Open main menu

Archives
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

Contents

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Non-English gamesEdit

WP:VG/GL mediationEdit

Template to show in parenthesis: 1) kanji/kana, and then 2) rōmajiEdit

Greetings!

I was wondering if there is a simple tag that just shows in parenthesis (A) the kanji/kana, and then (B) the rōmaji? I would need such a tag in the lede of an article that I'm editing (Lean manufacturing), and the current text go like this (numeration added):

Lean manufacturing or lean production, often simply "lean", is a (4) systematic method for waste minimization ((3) "Muda") within a manufacturing system without sacrificing productivity, which can cause problems.

I have worked earlier with the MOS:JAPAN[1] and MOS:CHINA[2][3], but I've never run into a problem that simple before. In the aforementioned article, all I want to say is the following (numeration added):

Lean manufacturing or lean production, often simply "lean", is a (4) systematic method for waste minimization ((3) Muda (2) 無駄) within a manufacturing system without sacrificing productivity, which can cause problems.

So, what's the problem? Let's reflect through a China-related article, Fuji (the numerations added):

Beginning around the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE), the fuji method and written characters changed from (2) 扶箕 (1) "support the sieve" (4) (spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)

So in a nutshell, we have (1) the English translation (support the sieve), (2) hanzi (扶箕), (3) romanization of the word (not present in the aforementioned quote), and (4) an explanation for the English term ((spirit-writing using a suspended sieve or winnowing tray)). See, in the Japan-related articles there is already a practice on how to deal with this kind of sentences, and the formatting of sentences follows the exact structure as mentioned above ((1) - (2) - (3) - (4)). This is handled by a language tag {{nihongo}}. For example, in the Shinnyo-en article, a similar piece of text is handled like this:

Joyful donations (歓喜 kangi, monetary contribution to the organization)

In plain code, this would appear as: {{nihongo|Joyful donations|歓喜|kangi|monetary contribution to the organization}}

But now, the queestion is how do we deal with a (4) - (3) - (2) structure? Actually, we could just forget about the first part, number (4) ("...systematic method for waste minimization.) It already gives the English explanation by itself. But how to deal with the remaining part? Something so simple. Inside parenthesis ... (3) the first part transliterated, (3) the second part in kanji/kana.

I hope I could make myself understood! :-) The numerration is supposed to be coherent through all the examples! Cheers! ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have read this post of yours three times, but still fail to understand it. Within it, you say:
all I want to say is the following (numeration added):

Lean manufacturing or lean production, often simply "lean", is a (4) systematic method for waste minimization ((3) Muda (2) 無駄) within a manufacturing system without sacrificing productivity, which can cause problems.

What's wrong with

Lean manufacturing or lean production, often simply "lean", is a systematic method for waste minimization (Muda 無駄) within a manufacturing system without sacrificing productivity, which can cause problems.

? (Incidentally, I'm puzzled by your capitalization of Muda; is this relevant to the thread immediately below?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Hoary! I don't blame you; I'm so knee deep in hoopla with the topic, that sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees :-) Let me rephrase my question. I was wondering if there exists a template for: Muda 無駄 ? At the moment, one parameter ((3) romanization of the word) is excluded from the template syntax ((2) hanzi), {{nihongo2|無駄}}.
A steady nihongo -template would help the coherence and consistency across the articles. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand why it would ever be necessary to have the romanization (3) precede the kanji (2) in such a case. If kanji are important enough to include, they are important enough to include before the romanization. Otherwise, what are you romanizing? Hoary's workaround allows you to do it, but things are already usefully standardized across articles by Template:Nihongo, because as you noted above, waste minimization (無駄, muda) (that is, {{nihongo|waste minimization|無駄|muda}}) already yields the kanji and romanization in a specific order consistently. Dekimasuよ! 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside for the moment that muda is really the waste itself (what needs elimination) and not actually its minimization or the translation of any other particular term here. Dekimasuよ! 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh Nohs!Edit

The introduction to the article Noh, brutally abridged (and with slashes "/" for paragraph breaks), but verbatim:

Noh (, ), [...] Traditionally, a Noh program includes five Noh plays with comedic kyōgen plays in between; an abbreviated program of two Noh plays and one kyōgen piece has become common in Noh presentations today. An okina (翁) play may be presented in the very beginning [...]. / together with Kyōgen is part of Nōgaku theatre. / [...] Having a strong emphasis on tradition rather than innovation, Noh is extremely codified and regulated by the iemoto system.

So 能 is almost consistently spelled "noh" (exception at the start of the second paragraph), which is consistently italicized and capitalized; "kyōgen" is consistently italicized but inconsistently capitalized; "okina" is italicized and not capitalized.

I understand that "noh" is far more widely used in English text than "nō", "nô" or "no". So OK, we use "noh".

If we did use "no", then this might lead to jarring effects, no? Capitalizing it ("No") would be an anomalous but fairly effective way of avoiding such trouble. However, we're not using "no"; we're instead using "noh". Why the anomalous capitalization? (And since the word is widely used in English, why the insistent italicizing?)

A decade ago, LordAmeth [please come back!] wrote:

I stand by my suggestion that (a) all of these terms [for Japanese genres of performing arts] should be uncapitalized (normal case), (b) Noh is an exception, and should be capitalized by convention (I think if we look at enough sources, we will find that the majority use this format)

If we look at enough sources, we find that the majority use "ELLEGARDEN" for what we term "Ellegarden". Putting aside the matter of italicization, the mid-sentence capitalization of "Noh" strikes me as wholly unnecessary and rather bizarre. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Have you heard the one about the empty wall meant for kyogen advertisements? It had a sign that said "Post No Bills."
In my English dictionary, Noh is capitalized. That probably has something to do with when it was integrated into English. But I don't find Noh at all offensive. On the other hand, kyōgen is not really a recognized word in English, so I think no caps and italicized is fine for it. Cf. move wars at Shogi/Shōgi. Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a good little joke. ¶ So, words that are capitalized regardless of where they're used are: proper names ("Holland"), adjectives corresponding to names ("Dutch"), words whose references awe the writer ("His" when Christians refer to their god; see also presidential tweets), "I", and "Noh". Still seems bizarre to me. It's certainly true that many writers capitalize "Noh"; but it's also true that many don't (example from Columbia UP). -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw, LDEL (1984) gives a cross-ref to an entry "No, Noh"; capitalised, but "No" preferred. Cf. "Kabuki" it says, and this latter is given as "Kabuki (often not cap)". I think the post hoc (at least) rationalisation would be that it is, sort of, a proper noun. I recally a discussion about whether "Internet" should be capitalised, on the grounds that there is only one of them, so it's "proper". Imaginatorium (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we enjoy the Opera, Imaginatorium? Or Concerts? At Times it seems that we're going back to the 18th Century. (Jacob Rees Mogg might applaud.) The Guardian regards "no(h)" as so unique that, um, it goes unmentioned in the expected page of its style guide. Its older articles capitalize (example); its newer ones don't (example). -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Japanese instructions on namesEdit

Surely account now needs to be taken of the Japanese preferences for writing names with the family name first. See Foreign Minister Taro Kono to ask media to switch order of Japanese names. Any comments? What about Shinzō Abe?--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The request by the foreign minister could be discussed at Japanese name, perhaps, but our manual of style would not be based upon official names even were we to recognize this as under the purview of the Japanese government (which we don't, really). I never say "Shinzō Abe" when speaking English, but I don't think the story cited here presents any new issues that aren't already taken into account in the style guide. Dekimasuよ! 09:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that the Ukrainian government actually sent a letter to the foundation asking for Kiev to be renamed to Kyiv, but Kiev is still more common, so ENwiki uses that. The surnames style should reflect the preferences of most English popular media sources. If those sources change suit, Wikipedia shall do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Manual of Style/Japan-related articles".