that. Please re-read Nihonjoe's posts. In fact, he explains why Megatokyo gets "special" treatment...

1. Megatokyo involves no transliteration = MOS-JA does NOT apply = Megatokyo plays by different rules.
2. "Why should Wikipedia put the name in an order or style different from every other reference to the character, especially the original source? If there were a fiction series that had nothing to do with Asian origins whatsoever, but chose to put its characters' names in SN-GN order, would we leave that intact?" - From LordAmeth
3. I say that, while it is true Wikipedia has to appeal to the average Joe, at the same time, one can't dumb it down so much that it becomes factually inaccurate. In the case of Megatokyo, it is inaccurate to put the names in Western order because the actual English-language comic book never uses the order to begin with. IMO, the whole "appealing too much" is part of my beef with the French Wikipedia, which reverses Kanji to put them in Western order so people don't get confused, even though kanji are never reversed. WhisperToMe 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WhisperToMe 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate that you keep comments to the talk page at hand, rather than posting them off on a secluded talk page. I do not see how using the prescribed method by the MOS-JA (i.e. BOTH name orders) is a that large of a problem. It's a good compromise.

With all due respect to Nihonjoe, I think he's totally incorrect with the assertion that there must be transliteration in order for the MOS-JA to be used. (Besides--there is transliteration:I see Kanji in that article.) This does not happen with Japanese articles sourced from Western works. I can think of one that I translated from the Dutch wikipedia that had no transliteration and others that I've sourced from literary reference works: i.e. the Encyclopedia of East Asian Literature. (If I remember the title correctly.) It's just not a valid argument. Megatokyo plays by all of the rules listed here.

Argument number two applies to all fictional works involving Japanese characters. (See my argument above about allowing exception for Western sources, but ignoring them for Japanese authors.) Primary sources really are not supposed to be used, but with fictional works, it's sometimes overlooked. Secondly, encyclopedia and reference books have style-guidelines to follow. I know of some books which are the only translation of Japanese plays and the like. (I'm thinking of my favorite Japanese play-write, Izumi Kyoka) where authors of the only translation of the work do flip the names inside of the works.) It's done other places. It can be done here.

Finally, your third point is a straw-man argument. This has nothing to do with the French wikipedia's style. This is not "dumbing-down" an article by any means. It's upholding standards. And it certainly does NOT create factual inaccuracies. Is using "Junichiro Koizumi" a factual inaccuracy? No, it's not. I just don't buy this argument.

In conclusion: Using the nihongo-template style entry presents the name in both standards, so it's clear to non-Otaku readers, and it also uses the style standards. --Kunzite 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the nihongo template is a reasonable compromise. I can accept the style guidelines being followed as long as the original/intended/artistically accurate form is also represented, and since the style guidelines call for using the nihongo template anyway, this should probably address most issues. I can't imagine a more irregular case than this one. Ryu Kaze 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"I can't imagine a more irregular case than this one." - How true - By the way, the nihongo template should be used in the Megatokyo in a way similar to historical figures - e.g. to show people how Japanese names are ordered in the various contexts. WhisperToMe 01:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Junichiro Koizumi" is not a factual inaccuracy because that is the common way the name is used in English. The name was formed by the transliteration. In fact, Koizumi uses this on the official Government of Japan website. You see, Japanese naming in the Western order is a natural consequence of the actual, real Japanese names being adapted into English. In the case of Megatokyo, there is no adaptation into English.

"(Besides--there is transliteration:I see Kanji in that article.)" - No there isn't - the Kanji was added as an afterthought. The English-language author originally came up with the name in English - maybe in cahoots with a native Japanese speaker. But this isn't the case of adaptation - Adaptation is a key word here. The whole name switching comes from an adaptation of Japanese names into English. Notice how only a few Megatokyo characters have Japanese kanji; most do not - The kanji is an afterthought.

"Finally, your third point is a straw-man argument. This has nothing to do with the French wikipedia's style." I actually included that as an afterthought - Not really as a debating point.

"And it certainly does NOT create factual inaccuracies." - Yes it does. If you look at Koizumi's template... this is what it says...

"Junichiro Koizumi is known as Koizumi Jun'ichirō in the Japanese language and Junichiro Koizumi in the English language.

Likewise, this is how a Megatokyo character's profile should be presented:

Hayasaka Erika is known as Hayasaka Erika in all languages, regardless of custom

WhisperToMe 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd throw in a non-Japanese example here: Kira Nerys. Shiroi Hane 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what I'm trying to show here. While I agree that the MOS should be followed in the overwhewlming majority of instances, I also think that there are occasional exceptions that need to be made. As long as the exception to the rule is explained, there should be no problem with this. Simply explaining, as in the Kira Nerys article, that the family name is first for some characters in Megatokyo should be good enough. Then no one will be confused trying to find "Hayasaka Erika" in the article because she's located under "Erika Hayasaka." As WhisperToMe explained above, this isn't a case of adapting a non-English work or article to English. The work was originally written in English, the English-speaking-and-writing author specifically chose to list the names that way in his work, and we should respect that.

However, I think that the compromise suggested by Ryu Kaze and Kunzite (using the {{Nihongo}} template) is passingly acceptable in this case as it will present the name in both orders, even though I still lean toward leaving it the way the English-speaking-and-writing author chose to put it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we just use the usual template order, how are we going to handle "Tohya Miho" and characters without Kanji? WhisperToMe 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration of Japanese terms containing loanwords

When providing a translation and a transliteration, do we use the original non-Japanese spelling of the word, or do we use the Japanified spelling in the transliteration?

To clarify, do we go:

Le Chevalier D'Eon (シェヴァリエ Chevalier)
Venetian Rhapsody (ヴェネツィアン・ラプソディー Venetian Rhapsody)
Sonata of the Rain～La Pluie (雨のソナタ～ラ・プリュ Ame-no Sonata～La Pluie)

Or:

Le Chevalier D'Eon (シェヴァリエ Shebarie)
Venetian Rhapsody (ヴェネツィアン・ラプソディー Veneshian Rapusodii)
Sonata of the Rain～La Pluie (雨のソナタ～ラ・プリュ Ame-no Sonata～Ra Puryu)

Bye, Shinobu 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're going to use the romaji spelling (the "Japanified spelling") after the katakana/hiragana/kanji. Just follow the format as described here and you should be okay. Let us know if clarification of any of that is needed. Ryu Kaze 02:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger. I just wanted to be sure. Shinobu 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

City names

Cities in Japan (-shi) are more typically referred to without their prefecture names. I've never heard people refer to Nagoya as "Nagoya, Aichi" or even Aichi-ken Nagoya-shi (except when written as postal addresses). Furthermore, many city governments typically translate their name as Cityname City. For the smaller cities or cities that have the same name as their prefecture, how about using "Cityname City"? For the larger, more well-known cities, use plain "Cityname". For the towns and villages, the current style of attaching the prefecture name is probably ok. --Polaron | Talk 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are different from more typical uses. We have discussed the City, Prefecture naming system extensively. You can find the records of the discussions in the archives. If you have any questions about the discussions in the archives, please do not hesitate to ask. Fg2 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But we should not put articles at titles that are rarely used. Also Wikipedia has a policy of using common names. How about we do it the way the Japanese Wikipedia titles their articles? --Polaron | Talk 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron. The city, prefecture format should only be used in cases where it is needed to disambiguate the city from other similarly well-known cities (are there any examples of this?). Either that, or we should push the other direction, and get articles like New York City and San Francisco moved to New York, New York and San Francisco, California, respectively. Jun-Dai 03:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that your example, San Francisco, redirects to San Francisco, California. Are there any cities in Japan with the stature of New York? Making the exception for Tokyo, which is not the name of an incorporated municipality (this discussion is about municipalities). Fg2 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any points in the archives that are unclear? Fg2 04:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but there are a lot of points that I disagree with, a few that are no longer true (e.g., Chicago, Illinois is now Chicago), and a number of sound, never-really-responded-to arguments advocating a similar position to what Polaron has suggested. We need to revisit this "decision", and my opinion is firmly in favor of using the city/town, prefecture format only when necessary to disambiguate (and for cities, using/leaning towards titles like Gifu City). Most importantly, I think that Wikipedia convention and MoS guidelines for cities in general should override those for Japan-related articles, for the sake of consistency. Given that those seem rather murky at this point, I think Polaron's recommendation is sensible for Japanese cities until the Wikipedia-wide conventions are more firmly established. Jun-Dai 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that Chicago is at the short title as a result of a recent move with twenty editors voting. An attempt to rename it earlier this year failed (with twelve editors voting). It may be reasonable to expect a debate about reversing that decision after a few months. Let's avoid repeatedly reversing decisions by discussing this thoroughly, not for just five days (as Chicago was). It's good that we are trying to reach consensus at MoS rather than at individual cities.

Also, an earlier edit misidentified Naming conventions (common names) as a policy. It is not a policy; it is a guideline (as you noted). Within the guideline is an entire section on exceptions, including Manual of Style. We are debating the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles. Its status is equal to the Naming conventions guideline, not subject to it. Wikipedia delegates the decision to us. Presently, municipalities follow the pattern Name, Prefecture. This is closely analogous to the pattern for the US and Canada (Name, State or Name, Province), although there are some exceptions. It is not an isolated, Japan-only pattern; it is well established within Wikipedia and not in conflict with the naming conventions guideline. It fits Japan well, and closely mirrors postal conventions (although reversed in sequence). It is a consistent pattern for cities large and small, for towns, and for villages. It poses no problems for readers of Wikipedia, who get to the article they want by clicking a link within another article, or via redirects. It makes it easy for editors to write articles, because they know the pattern and can write links accurately without having to worry about whether Nobeoka is a city, or a designated city, or an important regional city in the consensus of those who titled articles. Nobeoka, Miyazaki links directly to the article without guesswork or testing or redirects. It is consistent and simple. Other systems that have been proposed achieve an increase in simplicity in a few cases, but at a penalty in consistency. The existing system is an excellent compromise. It works, it does not violate policy or guidelines, it resembles other systems in widespread use on Wikipedia, and it is well established. There is no need for change. Fg2 02:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The current style is just too alien. I'm quite sure people in Japan don't refer to Fukuoka City as "Fukuoka, Fukuoka". If disambiguation is needed, sure we can use the prefecture. And for machi and mura we can also use the current style. But for shi, which are quite well known nationwide, this does not make sense. --Polaron | Talk 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start moving articles just because you think you are right. You are going cause us a lot of trouble in moving all the articles back to their rightful places. Please familiarize yourself with the dozens of pages of talk archives where this issue has been cleared up after long hours of patient thought and neutral discussion.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Those discussions never ended with a consensus. Just show me any evidence that these are common names and I'll go away. --Polaron | Talk 05:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to go away. I'm asking you to be reasonable and consider that moving 100 articles in 10 minutes will cause a lot of problems if you're wrong, and we usually don't decide on such drastic edits after waiting 2 hours for a response. I don't think you've fully read the discussions, because you keep telling me things like that it's consistant with the Japanese wiki, and Japanese people say Toyota City, which makes me think that you don't understand we are writing an English encyclopedia for English speakers in the English world. Please slow down and allow everyone (including yourself) to arrange their thoughts.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that, even in English, the current city article titles are not common. This style was essentially created here at Wikipedia. Please look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) about what an approriate title is. English language does not mean use U.S. style naming. Look at the other language Wikipedias as well and see what they do. --Polaron | Talk 05:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A good example of titles of articles in the English Wikipedia is Ier arrondissement. Fg2 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Polaron thinks Japanese people use "Fukuoka City" in English. He is flat-out wrong. Japanese people use "Fukuoka, Fukuoka" or "Fukuoka" in English and 福岡県福岡市 (Fukuoka-ken Fukuoka-shi) or 福岡市 (Fukuoka-shi) in Japanese. Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionaries use "Fukuoka". "Fukuoka City" is almost never used, neither in English nor Japanese. Why the massive unilateral changes without asking anybody first? ... especially since it was a blatant disregard of WP:MOS-JA?--Endroit 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fukuoka City is what the city government calls itself in English. Fukuoka City is also what the Japanese name tranlates as. Also the 福岡県福岡市 construction is only used in addresses. I've never heard anyone talk that way in conversation. --Polaron | Talk 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Official city usage of words do not override common English usage of the city names. English dictionaries are more authoritative. It's "Fukuoka", not "Fukuoka City". Also 福岡市 (Fukuoka-shi) translates into "Fukuoka" in English, NOT "Fukuoka City". "Fukuoka City" is neither used commonly nor in addresses.--Endroit 06:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about addresses here. This is about the name of the city. And why is 福岡市 translated as just Fukuoka? What happened to the shi? If you don't like Fukuoka City then move it to Fukuoka (city) which is another possibility since plain Fukuoka is also commonly used for the city. Ultimately, the combination "Fukuoka, Fukuoka" is just not used to refer to the name of the city. --Polaron | Talk 06:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Polaron, you did massive page moves without consensus. And then you try to justify it after the fact. Go back and revert them all, and then talk about it. Also, WP:MOS-JA is there for a reason. "Fukuoka, Fukuoka" means 福岡県福岡市 (Fukuoka-ken Fukuoka-shi) in Japanese, and is in an identical format as Las Vegas, Nevada, Calgary, Alberta or Perth, Western Australia. It is based on the "Manual of Style" and is perfectly legit. "Fukuoka City" is very uncommon, and I oppose that move. I'm sure others oppose that move also.--Endroit 06:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to argue that Fukuoka City is more used than Fukuoka, but Fukuoka City is hardly uncommon in English. Results for Fukuoka, Fukuoka, however, mostly bring up coincidences (used at the end of one sentence and the beginning of another) addresses, and full city-state-country names (Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Japan). Jun-Dai 06:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fukuoka, Fukuoka" means "Fukuoka" (city) located in Fukuoka Prefecture. And "Fukuoka" is more common than "Fukuoka City." That is why "Fukuoka, Fukuoka" is more valid than "Fukuokoa City."--Endroit 06:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good argument as to why Fukuoka, Fukuoka is a better choice than Fukuoka City, Fukuoka. I'm not seeing how you stretched it to the other point, though. Jun-Dai 07:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the shorter name is more common plus you also get mixed up with the prefecture name. The title of an enyclopedia article specifies the name of the thing. Contextual information is usually given in the first sentence. It is clear that the name is either "Fukuoka" or "Fukuoka City". The former name needs disambiguation and according to WP:D, a term that doen't need disambiguation is preferable. Since "Fukuoka City" is not uncommon (even if you restrict searches to Japanese-language pages), this is a better name. Also, why not "Fukuoka, Fukuoka Prefecture" since the prefecture article is at Fukuoka Prefecture? --Polaron | Talk 07:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's prescribed in the WP:MOS-JA guidelines which you decided to violate. Also, tacking on the 2nd "Fukuoka" (prefecture) is just a matter of style, not common usage. "Fukuoka City" is less commonly used. If you wish to change the style usage, you should discuss it first (not later). Please follow the rules as a matter of courtesy to other Wikipedia users.--Endroit 07:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just like New York City is much less commonly used (at least in my experience) than New York, but it's a sensible disambiguation from non-cities (e.g., Panama City, Ciudad de Mexico, or the -市 suffix, or by analogy, New York State). Using the hierarchy, however, is more appropriate for disambiguating between cities, etc. Jun-Dai 07:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the naming of an article, Polaron mentioned that Wikipedia has a guideline on the subject of using the most common name of a subject for the title of an article so long as the name doesn't need to be disambiguation. I ran three Google searches for the following queries.

"fukuoka" -"fukuoka city" -"fukuoka, fukuoka" 10,600,000 hits

"fukuoka city" -"fukuoka, fukuoka" 482,000 hits

"fukuoka, fukuoka" -"fukuoka city" 117,000

Since the article "Fukuoka" is a disambiguation page, shouldn't the next most common name be used in the article's title? Wouldn't the guidelines in WP:MOS-JA only be followed only as long as they don't conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? Jecowa 07:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)