![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is because it has markers like "ha" (pronounced wa), etc. So generally first and last names lack the anglicized space in them. I am NOT talking about romaji which would be for example, sakurada, but I mean nihonji: 桜田. Given this, when Japanese names are listed should they be Anglicized even though you're technically typing in Japanese? Example:星田 あゆみ v. 星田あゆみ. The latter would be how it would show up in Japanese books, Japanese media, Japanese magazines, etc. The former is more of an American way of trying to process the fact that another language has no spaces and is in anthropological terms ethnocentric (i.e. the idea that your culture must contain rules for all other cultures, or other cultures should conform to your culture--this is not negative or positive... it just is and exists). I would think that real representation of the words when written in script that is native to the language would make most sense... Again NOT romaji. nihonji (kanji and the various forms of kana) -- Hitsuji Kinno 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The kanji/kana versions of names are supposed to be in Japanese, not pseudo-Japanese. That's because our intention is to describe the reality, not a coloured version of it. If you add spaces – even as an assistive device for westeners – where a Japanese person would hardly ever consider putting them, it renders the name pseudo-Japanese. On the other hand, if spaces are OK in personal names, even if not necessary for a native speaker, they should be added in my opinion. At least there should be a clear rule on this to avoid confusion.
So I propose this guideline: spaces between kanji/kana words for all personal names; no spaces for everything else, including place names. (Note however that I don't speak Japanese and my assertions may be faulty.) Rōmaji, of course, has spaces always. (Exactly where, is another question.) Japanese script and rōmaji aren't supposed to map perfectly to eachother – it's impossible. Wipe 07:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So, now that we've gone over the city names over and over again, the various things called "中央" seem to have falled through the cracks. Are we deciding to keep all of them as "Chuo" and not "Chūō"? I mean, I admit it might look kind of weird to have semi-macronned names like "Chūō, Tokyo" and "Chūō, Osaka", and I do understand the Train project argument that the non-macronned "Chuo Main Line", "Chuo-Sobu Line" are the official Anglicized names from the company or whatever. But that still leaves half a dozen other Chūō-ku in other cities, along with the Chuo Expressway. What's the consensus? LordAmeth 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I ported the English-language school IP notice for an IP address used by Shinjuku Yamabuki High School on Wikipedia-JA: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E2%80%90%E4%BC%9A%E8%A9%B1:221.114.251.157
I would like for someone to translate the notice :) WhisperToMe 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the macron debate. I personally feel the macrons make the English-language Wikipedia harder to use and overall less useful, but I also see the advantages. In particular, however, I note that a number of martial arts titles have been changed so that the main article is at -ryū rather than at -ryu (e.g. Isshin-ryū, Uechi Ryū. In my opinion, in the martial arts media, ryu is widely accepted and used; it's what's commonly seen in all the major martial arts magazines, for example; in the Yellow Pages ads; and on most English-language web pages. Right now a search on "isshin ryu" goes to the page Isshin-ryu which is a redirect page, but doesn't automatically redirect.
So, IAW Romanisation 11 (which cites Sumo as an example), I'd like to suggest that "ryu" be considered sufficiently common that it does not need a macron. For evidence, pick up your phone book and look at the Karate schools under Martial Arts. JJL 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we need to have some sort of discussion about whether MOS:JP applies to articles that deal with the other Japonic languages and Ainu. As an example, we currently have references (via Okinawan) to gōyā, etc. Of course this differs from the official Japanese name (tsurureishi) and the usual Japanese spelling (katakana gōya), but the correct Okinawan spelling gōyā/gōyaa would be deprecated under the current guidelines. There are undoubtedly far greater problems with the Japanese renderings of certain things in Hokkaidō, but I have studied Hokkaidō little and been there rarely. Should there be guidance to allow the original spellings? Dekimasu 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so how about this: "The transliteration of related languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. For transliterations of these words which are always written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, updated proposed wording: "The transliteration of related languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. If there is no accepted standard transliteration for that language, and the word is always written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being komakai (so detailed), but I will ask you to make 3 changes:
So the final version will be:
-- Endroit 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, final wording: "The transliteration of related languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. If there is no accepted standard transliteration for that language, and the word is generally written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by "figures?" E.g. Historical figures, Modern figures. Does this term only refer to politicians, revolutionists, and mythological characters or does it include everyone? Jecowa 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the lovely Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) debate involves two groups - One who prefers the name (in the original Japanese version) Mr. Satan, and one who prefers the U.S. dub name Hercule.
There have been two move requests from Hercule to Mr. Satan - One filed about a week after the first one failed.
WhisperToMe 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a very curious discussion on-going at Talk:Asashoryu Akinori#Requested move, where this guideline is being quoted as if it overrides the general principle of common names, or indeed that its application would in any way justify the current article title. Surely any sensible application of the naming conventions would conclude that wrestlers should be either at their shikona as it's actually used, or else at their actual, legal "real" names (if one is going to ignore convention, and appeal to "encyclopaedic accuracy" in the abstract). No-one would ever use their "shikona first names" to disambiguate between Takanohana I and Takanohana II, and the current scheme just leads to tortuous piping to get a more reasonable style in article text (see the first article for an example of same). These are not actual Japanese family and given names, and to insist on using them in article titles as if they were (in either classical or Westernised style) seems to me misguided. Alai 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is because it has markers like "ha" (pronounced wa), etc. So generally first and last names lack the anglicized space in them. I am NOT talking about romaji which would be for example, sakurada, but I mean nihonji: 桜田. Given this, when Japanese names are listed should they be Anglicized even though you're technically typing in Japanese? Example:星田 あゆみ v. 星田あゆみ. The latter would be how it would show up in Japanese books, Japanese media, Japanese magazines, etc. The former is more of an American way of trying to process the fact that another language has no spaces and is in anthropological terms ethnocentric (i.e. the idea that your culture must contain rules for all other cultures, or other cultures should conform to your culture--this is not negative or positive... it just is and exists). I would think that real representation of the words when written in script that is native to the language would make most sense... Again NOT romaji. nihonji (kanji and the various forms of kana) -- Hitsuji Kinno 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The kanji/kana versions of names are supposed to be in Japanese, not pseudo-Japanese. That's because our intention is to describe the reality, not a coloured version of it. If you add spaces – even as an assistive device for westeners – where a Japanese person would hardly ever consider putting them, it renders the name pseudo-Japanese. On the other hand, if spaces are OK in personal names, even if not necessary for a native speaker, they should be added in my opinion. At least there should be a clear rule on this to avoid confusion.
So I propose this guideline: spaces between kanji/kana words for all personal names; no spaces for everything else, including place names. (Note however that I don't speak Japanese and my assertions may be faulty.) Rōmaji, of course, has spaces always. (Exactly where, is another question.) Japanese script and rōmaji aren't supposed to map perfectly to eachother – it's impossible. Wipe 07:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So, now that we've gone over the city names over and over again, the various things called "中央" seem to have falled through the cracks. Are we deciding to keep all of them as "Chuo" and not "Chūō"? I mean, I admit it might look kind of weird to have semi-macronned names like "Chūō, Tokyo" and "Chūō, Osaka", and I do understand the Train project argument that the non-macronned "Chuo Main Line", "Chuo-Sobu Line" are the official Anglicized names from the company or whatever. But that still leaves half a dozen other Chūō-ku in other cities, along with the Chuo Expressway. What's the consensus? LordAmeth 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I ported the English-language school IP notice for an IP address used by Shinjuku Yamabuki High School on Wikipedia-JA: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E2%80%90%E4%BC%9A%E8%A9%B1:221.114.251.157
I would like for someone to translate the notice :) WhisperToMe 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the macron debate. I personally feel the macrons make the English-language Wikipedia harder to use and overall less useful, but I also see the advantages. In particular, however, I note that a number of martial arts titles have been changed so that the main article is at -ryū rather than at -ryu (e.g. Isshin-ryū, Uechi Ryū. In my opinion, in the martial arts media, ryu is widely accepted and used; it's what's commonly seen in all the major martial arts magazines, for example; in the Yellow Pages ads; and on most English-language web pages. Right now a search on "isshin ryu" goes to the page Isshin-ryu which is a redirect page, but doesn't automatically redirect.
So, IAW Romanisation 11 (which cites Sumo as an example), I'd like to suggest that "ryu" be considered sufficiently common that it does not need a macron. For evidence, pick up your phone book and look at the Karate schools under Martial Arts. JJL 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we need to have some sort of discussion about whether MOS:JP applies to articles that deal with the other Japonic languages and Ainu. As an example, we currently have references (via Okinawan) to gōyā, etc. Of course this differs from the official Japanese name (tsurureishi) and the usual Japanese spelling (katakana gōya), but the correct Okinawan spelling gōyā/gōyaa would be deprecated under the current guidelines. There are undoubtedly far greater problems with the Japanese renderings of certain things in Hokkaidō, but I have studied Hokkaidō little and been there rarely. Should there be guidance to allow the original spellings? Dekimasu 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so how about this: "The transliteration of related languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. For transliterations of these words which are always written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 02:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, updated proposed wording: "The transliteration of related languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. If there is no accepted standard transliteration for that language, and the word is always written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being komakai (so detailed), but I will ask you to make 3 changes:
So the final version will be:
-- Endroit 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, final wording: "The transliteration of related languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. If there is no accepted standard transliteration for that language, and the word is generally written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration—without macrons—should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used." ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by "figures?" E.g. Historical figures, Modern figures. Does this term only refer to politicians, revolutionists, and mythological characters or does it include everyone? Jecowa 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the lovely Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) debate involves two groups - One who prefers the name (in the original Japanese version) Mr. Satan, and one who prefers the U.S. dub name Hercule.
There have been two move requests from Hercule to Mr. Satan - One filed about a week after the first one failed.
WhisperToMe 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a very curious discussion on-going at Talk:Asashoryu Akinori#Requested move, where this guideline is being quoted as if it overrides the general principle of common names, or indeed that its application would in any way justify the current article title. Surely any sensible application of the naming conventions would conclude that wrestlers should be either at their shikona as it's actually used, or else at their actual, legal "real" names (if one is going to ignore convention, and appeal to "encyclopaedic accuracy" in the abstract). No-one would ever use their "shikona first names" to disambiguate between Takanohana I and Takanohana II, and the current scheme just leads to tortuous piping to get a more reasonable style in article text (see the first article for an example of same). These are not actual Japanese family and given names, and to insist on using them in article titles as if they were (in either classical or Westernised style) seems to me misguided. Alai 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)