Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2008

Hello, can you start a stub about Shirō_Hara, historian, and his works. The article Hirohito talk about him in this terms:

« Many historians such as Akira Fujiwara (Shōwa Tennō no Jū-go Nen Sensō, 1991) and Peter Wetzler (Hirohito and War, 1998), based on the primary sources and the monumental work of Shirō Hara,^[1] have produced evidence suggesting that the Emperor worked through intermediaries to exercise a great deal of control over the military and was neither bellicose nor a pacifist, but an opportunist who governed in a pluralistic decision-making process. »

220.135.4.212 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, could anybody give me the kanji Futae no Kiwami (lit. "Mastery of the Two Layers") for the Sagara Sanosuke article. Thanks.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

二重の極み. The second one might alternatively also be spelled 窮み, given the anime's tendency towards obscure and kyuujitai characters. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

極み is much more common, though I should point out that 窮 is neither obscure (it's a 常用漢字) nor is it 旧字体 (極 is not the 新字体 version of 窮; the only simpler version is 穷, which is Chinese only). (You may not have meant to imply these things, but I thought clarification was in order.) Also ja:相楽左之助 and some others use 極み. -Amake (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films has solicited interest in creating a Japanese cinema task force. We'd like to cordially welcome all regular editors of these articles to voice their interest in starting this task force so as to see if there is sufficient support. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You may also ask over at WikiProject Anime and manga as there are likely people there who'd be interested, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

An article called Naporitan about the Japanese version of Neapolitan sauce has been created recently. I remained unconvinced that this is necessary, and so do several others, but the article's creator is holding onto his view firmly -- third opinions at Talk:Naporitan would be welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts ... honestly, I find the vague Neapolitan sauce article more problematic than the Naporitan article, which at least refers to be a specific cuisine. It's hard to say A should be merged with B if it's not all together clear what B is. CES (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I just started the article Toki Shigeyori based on the related article on Japanaese Wikipedia. As I started searching for sources, however, I discovered that some places give the reading as "Toki Nariyori." Does anyone have any books or other credible sources that can solve this? Is one reading correct? Are they both correct? I don't want to get too involved with the article until the naming is cleared up. The talk page is here. Thanks! Douggers (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Google search for 土岐成頼 しげより gives these sites:

• Encarta
• Gifu gov
• Gifu gov
• Chiba University See number 402

Fg2 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Gifu Prefectural Museum uses Nariyori, and that's where he's from, so I'd trust them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... He probably wasn't from the museum, but then again he wasn't from the local government either. We've got Gifu sources both ways. Sounds like it's unresolved. Fg2 (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

True, bad wording on my part. (^_^;;

So, I recommend mentioning both readings of the name in the intro, with references for each. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Academic, governmental, and museum sources are enough to warrant the two readings. Then later in the article pick one and go with it consistently. (I have no preference for either.) Fg2 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll stick with "Shigeyori" as the main reading, but mention "Nariyori" as a possible reading. Douggers (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Visitor attractions in Hiroshima Prefecture has been nominated for unspecified renaming based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. To see the discussion, visit the category and click the link to "this category's entry." Fg2 (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm about finished, I think, with this article about a Japanese Christian doctor serving in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II and who was killed during the Battle of Attu. I hope to nominate it for featured consideration soon. I found a link to a very informative Japanese website on the subject, but I'm unable to find the website's author's name in the link so I can add it to the reference in the article. Would someone more proficient in reading Japanese than me (I'm at the beginner level) mind looking at the link and finding the site's author's name? Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The page source contains the line <meta name="Author" content="大村　紀征"> Fg2 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure that name has several readings but I'll try to figure one out and post it. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to write it as Omura Norimasa. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the macron (Ōmura Norimasa). Douggers (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be Noriyuki, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This page says "Ohmura Tomoyuku". Though it is not a natural reading of 紀征, the url of the home page of the link cited above (http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~t-ohmura/) can be interpreted that the initial letter of the author's given name is T. --Sushiya (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it to Tomoyuki and add the macron. Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've run across mention of a Shibuya Heaven, Shibuya, Tōkyō-to in several external articles, in addition to the current Stub-class article on the J-pop musical ensemble W-inds., within the scope of WPBiography in addition to this WikiProject. Are you aware of enough writeups on the venue itself to qualify for an article hereon, or at least an addendum to the existing Article Shibuya, Tokyo? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Google initially says it has 145 hits for "shibuya heaven" with the quotation marks, but it runs out after 35. A lot of them share the same text. Seems to be one of the many "live houses" Tokyo is full of, and doesn't sound particularly noteworthy. Don't see it in the Japanese Wikipedia's disambiguation page HEAVEN, or in the section 「主な施設」 in 渋谷; various searches involving ヘヴン and ヘブン come up dry. But if you have more information, let us know. Fg2 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I tried "渋谷天国" as a search term, but that didn't yield much relevant results. -- Taku (talk)

I believe "Heaven" is a mistranslation in the English article. The Japanese article says "2000年11月から代々木公園や渋谷でストリートパフォーマンスを開始し、2001年3月のデビュー直前には渋谷ホコ天に8,000人を動員し..." It sounds like "Shibuya Heaven" was a translation of "渋谷ホコ天." According to a few places online including this link, ホコ天 is short for 歩行者天国, or Car-free zone. Since the above Japanese excerpt also mentions Yoyogi Park and Shibuya, I'm assuming 渋谷ホコ天 refers to that long pathway in Yoyogi Park that leads to Shibuya City Hall where tons of musicians are always out playing. It also sounds like 8000 people came to see them play during the month of March, not in a single show. I hope that helps. I could be mistranslating though, so someone please correct me if it makes more sense to them. Megaversal (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I bet that's right. Good catch. Fg2 (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, any recommendations on a rename of this car-free zone (lit. "Sky-Country" according to the Kanji but a pedestrian zone for practical purposes) for both Shibuya, Tokyo and W-inds.? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been about to find an official name anywhere. The bands that have played there all list playing there as "a street show in Yoyogi Park" and that pathway doesn't come up labeled on any maps/directions. A google search of "渋谷ホコ天" is 95% links for profiles of W-inds., so maybe they're the only people to try to name it. It might just be easiest to describe it depending on the situation ("Yoyogi Park," "the walkways of Yoyogi Park," "the south side promenade in Yoyogi Park"). Megaversal (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that walkway the area between NHK studios and the Metropolitan gymnasiums? I was up there a few months ago to watch a Daido Juku tournament and saw several pop music bands standing out there performing and some goth and anime-costumed girls standing around getting their pictures taken by passerby. It's a wide, cinder-and-dirt lane that ends on the edge of Yoyogi park. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the place. You wouldn't happen to know what it's called do you (besides 代々木／渋谷歩行者天国? Megaversal (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask around and see if I can find out. It's probably going to be awhile before I'm back up there and could ask one of the street vendors what the lane is called. Cla68 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger the situation. Here in the United States, parks occasionally use official names for specific areas with stages or raised pavements, but that's very much the exception. I await your findings concerning the area 渋谷歩行者天国 at Yoyogi Park, Shibuya, Tokyo. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Incidentally, Rikaichan (a Japanese-English dictionary extension to Mozilla Firefox) labels 歩行者天国 as "Pedestrian mall (lit., pedestrian paradise); car-free zone," so "Shibuya Pedestrian Haven" is one of several possible titles. But let's have confirmation before proceeding. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that title makes sense. "Haven" makes it seem like some huge, special area, when it's really nothing more than a long walkway. I also don't think it's any more notable than a short section in the Yoyogi Park article, except for the fact that many musicians get their start playing on that street. I've emailed a few musician friends to see if there's a better/more official name. "Southside Pathway" might be the most appropriate. Megaversal (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, South Side Pathway is in the wings, unless better information comes in from User:Cla68, as an amendment to the Article Yoyogi Park. Still need to determine how to apply it to the Article W-inds. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was completely wrong! After talking with some friends and doing some more research, there DID used to be a 渋谷歩行者天国! It was suspended at the beginning of 2003 because of less people coming and complaints due to the high traffic in areas surrounding it caused by closing the area. You can see here for more info: [] (the original webpage seems to be gone). The general gist is that it used to be the area around Shibuya Station, closed to all but pedestrian traffic on Sundays from noon to 5pm. The current 歩行者天国 areas in Tokyo are: []. While Yoyogi is now a big area for musicians to hang out, this has nothing to do with the w-inds. article and isn't worth much more than a footnote in the Yoyogi Park article probably. Megaversal (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pending Yoyogi-Shibuya Pedestrian Pathway (代々木／渋谷歩行者天国) addition to Yoyogi Park is shelved for now. Still waiting for the report from User:Cla68, incl. opening and closing dates not mentioned on the Tōkyō Metropolitan Police server, keishicho.metro.tokyo.jp. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Yoyogi Park, just Shibuya. I was totally mistaken and it's a completely different area. The 渋谷歩行者天国 that w-inds. played at refers to an area around Shibuya Station. That area didn't really "close," they simply suspended the "service" of closing the streets on Sunday afternoons. Also, according to the ZakZak article, they began the service in 1970. archive.org has an archived page from the police department webpage, showing the area that the 歩行者天国 covered and also mentioning the closing: []

The area around Yoyogi Park where musicians play is probably a result of them closing the Shibuya area, but that's wholly speculation on my part. That area is briefly mentioned in the Yoyogi article as "Today, the park is a popular hangout, especially on Sundays, when it is used as a gathering place for people to play music…" and is probably more than good enough. Megaversal (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no mention of a Shibuya Pedestrian Pathway (渋谷歩行者天国) in the Shibuya Station article; W-inds. will need an appropriate variation of the Pathway description from Shibuya Station. Are you aware of additional Sources for this task besides the archived keishicho.tokyo.jp/kotu/kisei/hoko.htm from Archive.org? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The new articles amejo and kokujo are dictionary definitions. They are both referenced to Encarta World English Dictionary, and say the same things in different words. Do these have any prospects of growing beyond dictionary definitions, or should they be transferred to Wiktionary? Fg2 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I had the same question when I found them during the new page patrol. I saw "amejo" sometimes used in news reports in a mainstream newspaper, so the words certainly have some currency. Maybe they can be described in an article on a broader topic, like the relationship between okinawa locals and American armed forces. In any case, if they are here to stay, then they have to be merged; that's for sure. -- Taku (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has proposed deletion of both articles Fg2 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend merging them into an article on Okinawa or one about the US military in Okinawa. It would basically be a sentence giving both words and explaining what they meant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I was wondering if there was anyone good at reading calligraphy, because I am certainly not. The reason I ask is because I have this picture of the entrance to a shrine I took in Kyoto with the name plaque visible, but I cannot read it and I can't remember the name of the shrine. I'm hoping someone else will be able to. This is the shrine. And only the plaque. Torsodog (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; can't read the plaque. I browsed Category:京都市の神社 but couldn't find anything likely. Do you have any detail in the sign to the left or the one in the middle of the overall photo of the shrine? Fg2 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't really make out the calligraphy either, but the first character appeared to be 今, so based on the link Fg2 provided I believe it is Imamiya Shrine (the picture of the shrine appears to match). I think the first three characters are 今宮大 but I'm not sure about the last one ... it does not appear to be 社 as would be expected. Anyway, I hope this helps. Maybe someone else can complete the mystery! CES (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot read either, but an expert says it's 今宮大明神. --Sushiya (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Great job guys and thanks so much! Torsodog (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone is starting up a Portal:Ancient Japan. If anyone is interested in helping, please do. This would be a nice sub-portal to Portal:Japan, and a nice addition to useful tools for finding Japan-related articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SmuckyTheCat is requesting that China be renamed, and replaced by the People's Republic of China article at "China". This will greatly affect articles that use the link to China to refer to Imperial China, as they will need to be fixed. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the move happens at all, which I doubt would. -- Taku (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The support side in favor of the move seems to have more proponents than the oppose side at the moment. 70.51.10.58 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But it could be a POV issue, and if it is the option that does not violate POV is non-negotiable. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True, though one of the people mentions putting a dab page at China for total NPOV-ness. 74.15.105.204 (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion concerning the Request Move for the Article China has little chance of reaching consensus anytime soon, I have found. Too many factors are involved (see Talk:China). The proposal by User:SchmuckyTheCat, should it proceed, will affect articles on the Republic of China as well as on the Sun Empire (see also History of China); Articles in the scope of this WikiProject may refer to any of these three Chinas, viz. the Sun Empire (<1912), the ROC (1912-1949), or the PRC (1949-present). The POV problem is only one of the factors, remember. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With the creation of a template:infobox Shinto shrine a couple of months ago, I and a few others have been adding it where needed when we can. I've decided, however, to launch an all out standardization of the current shrine articles at Category:Shinto shrines (if anyone would like to join me, I'd love some help!). Anyways, I've noticed that there are a few discrepancies when it came to naming shrine articles. I've looked over the MOS-JA and noticed that it states that ONLY shrines with the names jinja and jingū are to be translated into "Shrine." I've found many, however, that do use Japanese terms such as gū or taisha but are translated into "Shrine" in the article name, and other terms such as daimyōjin are not mentioned in the MOS-JA at all. What is the rule here? Should I be changing these? Are we sticking to jinja and jingū being the only exceptions? Torsodog (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gū should definitely be kept as is, nobody visits the Nikko Tosho Shrine. Taisha could go either way. Do you have any examples for daimyojin? Jpatokal (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Imamiya Shrine is the only example I have found so far. Also, when you say taisha could go either way, do you mean as a whole or on a case-by-case basis. If the latter, what would be a deciding factor? Torsodog (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think taisha (all four or five of them) could be translated as "grand shrine". TomorrowTime (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean that I could be convinced into either keeping "Taisha" or using "Grand Shrine", but yes, we should definitely standardize on one or the other. At the moment, I think I'd prefer keeping "Taisha" as is, it's unambiguous and perhaps less misleading -- the Ise Shrine is no less grand for not being a 大社. Jpatokal (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say taisha should be translated as "Grand Shrine", as it seems to be the most common usage. English-language tourist pamphlets in Japan use that translation, at least as far as I have seen. For "jinga" and "jingu", "shrine" is an acceptable translation. When translating these, one should keep in mind the original name, and not make a judgement call as to whether or not a shrine deserves the designation "grand" or not. MightyAtom (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just created the stub for Kanda Shrine. The problem here is that the official name is Kanda Myōjin. I'm not familiar with the word at all. Anyone that knows a bit more about it know what the rule should be here? Should I translate it to "shrine" or keep it Myōjin? Also, since we don't have a consensus, if more people could shed some light on the taisha issue we have here, it would be greatly appreciated. Torsodog (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the wall of text that my Kōjien threw at me correctly, then a "Myōjin" is a single taisha that is dedicated to a specific kami - there is only one "Myōjin" per kami, so it's a kami's official adress, so to say. Apparently, the whole class of jinja was designated sometime in the Engi era. Seems like a major enough class of jinja that would possibly deserve an article of it's own. As per a naming convention... If there was a Myōjin article, then leaving it at Kanda Myōjin would be feasible, but just plain old Kanda Shrine is good enough, methinks. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone fluent in Japanese willing to search news sites to source this article? I cannot find any news sources in English that can be used to source this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes read that en:WP has an article -- however perfunctory, bad or vandalized -- about just about everything of note, or anyway just about everything of note to the anglosphere.

I don't think so. For example, Ikegami Honmonji is a great big temple complex for Nichiren, a major chunk of Japanese Buddhism, and it has a stonking great festival every October. Though the index to the latest Rough Guide to Tokyo doesn't mention it, it gets an entire densely-packed two-column page in A Handbook for Travellers in Japan (8th ed, 1907). (Murray, Baedeker and Nagel make the guidebooks of today look pretty feeble.) Till today, there wasn't the weediest little article about it in en:WP (despite the articles about the humdrum stations nearest to it).

As I tend to doze off after reading two sentences or so about Buddhism (and as I'm pretty ignorant of architecture too, despite my interest in it), I'm definitely not the right person to be writing about this handsome place. But nobody else did, so I kicked it off during the last hour.

I've also been struck by the paucity of articles about municipal and prefectural art galleries in Japan. The galleries often take the trouble to put out catalogues with parallel texts in English, but there seems to be little or no interest among en:WP editors. Are our particular obsessions concerns really that much more important?

How about a WikiProject Japan "Create an Article about a Japanese Subject Outside Your Rut" Week? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) ........... PS Not the Rough Guide to Tokyo (which I didn't look at) but the RG to Japan. Hoary (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside our rut = outside of our area? Hmm, seems doable. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A very good idea, Hoary. Like you, though, I've often come across major subjects/articles which we did not have started here. Unlike you though, the ever-present, annoying and time-wasting threat of AfD prevented me from digging up the sourcing necessary to put up an attack-proof stub. On the other hand, every episode of Family Guy gets its own article... One of my long-standing Wiki-gripes: Those subjects with the most editors/defenders survive, while an article on-- I kid you not-- a Rimsky-Korsakov opera gets put up for deletion within five minutes of its birth... Makes one want to crawl back into his rut and defend it from deletion... Dekkappai (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy copulating ordure. The article even pointed out at that early stage that the subject was an opera by RK. To Composed in 1898, the opera was used as a prologue to Rimsky-Korsakov's first opera, The Maid of Pskov in 1901 the author should of course have appended something about its appearance in The Simpsons. My personal favorite had previously been this: granted that the "article" wasn't worth the electrons it was written with, the notability warning was slapped on by a soi-disant "Photo Editor- New York" (check his user page). ¶ So anyway, Dekka, in which direction will you be venturing out of your particularly delectable valley? -- Hoary (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right... The Rimsky-author was yours truly. Even after I pointed out that an Opera can hardly qualify as a non-notable BIOGRAPHY, the guy stuck to his guns. Makes one wonder... My rut is pretty fun, isn't it :-) Give me time, I'll think of something non-pinky... Possibly... eventually... Dekkappai (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, some of the examples you guys are showing are ridiculous. I'm glad they avoided getting the ax, but that's still pretty sad. Torsodog (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I wonder if we could bend it to taking care of some of the requested articles. There are over 1000 of them, I believe, perhaps over 2000. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm always rather suspicious about these lists of requested articles: I think that there's more than a small amount of spammery involved (as well of course as trivia). Still, there is some good stuff there. Meanwhile, I'd be surprised if you and others here haven't on occasion surprised yourselves by creating links to articles that you were certain existed -- but that turned out not to exist. Others are better qualified to write those articles -- but none of them have so far been up to it, so the job's yours as much as anybody's. Hoary (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the fact that I've created several hundred articles myself, I'm certainly not being lazy. I'm not saying it's someone else's job to create these articles. I was merely suggesting a source for ideas on which articles to create. While not every requested article is gong to be worth creating, there are also quite a few valid requests there. Don't dismiss them so readily. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I did write rather suspicious and not deeply suspicious, I do see their merit, I do see worthwhile stuff in them, and I've never for a moment regarded you as a lazy editor. I suppose I was thinking of people who methodically plod through train lines, station after station (or indeed through lists of photographers, one dimly remembered name after another): nothing wrong with either enterprise, but the centuries-old reason for the existence of the station just might have a rather more urgent need for an article than does the humdrum station itself. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

At first, it seemed hard to define my rut. The list of articles I've started encompasses the sensitive and the overwhelming; beauty and beast; earth, wind and fire; haunted and hallowed ground; the real and the not-so-real. But there is a thread that links all these articles: I create them as stubs. To get out of my rut, I should try, just once, to start a B-class article. Fg2 (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Enterprising! I seem to spend most of my own time converting crap substubs into boring little stubs. And the subjects of mine are in a rut (though not one of my own creation). -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Hoary-- is Nagauta Symphony sufficiently removed from Madame Tani and her professional offspring to qualify as out of my rut? :-) Let's just hope it doesn't get deleted before you get a chance to look at it! :-( Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff. I'd never heard of the symphony or its author. Incidentally, (i) it seems that two short paragraphs on Tōru Takemitsu are all that's said about Japan in the lavishly praised book The Rest Is Noise, which happens to be my commuter read right now. (ii) If I hadn't become disillusioned with "GA", I'd send Tani's fine article there. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot and decided to write about the record company Trattoria. My draft is at User:Zscout370/Trattoria Records, but I am hitting a block of lack of information. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. I'll see if I can continue work on Japanese classical for a while. You think the Tani article has promise? I've neglected the "Marilyn Monroe of SM" for far too long... Guess I'll polish it up & try to get it through GA. Dekkappai (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Trattoria Records is now live, maybe work on another article from our requested articles list. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Hoary, I hadn't heard of the Nagauta Symphony either, and was surprised to see that Yamada had been combining Western and Japanese instruments as early as 1921. I'd always assummed Takemitsu's November Steps was the first to do that... Hey! Is that a red link I see?! Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. A few weeks back, not knowing that Portal:Japan exists in Wikipedia I started a site called JapanWiki.org. I was wondering what you guys think about the idea of a completely independent site dedicated to Japan? I think running our own site would provide more flexibility. What do you think? I know a lot of work has already been done here so I was wondering if people think it would be a good idea to move content over to Japanwiki and continute the work there? Any thoughts would be appreciated Jubeidono (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... Wikipedia is well-known, so the work here is more useful. --ざくら木 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Zakuragi here's what I think. I love wikipedia it's amazing. but I think it's getting too crowded with information. I love the idea of a one-stop shop for all my information but I think wikipedia should not be the place for everything. What happens if wikipedia decides to pull the plug one day for some reason? (I know that's not likely to happen but I'm just thinking..). What happens if wikipedia gets hacked and all our hard work is gone? (again not likely to happen). Maybe I am just trying to find reasons to justify my project so that all the work I have put into it doesn't go to waste. I just love the idea about a site JUST for Japan.Jubeidono (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Frankly, I'm still a bit skeptical but I think it is a good idea as long as the whole site is GDFL compatible. --ざくら木 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both could be useful. Perhaps some of the information that doesn't really fit here might be able to put there? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're GFDL compatible, you could import articles from WikiPedia... 70.55.86.34 (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am GFDL compatible and I know I Could import articles from WikiPedia but I was hoping it would be the other way around. That wikipedia would be importing articles from us.Jubeidono (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is JapanWiki.org english only? Japanese also, romaji also? 70.55.86.34 (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it is english only with a few japanese for the names. At this period of time I am very busy so I really dont have as much time as I would want but I do intent to make japanwiki multilingual when I get the chance. If anybody is serious about wanting to help I could grant access to mediawiki and they could help as an admin too.Jubeidono (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I love wikipedia it's amazing. but I think it's getting too crowded with information. If WP resided in a user's computer and the Japan-related bits added up to 3GB while the whole damn lot added up to 500GB, I'd understand the objection, but as it is (all hosted elsewhere), I don't. ¶ I love the idea of a one-stop shop for all my information but I think wikipedia should not be the place for everything. It already isn't. There are wikis on all sorts of subjects that wouldn't fit WP and perhaps more importantly wikis that take in material that would not be allowed in WP (perhaps because it represents "original research)). ¶ What happens if wikipedia decides to pull the plug one day for some reason? [...] What happens if wikipedia gets hacked and all our hard work is gone? I suppose most of the work could be reconstructed from the numerous copies elsewhere. After all, that too is (or should be) released via the GFDL. I'd ask the same questions about any new, small, alternative to en:WP. ¶ Maybe I am just trying to find reasons to justify my project so that all the work I have put into it doesn't go to waste. I suggest that you concentrate on certain aspects of Japan, not Japan as a whole, and that you devise rules that will allow some kinds of material that are disallowed here. (But probably not all kinds: presumably you don't want libelous material, or anyway you don't want the threat of libel suits.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if everybody shares your opinion Hoary. Is there any way we could conduct a poll amont the Japan Project members?Jubeidono (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck to you, but I wouldn't edit it. Wikipedia is just fine...it is the main source that people go to, and here is where my efforts would have the most impact on increasing folks accurate knowledge of Japan...Sorry!MightyAtom (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, you can import Wikipedia articles since your terms matches ours. However, I am not sure what kind of articles JapanWiki has that we don't have. I;ll take a look, but I am not sure if I will make an account there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I want to propose moving Mount Hakusan to Mount Haku. This would be more in line with the naming of other Japanese mountains. Is there anywhere else I need to post such a request other than the discussion page of the article?imars (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Clarification on island names? has broadened to include this topic, and your input would be welcome there. It would be a good place to seek opinions about the proposal to rename the article on this mountain. Fg2 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I started the article and I'm totally in support of moving it to Mount Haku. I live in Gifu Prefecture and I'm used to hearing people casually refer to it as "Mount Hakusan," so I didn't give much thought when I was making the article (even though I did make "Mount Haku" a redirect). I'll join the discussion Fg2 mentioned above. Douggers (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, should Mount Gassan become Mount Gatsu? -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but this brings to my mind the way English-speaking people treat Finnish geographical names. They usually add the word "Lake" in front of the names of Finnish lakes, completely disregarding the fact that the word "lake" is already included in the name as the suffix "-järvi" (lake in Finnish). So it's a bit weird when they call e.g. Oulujärvi "Lake Oulujärvi," which literally means "Lake Oulu Lake," when plain "Lake Oulu" would simply do the job. Even some of us Finns do this, which is silly since one could expect that at least we would know better.

Sorry for the random rant, just wanted to share :) --ざくら木 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I support moving it to Mount Haku. I also support the move to Mount Gatsu. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the move to "Mount Gatsu." I understand the repetitiveness of "Mount" and "-san," but this is a special case because the mountain is not called "Gatsu-san" in Japanese. I think the move would change the name too much. Douggers (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mount Haku" sounds ok to me. "Mount Gatsu" doesn't. It may be that when the suffix changes the name of the stem, we should keep the suffix. Personally, I'd skip the "Mount" and write forms like "Gassan is a mountain ... ." and "... is found on Gassan, a mountain in ... ." And when it combines with a previous mountain, just don't worry about it, e.g. "Mounts Haku and Gassan ... ." Mount Tate may not be as acceptable as "Mount Haku," though... Fg2 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support Gassan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know enough about this to have a preference one way or the other, but I notice that the main reference for the Mount Hakusan page calls it "Mount Hakusan" (although a quick Google search excluding pages mentioning "wikipedia" yields ~3000 hits in English for "Mount Haku" but less than 500 for "Mount Hakusan"). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As of this post, Mount Haku is in fact the primary Article, with Mount Hakusan redirecting thereto. From Rikaichan, I have determined that Shiroyama would be the kun for White Mountain (白山 Hakusan, an on). As I understand current protocol, Mount Haku would be correct English usage, and other European languages use analogous usage. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: No - the article should be either Mount Hakusan (common usage) or Hakusan (correct geographical name) and NOT "Mount Haku" which is just not correct -- is based on a mistaken effort to translate half the name into its literal English meaning. Should we rename Izu Ōshima "Izu Ō Island"? Or Sakurajima "Sakura Island"? Of course not- the names would become ridiculous and meaningless as "shima" is an integral part of the place name. Likewise with many mountain names. Currently, we have Kinkaku-ji and Kiyomizu-dera as accepted primary names for the famous temples in Kyoto - not "Kinkaku Temple" or "Kiyomizu Temple". For consistency, I am in favor of dropping all the "Mount" designations from primary names and going with simply Hakusan, Gassan, etc. --MChew (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a couple more examples for non-English names, we have Mont Blanc for the European mountain, and not "Mount Mon Blanc" or "Mount Blac", even though the French "Mon" is equivalent to the Japanese "-san". Likewise, Matterhorn is not "Mount Matterhorn" or "Mount Matter", although "-horn" has the same literal meaning as "-san".

Can someone please clarify in which case and where on the page (top or bottom) this template should be placed? Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For most cases, using this template is generally discouraged as the {{Nihongo}} template provides a similar service for specific instances of Japanese text. It's possible that at some point in the future this template will be phased out. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As for where this goes, usually at the top of the page is where this template should be at. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia articles are often rich in often very important information, but almost always completely unreferenced. I have been therefore using them as a source with increasing reluctance, because I have come to feel that unreferenced material is not worth using. Were I a researcher, I certainly wouldn't use stuff whose provenience I don't know. People are then going to reuse this material, damaging the credibility of ever more articles. Since I am now at the point where I have to choose whether to use a lot of unreferenced material I wouldn't otherwise know where to find, I would like to know other people's feelings on the subject.

Urashimataro (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I often use Wikipedia as a first step in research for most topics, but I don't think Wikipedia should ever be used as a primary source. It's too open to be trusted as a source. If it has referenced sources, I go directly for them for full information. If there are no referenced sources, though, I have to find some for myself. Douggers (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally (but not always), sources can be found for the important information. It may just be in Japanese, but that's pretty common for Japanese topics. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We should not use Wikipedia as a source - find a reliable source in Japanese and we can use that. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we should be doing is using the ja.wp links is for interwiki linking and thats it. Using a highly editable wiki for sourcing is right out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly find rejecting WP altogether as a source way too radical. I found that, when references exist, very often 95% of the article was written by the same person, and this person is the one who added the references. In that case, if the reference and the article are good, why not use the material? Research would be impossible if one were to use only primary or secondary sources.

Otherwise, if what we write is unreliable garbage by definition, why bother writing it? Urashimataro (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Use material from ja:, but don't add a citation pointing to ja:. If information exists in any Wikipedia flavor, it's fair game to be translated and put on any other flavor. Then someone will probably swoop in and mark it as uncited, which is correct and fair and exactly how this is all supposed to work. -Amake (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I frankly find it astonishing that you people think your own work is INHERENTLY unreliable AND unquotable (the key being the word inherently). Urashimataro (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this topic is recurring too many times, but anyway :) There are two schools of thoughts about how Wikipedia articles develops. In early days of Wikipedia, editors wrote articles without any citation, mainly because there are not easy way (i.e., ref) to do. This is why many Japanese geo-articles (e.g., villages, towns) cite no sources for information like population and area. (By the way, this is the problem that has to be rectified, in addition to the out-dated-ness information. The task, though, is complicated by the phenomenon in which many towns and villages have been getting merged or being dissolved.) This is basically the first school, under which the ja wikipedia operates. In recent years, a large population of the English Wikipedia contributors have switched to the second school, that is, add new materials only if they can find sources for them. My point? The two schools of thoughts are inherently incompatible, and so the notation of Wikipedia:OWN has to come into play. That is, some parts of Wikipedia (mostly new and biography ones) are controlled by the second school, and the rest (mostly stable, obscure, old ones) by the first. (Someone should write about this history in History of Wikipedia; very fascinating topic :)) -- TakuyaMurata (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my own work is unreliable. I think it's somewhere between (a) at least as reliable as the average material on WP and (b) superlative. But I don't expect you or anyone else to believe that. And I'm also sure my work is unquotable. When I add stuff, I cite my sources (unless I'm too sleepy or lazy). Time and energy permitting, follow up my citations. You'll find the material there. Read and cite that. ¶ Or that's what I say. For all you know, I could be a sociopath who gets his jollies from adding just as many untruths to en:WP as he thinks he can without being outed as a fraudster. Any idiot or nutball can edit WP, and it seems that plenty do. (Luckily most of them seem to be content to add such phrases as and he sucks DICK. Irritating, but no worse.) If you want something that you can be fairly sure was created by trustworthy, sane adults, try Britannica, Citizendium, etc. ¶ Moreover, a surprisingly large number of ja:WP articles serve up little more than barely digested chronologies and the like. Their content is particularly easy to find elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to put my 2-cents in here: Urashimataro, I think we may have a bit of an English/Wiki-ese communication problem going on. "Unreliable" doesn't mean "wrong" in Wiki-speak, it just means it's not a citable source. I may get into a talk on Imamura's work over a couple beers with some friends, and everything we say may be perfectly correct (depending on how many beers have been had), but it's still not a "reliable" i.e., citable source. However, I may take away some information from that talk, find some "reliable" back-up-- in a book maybe-- and then add it to a Wiki article, properly sourced. Anyone, from the expert to the well-meaning but ill-informed know-it-all to the outright vandal, can add information to Wikipedia, and this is fine. The way we tell which information is good is through the back-up sourcing. The quality of any Wikipedia article depends on how it is sourced. And if it has those sources, use them. In my experience with Japanese Wikipedia, yes, it is very accurate. However I still seek out sourcing to back up what is given (usually unsourced) at the Japanese article. As an English-speaker with limited Japanese skills, it does frustrate me that much of this information-- completely accurate, I assume-- goes unsourced, when, presumably, the Japanese editors do have sourcing available to them.... Dekkappai (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with previous posters, Wikipedia just does not qualify as a reliable source. We may look at other-language versions for pointers, even translate entirely unreferenced articles, but once that content is challenged on its own terms, reliable sources will have to be presented or the information is null and void. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to most of what is written by various people here: I write mostly out-in-the-inaka municipality and train-related articles. This information is pretty much all coming from Japanese Wikipedia because there is simply no English material on these subjects. Even info in Japanese can be uncommon, and if it isn't from Wikipedia it's still coming from the internet and so who is to say that what is written on other websites is more accurate than what is written in an unsourced JA Wikipedia article? This judgment can't be made. In this position, I either use unsourced material or don't write anything. As for "accurate" source-able info? Some of the bigger train lines or municipalities in the area may have some info on an official site but outside of that, again...it's just the Internet. What about books? My local library isn't so big and probably lacks a lot of information on these subjects, and it's not like information published in books is always absolutely 100% accurate anyway. Editing Wikipedia is my hobby, not my job, so I'm not going to jaunt out to major libraries in my spare time to do a bunch of research for one article that won't even be read by a large number of people. Anyway...I, for one, trust Wikipedia and trust the Japanese Wikipedia. I feel that people edit articles on Wikipedia that they are interested in...that interest leads the author to want to write an article that is accurate as possible. Of course there are exceptions to this idea, but I imagine a vast majority of Wikipedia's content adheres to this theory. I'm going to continue translating from JA:WP to EN:WP in hopes that the unsourced material is not complete BS. That's my two 円. Sorry for getting a little off-topic. Manmaru (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the discussion is losing its focus. I know the value of sourcing, and I copiously source what I write. At issue was whether it's OK to use unsourced material. I think it's safe to say the problem has been solved. It's not OK. About using satisfactorily sourced material from Wikipedia (which is the extremely important issue that popped up spontaneously later): If I take a sentence from Japanese Wikipedia which is properly sourced and translate it as faithfully as I can together with its sources into English, how can it possibly lose reliability? If it was good in the original, how can the act of translating it limit its value? If it was good in the original, it surely is good in its translation. In any event, since the issue arouses such strong feelings, not only I will certainly avoid using unsourced Japanese Wikipedia material from now on, but I will try to avoid using sourced material from it or any other flavor as well, because this isn't a difference in point of view we should paper up. It should be solved somehow. Urashimataro (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you translate a sourced passage from another language, the same source can be used. It doesn't lose reliability or verifiability just because it's been translated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a case in point, I am currently awaiting some links to Webpages on Oricon.co.jp to back up translated data on the Article W-inds. The Subject of this Article has had consistent chart performance in Japan, but my own knowledge of Japanese is insufficient to hunt down archived Weekly Singles Charts and Weekly Albums Charts pages. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is structural bamboo worth salvaging? as bamboo is used as construction material in, about, and around Japan. 70.55.86.17 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To what extent is bamboo used as a construction material in Japan? Fg2 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think it's salvagable. It should be allowed to die in peace. If somebody without a commercial interest later cares to write a dispassionate, disinterested, lucid article about it that meets all the other WP requirements, that person would be welcome to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless decent sources can be found which can be used to support the article (after it's cleaned up for being an advertisement), I'd say it needs to go. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In the article Pather Panchali, there is a sentence that "1967, Pather Panchali won "Kinema Junpo Award: Best Foreign Film" in Tokyo." The sentence is supported by citation from IMDb.

However, it would be great if we can have a citation from the Kinema Junpo site or its any subordinate/related site. Can anyone please help find the information from the site, and add the citation there in the article? At least, if someone of you can direct me to the page where the awards archives are there and the award of Pather Panchali mentioned, it would be of immense help.

A side thought, an article on Kinema Junpo needs to be there, it is probably the oldest cinema megazine in Japan, right? Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a stub article about the magazine. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Atarashii hibi article has been tagged for better references for two years. Them being a japanese act, maybe someone here could know more and have better access to japanese references? Not sure. Just bringing it up. Hooper (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings all. I've noticed that the licenses on Wikipedia for the prefectural symbols are different. Some of them are non-copyright (example: Nara Prefecture. However, most are copyrighted but are Fair Use.

The license for the Nara symbol says:

This image is based on Japanese national or local laws, regulations, circular notices and or directives. According to Article 13 of the Copyright Law of Japan, these images are not protected under Japanese copyright law. Note: This doesn't apply to photographs taken by the Japanese national or local governments or governmental agencies.

If this is a national law, then perhaps we can apply this non-copyright license to all of the prefectural symbols. Manmaru (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the commons has the category for the prefectural symbols: . Does anyone know why we are not using the images in that category? -- Taku (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a request for help from readers of Japanese, at Talk:Kagome Co., Ltd.#Notability. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)