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. |
I noticed where JR inside the nihongo template was changed to Jei-āru. Do we need to add pronunciations for letters and numerals like that? I know that this question belongs on the template talk page moreso than here; but, there's a wider audience here, and it is not so far out of this page's realm. Neier 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please could somebody comment on this issue? Thanks, Lelkesa 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits of Gō (unit of measurement) have inserted "go" and "gou" as "alternative spellings". "go" is understandable in that some people may have trouble entering macrons; "gou" is just really bad. Both already exist as redirects or disambiguation pages, as they should. However, is really necessary to use multiple, inconsistent forms in the article?
Gō is merely one example, but may be the start of a precident. Do we really want to list all possible alternative spellings for all Japan-related articles? Bendono 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why exactly do we have the "Article titles should omit apostrophes after syllabic n" rule? The Renai game's article title has been bugging me.-- SeizureDog 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the answer reading here, so perhaps someone can help. For fictional characters (especially those in Anime and Manga imported to the US), should we follow the Last-First convention ("Son Goku"), the First-Last convention ("Goku Son"), or should there be no hard and fast rule. In this case, the character's name is a Japanization of Sun Wukong. How should this be considered? JRP 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard indirectly showed me a useful template that I think would be good to use on all articles using macrons in the titles: {{ DEFAULTSORT}}. This will make sure the article is sorted correctly in all cases, including on stub lists and disambiguation pages. You use it like this: for the page Ōtsuka, placing {{DEFAULTSORT:Otsuka}} on the page will automatically make the page sort correctly on every category it's in. Thoughts? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The ongoing naming conflict at Talk:Ethnic Japanese is putting me under a bit of Wikistress. Please take a look at it. The issues are:
I find, as usual, disambiguation to be the most important consideration, and the current title is ambiguous. But one way or another, this discussion needs more eyes to establish consensus, and I'm unable to successfully negotiate between the perspectives of the other two users who are most involved in the debate. I neither feel that "Nikkei" is mandated nor that "Ethnic Japanese" is possible. I will cross-post this at the talk of WP:MOS-JP because WP:NC shows deference to it. (originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan) Dekimasu 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I see the Japanese Manual of Style says to use "Ryukyu Islands" in stead of "Ryūkyū Islands." What about the other words that include Ryūkyū/Ryukyu? For example, should we use "Ryūkyū Kingdom" or "Ryukyu Kingdom?" Should we use "Ryūkyvan people" or "Ryukyuan people?" When are we supposed to use macrons and when are we supposed to not use macrons? Thank you. Jecowa 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I just wanted to make sure, so I wouldn't make a bunch of edits then have to go back and revert them all.
Where the manual of style says stuff about the word being in general/local use, it is not so easily determined which words have come into general/local use. It seems like something to be decided on a case by case basis. Maybe we can maintain a list on another page - every time a word is decided to be used either with macrons or without macrons, it can be added to the list and include a link to the discussion in which it was decided.
It seems Wikipedia articles should use "Ryūkyū" in every instance except for "Ryukyu Islands" and as the adjective "Ryukyuan." Does anyone disagree with the prior statement? Jecowa 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Back in December, sombody moved TV Asahi → Tv asahi. The first letter is capital due to technical restrictions only, but it is essentially tv asahi.
Now, according to WP:MOS-TM, you're NOT supposed to have all small letters.
If tv asahi is not allowed, and Tv asahi is not one of the alternate tradenames, I believe we need to move it back to TV Asahi (a more acceptable alternate) after all. If nobody objects (or is bold enough to move it back), I will initiate a page move back to TV Asahi.-- Endroit 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
While the Wikipedia naming conventions specify Western order and heburn spelling, there are several major authors who have their name in Japanese order or unconventional spelling on the copyright page at the back of the Japanese edition. When these authors' work is translated, this order and spelling are preserved, so should the Wikipedia page match? For example, Ishin Nishio is written Nisio Isin on the copyright page, to preserve the palindrom. Keiichi Sigsawa spells his name without the h or u, which the English edition of Kino no Tabi reflects. Doceirias 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a change in policy related to this topic. Certain pen names are specifically designed to be spelled a certain way in English -- Ishin Nishio is designed to be spelled Nisio Isin, forming a palindrome, Keiichi Sigsawa is designed to sound like Sig Sauer, and Oh! great was obviously never intended to be transcribed as Ogure Ito. Judging from the results of my proposed move of Ishin Nishio to Nisio Isin, current policy maintains that these names should follow standard romanization until their works become popular enough in English to establish a common usage. I think the policy should be altered in cases like Nisio Isin, where we can safely predict what the common usage will become. Any arguements against this that I'm overlooking? Doceirias 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In summary so far: We need a confirmed source to predict the common usage, but have not yet agreed what one would be. We have agreed that these decisions should not affect punctuation or capitalization, but I believe there is precedence for matching the spelling used on the copyright page of the Japanese edition, and this should be followed in the case of unusual pseudonyms created solely for a specific effect in the English spelling. I gather than only a few people care one way or the other, and I'm the only one who cares enough to keep responding, but we need opinions to reach consensus! Please join in! Doceirias 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Modified Hepburn romanization distinguishes between kana for short o (お, o) & long o (おー, ō) and short u (う, u) & and long u (うー, ū) with macrons as ō and ū, respectively, but how does it destinguish between short B (乙, otsu, おつ) & long B (乙) 万葉仮名 (Man'yōgana まんよがな lit. " Anthology of Myriad Leaves kana")? For example, 故 (ko こ lit. "deceased") has a different pronounciation from 己 (kö こ lit. "oneself"). Obviously for short A (甲, kō, こー) & long A (甲) 万葉仮名, we can write o and ō and ö for for short B (乙) 万葉仮名, but how do we write long B (乙) 万葉仮名? We cannot use both a macron (¯) and diaeresis (¨) on the same character. Should we use Pinyin rules from Chinese? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taric25 ( talk • contribs).
I would like to get a discussion on the naming of nobles of the blood and others. I propose format to be "Title, last name, first name", such as Prince Higashikuni Naruhiko. For members of the imperial family it goes by the Household Agency, in that case "Title, first name, of House", such as Prince Tomohito of Mikasa. In case there is no confusion, it can remain "Title, House", such as Prince Hitachi. Can we agree on this? Gryffindor 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Suzakumon Gate, which literally means "Suzaku gate gate", be renamed. But are we to move it to Suzaku Gate, according to "use English", or to Suzakumon, according to "use the most common name/term"? Please comment on the talk page of that article (or we can start the discussion here, if people deem it more appropriate). Thank you. LordAmeth 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This system is impractical and often misleading. Most “modern figures” who were active in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were born before 1868. It leaves a huge period of time in which one group of people are addressed in one way while others in another way.
Here's an example, a list of the modern Japanese prime ministers:
name | born | name convention | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | ITO Hirobumi | 1841 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
2 | KURODA Kiyotaka | 1840 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
3 | YAMAGATA Aritomo | 1838 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
4 | MATSUKATA Masayoshi | 1835 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
5 | OKUMA Shigenobu | 1838 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
6 | KATSURA Taro | 1848 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
7 | SAIONJI Kinmochi | 1849 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
8 | YAMAMOTO Gonbei | 1852 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
9 | TERAUCHI Masatake | 1852 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
10 | HARA Takashi | 1856 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
11 | TAKAHASHI Korekiyo | 1854 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
12 | KATO Tomosaburo | 1861 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
13 | KIYOURA Keigo | 1850 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
14 | KATO Takaaki | 1860 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
15 | WAKATSUKI Reijiro | 1866 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
16 | TANAKA Giichi | 1864 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
17 | Osachi HAMAGUCHI | 1870 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
18 | INUKAI Tsuyoshi | 1855 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
19 | SAITO Makoto | 1858 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
20 | Keisuke OKADA | 1868 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
21 | Koki HIROTA | 1878 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
22 | Senjuro HAYASHI | 1876 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
23 | Fumimaro KONOE | 1891 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
24 | HIRANUMA Kiichiro | 1867 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
25 | Nobuyuki ABE | 1875 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
26 | Mitsumasa YONAI | 1880 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
27 | Hideki TOJO | 1884 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
28 | Kuniaki KOISO | 1880 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
29 | Prince Naruhiko HIGASHIKUNI | 1887 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
30 | SUZUKI Kantaro | 1868 * | FAMILY NAME – given name |
31 | Kijuro SHIDEHARA | 1872 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
32 | Shigeru YOSHIDA | 1878 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
33 | Tetsu KATAYAMA | 1887 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
34 | Hitoshi ASHIDA | 1887 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
35 | Ichiro HATOYAMA | 1883 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
36 | Tanzan ISHIBASHI | 1884 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
37 | Nobusuke KISI | 1896 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
38 | Hayato IKEDA | 1899 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
39 | Eisaku SATO | 1901 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
40 | Kakuei TANAKA | 1918 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
41 | Takeo MIKI | 1909 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
42 | Takeo FUKUDA | 1905 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
43 | Masayoshi OHIRA | 1910 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
44 | Zenko SUZUKI | 1911 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
45 | Yasuhiro NAKASONE | 1918 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
46 | Noboru TAKESHITA | 1924 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
47 | Sosuke UNO | 1922 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
48 | Toshiki KAIFU | 1931 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
49 | Kiichi MIYAZAWA | 1919 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
50 | Morihiro HOSOKAWA | 1938 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
51 | Tsutomu HATA | 1935 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
52 | Tomiichi MURAYAMA | 1924 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
53 | Ryutaro HASHIMOTO | 1937 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
54 | Keizo OBUCHI | 1937 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
55 | Yoshiro MORI | 1937 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
56 | Junichiro KOIZUMI | 1942 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
57 | Shinzo ABE | 1954 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
* Suzuki was born on January 18, 1868, or “December 24, Keio 3” according to the Japanese calendar.
The Meiji era started on January 25, 1868. This makes Suzuki a pre-Meiji “historical figure” (well, according to the style mannual).
This is too confusing. Most readers with little or no Japanese background probably can't tell if it's
Osachi or
Hamaguchi the family name of the 17th prime minister is. The 16th prime minister is
Tanaka Giichi and the 40th is
Kakuei Tanaka. Likewise, the 30th is
Suzuki Kantaro and the 44th is
Zenko Suzuki.
Here's more: Terauchi Masatake and Hisaichi Terauchi are father and son. Kido Takayoshi and Koichi Kido are grandfather and grandson. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this is rather ridiculous.
I would like to propose the following:
-- Insomniacpuppy 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
MOS-JP states: "Article titles should omit apostrophes after syllabic n."
Last month this topic was discussed. From the discussion, it seems like a consensus has been reached about at least allowing apostrophes in titles. The remaining question is do we elaborate on the guidelines or simply remove it? I think it should just be removed. I bring this up because of a comment at Talk:Man'yōshū. Bendono 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in any of the style manuals (and I'm sorry for wasting your time if it has), but I have a question about non-Japanese characters appearing in original Japanese works/literature. The question is: should such characters have the original Japanese transliteration of their names mentioned on the first line of the article (after the English transliteration, of course), or should the transliteration be in the language of whatever nationality the character is supposed to be? The reason I ask is because someone seems to be systematically deleting the Katakana spellings of Korean characters' names and citing their presence as irrelevant despite the fact that, in most cases, said characters appear in works that were originally created in Japan and written in Japanese. Shabby 00:38, 24 February 2007 (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. |
I noticed where JR inside the nihongo template was changed to Jei-āru. Do we need to add pronunciations for letters and numerals like that? I know that this question belongs on the template talk page moreso than here; but, there's a wider audience here, and it is not so far out of this page's realm. Neier 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Please could somebody comment on this issue? Thanks, Lelkesa 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits of Gō (unit of measurement) have inserted "go" and "gou" as "alternative spellings". "go" is understandable in that some people may have trouble entering macrons; "gou" is just really bad. Both already exist as redirects or disambiguation pages, as they should. However, is really necessary to use multiple, inconsistent forms in the article?
Gō is merely one example, but may be the start of a precident. Do we really want to list all possible alternative spellings for all Japan-related articles? Bendono 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why exactly do we have the "Article titles should omit apostrophes after syllabic n" rule? The Renai game's article title has been bugging me.-- SeizureDog 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the answer reading here, so perhaps someone can help. For fictional characters (especially those in Anime and Manga imported to the US), should we follow the Last-First convention ("Son Goku"), the First-Last convention ("Goku Son"), or should there be no hard and fast rule. In this case, the character's name is a Japanization of Sun Wukong. How should this be considered? JRP 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard indirectly showed me a useful template that I think would be good to use on all articles using macrons in the titles: {{ DEFAULTSORT}}. This will make sure the article is sorted correctly in all cases, including on stub lists and disambiguation pages. You use it like this: for the page Ōtsuka, placing {{DEFAULTSORT:Otsuka}} on the page will automatically make the page sort correctly on every category it's in. Thoughts? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The ongoing naming conflict at Talk:Ethnic Japanese is putting me under a bit of Wikistress. Please take a look at it. The issues are:
I find, as usual, disambiguation to be the most important consideration, and the current title is ambiguous. But one way or another, this discussion needs more eyes to establish consensus, and I'm unable to successfully negotiate between the perspectives of the other two users who are most involved in the debate. I neither feel that "Nikkei" is mandated nor that "Ethnic Japanese" is possible. I will cross-post this at the talk of WP:MOS-JP because WP:NC shows deference to it. (originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan) Dekimasu 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I see the Japanese Manual of Style says to use "Ryukyu Islands" in stead of "Ryūkyū Islands." What about the other words that include Ryūkyū/Ryukyu? For example, should we use "Ryūkyū Kingdom" or "Ryukyu Kingdom?" Should we use "Ryūkyvan people" or "Ryukyuan people?" When are we supposed to use macrons and when are we supposed to not use macrons? Thank you. Jecowa 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I just wanted to make sure, so I wouldn't make a bunch of edits then have to go back and revert them all.
Where the manual of style says stuff about the word being in general/local use, it is not so easily determined which words have come into general/local use. It seems like something to be decided on a case by case basis. Maybe we can maintain a list on another page - every time a word is decided to be used either with macrons or without macrons, it can be added to the list and include a link to the discussion in which it was decided.
It seems Wikipedia articles should use "Ryūkyū" in every instance except for "Ryukyu Islands" and as the adjective "Ryukyuan." Does anyone disagree with the prior statement? Jecowa 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Back in December, sombody moved TV Asahi → Tv asahi. The first letter is capital due to technical restrictions only, but it is essentially tv asahi.
Now, according to WP:MOS-TM, you're NOT supposed to have all small letters.
If tv asahi is not allowed, and Tv asahi is not one of the alternate tradenames, I believe we need to move it back to TV Asahi (a more acceptable alternate) after all. If nobody objects (or is bold enough to move it back), I will initiate a page move back to TV Asahi.-- Endroit 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
While the Wikipedia naming conventions specify Western order and heburn spelling, there are several major authors who have their name in Japanese order or unconventional spelling on the copyright page at the back of the Japanese edition. When these authors' work is translated, this order and spelling are preserved, so should the Wikipedia page match? For example, Ishin Nishio is written Nisio Isin on the copyright page, to preserve the palindrom. Keiichi Sigsawa spells his name without the h or u, which the English edition of Kino no Tabi reflects. Doceirias 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a change in policy related to this topic. Certain pen names are specifically designed to be spelled a certain way in English -- Ishin Nishio is designed to be spelled Nisio Isin, forming a palindrome, Keiichi Sigsawa is designed to sound like Sig Sauer, and Oh! great was obviously never intended to be transcribed as Ogure Ito. Judging from the results of my proposed move of Ishin Nishio to Nisio Isin, current policy maintains that these names should follow standard romanization until their works become popular enough in English to establish a common usage. I think the policy should be altered in cases like Nisio Isin, where we can safely predict what the common usage will become. Any arguements against this that I'm overlooking? Doceirias 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In summary so far: We need a confirmed source to predict the common usage, but have not yet agreed what one would be. We have agreed that these decisions should not affect punctuation or capitalization, but I believe there is precedence for matching the spelling used on the copyright page of the Japanese edition, and this should be followed in the case of unusual pseudonyms created solely for a specific effect in the English spelling. I gather than only a few people care one way or the other, and I'm the only one who cares enough to keep responding, but we need opinions to reach consensus! Please join in! Doceirias 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Modified Hepburn romanization distinguishes between kana for short o (お, o) & long o (おー, ō) and short u (う, u) & and long u (うー, ū) with macrons as ō and ū, respectively, but how does it destinguish between short B (乙, otsu, おつ) & long B (乙) 万葉仮名 (Man'yōgana まんよがな lit. " Anthology of Myriad Leaves kana")? For example, 故 (ko こ lit. "deceased") has a different pronounciation from 己 (kö こ lit. "oneself"). Obviously for short A (甲, kō, こー) & long A (甲) 万葉仮名, we can write o and ō and ö for for short B (乙) 万葉仮名, but how do we write long B (乙) 万葉仮名? We cannot use both a macron (¯) and diaeresis (¨) on the same character. Should we use Pinyin rules from Chinese? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taric25 ( talk • contribs).
I would like to get a discussion on the naming of nobles of the blood and others. I propose format to be "Title, last name, first name", such as Prince Higashikuni Naruhiko. For members of the imperial family it goes by the Household Agency, in that case "Title, first name, of House", such as Prince Tomohito of Mikasa. In case there is no confusion, it can remain "Title, House", such as Prince Hitachi. Can we agree on this? Gryffindor 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been proposed that Suzakumon Gate, which literally means "Suzaku gate gate", be renamed. But are we to move it to Suzaku Gate, according to "use English", or to Suzakumon, according to "use the most common name/term"? Please comment on the talk page of that article (or we can start the discussion here, if people deem it more appropriate). Thank you. LordAmeth 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This system is impractical and often misleading. Most “modern figures” who were active in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were born before 1868. It leaves a huge period of time in which one group of people are addressed in one way while others in another way.
Here's an example, a list of the modern Japanese prime ministers:
name | born | name convention | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | ITO Hirobumi | 1841 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
2 | KURODA Kiyotaka | 1840 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
3 | YAMAGATA Aritomo | 1838 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
4 | MATSUKATA Masayoshi | 1835 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
5 | OKUMA Shigenobu | 1838 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
6 | KATSURA Taro | 1848 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
7 | SAIONJI Kinmochi | 1849 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
8 | YAMAMOTO Gonbei | 1852 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
9 | TERAUCHI Masatake | 1852 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
10 | HARA Takashi | 1856 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
11 | TAKAHASHI Korekiyo | 1854 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
12 | KATO Tomosaburo | 1861 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
13 | KIYOURA Keigo | 1850 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
14 | KATO Takaaki | 1860 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
15 | WAKATSUKI Reijiro | 1866 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
16 | TANAKA Giichi | 1864 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
17 | Osachi HAMAGUCHI | 1870 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
18 | INUKAI Tsuyoshi | 1855 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
19 | SAITO Makoto | 1858 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
20 | Keisuke OKADA | 1868 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
21 | Koki HIROTA | 1878 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
22 | Senjuro HAYASHI | 1876 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
23 | Fumimaro KONOE | 1891 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
24 | HIRANUMA Kiichiro | 1867 | FAMILY NAME – given name |
25 | Nobuyuki ABE | 1875 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
26 | Mitsumasa YONAI | 1880 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
27 | Hideki TOJO | 1884 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
28 | Kuniaki KOISO | 1880 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
29 | Prince Naruhiko HIGASHIKUNI | 1887 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
30 | SUZUKI Kantaro | 1868 * | FAMILY NAME – given name |
31 | Kijuro SHIDEHARA | 1872 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
32 | Shigeru YOSHIDA | 1878 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
33 | Tetsu KATAYAMA | 1887 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
34 | Hitoshi ASHIDA | 1887 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
35 | Ichiro HATOYAMA | 1883 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
36 | Tanzan ISHIBASHI | 1884 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
37 | Nobusuke KISI | 1896 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
38 | Hayato IKEDA | 1899 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
39 | Eisaku SATO | 1901 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
40 | Kakuei TANAKA | 1918 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
41 | Takeo MIKI | 1909 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
42 | Takeo FUKUDA | 1905 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
43 | Masayoshi OHIRA | 1910 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
44 | Zenko SUZUKI | 1911 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
45 | Yasuhiro NAKASONE | 1918 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
46 | Noboru TAKESHITA | 1924 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
47 | Sosuke UNO | 1922 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
48 | Toshiki KAIFU | 1931 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
49 | Kiichi MIYAZAWA | 1919 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
50 | Morihiro HOSOKAWA | 1938 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
51 | Tsutomu HATA | 1935 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
52 | Tomiichi MURAYAMA | 1924 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
53 | Ryutaro HASHIMOTO | 1937 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
54 | Keizo OBUCHI | 1937 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
55 | Yoshiro MORI | 1937 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
56 | Junichiro KOIZUMI | 1942 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
57 | Shinzo ABE | 1954 | given name – FAMILY NAME |
* Suzuki was born on January 18, 1868, or “December 24, Keio 3” according to the Japanese calendar.
The Meiji era started on January 25, 1868. This makes Suzuki a pre-Meiji “historical figure” (well, according to the style mannual).
This is too confusing. Most readers with little or no Japanese background probably can't tell if it's
Osachi or
Hamaguchi the family name of the 17th prime minister is. The 16th prime minister is
Tanaka Giichi and the 40th is
Kakuei Tanaka. Likewise, the 30th is
Suzuki Kantaro and the 44th is
Zenko Suzuki.
Here's more: Terauchi Masatake and Hisaichi Terauchi are father and son. Kido Takayoshi and Koichi Kido are grandfather and grandson. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this is rather ridiculous.
I would like to propose the following:
-- Insomniacpuppy 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
MOS-JP states: "Article titles should omit apostrophes after syllabic n."
Last month this topic was discussed. From the discussion, it seems like a consensus has been reached about at least allowing apostrophes in titles. The remaining question is do we elaborate on the guidelines or simply remove it? I think it should just be removed. I bring this up because of a comment at Talk:Man'yōshū. Bendono 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in any of the style manuals (and I'm sorry for wasting your time if it has), but I have a question about non-Japanese characters appearing in original Japanese works/literature. The question is: should such characters have the original Japanese transliteration of their names mentioned on the first line of the article (after the English transliteration, of course), or should the transliteration be in the language of whatever nationality the character is supposed to be? The reason I ask is because someone seems to be systematically deleting the Katakana spellings of Korean characters' names and citing their presence as irrelevant despite the fact that, in most cases, said characters appear in works that were originally created in Japan and written in Japanese. Shabby 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)