Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reub2000 (talk | contribs) at 07:05, 6 March 2005 (→Vote results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived discussions

See also the old discussion of the name order in the article title.

Interpretation of "Use names as how they are known in English"

A naming dispute in Talk:InuYasha sprung over a name of a sword in the show.

The English versions of the show and manga use "Tetsusaiga" and google hits show that is most common among English speakers, but "Tessaiga", while not as common, is properly romanized Hepburn.

Should the statement refer to ALL Japanese names used in English, or just those appearing in dictionaries? WhisperToMe 05:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said in Talk:InuYasha, I think the statement only refers to words that are so well-known in English that one can find them in an English dictionary. For example, "Kimono" or "Tokyo," both of which can be found in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. In fact, all the examples given in the Manual of Style (Mount Fuji, Tokyo, Jiu Jitsu, and shogi) are in that dictionary, which seems to indicate that that was the intent of the statement. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 05:54, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Either could be correct (this is not a romanization issue). I am not familiar with Inuyasha, but Tetsusaiga is (てつさいが) and Tessaiga is (てっさいが) ... check the original and you should have your answer. CES 20:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In other words, both spellings are correct in romanization? If so, we should go with Tetsusaiga hands down, as the Viz versions of InuYasha use that spelling. WhisperToMe 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The kanji of Tetsusaiga is 鉄砕牙 WhisperToMe 22:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The small tsu is different from the large tsu. Which romanization is correct would depend on how the name is pronounced. Either could be derived from those kanji. Sekicho 22:17, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
That "Tessaiga" is correct is not the issue. Everyone agrees that that is the correct reading. (If not see this website, or look up 鉄砕牙 in WWWJDIC.) What is in question is whether or not the correct reading should be used, even though the incorrect one "Tetsusaiga" is probably more well-known as a result of mistranslation in the English-language manga. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 22:26, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
This post gives me the impression that it's controversial :\ http://www.animenation.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-141458.html WhisperToMe 22:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you are right that it is controversial, although those posts are from 2003. In any case, I listened to one of my InuYasha DVDs to see for myself, but it is too subtle of a difference for me to distinguish. If anyone else wants to do so, however, they can listen to an audio clip from it that I put on my website.
Whatever the correct pronounciation, however, the question of which one we will use remains. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 00:38, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
If the correct pronunciation cannot be determined in any way, even by watchin' the uncut InuYasha, then both "Tetsusaiga" and "Tessaiga" would be deemed as "proper" spellings. The decision between those two then would easily fall to Tetsusaiga because of a higher google hit count. WhisperToMe 02:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It sounded like Tessaiga to me (although I'm not a native Japanese speaker) and Google and Yahoo Japan came up with about twice as many hits for hiragana Tessaiga than Tetsusaiga (of course the vast majority of sites use kanji, so that's inconclusive). However, if Tetsusaiga is the common form in English and what the official translation is, it seems like Tetsusaiga should be used, whether it is 'correct' or not, for the same reason we have the "Mazda" car company instead of the 'correct' "Matsuda". It would probably be good to note the controversy over spelling/pronunciation in the article. CES 12:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I posted a message on the Japanese Wikipedia with the audio clip, since presumably they would be able to tell which reading is correct better than me. So far, people there seem to think that "Tessaiga" is the correct name. As for the rule we were discussing, ("...An English word or name with a Japanese origin should be used in its English form...") it seems like you are saying that we should apply it to all words, even those that cannot be found in a dictionary. Is that correct? [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 23:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure I'll get nailed with some exception that I hadn't thought of, but yeah "common English usage" is a rule that works 99% of the time in Wikipedia. What a word's "common usage" is frequently becomes the center of debate, and I am not a fan of using search engine results as the primary indicator (although in this case there is also a "official" translation). That being said, I don't think a word has to be in a dictionary to fall under the rule, assuming a common usage can be agreed upon. Personally I think it's a shame that a seemingly mistaken transliteration like 鉄砕牙 as Tetsusaiga should become rule ... but Wikipedia's role is to be descriptive rather than proscriptive. But like I said, if possible I'd recommend discussing the controversy somewhere relevant in the article, and people can make their own personal usage decisions. But that is just one man's humble opinion! =) CES 00:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, although the prescriptive grammarian within me wants to say otherwise. If others agree that that is a valid conclusion, then we should add something to that effect to the section of the Manual of Style that explains the rule. That way, it will be clearer. Actually, even if others do not agree, clarification to that effect would be good as well. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 00:57, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Request

I see, can a table name which consist of Kanji, Kana and Romaji be implented? (Below) It is better for users to know how to write their names.

Junichiro Koizumi
Junichiro Koizumi
Junichiro Koizumi
Japanese name
Kanji小泉 純一郎
Hiraganaこいずみ じゅんいちろう
RomajiKoizumi Jun'ichirō

(post is by User:Chan Han Xiang)

  • Why would a table be better? This version of the Junichiro Koizumi page already had most of that information, except for a hiragana rendering. In any case, is a hiragana rendering really needed? Japanese names are normally written in kanji, and hiragana do not make a good pronounciation guide for most of our readers, who do not know Japanese. Josh 06:20, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that kana shouldn't be added unless there is something unusual that couldn't be predicted from the romaji. They actually nice to see if you can read them, but they really take up unnecessary space. Kappa 08:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Wikipedians, please be aware that this table is based on the Korean pattern of Table of names. By looking at a Korean table of names, both the Hiragana and the Hanja are considered as second scripts. From the Korean point of view, if the inventor wants to add the Hanja rendering, likewise the Kana/Hiragana rendering should be added, as it is common to see Hiragana renderings of most Japanese personalites in the Japanese wikipedia. Since they are ethnically Japanese people, having a Table of names with the Kanji, Kana and the Romaji rendering is recommended, likewise for a Korean personality, where his Hangul, Hanja, Revised-Romanization and McCune Reischauer renderings are added (See below). If anyone of you disagree, with this table of names for a Japanese personality which include the Hiragana, this is equivalent to the fact that a Korean personality should not have a Table of names with the Hanja rendering, which is currently widespread all over the Korean personalities in Wikipedia.


A good and common example is this:

Jang Nara
Jang Nara
Korean Name
Revised RomanizationJang Na Ra
McCune-ReischauerCh'ang Na Ra
Hangul장나라
Hanja張娜拉

I don't think the convention in writing Korean articles has anything to do with this issue. -- Taku 16:39, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Well the Korean convention is a useful analogy at least, and wiki-wide consistency would be a Good Thing. The difference between hanja and hiragana is that you can't predict the hanja from anything else, but hiragana can be worked out from romaji. On the other hand, it would certainly be very inconvenient for someone who needed the hiragana for some reason but didn't know how to type them. I'm not sure how many users would be in that situation, but I'm changing my opinion to neutral for the moment. Kappa 16:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see why hiragana is needed if the person does not go by a hiragana name when it is written. I distinctly remember that some JPOP stars did, but it usually involved Japanese translations of European names, like えりか and えみり. Mike H 04:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kappa ... I don't know much about Korean but I assume it's pretty difficult to guess the hanja from just hangul, but it's pretty easy to get the hiragana if you have the romaji. Especially since the kanji's there too. I can't think of a time when you'd want the hiragana of a name over the kanji or romanization, but if someone really needs to know the hiragana of someone, go to the Japanese language page equivalent and it's the first thing in parentheses: 小泉 純一郎 （こいずみ じゅんいちろう、1942年1月8日 - ） I like the idea of a name table, but let's keep it short and simple. CES 13:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • CES, what about those who do only know Hiragana and not Romaji? Consider this good point. This applies to Japanese speakers of the begineer stage.

On the other hand, repling to Kappa, Kappa is wrong from the sense that the person can work out certain Korean names, though not all, from Hanja to Hangul. Likewise, the Romaji is equal to the Revised Romanization and the McCune-Reischauher, so if the person who implented this Korean table of names up with all these, why not the Japanese as well? Think about it. It is just a matter of giving knowledge to a newbie, like all encyclopedias should do.

Wikipedia is not a Japanese textbook. Hepburn is far and away the most popular Japanese romanization, so others are not needed (this has been debated oh so extensively before...), and hiragana are unnecessary since romaji are provided. "Romaji (kanji)" gives all necessary information in 5% of the space of a table. Jpatokal 15:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well it sounds like Romaji don't give enough information to a certain group of people (those who know kana but not Romaji, but still use an english wikipedia). I just wonder how large that group is. Kappa 15:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Umm... nonexistent? You must be able to read romaji to be able to read English. Jpatokal 03:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May I revert Chan Han Xiang's changes now? WhisperToMe 01:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please. Jpatokal 06:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • All your debates come down to one conclusion. If there is no Korean romanization systems, this equals to no romaji. Hanja=Kana, the second script. Hangul=Kanji, the first script. Should there be no Kana in the Japanese table of names, there should be no Hanja in the Korean Table of names.

Look further into one more step. How can one assume that Romaji is equal to Kana? Yes, it gives the pronouncation, not the writing. If one is interested to know how to write that Japanese individual's name in Kana, which is just as important as Hanja

  • Kana is not as important as Hanja. Japanese names are nearly always written in kanji and almost never in kana. Korean names are often written in both hanja and hangul. Jpatokal 06:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

, and you remove it, then where is the point putting up the very useful entire Japanese table of names? Wikipedians, I urge you to vote now, and the vote must have a good reason, whether to put up the Kana or not. Those who vote no, means that the Hanja should not be put up as well, in which nearly every Korean individual uses this table of names stated above. Thank You. User:Chan Han Xiang

  • Korean is not the same language as Japanese, and what is considered "relevant" to an English speaker is not the same in either language. And no, "Kana" votes have nothing to do with "Hanja" votes. WhisperToMe 05:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Jpatokal 06:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • All right. Let's look at the other way round. Just imagine, Hangul, like Kanji, is the principle script of the Koreans. So it is advised to put it up. Hanja, on the other hand, like Kana, is considered as the second script of the Koreans. By looking in this point, it seems strange and sort of unfair that the fact that Koreans have their Hangul and Hanja, the only two scripts of the Koreans, while the Japanese, who also have two scripts; the Kanji and Kana, and not displaying up the Kana while only displaying the Kanji script.
    • Second thing. Do you assume that everybody can know the Kanji by only knowing the Romaji? If someone, say a rural Japanese man, who do not know all the equvalence of meanings between the Kana and the Romaji, as the Romaji is brought by these Europeans, not by the Japanese themselves, so do you think the rural Japanese can understand? These are the critical facts you have to consider by only putting up the Kanji and Romaji without the Kana. We have to settle this matter fast.
I would assume a rural Japanese person would be looking in the Japanese Wikipedia, not the English one. I would certainly hope the Japanese Wikipedia would include Kana, but this is not the Japanese Wikipedia. Noel (talk) 22:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • We have a charts of kana at Hepburn. People who don't know Japanese will not need kana, as names tend to be written in either kanji or kanji and kana. Those who know Japanese will know it already. WhisperToMe 05:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What about those curious wikipedians who don't know Japanese but want to know their Kana and yet they don't know that there is one? This group is considerably large in the English Wikipedia, including me. Not all are Japanese here. Furthermore, what about Japanese-Americans like Mike Shinoda? A mixture of Katakana and Hiragana is needed and your table only provides Hiragana. Furthermore, refering their Kana names from the table would prove to be very, very, troublesome, as people would have to go one round just to search it. Thus, like Hanja, even though it has a Hangul-Hanja table for a few words, like Hanja, it is better to put up Kana. Displaying valid information in a encyclopedic manner is much, much better like this. Wikipedia, is a centre for information, and saying this means that you are holding back some information on Japanese names, unlike its Korean counterpart. Wikipedians, I tell you, the benefit for releasing the Kana is just as beneficial as Hanja. I hope all of you get what I mean.User:Chan Han Xiang

Vote

I think this argument could continue ad infinitum (ad nauseam?) so why don't we have a vote. First we need to decide what to vote on ... seems like the main things are:

  • Should there be a Name Table?
  • What should it have:
    • Kanji?
    • Hiragana?
    • Katakana?
    • Romaji?

Personally I'm starting to think a Name Table would be more trouble than it's worth. It would be nice to reach a consensus on name ORDER before worrying about a name TABLE. CES 14:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion on IRC, so I've put up a voting section below and voiced my opinions. —Tkinias 20:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Name Table

Should there be a name table?

Vote tally: 1/8

Support
  1. Can be used to dispel confusion about family/given name and include distracting facts like "usually written in kana but these are the kanji" which don't belong in the first sentence. Kappa 17:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Does not seem necessary, and other articles giving many names (e.g., Gdańsk) do not need it. —Tkinias 20:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Superfluous. --Korath会話 21:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Takes too much space. Noel (talk)
  4. Name tables only work if something has a Japanese and a Chinese name, or a Japanese and a Korean name. As this pertains to "Japanese-only" articles, then there is no need for a table. WhisperToMe 02:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. I agree, it's superfluous CES 03:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Only when abso-bloody-lutely necessary, which is very rarely. --Golbez 04:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Jpatokal 07:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection Point: Saying this it is better to display nothing. No name tables, scattered areas of brackets, looks worse. See the state of Paul Kariya. Messy! Then why the author of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) point out to Korean name tables? The matter of material Organization! Using the Japanese model of this Korean model!---> Template:Koreanname Wake up, Boys, it is time to come to common sense! Otherwise, wikipedia will seem useless like having being a crippled chap, having organization on one side and messiness on the other. Let you all reflect, I don't know. 8 vs 1, I give up. Putting up seems very dull and boring. --->小泉 純一郎 Koizumi Jun'ichirō, born January 8, 1942) is a Japanese.... Worse. Better not to even have it up.User:Chan Han Xiang
1. You are breaking the page. 2. The Paul Kariya article looks just fine. 2. The Korean and Japanese naming conventions are totally separate. WhisperToMe 17:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The use of parentheses is very common in Wikipedia articles about people and things other than Korean or Japanese, for example Russian, Arabic, and Bulgarian people and topics. It works fine. —Tkinias 20:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kanji

Should kanji be given for all names?

Vote tally: 8/0

Support
  1. Of course, but in parens at the article start (like is done for almost all other languages). —Tkinias 20:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Of course, following the manual of style - WhisperToMe 20:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Yes, of course. --Korath会話 21:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes, in parentheses (if known - of course, someone else can always add it later). Noel (talk)
  5. Yes CES 03:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Hai. --Golbez 04:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Me too. Jpatokal 07:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose

Romaji

Should romaji be given for all names?

Vote tally: 8/0

Support
  1. Since common anglicization does not provide enough information to pronounce correctly, formal romaji should be given in parens after the kanji. —Tkinias 20:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Yes, romaji should be there. WhisperToMe 20:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Yes, to accomodate browsers that cannot display kana. --Korath会話 21:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes (can also give Japanese name order, in name written in Western alphabet [i.e. readable for those who cannot read Japanese], for those articles where the name order is given in Western order in the title). Noel (talk)
  5. Yes, romaji serves as the best pronunciation guide for most English speakers CES 03:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Hai. --Golbez 04:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Me too. Jpatokal 07:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support. Use Hepburn, unless the person has chosen a different transliteration (which a few authors have done), or use the most common transliteration for fictional characters (where manga and anime translations too often use non-standard transliterations). Include explanations when non-Hepburn transliterations are used. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose

Kana

Should kana be given for all names?

Vote tally: 1/8

Support
  1. Helpful to people who know kana better than romaji, especially those from third countries (neither English speaking nor Japanese speaking). Also many Japanese, especially "idols", pop stars, etc use unusual kana in their name, e.g. wo instead of o, or katakana when hiragana would be expected. If the kana aren't included, the reader won't be sure that the regular spelling is correct. Kappa 17:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Seems superfluous if romaji are given. —Tkinias 20:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Redundant in both English and Japanese if formal romaji are given. --Korath会話 21:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Western, plus kanji, plus romaji is already getting clunky. Noel (talk)
  4. Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary ... if you want to learn kana there are much better resources out there! CES 03:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Agreed with above. --Golbez 04:08, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Reasons above. WhisperToMe 04:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Me too. Jpatokal 07:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Use kana only in those situations where they are normally used (Westerners who have become Japanese citizens, for example, will often have their name in kana). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Then why have a name table on Korean names? Plus having Hanja column as well? Better tear down the nonsense of having name tables anyway, tearing down Japanese name-tables, better to tear down name tables, everything! everything! No Kanji, no romaji, no McCune Reischauer, Revised Romanization, Hangul and Hanja! Rubbish in that sense!
    • Chan, just vote in favor if you disagree =/ - And don't go tearin' down Korean name tables if this vote goes against your favor, or an admin might block you from editing temporairly. WhisperToMe 17:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I missed this entire debate. Here's a good resource for hiragana: the Japanese Wikipedia. There, they give the names in kanji, and provide hiragana as a pronunciation guide and as a search tool for people who don't know the kanji. That's important, because if a Japanese person hears the name, he or she knows the kana, but there might be dozens of possibilities for the kanji, so knowing kana isn't enough to get the article title correct. A search is necessary. There's no such need for users of the English WP where the article titles are in romaji. So no point in putting hiragana along with kanji in the articles. Fg2 10:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of names

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 have three objections to using all capitals for signifying last names. First of all, although it is fairly common in academic literature (for example, the first mention of a Chinese author's name in a scientific article), and it is used occasionally elsewhere (it's used in some of the public CIA reports for politician's names), the use of all caps for last names is very rare in English. That means that it would requre some sort of explanation (footnotes, linking to an explanation article, etc.), just as any other method of explaining name order for cultures that do not use the European Given Name-Surname order (China, Japan, Korea, Arabic contries, Hungary, etc.).
My second objection is that using all caps for last names is just plain UGLY!
Finally, there are many cases where a person is primarily known by their first name (such as the haiku poet Bashō. I think that it is wrong to place such an undue emphasis on their last name in those cases (e.g. MATSUO Bashō). In most cases, we really don't even need to know which name is the surname or family name, and which is name is the given name, although it is nice to know. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wards of Cities

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)

Note that the 23 special wards (mostly) follow the WARD, PREFECTURE style, although one could argue that these are, well, special. The 5 NY boroughs are simply the borough name (e.g. Brooklyn), which I think is a bad example. Whichever one we standardize on, we should create redirects for the "-ku" form (probably both "WARD-ku" and "WARD-ku, CITY"). I think I like WARD, CITY (without the word "Ward"). -- Rick Block 15:11, 17 Feb 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)

I should clarify that I'm only proposing the change for wards of cities. Tokyo is not a city, so my proposal does not cover the 23 special wards since being like cities they should remain as they are, e.g. Shinagawa, Tokyo (in my opinion). How many articles on ordinary wards are there? A lot, yes, but not so very many. Twenty-seven, by my count. I counted the ones in blue in Wards of Japan. Blue means that their article already exists. I omitted the ones in Tokyo, For comparison, see Arrondissements of Paris, which names the wards in French, and numbers them in French. For example, instead of "First arrondissement" the article title is "Ier arrondissement." This, in the English Wikipedia. The word "ku" must seem as odd to those who don't speak Japanese as "Ier" does to people who don't speak French. (And "arrondissement" is also not English...) Fg2 07:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
All I can say is thank goodness for redirect pages, otherwise I for one don't think I could look up an arrondissement without one, given the naming system they're using. I'd never heard of "special wards" until reading this discussion, and after reading up on them on the Japanese wiki page, I agree that the special wards of Tokyo should be left alone. Only in Japan could you have wards that are not wards! It conforms with common English usage too, I rarely hear people refer to Shibuya Ward or Shibuya City--just "Shibuya". CES 13:38, 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)

Re: Google results - I think it's because that's how most people write Japanese addreses in English. I've never really seen anyone write the word "Ward" in English addresses on postal mail and meishi. Writing -ku is just shorter and simpler. It also tells us that it's not a -shi or -gun. In the case of Tokyo though, the 23 wards are so well-known that we don't need to write -ku as long as we write "Tokyo" after it. So people may tend to leave out -ku. Photojpn.org 01:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naming order redux

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)


Tessaiga/Tetsusaiga, re-visited

Hi all, I believe it is time to restart this topic.

As InuYasha's anime version gets more popular, people will start noticing that what is represented on wikipedia is actually not what they hear on Television or the fan-stubbed versions.

As discussed way above, the views from the current wiki community (at least the editors involved in Japan related articles) are mixed, and a definite conclusion was not reached.

Last week I had a brief discussion with User: JoshG, it started after I reverted User: WhisperToMe's edits of changing Tessaiga into Tetsusaiga on Sesshomaru's page.

My reasons for restarting this topic was that, Tetsusaiga sounds nothing like Tessaiga, and the fact that Viz acknowledges this problem, but only sticked to the oringinal translation to stay consistent. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should strive to stay both consistent AND correct.

Personally, I think as far as pronouciation of the word goes, Tessaiga will be the accepted word. However, currently every page that have a Tessaiga also has a Tetsusaiga in brackets or vice versa, and I think it is a good idea that we get rid of the contents in brackets altogether and use only Tessaiga.

Your comments are greatly requested and appreciated. LG-犬夜叉 07:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, "Tetsusaiga" is correct in that the English-language versions of the anime use it. It may have been a translation goof but Viz decided not to fix it. Also we already acknowledge that "Tessaiga" is the correct romanization. WhisperToMe 07:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. However I am proposing that wiki use Tessaiga instead of Tetsusaiga, and only mention Tetsusaiga on the page about the sword itself. Right now there are more Tetsusaiga than Tessaiga, and this could lead to confusion. LG-犬夜叉 08:05, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The current state of mixed usages on every page seems cluttered and may be confusing to some readers, and if we are going to be consistant (as an encyclopedia should), we might as well use the correct romanization. Of course, the different usages should be discussed in the sword's article, which should be linked at least once from every article that discusses it anyway. Josh 08:33, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I am torn with this one. I remember I voted to keep this "Tetsusaiga" before due to its use in the "Official Translation", but I am amenable to the use of "Tessaiga" as well because it is the proper transliteration. If anything, I believe it is important that any new objects/characters that come after this point be using the proper transliterations (e.g. Dakki), but I really am not sure about whether to use romanized or "Viz" translations. I surmise that it is much better to err on the side of the proper romanization, but this is not hard and fast. -- EmperorBMA|話す 09:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • One more note, you may want to visit the result of this decision upon Ryukotsusei if it is still using that spelling. -- EmperorBMA|話す 09:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
well, i just spent the last 40 minutes notifying 15 people about this...I hope they have something to say. LG-犬夜叉 09:45, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • With you all the way. My feeling was always that the whole purpose of Romanizing Japanese was so that it would be clearer, not more difficult. -Litefantastic 17:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We should go "Tetsusaiga" all the way then if there actually is mixed usage I am unaware of. It appears someone is reverting changes to the English name and I didn't find out about the reverts. However, if it simply refers to (correctly Tessaiga) strings in InuYasha articles, then I am for that. WhisperToMe 17:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who did it. I was not aware of the discussion earlier. However, it was rather inconclusive and only involved 3 participants.

Uhm, there's a reason why that seemingly inconclusive discussion stopped. If you read the manual of style: "The en:Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia. An English loan word or place name with a Japanese origin should be used in its most commonly used English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese: use Mount Fuji, Tokyo, jiu jitsu, shogi, instead of Fujisan, Tōkyō, jūjutsu, shōgi. Give the romanized Japanese form in the opening paragraph if it differs from the English form (see below)." -

the san in Fujisan means mountain, so you'd have a san after every Japanese mountain, that is just a convention in their language, as is in English the word mount appears before each individual peaks. Tokyo, really if you were to add the accents on top of the o and have Tōkyō, people will still read it as Tokyo because they don't know Japanese accents. As for the other two examples you provided, I don't know anything about them.
I'm just saying that due to the complexity of romanizing Oriental languages into English, it's impossible to have one rule to govern all possible cases. LG-犬夜叉 01:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if this vote can count because of that clause in the manual of style. WhisperToMe 00:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it's the policy, then I guess it may not count. However, I do question the popularity of Tetsusaiga over Tessaiga. LG-犬夜叉 01:02, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Wow you are not going to believe what I found out by searching Tessaiga on Yahoo.
This first link out of 17,2000 gives you an exact copy of the contents of Tetsusaiga found on Wikipedia. -___-
There are 33,600 returns for Tetsusaiga, though this proves little as most are from fan sites that haven't been updated in a while. More to come later. LG-犬夜叉 01:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)


I'll add google hits as another piece of evidence:

Also, I made a thread on Animerica (http://www.animerica-mag.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=730&post_id=17471&order=0&viewmode=flat&pid=0&forum=14#forumpost17471) to get Viz editors to help clear this up. WhisperToMe 05:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not all of the fansites that use "Tetsusaiga" haven't been updated in awhile. The TV version of InuYasha is very popular in the United States and many Anglophones copy off of the usage of "Tetsusaiga" in the TV series. The manga also uses "Tetsusaiga". WhisperToMe 01:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Be it against the general wiki policy or not, I think it's more important to stay consistent and clear rather than clumsy. Currently the format is that both names appear on the same pages with mostly Tessaiga noted as the correct romanization in brackets. I believe it is tedious and unprofessional to have that noted on every page.
Let's just go ahead with the votes and see what happens. LG-犬夜叉 02:58, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the English language manga or anime of Inuyasha, could someone confirm for me that the manga uses the spelling "Tetsusaiga" and that the anime pronounces it "Tetsusaiga" (ie are they consistent with each other at least, even if not with the original Japanese?). That will help me in my voting. CES 19:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both the English-language manga and anime use "Tetsusaiga". WhisperToMe 23:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks CES 23:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you were asking whether "the anime pronouncese it "Tetsusaiga" ", I can assure you that they pronounce it exactly like how the original Jap version does: Tes-sai-ga, aka Tessaiga. LG-犬夜叉 00:34, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I personally think the EN anime pronounces it as teTsaiga, with the u as silent. I could be wrong, though. WhisperToMe 02:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposal, restated

I would like to restate this proposal and have a vote on it. It would be best if each vote can be justified with some reasoning as to why you support that vote.

  • Proposal: The usages of the two forms of spelling for the sword from the anime InuYasha appears simultaneously on most pages involving the sword, which could very well lead to confusion and have readers wonder why sometime one is used and not the other. For the purpose of clarification, consistency and correction, a policy should be reached so that wiki remains consistent in its publications. LG-犬夜叉 00:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Votes in favor of Tetsusaiga

This vote is for dropping the usage of Tessaiga and only mention it on the page about the sword.

  1. WhisperToMe 00:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) - We should be descriptive, not proscriptive. Anglophones will be most familiar with "Tetsusaiga" and will expect to see "Tetsusaiga". And as for "correctness", it is correct that the English version uses that name. Viz decided not to correct the romanization "error".
  2. I think this is a case where we should go by common English usage, even though it is an incorrect translation of a Japanese word. I don't like it much, but if both the English manga and anime use "Tetsusaiga" then it seems as if Wikipedia is not in a position to change that and should describe rather than prescribe the spelling in use. CES 23:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Votes in favor of Tessaiga

This vote is for dropping the usage of Tetsusaiga and only mention it on the page about the sword.

  1. Tessaiga sounds exactly like how the word is actually pronounced; It is the correct romanization after they realize the mistake; LG-犬夜叉 00:25, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fully agree with LegolasGreenleaf. No point in propagating mistakes. Cohen the Bavarian 00:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the previous comments. Although last time I could not tell, I am now sure that "Tessaiga" sounds more like how the word is pronounced. Josh 04:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. It's the correct Hepburn romanization and they unambiguously say "Tessaiga" on the show. Any confusion users might have can be fixed with a redirect and a brief explanation in the Tessaiga article. I don't think there's a need to use anything other than "Tessaiga" in other articles, it would just clutter things up and the context will make what's being talked about painfully obvious to anyone used to "Tetsusaiga" (and they can just click on the link to the main article). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 01:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the Japanese show or the English show? WhisperToMe 03:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Go for the correct Hepburn. The amount of digital ink spilled over this nonexistent object is just mindboggling... Jpatokal 03:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But the English language-show and manga related pages clearly say "Tetsusaiga". Despite the fact it was a translation error, Viz kept on using it. Isn't EN supposed to use the most common form of a name even if it is known in Japan as something different? WhisperToMe 03:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You're first going to have to convince me that there is such a thing as a English-language "common form" for an overgrown butterknife in an obscure kids' cartoon. The exception is intended for the kind of enshrined spelling you can find in dictionaries, eg. typhoon for 台風 taifū. Jpatokal 14:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • As if we never debate obscure things here on Wikipedia =) I thought the same thing as you at first, but the problem is that we are making the type of dictionary that things are enshrined in (at least until they're edited out!). Although this is a relatively limited example, there are some valid points being debated that will have an impact on future issues: how "valid" is an official translation in determining accuracy, when does a translation trump the original work in terms of importance to the English language, not to mention the good ol' question of what exactly is "common usage". CES 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • IMHO all your arguments simply tilt the equation further in favor of Hepburn. Why should we propagate somebody else's typo? And I would hardly canonize work contracted out to another company as "official". Jpatokal 06:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • That other company (Viz) is 50% owned by Shogakukan, and in addition to that, ShoPro is going to merge with Viz, and ShoPro (who has the master license for the InuYasha anime) is an organ of Shogakukan. US manga publishers frequently work with the Japanese companies on U.S. distribution. That, and if Viz was really concerned about the spelling, they would have changed it from "Tetsusaiga" to "Tessaiga" long ago. The reason the "Tetsusaiga" spelling should be propogated is because it is "the spelling" in all official English-language versions of InuYasha. Therefore, that spelling would be best as a general reference for the English-language audience. WhisperToMe 06:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Undecided

Since one user mentioned that it is rather difficult to choose, I suppose this vote is legit.

Other

  1. I chose the second option, but the first use of "Tessaiga" in an article should have a short explanation in parentesis. Reub2000 03:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote results

The original vote question didn't specify a closing time (d'oh), but it's been running for a week now and the results are pretty clear: 5 for "Tessaiga", 1 for "Tessaiga (Tetsusaiga)" and 2 for "Tetsusaiga". So Tessaiga it is.

As a corollary more important that this particular word, I'd like add the following disclaimer to the end of the aforementioned policy: Japanese words and concepts not adopted into English as loanwords should use the Hepburn form as outlined below. Jpatokal 13:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it's 5-2-1, unless that "Other" vote is disqualified. WhisperToMe 18:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh I didn't know a vote was supposed to have a time limit...ya that should have made more sense. HOwever I also notified more than 15 people about this, and about half haven't had any wiki activity for certain amount of times.
  • that Other vote is basically for Tessaiga.
  • I think it's pretty clear how the public opinion is on this issue: drop the mistakenly translated version and use the correct one. However that other vote has a good point as to include a short note at the FIRST mention of the sword and subsequently use a consistent form.
  • So can I assume that this is settled and we are going to go with Tessaiga? LG-犬夜叉 22:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • If we go with the "who is for which dominant spelling" logic, Tessaiga would win, but how that spelling would be handled would have to go in a runoff, because the "Tessaiga, no mention of Tetsusaiga except in the article" has a 62% piece of the entire poll pie, which is less than 66% (2/3). If we go with the "whichever options have the most votes" logic, it would be a runoff between "Tetsusaiga" and "Tessaiga", both with "no mention of the other spelling". WhisperToMe 23:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Why do you insist on some error? Read too much of those manga? I haven't read any english verions of ANY jap mangas and honestly, I don't look forward to reading them either.
Anyways, I have a perfect example to "convince" you, if that will ever happen:
  • check out Middle-earth, and noticed how it is spelt: Middle-earth, not Middle Earth, nor Middle-Earth, two forms of a few which are used by many, MANY casual fans and popular media instead of the correct one by it's author.
So ya, they did not go with the most popular spelling, but the correct spelling. This is not about popularity, but the accuracy and credibility of the information shown on wiki. LG-犬夜叉 04:46, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Since this is English, "Middle-earth" is the way to go. If there are any languages which have official productions where it is spelt "Middle earth", "Middle earth" is the way to go in those languages. Just because it is different from the original doesn't invalidate the spelling, even if it originally came by mistake. Tetsusaiga is accurate in relation to the English version (which is sanctioned by the company that produces InuYasha in Japan). Tessaiga is accurate in relation to the Japanese version (and therefore Tetsusaiga would be incorrect when talking about the Japanese version). In other words: both are "correct" (Tetsusaiga "correct" in the English version, and Tessaiga "correct" in the Japanese version). Tessaiga is more relevant to the languages that have adaptations that use "Tessaiga", and Tetsusaiga is more relevant to English. WhisperToMe 06:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Middle Earth, Middle-earth, and Middle-Earth are just variations on capatalization on hyphenization, and pronounced the same. Tetsuaiga and Tessaiga are pronounced diffrently. Reub2000 07:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles&oldid=10855526"