Talk:List of Japanese writers

Is breaking up the page really necessary? I thought it was fine as is... if your browser can't read pages over 32k then UPGRADE IT. -- Goatasaur

Not because of my browser, but because of my conjucted internet connection and as-always slow wikipedia server. Remember it is not a good idea to have a long article, which takes long time to download too as does in my PC. Not everyone has a broadband connection, though mime is a broadband in college campus. -- Taku 02:17 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Good point Taku. If you want me to split the list of Japanese authors page, sing out - but you will have to fix all the links it breaks! Tannin

Oh, actually I realized I don't how to be able to submit but need only to read.I am breaking up List of Japanese authors (which is awfully long. Yeah, I know I made such a list.). Anyway it is a good idea to check what I am editing. I may break articles without notice. -- Taku 02:14 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with making a bunch of split articles. If I am interested in browsing a list of Japanese authors, the act of clicking on a bunch of links to go back and forth is going to be very tiresome. I think the original list should stay, maybe with a link to another list that is split. Either way, keeping only the split articles will make browsing a tedious exercise. -- Goatasaur

I prefer the long list but the practical matters make me impossible to add a new entry. And likely it is not all me. We can't make a decision only based on our preference. -- Taku 02:22 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you are doing now? -- Goatasaur

Huh? are you saying, I prefer a long list but I can't edit it then I should refrain myself from contributing to wikipedia. I am not sure what you mean -- Taku 02:37 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Goatasaur, you may be shocked to hear this, but the principal point of having a site as a wiki is so that people can edit it. If a great many people are unable to edit pages because of their length, that is a serious problem. Therefore, it is preferable to reduce the length of pages as a simple technical matter that enables participation.

More generally, shorter pages are usually easier to navigate, easier to edit, and faster to download, and are to be generally encouraged on these bases as a boon to our readers. --Brion 02:40 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Goatasaur, I'm not sure that I like the split-up list myself. But then I'm on cable here at home and at work too, so it's easy for me to say that. The way I look at it though, is that if it wasn't for Taku's work we wouldn't have the list in the first place, and as a general rule it is usually both sensible and courteous, where one contributor has done the vast majority of the work on a subject, for the rest of us to stand back and not joggle his elbow. Tannin

Understood. Again, I have accessed Wikipedia on dial-up on many occasions without a problem. I do see most of the work has been done and it's not something I'm going to be using any great deal, so I retract my argument. -- Goatasaur

I'm confused as to how this list is organized. It appears that the authors are each listed family-name first, as they would be in Japan, but 1) this is not stated, which makes it confusing for readers and editors, and 2) it leads to links breaking where there are existing Wikipedia entries. For instance, Kenzaburo Oe is listed under O as Oe Kenzaburo. However, Oe has a Wikipedia entry under Kenzaburo Oe. I would like to rework this section to be given name first, family name last, to bring it into harmony with the rest of the wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot tell for most entries which order they are in and further suspect there is some mixing if any non-Japanese editors have contributed. --Zippy 01:21, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Kenzaburo Oe's example, the article should be named Oe Kenzaburo. And I oppose to change the order because even in English writting community, the order family name is followed by the given name seems common. It is the proper order anyway. -- Taku

I defer to your opinions of name order within Japan, but in my business dealings it is becoming uncommon for a Japanese person's western-style business card to list the family name first. Further, the names of many Japanese authors are, in the west, listed family name last. For examples of how Japanese author names are listed in the West, see [Amazon.com], specifically Kenzaburo Oe on Amazon and Ryunosuke Akutagawa on Amazon. Whichever method used, and I am for family name last for consistency, it should be described on the Japanese author pages so that all readers understand which convention is in use. --Zippy 02:17, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am sure in the scene of bussiness or news. What is unforunate to us is that we haven't yet come up with a consistent convention. You can find many confusion about Utada Hikaru or Ayumi Hamasaki in Music of Japan. I think this issuie is unsolvable. -- Taku 02:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)