Talk:New Morning (Misia album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Source needed

This edit New Morning (stylized as NEW MORNING)... needs a reliable WP:RS English language source.
However, I see this now reads

New Morning (stylized as NEW MORNING in Japan)...

But really that should say

New Morning (capitalized as NEW MORNING in Japanese text)...

Since that is what we are talking about here. The same is often true for American albums appearing in Japanese sources where they are not given in katana. For example ja:MICHAEL “マイケル・ジャクソン 全世界待望のニューアルバム「MICHAEL」”. 2014年7月15日閲覧。 How is this Misia album any different? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am tired of making the same answers on every page you did this to. What happens to American or British or French or whatever national origin albums in Japan is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia. You are asking for vast changes to how articles on Japanese albums are formatted because of a pointless technicality and unending pedantry. "In Japanese" and "in Japan" should be considered synonymous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are not synonymous. Japanese is a language which is also used albeit rarely outside Japan. Japan is a place where English books and newspapers are also printed. Now that we have established that "in Japanese text" and "in Japan" are not synonymous, what second/other objection do you have to the above. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The KISS principle.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not going to fly either, it's not simpler to state "in Japan" when what is meant is "in Japanese text", so KISS doesn't apply. You have already agreed that this occurs in Japanese language texts, not English texts in Japan, so unless you're going back on that, there's no reason not to reflect what you have said in the edit (if the edit is required at all). In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to be extremely pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. "NEW MORNING" is English, but used exclusively within Japanese contexts. How do you describe that? And it's not something that should be omitted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe that as "in Japanese text" since it is in Japanese text. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why make the distinction? Why be pedantic?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Japanese and English are different languages, and use different writing systems. Since we are talking about "in Japanese text", and this it is in Japanese text, and not in English text then we should say "in Japanese text". In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still English text (effectively a trademark) in a Japanese language context. Calling it "in Japanese text" seems incorrect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is not "in English text", this is "in Japanese text":

若松正子 (2014-04-02). "MISIA『今だからこそ言える――15年間続けられた理由と歌声の秘密とは！？』". Oricon.co.jp. Retrieved 2014-04-02.

"ナタリー - MISIA、アルバム発売日にBunkamuraで15周年ツアー完結". Natalie.mu. 2014-03-17. Retrieved 2014-04-02.

That is clearly in Japanese text not in English text. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is "NEW MORNING" in any way Japanese text?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said "in", I said "in". The preposition wikt:in means inside, among. That is clearly "in Japanese text" not "in English text":
This is clearly "in Japanese text". Agreed? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is in Japanese text. But we do not need to be pedantic on this page any further than you've made it to be. Trademark. End of this nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to visit this again. The name of this album is "NEW MORNING" within Japan rather than "New Morning" or even "new morning". And because

MOS:CAPS forbids the use of "NEW MORNING" it's instead "New Morning" and there's a note saying that "NEW MORNING" is the stylization because that's how all of these articles are set up when the album's name doesn't have standard capitalization in Japan. Why do I constantly have to come back to this, In ictu oculi? Why won't you let this stupid technicality go?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I know there weren't. I was suggesting that you find some if you want to represent the album as if it is capitalized in English. Otherwise you need to adjust the lead to something like this:

New Morning (capitalized as MISIAのアルバム「NEW MORNING」in

Romaji
in Japanese text)...

This is en.wp not ja.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's entirely wrong. There should be no reason to treat this any differently from Artpop which is the exact same situation. The album's title is "NEW MORNING" in Japan. Not this "MISIAのアルバム「NEW MORNING」" crap that you've pulled out of one of those links I posted. Because the English Wikipedia forbids us from having the article at NEW MORNING then it has to be at this title and adding a note that it's stylized as such. Why did you even come back to this page to pull this again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As before, because your addition of (stylized as CAPS) to so many Japanese albums with no English sources misrepresents what is simply a common function of
Japanese script
.
And as before Artpop is an English-sourced album which is sometimes capitalized in some English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not romaji. How many times do I have to explain that to you? This is common practice for articles on all language subjects where the name is officially typeset in a way that consensus on the English Wikipedia does not allow. Artpop's officially referred to by the record label as "ARTPOP" just like this album is "NEW MORNING" and she is MISIA and her previous studio album was "SOUL QUEST". Why do you insist on this with your completely wrong understanding of what's going on? It's not like this album's name is in Japanese and I'm saying that an all caps actual romaji transliteration is a stylization. This album's title on the CD and in all reliable sources is NEW MORNING. Why is it that you cannot accept this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give some more examples that show how wrong you are.
Kylee and Joe Inoue have released songs and albums with titles in all caps and in normal caps during their music careers in Japan (Kylee released "CRAZY FOR YOU" and "Everlasting"; Inoue released DOS ANGELES which has a track titled "Can you hear me?"). The Canadian guys who make up Monkey Majik named their band in Japan "MONKEY MAJIK" and they've released song slike "Change" and "WANDERER". This is just how Japanese music works. You have zero knowledge of this subject so why ask for something which is standard practice?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese"

There is no consensus on the question. This may be due to the small number of responses to the RFC. It may be necessary to redo this RFC and publicise it to a wider selection of editors. AlbinoFerret 15:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should [Option A] the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead be retained but make clear "in Japanese" only? There are no English print sources and English books do not normally capitalize Japanese album or song titles, while Japanese habitually displays

Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text in most cases, without any special stylization being required. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: The physical CD is printed as "NEW MORNING", so including the "stylized as ..." in parentheses in the article lead seems appropriate and desirable, and is a style widely used across articles about Japanese subjects. Adding "in Japanese" does not appear totally accurate, as the HMV online site uses "NEW MORNING" in English. --DAJF (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and no, In ictu oculi. "Stylized as" is perfectly fine as it's exactly what happens to
    Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text in most cases because there are tracks on this album that are not written in all caps in Japanese nor is it "romaji" (which explicitly refers to Japanese laguage transcribed into the Latin alphabet). Track 5 is "Miss you always". Track 7 is "Daisy". Track 8 is "Jewelry". Track 9 is "Especially for me". Track 11 is "One day, One life". Track 13 is "My pride of love". Track 14 is "Re-Brain". Track 1 of course is "HOPE & DREAMS" (in all caps) so, In ictu oculi, do not talk about whatyou clearly have no clue about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As this is a RFC it is ideally a request for new comments. But thank you for summarizing your position above. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There shouldn't be an RFC just because you cannot understand anything I have told you from September to today.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the unnecessary distracting parenthetical commentary: There is no need for saying "stylized as" or to show an all-caps variation of the name. Per
    MOS:CT, etc., we should just apply ordinary English formatting and follow Wikipedia MoS guidelines without comment, as there is no real difference between "NEW MORNING" and "New Morning". Lots of titles of creative works (and other things such as company names) are published with all-caps formatting on their promotional artwork and advertising (whether in Japanese or English), but it is not necessary for us to follow that practice, and it is not necessary for us to add a special note to inform readers about our minor typographical styling adjustment. It is especially not necessary to worry about what styling is used in Japanese sources when writing an article in English. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is not unique to this page or Japanese. Artpop, Kiss (band), Kesha, Pink (singer), etc. all feature this formatting of the article. As I point out above there is ample evidence that shows that capitalization is not an "advertising" thing in Japan. "NEW MORNING" appears in the press. It's on the artist's official website. It's on the record label website. It's on every single online store. In ictu oculi's complete ignorance of what happens in Japanese music is not an excuse to perform such a massive change to not just this but several other articles that are in similar situations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (
    MOS:QUOTE where it says to make adjustments of purely typographical aspects to conform to English Wikipedia's conventions "without comment provided that doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text; this practice is universal among publishers." —BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    MOS:TM said "include the original stylized version" or that is pretty much standard practice across the project, anyway. For this album alone I have three different websites that have mixed capitalization across them but are all consistent with their use of "NEW MORNING" and the tracks on it ([1], [2], [3]).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I found the part of the manual of style that covers this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks. "Mixed or non-capitalization" is only what is said, but it is still an extremely widespread practice that all-caps are included.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I guess I missed the Artpop example, and I'll admit that I'm not an expert on Japanese topics – just giving my general interpretation of the guidelines for what it's worth. Your mileage may vary. Moreover, I don't think it's especially important whether the "styled as" phrase is retained or removed or phrased slightly differently, but to me it seems superfluous. It would certainly not be difficult to find articles that don't mention such styling. I recall running across other examples that are albums, but I can't remember specific examples. Companies seem to use it to try to make their name stand out more conspicuously in running text, and I personally find it annoying. The All caps article also mentions that all-caps is common in Japanese for surnames rendered in roman letters, but hopefully we would not duplicate that here or add any special note about it when discussing a Japanese person on the English Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's just a carryover from that mos page I found. Japan goes crazy with English lettering for composition titles when they feel like it. You can have a song called SAKURA, another called sakura, and a third called Sakura and they're all different and people expect them to be different if they're reading about it. Providing the way this album, and others, are titled (which includes the typesetting) in Japanese contexts (because this is apparently the only English language context) is simply common practice and In ictu oculi isn't having any of it. I am so tired of having to explain these things to people. I have had articles I wrote completely renamed because of manual of style wankery. Apparently the word "through" is too long to not be capitalized despite it being plainly obviousky not capitalized on another album cover, and the tilde is not allowed in any translated title of a Japanese composition when there is absolutely no Japanese text in the title in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"SAKURA, another called sakura, and a third called Sakura and they're all different and people expect them to be different if they're reading about it" - Ryulong (A) you're taking up too much space for 1 vote in this RFC, (B) English speakers in English would not expect this. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Morning_(Misia_album)&oldid=1204264506"