![]() | 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. |
It would be helpful to people who are not familiar with Japanese names, or who are uncertain about names that are commonly westernized, to capitalize family names so as to distinguish between family and given names.
At least some note should be made to distinguish between family and familiar names of notable figures. (post made by anon)
There is a debate over "naming order" - you may wanna look at that. WhisperToMe 06:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I propose a standard for titles of articles on wards of cities and ask for comments. My proposal is this: XXX Ward, YYY (XXX is the name of the ward, the word "Ward" begins with a capital letter because it's part of a proper name, and YYY is the name of the city).
Presently, various styles of article titles are in use. Fushimi, Kyoto is one. This is misleading because it follows the pattern City, Prefecture and makes Fushimi seem like a city in Kyoto Prefecture. (Actually, I started the article...)
Ukyo-ku, Kyoto includes the Japanese word "ku." I don't see that as a bad thing, but it might make finding articles difficult for those who do not know this word.
A third style is Tennoji, to which Tennoji-ku, Osaka redirects.
Check Yokohama, Kanagawa for additional examples. Adopting a standard now can save lots of work as people create articles. Fg2 06:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Be aware that the 23 wards of Tokyo are starting to call themselves "city" in English. I know that Koto-ku calls itself Koto City in the logo and pamphlets. And notice that all the official Web sites of the 23 wards uses the word "city" as the subdomain. http://www.city.koto.tokyo.jp/~koho/rinku.html So I'm queasy about using "Ward," but I think it's okay to call it a ward (instead of a city) in the descriptions. I prefer with or without the -ku. We can create all three renderings: XXX Ward, XXX-ku, and XXX. The question is, which one will be the "real one" to which the other two will be redirect to? Right now, it seems that most articles are using XXX only. I prefer adding the -ku (also -gun to Districts). Photojpn.org 16:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think the original proposal (XXX Ward, YYY) sounds good. After all, the article titles for the prefectures are under Z Prefecture, not Z-ken. Saying "Ward" seems to be the common standard in English and would probably be easier to understand for those not as familiar with Japanese. But, looking at the Wards of Japan page, it looks like there's a lot of pages that will need to be retitled. As for the "special wards" of Tokyo, I would call the wards of Tokyo "Ward" as well ... even if they call themselves "cities" in English they're still "ku" in Japanese, and calling them XXX City (like Shinjuku City) would confuse people (especially people who don't know that Tokyo is technically not a "city" itself, but a "to") CES 04:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A few statistics from google, restricted to English language hits (and, BTW, I had no idea how this would come out):
Abeno, Osaka | 460 hits | Abeno Ward, Osaka | 22 hits | Abeno-ku, Osaka | 9,360 |
Aki, Hiroshima | 77 | Aki Ward, Hiroshima | 3 | Aki-ku, Hiroshima | 267 |
Adachi, Tokyo | 2,170 | Adachi Ward, Tokyo | 311 | Adachi-ku, Tokyo | 913 |
Aoba, Sendai | 7,450 | Aoba Ward, Sendai | 99 | Aoba-ku, Senda | 47,700 |
Chikusa, Nagoya | 8,900 | Chikusa Ward, Nagoya | 22 | Chikusa-ku, Nagoya | 33,700 |
It would seem, at least outside of Tokyo, the more common form (by far) on the web is WARD-ku, CITY, with WARD, CITY a not very close second, and WARD Ward, CITY comparatively non-existent. If anyone wants to we could collect more data, but this much is enough to convince me it should be WARD-ku, CITY (outside of Tokyo). -- Rick Block 00:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but the great vote on naming order was largely inconclusive with no real sign of compromise on the horizon. Should we just agree to disagree on this subject for now? It's too bad we can't come up with something we can all agree on ... maybe we should wait until we can.
Also, should we archive this discussion page? It's getting pretty long. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how. CES 13:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I recently came across a page called Nipponized English terms (corresponds to the Japanese wikipedia page 日本語における外来語の事例集) ... I found the article title to be pretty bizarre and potentially offensive (in the US at least, I thought we stopped referring to Japan-related issues/people as Nip~ after World War II for the sake of political correctness). I wanted to see what people here think before bringing the issue up further on that page. CES 14:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There seem to be a few articles floating around on individual kanji. Since these generally have the sort of information found in a kanji dictionary (stroke count, radical, etc.), it would seem that these would be more appropriate for the Wiktionary. Also, since en.wikipedia doesn't allow Unicode in titles, they all end up under gibberish titles here, or else with titles like ku (kanji) that assume there is only one kanji with a given reading (actually a pretty rare occurrance); Wiktionary, on the other hand, allows Unicode in titles. — Gwalla | Talk 06:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A few open questions:
Okay, here's the plan. Existing kanji articles (like ichi (kanji)) will be listed on VfD. Mangled-encoding redirects (like ĸƒ) will be turned into soft redirects to Wiktionary, except for those that link to Japanese counter word. The lists of links in toyo kanji, joyo kanji, and kyoiku kanji will be relinked to Wiktionary kanji articles. List of kanji by group, List of kanji by stroke count, and List of kanji by concept will be transwiki'd. How does that sound? — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC) — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The existing kanji articles are on VfD as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kanji articles. — Gwalla | Talk 22:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If an article lists books by an author, or albums by a band, should the names be given in kanji and/or romaji, or only a translation? An if no official translation is available, is an unoffical one acceptable? Kappa 23:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From the Japanese names section, this sentance doesn't make sense: "Give the romanization for any name or term written in kanji or kana when the Japanese pronunciation is different from the English pronunciation." I suggest we change this to: "Give the romanization for any name or term written in kanji or kana when the Hepburn romanized spelling is different from the English spelling." - Himasaram 13:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(term) | |
---|---|
Japanese Name | |
Kanji | (kanji) |
Hiragana | (hiragana) |
Hepburn romanization | (hepburn) |
Kunrei romanization | (kunrei) |
(picture) |
I think it would be a good idea to agree on a standardized info-box template for articles on Japanese terms. This is very well implemented in articles on Korean terms, see for example Kimchi or Silla. In fact, it's already common in articles on Japanese martial arts for example Sumo or Karate, and I think we would benefit from doing the same thing for any non-stub Japan article! To the right is my proposal for such a template:
See an implemented example over at Seppuku. - Himasaram 13:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gwalla. Such boxes are necessary and helpful for languages like Chinese, Korean, Hindi and others that have several different native pronunciations and English romanizations, but there is only one style of romanization that is in widespread and scholarly use for Japanese, and only one native pronunciation of Japanese words. A quick look at the Seppuku article shows that it's cluttered and that the box is really doing nothing to improve the article itself. Oppose. Exploding Boy 19:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of using a table. The table works for the Korean language but it is not useful for Japanese articles. In English, Hepburn has been consistently used throughout history. This is unlike Korean and Chinese that have several conflicting romanization schemes that were popular at one time or another used in English. There is no benefit that I can think of in making Japanese articles like Korean articles. For Japanese articles, the style "term (kanji hepburn)" meets the needs perfectly and it is less cluttered than a full-blown table. — Tokek 18:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. "term (kanji hepburn)" is indeed much less cluttered and there are no alternate pronounciations. JeroenHoek 19:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that romanizations of verbs should not use extended-vowel notation for verb endings. For example, ??? (o-mo-u, meaning "to think or feel") should always be transliterated "omou" and never "omo." The "u" is part of the verb conjugation. I'm only a student but this is fairly vital, is it not? — J44xm 00:39, July 13, 2005 (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. |
It would be helpful to people who are not familiar with Japanese names, or who are uncertain about names that are commonly westernized, to capitalize family names so as to distinguish between family and given names.
At least some note should be made to distinguish between family and familiar names of notable figures. (post made by anon)
There is a debate over "naming order" - you may wanna look at that. WhisperToMe 06:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I propose a standard for titles of articles on wards of cities and ask for comments. My proposal is this: XXX Ward, YYY (XXX is the name of the ward, the word "Ward" begins with a capital letter because it's part of a proper name, and YYY is the name of the city).
Presently, various styles of article titles are in use. Fushimi, Kyoto is one. This is misleading because it follows the pattern City, Prefecture and makes Fushimi seem like a city in Kyoto Prefecture. (Actually, I started the article...)
Ukyo-ku, Kyoto includes the Japanese word "ku." I don't see that as a bad thing, but it might make finding articles difficult for those who do not know this word.
A third style is Tennoji, to which Tennoji-ku, Osaka redirects.
Check Yokohama, Kanagawa for additional examples. Adopting a standard now can save lots of work as people create articles. Fg2 06:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Be aware that the 23 wards of Tokyo are starting to call themselves "city" in English. I know that Koto-ku calls itself Koto City in the logo and pamphlets. And notice that all the official Web sites of the 23 wards uses the word "city" as the subdomain. http://www.city.koto.tokyo.jp/~koho/rinku.html So I'm queasy about using "Ward," but I think it's okay to call it a ward (instead of a city) in the descriptions. I prefer with or without the -ku. We can create all three renderings: XXX Ward, XXX-ku, and XXX. The question is, which one will be the "real one" to which the other two will be redirect to? Right now, it seems that most articles are using XXX only. I prefer adding the -ku (also -gun to Districts). Photojpn.org 16:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think the original proposal (XXX Ward, YYY) sounds good. After all, the article titles for the prefectures are under Z Prefecture, not Z-ken. Saying "Ward" seems to be the common standard in English and would probably be easier to understand for those not as familiar with Japanese. But, looking at the Wards of Japan page, it looks like there's a lot of pages that will need to be retitled. As for the "special wards" of Tokyo, I would call the wards of Tokyo "Ward" as well ... even if they call themselves "cities" in English they're still "ku" in Japanese, and calling them XXX City (like Shinjuku City) would confuse people (especially people who don't know that Tokyo is technically not a "city" itself, but a "to") CES 04:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A few statistics from google, restricted to English language hits (and, BTW, I had no idea how this would come out):
Abeno, Osaka | 460 hits | Abeno Ward, Osaka | 22 hits | Abeno-ku, Osaka | 9,360 |
Aki, Hiroshima | 77 | Aki Ward, Hiroshima | 3 | Aki-ku, Hiroshima | 267 |
Adachi, Tokyo | 2,170 | Adachi Ward, Tokyo | 311 | Adachi-ku, Tokyo | 913 |
Aoba, Sendai | 7,450 | Aoba Ward, Sendai | 99 | Aoba-ku, Senda | 47,700 |
Chikusa, Nagoya | 8,900 | Chikusa Ward, Nagoya | 22 | Chikusa-ku, Nagoya | 33,700 |
It would seem, at least outside of Tokyo, the more common form (by far) on the web is WARD-ku, CITY, with WARD, CITY a not very close second, and WARD Ward, CITY comparatively non-existent. If anyone wants to we could collect more data, but this much is enough to convince me it should be WARD-ku, CITY (outside of Tokyo). -- Rick Block 00:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but the great vote on naming order was largely inconclusive with no real sign of compromise on the horizon. Should we just agree to disagree on this subject for now? It's too bad we can't come up with something we can all agree on ... maybe we should wait until we can.
Also, should we archive this discussion page? It's getting pretty long. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how. CES 13:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I recently came across a page called Nipponized English terms (corresponds to the Japanese wikipedia page 日本語における外来語の事例集) ... I found the article title to be pretty bizarre and potentially offensive (in the US at least, I thought we stopped referring to Japan-related issues/people as Nip~ after World War II for the sake of political correctness). I wanted to see what people here think before bringing the issue up further on that page. CES 14:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There seem to be a few articles floating around on individual kanji. Since these generally have the sort of information found in a kanji dictionary (stroke count, radical, etc.), it would seem that these would be more appropriate for the Wiktionary. Also, since en.wikipedia doesn't allow Unicode in titles, they all end up under gibberish titles here, or else with titles like ku (kanji) that assume there is only one kanji with a given reading (actually a pretty rare occurrance); Wiktionary, on the other hand, allows Unicode in titles. — Gwalla | Talk 06:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A few open questions:
Okay, here's the plan. Existing kanji articles (like ichi (kanji)) will be listed on VfD. Mangled-encoding redirects (like ĸƒ) will be turned into soft redirects to Wiktionary, except for those that link to Japanese counter word. The lists of links in toyo kanji, joyo kanji, and kyoiku kanji will be relinked to Wiktionary kanji articles. List of kanji by group, List of kanji by stroke count, and List of kanji by concept will be transwiki'd. How does that sound? — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC) — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The existing kanji articles are on VfD as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kanji articles. — Gwalla | Talk 22:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If an article lists books by an author, or albums by a band, should the names be given in kanji and/or romaji, or only a translation? An if no official translation is available, is an unoffical one acceptable? Kappa 23:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From the Japanese names section, this sentance doesn't make sense: "Give the romanization for any name or term written in kanji or kana when the Japanese pronunciation is different from the English pronunciation." I suggest we change this to: "Give the romanization for any name or term written in kanji or kana when the Hepburn romanized spelling is different from the English spelling." - Himasaram 13:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(term) | |
---|---|
Japanese Name | |
Kanji | (kanji) |
Hiragana | (hiragana) |
Hepburn romanization | (hepburn) |
Kunrei romanization | (kunrei) |
(picture) |
I think it would be a good idea to agree on a standardized info-box template for articles on Japanese terms. This is very well implemented in articles on Korean terms, see for example Kimchi or Silla. In fact, it's already common in articles on Japanese martial arts for example Sumo or Karate, and I think we would benefit from doing the same thing for any non-stub Japan article! To the right is my proposal for such a template:
See an implemented example over at Seppuku. - Himasaram 13:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gwalla. Such boxes are necessary and helpful for languages like Chinese, Korean, Hindi and others that have several different native pronunciations and English romanizations, but there is only one style of romanization that is in widespread and scholarly use for Japanese, and only one native pronunciation of Japanese words. A quick look at the Seppuku article shows that it's cluttered and that the box is really doing nothing to improve the article itself. Oppose. Exploding Boy 19:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of using a table. The table works for the Korean language but it is not useful for Japanese articles. In English, Hepburn has been consistently used throughout history. This is unlike Korean and Chinese that have several conflicting romanization schemes that were popular at one time or another used in English. There is no benefit that I can think of in making Japanese articles like Korean articles. For Japanese articles, the style "term (kanji hepburn)" meets the needs perfectly and it is less cluttered than a full-blown table. — Tokek 18:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. "term (kanji hepburn)" is indeed much less cluttered and there are no alternate pronounciations. JeroenHoek 19:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that romanizations of verbs should not use extended-vowel notation for verb endings. For example, ??? (o-mo-u, meaning "to think or feel") should always be transliterated "omou" and never "omo." The "u" is part of the verb conjugation. I'm only a student but this is fairly vital, is it not? — J44xm 00:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)