Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan: Difference between revisions

Japan Project‑class

Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Template:Wikipedia ad exists

WP Japan
Project talk 2006 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Task force talk/archives ↔  Districts and municipalities (1) Gaijin tarento (1) ↔ Military history (1, 2, 3) Music (1) Mythology (1, 2, 3, 4) Owarai (1) Politics (1) Prefectures (1) Royalty & nobility (1) Science & technology (1) Shinto (1) ↔ Tokyo (1) ↔ Transwiki ↔ = joint task force
Old notice board All of 2004 Jan–Mar 2005 Apr–Jun 2005 Jul–Oct 2005 Nov–Dec 2005 Jan–Feb 2006 Feb–May 2006 Jun–Dec 2006 Jan–Jun 2007 Jun 2007 – Sep 2008
Related talk/archives Anime and manga (index) Hello! Project (1) Pokémon (index, PAC (1, 2), PAC 2) Sumo (1, 2, 3) Square Enix (index) Tokusatsu (index) Trains (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Search the archives:
V·T·E

Hey, I'm in the early stages of a massive expansion of our Man'yōshū article, and out of vanity (or perhaps shame) I just now checked if I had a hand in what's already there, and apparently four years ago I did this, something 2018 Hijiri is not especially proud of for its being more interested in poking fun at a 19th-century orientalist than in actually summarizing the history of MYS translation into other languages.

But a thought occurred to me while reading it: Keene obviously assumed his readers would know that in the 1830s, the only Japanese sources Klaproth could have consulted without extremely high-level diplomatic and commercial ties would have been castaways, but can we assume the same knowledge on the part of our readers? If the article on the history of Japan didn't specifically mention that Japan was closed off to Europe during this period but did mention a random castaway, that would be really weird, but the MYS article is relatively "obscure", so should we just assume it is "behind" to the history of Japan article?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think sakoku is important to the passage in question. The way I read it, there was a German guy traveling east. In Siberia, while looking for various different languages, he came across some Japanese guys, who helped him translate some Japanese text. That it was impossible for Klaproth to enter Japan at the time is irrelevant to the fact that he produced a poor translation whilst in Siberia. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Good article discussion happening at

If one or two people can come look over this and make the suggested changes, that would be great. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I reviewed it, so I can't be the one making the changes. Thanks! ···

Join WP Japan! 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I am working on List of Important Intangible Folk Cultural Properties and am wondering into what subsection the designation of the Chiryū Festival should go. Should it go into 民俗芸能 (渡来芸・舞台芸), i.e. Folk performing arts (Entertainment from Abroad and Performance Arts), as indicated by the (often somewhat outdated) database or into 風俗慣習 (祭礼（信仰), i.e. Manners and customs (Religious festivals and beliefs) as it says for instance here? Also there is a possibility that there are two designations. So basically what I am asking is whether the festival has been designated for the puppet play or as a festival (for floats, etc)? bamse (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It appears to me that the designation goes only to the puppet play (知立のからくり), so I think the former is correct. I cannot find any records of the festival being designated on its own as 風俗慣習 in 重要無形民俗文化財 anywhere. Alex Shih (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been submitting an article on the Min-on Concert Association and made edits based on suggestions from editors. I was referred to this page but am not sure how to present the article to the editors here.19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgrlee16 (talk • contribs)

Hi,

Draft:Min-on_Concert_Association. I added a couple of things. Maybe other people can add some more. In any case, why don't you go ahead and submit it once more? The references it already has look like plenty for the initial version of an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Margin,will do.Stgrlee16 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Mottainai regarding how well the article represents usage of the word and the appropriate use of sources. Please join in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a possible edit warring brewing over at

See

Talk:Shōgi#Shōgi for relevant discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Another issue that needs to be clarified is the |date= parameter for {{Expand Japanese}}. Typically with respect to template such as these, the date is intended to be the date the template was originally added to the article. Biografer, however, is going around chagning these dates to the current date. For example, yesterday on Reo Kurosawa, Biografer made this edit changing the date from "November 2017" (the date the template was added to the article) to "February 2018"; today Biografer made this edit changing "February 2018" to "March 2018". If this is how it's done, then next month on April 1 the template date will need to be changed to "April 2018" and changed again as well for each subsequent month. This seems illogical since these dates are intend to let others know how long an article has had a particular issue and also sometimes for categorization purposes. Pretty much all of the articles in Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia would need to be updated regularly if this is how the template is intended to work.

Anyway, I have decided to post here to try and get these issues resolved once and for all. So, any opinions either way would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical dates are not allowed as a general-use format by

MOS:DATE. It has to be dmy or mdy. I have no idea whether there should be a preference for one of those two over the other for Japan. Accessdate can be numerical but date cannot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I assuming by Accessdate can be numerical that this does not mean "accessdate needs to be numerical", and that "can" implies some kind of consensus may be required.

MOS:DATE refers to article content per se which clarifies that, What about the "date" parameter in a citation template? Is that the "date" you're referring to in but date cannot? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. The date parameter in a citation template must be spelled out in English, not numerical. The same is true for dates in the text of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Accessdates can be YYYY-MM-DD (if used consistently in all accessdates), but in text they can be only Month Day, Year, or Day Month Year (either one consistently), depending on the
  WP:DATEVAR have absolutely nothing to do with the articles being Japan-related—WP:JAPAN cannot enforce a particular DATEVAR.
  The |date= parameter should definitely not be updated—we need to know how long the tag has been there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree that all numerical dates can be used in citations, and have used them before myself. The issue, however, seems to be that Biografer feels that the all numerical format is the preferred format for Japan related articles or at least shogi Japan brelated articles. Many of the articles being changed have multiple citations where the MDY format has already been established, yet these are being change to an all numerical one. DATEVAR (or DATERET if you prefer} states that an established/existing format should be retained unless there’s a good reason to change it. When queried about the changes, the response has been that the numerical format is the preferred format because certain websites written in Japanese use that format. Links to a few of these websites are then provided as proof that Japan prefers the all numerical format. It’s almost as if DATETIES is trying to be forced to apply using Japanese instead of English. That might make sense on Japanese Wikipedia for different regional variations of Japanese, but not sure if it makes sense. Regardless, if the consensus reached here is that the default date format for citations in Japan/shogi related articles is to use the all numerical format, then that’s fine and have no problem going around an doing the clean up needed. As for the other template date changes, I’m not sure why but Biografer seems to think they need to be kept current and that they are somehow connected to the access dates of the citation templates. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The style conventions of external sources has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia styling—we have our own

MOS:DATERET

overrides the preferences of individual editors.

"if the consensus reached here is that the default date format for citations in Japan/shogi related articles is to use the all numerical format"—we cannot come up with a

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to do such a thing. User:Biografer, you need to stop this now. People routinely get blocked for exactly this sort of behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

According to this map Japan uses YYYY-MM-DD. And stop threatening me with blocks @Curly Turkey: otherwise this will be your last gobble. I don't do it without a reason as you see.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer: you realize that this comment—which will permanently on record—will be used against you when this inevitably goes to ANI? You've had it explained to you why we do things they way we do at Wikipedia, and you have been linked to the relevant guidelines. You've run out of excuses.

Marchjuly: you are free to revert all the changes Biogafer has made. If Biografer gives you trouble, we'll take it straight to ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: and @Curly Turkey: Before anyone will revert anything look at this map. This is my final excuse. It clearly marks yellow areas which are China and Japan as YMD (I am dubious about Canada). But if this map means nothing, then fine. I will succumb to the Wikipedia Order.--Biografer (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated many time in other posts on other pages, all three date formats are used in Japan in materials written in English. We can agree on that. Where we disagree is that you seem to think the all numerical format is the predominant one being used in Japan because that is the one used on some Japanese websites; therefore, that is the format which needs to be used on Wikipedia. As others have pointed out in this thread and on other pages, that is not how date formats are determined on Wikipedia. As for the map, sure it has meaning when it's used in context; for example, "this map shows that the YYYY-MM-DD format is used in Japan" is a correct statement, but "this map shows that the YYYY-MM-DD format is used in Japan, and therefore that is the format which must be used by Wikipedia articles about Japanese subjects" is not a correct statement. When you create an article you can select the citation/date format as you see fit; if someone subsequently comes along and wants to change the format being used, they need to have a good reason for doing so per

MOS:DATETIES

. Editors don't get to change ciation/date formats because they personally like one format more than another, or because the a cited source uses a certain format; they are expected to retain the existing format absent a fairly need to make a change. In such case, it's often a good idea to discuss things on the article's talk page first to see if there exists a consensus to make such a change.

Anyway, today's date can be written as "March 2, 2018", "2 March 2018" and "2018-03-02" in English and all three are acceptable on English Wikipedia, but which one is used is determined by relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia may use date formats used in reliable sources to help identify acceptable types, but it's the policies and guidelines which determine which format should be used. So, once again, you need to show which policy/guideline says that the all numerical format needs to be used with respect to articles about Japan or shogi professionals. Also, as I posted on my user talk, it best to keep new comments related to this discussion on this page so that everyone can see them. Posting on my user talk makes it easier for me to see, but not for the others participating in this discussion. If people are responding to you're posts as fast as you want them to then (1) maybe they're busy and haven't noticed the post, (2) maybe they're thinking about their repsonse, or (3) maybe they just don't want to respond. Pinging someone does not mean they will instantaneously respond or are obligated to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that. I also know that admins find reasons to block other editors just because (seen that many times in various Wikipedia entries). I also know of policies such

WP:NOTHERE, but I need to assure you all that I am here to build an encyclopedia. We started this discussion to come to agreement of some kind, not to spur it up to AN/I. Let's keep this discussion to the dates and guidelines and policies regarding them not the others, Curly Turkey.--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

MOS:DATETIES will it suffice or will it still be no-no?--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's something you should discuss at

WP:VP/P. I don't see the point for adding that information especially if you're going to say "See this map because it shows that the YYYY-MM-DD should be used in Japan..." because that would not be a true statement in my opinion. You can, however, try and convince others that it is if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with comments above. It is irrelevant how dates are written in any language other than English. We don't format dates as "1 april 2018" in Dutch-related articles because that how it's written in Dutch sources. So, changing the date format to all numerical because that's how it's written in Japanese is wrong.

Clean-up templates should retain the date that they were added to the article. As said above, this is used for tracking purposes. DrKay (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note regarding YYYY-MM-DD in Japan. Yes, that's correct to a degree, but the actual format in Japan is along the lines of 2018年2月21日. That is not the same as writing the date 2018-02-21, but rather the equivalent of spelling it out in English as 2018 February 21, which we do not do in English. Any dates in references or the body of the article that are written in YYYY-MM-DD format should be changed to the date format established in the article (either "21 February 2018" or "February 21, 2018"). There are no exceptions to this on the English Wikipedia. If one of those two formats has not yet been established for the article, then pick one based on the version of English used in the article. If none has yet been established, establish one. ···

Join WP Japan! 21:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your thoughtful insight @

Yamaguchi: to this discussion but was in fear of being accused of canvassing. Unfortunately, I think you might misunderstand what the discussion is about here. We are trying to come to agreement weather to use YYYY-MM-DD format in accessdates, and consecutively in dates of citations, not the main article. Main article will remain mdy (and I have nothing against it), its the dates in citations that are bothersome because this map shows that Japan uses the same date format as China and Korea.--Biografer (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Join WP Japan! 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with waht Nihonjoe posted above and actually intended to write something similar as a reponse to you on my user talk yesterday, but didn't want to split this discussion up any further. As Nihonjoe points out, a date like "March 3, 2018" is most commonly written in Japan/Japanese as 2018年3月3日, which is not exactly the same as "2018-03-03". If you look at enough websites written in Japanese, you'll also probably find things like "2018/03/03", "2018.03.03" or even "平成30年3月3日". All of these date formats can p be used, but the fact that they can be used doesn't mean that they need to be used or should be used on English Wikipedia. The same can probably be said about any language which uses a "different" format to express dates. What you do not seem to get here is that when a date format (even for citations) has been established, there is no need to go around changing it to another format without a very good reason (e.g.,

WP:BOLD and try, but which you should discuss on the talk page and establish a consensus for if by chance you are reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand this type of post @

WP:BOLD, and now its my second day of discussing it without editing any articles.--Biografer (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Marchjuly: First of all, forgive me that I ignored your previous posts regarding this issue. Clearly, there was a lot more info then that, so that post might have slipped through. I for one like when people spell stuff correctly. That way, it is easier for me to follow what is being said. I hope you will agree with me that I am not doing it for a malicious intend. Since I can't edit your posts, maybe you will fix administrator error yourself, please?--Biografer (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Join WP Japan! 23:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nihonjoe: Like what problems? I see one problem here, that is when someone makes typos, the post becomes hard to read for me. My suggestion to Marchjuly is to get the bloody spellchecker. Every Windows and Mac software comes with it! Even iPhone have it.--Biografer (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have

Join WP Japan! 18:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]