Talk:Japanese units of measurement

Intitial info source

This is from the German Wikipedia (that's why there're bits of German in it). This should be useful. This might be also. Jimp 23&26Oct05

Merger of shaku and koku to here

• Keep both. These are the most-familiar (in English, anyway) Japanese units of length and volume, and unlike many of the historical measurements around the world, these were used well into the 20th century. In addition, merging them will lose the interwiki links. Any other length units can redirect to the shaku, etc.Gene Nygaard 13:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but a lot of the material in the shaku article should be moved here, since it concerns the units in general rather than just the shaku unit. The koku page can stay as it is I think. The Germans have a page for each unit, which is not unreasonable. By the way, whoever suggested the merge, it would be nice if you would sign in with a user name. --DannyWilde 13:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I should note that User:Jimp did so on the Talk:Shaku and Talk:Koku pages but I added a note there to continue the discussion here, which is also the page linked to for discussion in the tags added to both articles. I didn't know if I should move his comments or not; he didn't actually make any arguments at that time, just posed the question of whether they should be moved, so I'd rather invite him to stick in a short statement of why it was proposed here, at the top of this section. Gene Nygaard 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep both. As long as a unit has a non-trivial history or interesting explanation of how it came into existence, how it's maintained, etc. and it's not an obvious derivative of another unit then I think it warrants its own article. Both shaku and koku fit this criteria. To contrast, centimetre is an obvious derivative of metre, so its own article is not justified. --Ds13 19:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: No, I made no arguments. Here's my only argument: consolidation. Both Koku and Shaku are quite short and not likely to grow much. Put everything together and you'll have a decent size article. No, it's not much of an argument that's why I just put the question. On the other hand, there are good reasons not to move them as you've mentioned above. I think I'll remove the tags. Yeah, and sorry for not logging in. I really should do and also should have done when I started this article. Jimp 26Oct05

Romanisation

It's Wikipedia's policy to use Hepburn Romanisation however, this system has a serious defect viz. it maps different kana onto the same sequence of letters. To overcome this, I'm adding hiragana to the words in question. Jimp 26Oct05

Also, should we have "momme" as the German & Japanese Wiki has or should we have "monme" as per Wiki sytle manual? Jimp 27Oct05

"Momme" (double-m) is correct according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words of Japanese origin. It's in authoritative English dictionaries with the double-m spelling. See M-W and OED. Fg2 02:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Fractions

From the Japanese version of this page.

• 分 -- 10分の1
• 厘 -- 100分の1
• 毛（毫） -- 1000分の1
• 糸 -- 1000分の1

translated

Submultiples
bu (分)	1/10
rin (厘)	1/100
mou (毛, 毫)	1/1,000
shi (糸)	1/10,000

Jimp 26Oct05

I edited these into the usual English fraction format. It's easier to read. --DannyWilde 07:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Official date of metrification

, and use of the old units for official purposes was forbidden after 31st March 1966

I deleted this sentence fragment. The recent census (Oct 2005) asked people to describe their home size in square metres or tsubo, which is clearly a use of traditional units for official purposes. Rhialto 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete things in this way. If you have something to add to the article, add it, but don't start destroying stuff like this. It's possible that the census asked people for this value, and then converted into metres, but it is very unlikely that the units are produced or used by any official body. The statement above is correct and has been reverted. --DannyWilde 00:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The words were produced and used by the Japanese government itself, which is about as official as any usage can get. if an encyclopedia contains incorrect information, is it right that the incorrect information should be left in? Do you have a cite which shows that traditional units were absolutely banned? Because tsubo were very definitely in that census. Rhialto 00:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

They were allowed as a means of input in that census. That is different from producing them. The information that these units are no longer officially allowed (produced) is correct; the date is correct; the article was correct, and you removed correct information from it. Please, do not do that. --DannyWilde 00:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can produce a cite, all you have done is convince me that Wikipedia is no longer an authoritive encyclopedia that can be relied on for correct information, as my own experience of that census directly contradicts that dating. Rhialto 00:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As per the cite page, I have removed the disputed information, and placed it in the discussion page. I hope that a source for this information can be found, but until then, the style manual is clear that it should be placed in the discussion page, and not the main article. Rhialto 01:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese law on measurement is easily to be found online, and if you can read Japanese, you will easily be able to confirm that it clearly states that the only official system of measurement in Japan is the metric one. If you cannot read it, I'll be glad to quote and translate the relevant passages from it for you here. I have added a reference at the bottom of the main page. Details of the revisions of the Japanese laws are also found on the Japanese Wikipedia. --DannyWilde 07:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could highlight the relevant section of that page. My japanese is not as good as yours. Rhialto 10:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Length of a jou

I had been maintaining another page relating to weights and measures here. For length units, I noted a jou as being 12 shaku, not 10, and with correspondingly larger values for teh two higher units on that scale. I cited my source as New Nelson Kanji Dictionary, p1268. Unfortunately, I no longer have that book, so I can't double check. It seems unlikely that such an authoritive book would intentionally produce an error though. Is it possible that they were referring to the standards from a periof period to that noted in this article? Rhialto 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not specially convinced about the Nelson kanji dictionary. I think it was only authoritative by default when there were no other comparable works. The Japanese Wikipedia and several other web pages [1] all give ten for the multiple. (The "no" kana in the search string is to eliminate Chinese language pages.) The Kojien dictionary also gives only ten. --DannyWilde 07:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Which of the several other web pages were you thinking of? The first one listed was a discussion of Chinese units, not Japanese, and the next 2 were broken links, followed by the Japanese wikipedia article and a newspaper article about the size of priests' rooms. Given the nature of wikipedia, I don't think it's a terribly good idea to regard another wikipedia article as being an authoritative reference. Your method of pointing others to vast amounts of Japanese text, only a small part of which is relevant, comes across as a way of boasting how much better your Japanese language skills are. If you want to cite an article to back your views, by all means cite one that is relevant. But that link admirably demonstrates the weakness inherent in relying on a search engine. By teh logic you used, any search for weights and measures in the English language would only ever find English language units, which plainly isn't true by virtue of this discussion we are having. Rhialto 12:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope the kojien dictionary provides enough evidence without the web links. --DannyWilde 12:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you find it at all curious that the two dictionaries differ though? Why don't you take that dictionary cite I noted as being from a serious scholarly work anyway? Rhialto 12:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just checked the old edition of Nelson & it just says "jo 10 feet". It doesn't say anything about "shaku". My above comments were actually directed at old Nelson. Looking back I see that you mention New Nelson; excuse me for the error. Anyway, why don't you get a hold of the book and check that it does say "12 shaku" before going any further with this discussion? The web page reference you've just added to the page says "10 shaku" as well, doesn't it? --DannyWilde 12:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love nothing more than to check that dictioanry. Unfortunately, my copy is currently a few thousand miles away. I was hoping that someone who does have this book could check. At this stage, I'm even willing to entertain the idea that it was a transcription error on my part, which is why I haven't made any change in the article on this issue. Rhialto 12:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in your web page. --DannyWilde 08:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I never asked you to take any interest in my web page. But I did ask you to take an interest in a respected reference work that cites a different value from that mentioned in this wiki. Rhialto 14:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Since it's a matter of such burning importance to you, I'll take a look at a copy and check whether it says "twelve" or not next time I'm near one. However, the fact that no one else says "twelve", including one of the most widely respected Japanese dictionaries, should make you start to wonder, shouldn't it? What will you do if New Nelson doesn't say "twelve" and your web page turns out to be wrong? Commit seppuku, perhaps? --DannyWilde 14:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This attitude of yours is entirely unwarranted, and makes it almost impossible to take you seriously. Rhialto 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. --DannyWilde 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how suggesting that I kill myself if proved wrong is not a blatant attempt at trollery? Rhialto 01:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not suggested that you kill yourself. --DannyWilde 02:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Howe do you feel about submitting this dispute for mediation? I feel very strongly about people suggesting I kill myself, or, as you phrased it, commit seppuku. Rhialto 03:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have not suggested that you kill yourself, so there is nothing to submit to mediation. --DannyWilde 03:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, there's some pretty harsh arguing here. I hope there was no thought that someone was actually requesting someone else commit suicide. It just seems like a reference to a Japanese custom overblown by westerners in a sad attempt to make a comment Japanese.

For what it's worth, I found no fault with the values in the article although it's been years since I learned this stuff. I asked my fiancèe and an instructor of history with whom I work and they both agree that there are no faults (at least with the tables, which is all they can read). Smoove K 06:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in verifying the table. --DannyWilde 07:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hiragana

Why has the hiragana been removed from the article? As I've mentioned above the Hepburn system of Romanisation maps different kana onto the same sequence of letters. That's why I started putting hiragana in in the first place. The link to the Nihingo help page hardly overcomes this. Jimp 2Nov05

If that was your reason for adding the kana, you were incorrect, since none of the romanizations on the page was ambiguous. --DannyWilde 08:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm actually quite surprised that no one has made a plugin yet to take advantage of modern browesers' ablity to display furigana (through the 'ruby' html tag) properly. That would solve the problem almost entirely. Rhialto 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Solve what problem? --DannyWilde 08:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so. "Jō", for example, could be "ぢょお", "ぢょう", "じょお" or "じょう". Jimp 5Nov05

Fair enough, you're right, it could be any of those, but the default assumption would be じょう. If it was one of the others, it might be worth adding the hiragana, but in this case the default assumption is correct. In general, Wikipedia doesn't add hiragana. It's not necessary. The kanji version of the unit is certainly necessary to disambiguate, but as for the kana, I don't see why it's necessary. --DannyWilde 09:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, not necessary but I think it would be helpful to someone interested in Japanese. Ambiguous romanisations of Japanese have been on my nerves ever since I started learning the language. The best thing for a learner of Japanese is to write the pronunciation of any new words he learns in kana and avoid Roman letters as much as possible. The is the approach I take. It's made difficult when you have to guess the correct kana. You could always make the defult assumption but there'll be time when you're wrong. There's nothing to tell you when you're going to be correct or not making this assumption. Nothing in most dictionaries nothing here at Wikipedia. But I should take this argument to its appropriate place. Jimp 11Dec05

Table format

I've tried to make the tables look better with centred first column and italics. I'm not really sure I've succeeded though; any other opinions? --DannyWilde 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Litre

I've noticed that "ml" and "l" have been changed to "mL" and "L". I wonder why. Both are correct. Jimp 21Nov05

I have reverted it & also, for consistancy, used the spelling litre. Jimp 23Nov05

Fixed. The SI permits both forms, but there's no reason to use a letter easily confounded with an I when it's completely unnecessary. — LlywelynII 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In contexts where it could be confused, SI permits a capital L, but recommends lowercase l where no risk of ambiguity presents itself. In the context of these data tables, there really isn't any risk of ambiguity. Rhialto (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be true and, since ambiguity between l and I always presents itself, I don't think there's anything gained by retaining it. Is this an ENGVAR issue? — LlywelynII 17:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede any point about preference for l vs. L, as it is not clearly addressed in any common style guides. It must be something specific to my past workplaces. Rhialto (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

edits by CiudadanoGlobal

mostly undid by me.

• no such unit as a "double yard"
• the fathom has multiple definitions, and even among users of traditional anglo-saxon units it is unfamiliar, so revert to yards for conversion table.

Rhialto 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Conversion Programs?

Has anyone written a program that can covert to and from Japanese units? It would be really helpful. Hill of Beans (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Most general unit conversion programs include Japanese units. I am not aware of any that specifically do just Japanese (and metric/imperial), since all of them seem to cover pretty much everything, and there wouldn't be any market for a more limited converter. Check out the lists at the bottom of the conversion of units page. Rhialto (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a template to use on Wikipedia, {{convert}} can handle tsubo. Other units can be added easily enough, just ask. Jɪmp 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Shōsōin in Nara

According to the article.

The Shōsōin in Nara has an ivory one-shaku ruler, the kōgebachiru-no-shaku (紅牙撥鏤尺).

The following hidden comments pertaining to the above have been moved from the article.

Can this comment be expanded a little to say what the significance of this ruler is? I'm not sure what to do with this at the moment.

My guess is it's analogous to the one-meter ruler kept in Paris as a reference

I'd guess the same. Don't think it's necessary to do anything. Actually, I started the article on Shosoin, and when I saw in the Japanese Wikipedia that one of the treasures was a ruler with a name, I immediately thought of this article, which was frequently being edited at the time. Fg2

Jɪmp 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See them. 甲 and 乙. Oda Mari (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added them to the article. Oda Mari (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jɪmp 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

those 1804 ml

This comment under volume is confusing: The shō (about 64.827 cubic sun) is a common sake-bottle size (generally labelled as 1800 ml).

What is meant by the term "generally"? Either the bottle is filled to 1800 mL or it isn't? Is the 1800 mL the legal fill and thus the primary measurement or does other units appear on the bottle and 1800 mL is the supplemental unit? Can someone show a close-up of the label to see what is shown? 68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This comment under volume is confusing: The shō (about 64.827 cubic sun) is a common sake-bottle size (generally labelled as 1800 ml).

What is meant by the term "generally"? Either the bottle is filled to 1800 mL or it isn't? Is the 1800 mL the legal fill and thus the primary measurement or does other units appear on the bottle and 1800 mL is the supplemental unit? Can someone show a close-up of the label to see what is shown? 68.105.199.216 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I answered my own question. The bottle is filled to a rounded 1800 mL and the old size is not mentioned on the labels, just like US alcohol bottles are 750 mL and any reference to the pre-1979 sizes doesn't exist. http://www.nrib.go.jp/sake/pdf/nlziten_e.pdf 68.105.199.216 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Census

This statement is in the body of the article: The 2005 Japanese census freed people to give the area of their houses in either square metres or tsubo.

Can someone explain in details how a census is used to codify units of measures into law? Does the comment imply the tsubo is now a legal unit of area for all area measurements in Japan or does it only imply that the word tsubo was allowed be used to describe area in the 2005 census only? What is the legal status of the tsubo in Japanese law outside the census? 68.105.199.216 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a pattern

Is there a pattern: I have noticed that the fractionate number is $7^{4}:11^{3}$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this comment is asking about the metric conversion of the shō. Yeah: 2401 is 7⁴ and 1331 is 11³. That is odd. It's a volume measure, so it'd make more sense to be something involving a multiple of 10³/33³. — LlywelynII 19:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Momme

I restored the "momme" spelling because it is the standard unit of measure used by most pearl dealers. See Pearl#Momme weight, [2], [3], [4], and [5]. So it should be momme, not monme. Oda Mari (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if the table category is "romanization" (i.e., romaji) then we should leave the actual spelling.
Several of these units have more common English names (catty for jin, candareen for fun, &c.) The problem is that most don't, so it's a little awkward to leave in a whole column for English names. — LlywelynII 17:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Struck-through. Apparently, there is no single formal system advocated by the Japanese government and the MOS. Both momme and monme are forms of Hepburn; the former is more common and closer to the pronunciation but the latter is part of the more modern system. We can just keep both and add a gloss. — LlywelynII 19:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Too much number salad

Adding fractional values for everything, while its unarguably precise, is also number salad. The contexts in which these units are used or have been used historically, and the measuring tools used in such contexts, mean that this level of precision is not useful for anyone. It is also a level of precision that is not normally accessible with most hand-held calculators (most of which only handle up to 10 digits; those that handle fractions as vulgar fractions specifically tend to handle only 2 digits at most in each of the numerator and denominator). Given the esoteric usefulness of such listings, I propose that this page should revert back to listing unit conversions to four significant figures only (or four decimal places, whichever is more aesthetically pleasing), and where a precise conversion is preset in official documents, list that in either a hatnote or a footnote. Rhialto (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

They're not "fractional values". They're the exact conversions. It's a disservice to our readers to remove them for no basis besides aesthetics from one of the internet's few reference pages on this topic. — LlywelynII 17:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say that providing such a high level of precision is a disservice to readers, because it creates a misleading belief that thing weighed or measured using these traditional units were actually weighed or measured to that degree of precision. Given the measuring tools available at the time these units were in common use, it is too many significant figures. For anyone who is interested in such a degree of precision, the official definitions of the main unit for each type of measurement provide all the source data needed. These people will typically have access to the scientific calculators and/or spreadsheets needed to calculate these fractions.For people trying to read it as text to be processed mentally rather than fed into a computer, fractions involving nine-digit numerators and nine-digit denominators cannot be easily processed without electronic aid. That's why I call it number salad. I suppose a better way to express it is that the article should follow the principle of least astonishment. I can't recall the last time I saw vulgar fractions involving more than six digits total that didn't involve a single-digit numerator. Searching around formal style guides, all I can find is an indirect reference from grammar girl. According to this, Chicago says convert it to decimal, while Associated Press says write it out in words, unless you are using lots of fractions, in which case consider using decimals rather than words. However, I lack subscriptions to access the original text of these style guides.

(Aside: I suppose I should have called them vulgar fractions, which is their proper name, but I wanted to avoid any accusation of denigrating them by suggesting they were some form of vulgarity. It's hard to tell how people react to technically correct but obscure terms these days.) Rhialto (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I already used Wolfram Alpha to ensure that the fractions are in their most possible reduced form. All of the units are exact ratios under the International Foot and Pound Agreement but their decimals are occasionally nonterminating or too long for preference against the fractional form. — LlywelynII 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't ploughed through all the references, but this is the English Wikipedia. I would expect people who speak English but not Japanese to come here to learn about Japanese units. For purposes of converting a measurement carried out in the 19th century to SI, four significant figures would almost always be sufficient. However, a programmer writing a conversion program might want exact figures so the software does not become a source of errors. A person trying to learn about the relationship among the various traditional Japanese units may need to make several successive conversion; by having the values as vulgar fractions, common factors can be eliminated and a simple relationship might be apparent that could be obscured when working with decimals to four significant figures.

If the official definitions are available online and are in English, I think it would be sufficient to refer to them. But if they are offline or in Japanese, I think it would be better to provide the exact conversions in this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, here is the 1954 original legal text (or at least, I would suppose it is; it claims to be). I haven't yet found an original text of the 1891 law. The sci.lan.japanese faq lists precise unit conversions, including vulgar fractions for the prototypical length, weight, and volume units, but unfortunately Ben Bullock hasn't made his sources clear. I'm not sure why the link was removed from the link list at the bottom of the wikipedia article; it is relevant. I will carry on searching for better sources for the 1891 law, but that slj faq foes at least demonstrate that information suitale for those wanting to make precise calculators already exists in English. Rhialto (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from Mr Bullock's page not providing exact conversions to English units, it's obviously cribbed from this article and hardly a separate source. The linked law is interesting and should be used or linked from the article but is in Japanese and seems to similarly provide no exact conversion to English units. — LlywelynII 04:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I can personally attest that his article dates back to at least the late 1990s when it first appeared on usenet - well before Wikipedia was even a thing, let alone this article. His own notes say it originated in 1994. To claim this article is his source is ridiculous. Here is an archived usenet post from 1995 pointing to an old site for the faq. That post was dated 4/18/1995 (US date order). Rhialto (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the linked law, it does actually provide exact conversions, if you actually read it. Rhialto (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

archive.org has a version of the sci.lang.japan that contains the relevant subsection on Japanese units dating back to 9/7/2005. This wiki page dates back to 24/10/2005. There is no way that faq used this page as a source. Rhialto (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Well, thank you for that research and I do stand corrected. Sections of our page were obviously plagiarized from him. Hopefully I've reworded, added, or adjusted enough that that's no longer the case... Yep. Down to only a sentence or three that need rewording. — LlywelynII 15:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the exact conversion to SI units should be kept. The conversions to US and Imperial are much less useful, and could even be misleading, since the definition of the foot, pound, gallon, etc have changed over the years. The inch, and therefore the gallon, changed by about 2 ppm in 1964. I would favor keeping exact conversion to SI and removing the ones to US/Imperial. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your hesitancy regarding the changes of these units over time (e.g., they were already valid by 1959 in Canada and the US) but the page would naturally be assumed to show the current form of these units. It could be further clarified by noting under each table that the units are defined in terms of the 1891 metrology law and the International Yard and Pound Agreement. If there is another source that has the exact US/imperial conversions for these units, we could link to it in the External links section but, without one imo, it's not a service to our WP:READERs to remove exactitude from one of the few places on the net discussing this topic in English. — LlywelynII 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

National Variety of English

The first clear indication of a national variety of English is [here], where Commonwealth English spellings were used. By 2006 (seen [here]), the page had been refactored with modern-style tables, and was again using Commonwealth spellings. As such, the page should consistently carry on using Commonwealth spellings (metre/litre), in line with Wikipedia policy.

Considering MOS:TIES, there are no meaningful national ties to any particular variety of English for this topic (Japan is not an English-speaking country, nor even a former colony of one). There fore, MOS:RETAIN applies, and the article should be restored to using Commonwealth/British English. Rhialto (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering the entire article was unreferenced and I'm rebuilding it from the ground up, I'll call foul, beyond which Japan was essentially colonized by America, which continues to provide its national defense. The Japanese Ministry of Justice uses "meter" in its own translation of the Measurement Law.

That said, the bushel thing was a good catch and I'll defer to a RfC on the issue. It'd be nice to not edit war over an article I've improved so substantially but, at minimum, kindly don't do such a poor job of copy-pasting that you turn "literally" into "litreally". — LlywelynII 16:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your change of the flag from British to American English. I have also requested formal dispute resolution. Please await that process and its resolution so that a consensus can be agreed before reverting it again. Rhialto (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see a RfC header. — LlywelynII 16:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, OWNERy and unpleasant as you might be, WP:ENGVAR will usually cause Japanese articles follow American English (see the Ministry of Justice link above) but I stand corrected. That doesn't seem to be case here. The Japanese authority on metrology is the NMIJ and they seem to use the French spellings of the metric units consistently, despite employing American English for all other spellings. See here and here. — LlywelynII 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to User:Ryk72: As above, there are very strong reasons for US ENGVAR in Japanese articles and for this article in particular. That said, it seems to be an official Japanese convention for its most responsible authorities to use the French spellings of these particular units. Thank you for doing a more careful job of restoring those spellings. — LlywelynII 17:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII: No, there are no "very strong" arguments for US ENGVAR—that applies only to countries that use English in an official capacity. Japan is not one, and "colonized by America" hyperbole will win you only eyerolls. The ENGVAR is established, and policy requires retention of that ENGVAR if changing it is challenged—which it has been. Further attempts to change the ENGVAR at this point will result in sanctions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You can roll your eyes as much as you like. Japan's official national sites on this topic employ American English... There is an official national preference on this topic for American English and there are historical and present-day reasons that this is the case. This isn't a British English page by reason or default. As already sourced above, Japan does see an official national preference for American spellings in documents such as the English translation of their law on measurement.

Now, that said, the primary concern was the rendering of the unit names and, while those are generally given in American forms, the very best sources at their metrological offices do prefer the BIMP spellings consistently. I'm not going to be restoring the American spellings, even though Rhialto's OWNERy attitude and individual CANVASSing for votes (instead of conducting a genuine general RfC) poisoned this discussion rather profoundly. None of that is important since s/he turned out to be supported by the authoritative sources. Similarly, unlike some editors, I do not plan to throw around disciplinary charges; Rhialto has a history of patrolling the page for vandalism and certainly means well, even though s/he went about this very much in the wrong way: making general claims, looking for backup instead of unbiased parties, and not even attempting to look for official use. — LlywelynII 03:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII: you can whimper about it all you want—English is not an official language of Japan. It thus fails WP:TIES, and WP:RETAIN applies, as consensus across Wikipedia has established again and again and again and again and again. This is not going to change, nor is this a forum with sufficient scope to propose such a change. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, your belittling tone and OWNERSHIP issues are profound, unhelpful, against core policy, and irrelevant. There is official English usage in Japan. It's already been provided by me. It happens to support using BIMP spellings of the units names, without endorsing British English elsewhere in the article. (Hardly an issue since ENGVAR advocates using regionless phrasing where possible, which it is here apart from the unit names.) — LlywelynII 04:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNership? Jesus Christ ... you really have no comprehension of Wikipedia's policies, do you? Japan has no WP:TIES with any WP:ENGVAR per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thus WP:RETAIN applies. You don't even have an argument against this. If you disagree, the onus is on you to bring it up at a forum with the apporiate scope (say, WP:ENGVAR, WP:MOS, or MOS:JAPAN)—where you'll succeed only in irritating the folks there again wasting so much of people's time on something that has been decided on repeatedly already. Make sure when you do to point out WP:OWN to them—I'm sure they've never heard that argument before ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, your belittling tone and OWNERSHIP issues are profound, unhelpful, against core policy, and irrelevant. I've linked to the relevant national authorities and discussed their consistent usage; you've offered personal attacks and personal interpretations of broad policy as though it were scripture from on high. Actually point to some source or existing discussion that supports your arguments and stop the personal insults and assumptions of bad faith. Surely, if this has been so repeatedly decided upon, it's easy enough to do. — LlywelynII 08:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the examples given in WP:Ties, all of the examples are of articles that are clearly about a person or other topic that is geographically tied to a country that has English as an official language. It even specifically notes that the criterion is an "English-speaking nation". That doesn't apply to Japan. MOS:DATETIES clarifies that the criterion is an "English-speaking country". Whatever else Japan is, it isn't an English-speaking country or nation. Having an official policy on using a particular variety of English does not in itself make a country "English-speaking". Rhialto (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the cited source to show that Japan uses US English "officially", the front page of that website (http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/) says "All of the translations contained in the Japanese Law Translation Database System are unofficial". Which leaves us back with no official Japanese government policy on English usage (not that it would matter for this discussion, as Japan is not an English-speaking country). Rhialto (talk)

Additionally, this article from the same translation site uses British English. From this, we can conclude that not even that site, let alone the Japanese government as a whole, has a unified policy on English language variety usage. Rhialto (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

...particularly by @LlywelynII:. You have added lots, but you have also (surely inadvertently added a huge number of errors (if that is not the correct word, then "misleading and unreliable statments"). For example, you have introduce the book by Cardarelli as Bibliography: I have spent considerable effort looking into the reliability of this book at User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli, and my tipoff to this was his section on Japanese units, which is simply full of incoherent nonsense. Fortunately, I was able to track where he copied the nonsense from: please see the details on my page. I propose removing this.

You also added a lot of material from something cited as "Mitsuo (1971)". This would normally be "Tamano (1971)" (his surname), but actually it is a quote of a talk given in 1962 by this person (Tamano Mitsuo, in non-back-to-front order). He then (>50 yrs ago) said "People give their weight in kan", but this is no basis for a statement using the present tense in 2017. As director of some institute in Japan, he was probably at least 50 years old, (and referring to people born no later than 1920?). I'm sure there are people alive now who can remember older people giving their weight in kan, but that's about it. And this edit added a lot of out-of-date information, whilc removing factually based statements about the use of tsubo (the reference to the 2005 census is not actually sourced, but it can easily be checked).

You have also committed some (common) howlers, such as replacing the correctly (Oxford) spelled English word "romanized" by the not-quite-a-Japanese word romanji. General WP:en policy is to write in English. You call the shakkanhō' (尺貫法 the "foot–string system" -- where does "string" come from?

Again, I think it is unhelpful to cite the fact that (I guess; I can't see the definitions) the OED gives an entry for a Japanese word to mean that it is an "acknowledged" "English" word. The OED is being helpful; the Japanese word ken appears no doubt in many writings in English, but it is stil unambiguously a Japanese word. I think it is much more helpful to the reader's ken to consistently italicise the subject (Japanese) words of the article, rather than at the whim of an editor deciding which foreign words to include.

And quite a lot more... Imaginatorium (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cardarelli: I had noticed that the larger weight units were mistakenly named but assumed that he was copying some earlier text and was reliable for the other items. If he's actually a non-RS altogether, apologies and I'll remove him from the article.

Edit: Since he's the only source I've seen mentioning weight in shi, I'll leave that text commented out below this note until we have another source confirming that it really existed. — LlywelynII 19:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tamano: Yeah, the source I was looking at was unclear and both names can be either a given or surname. Ditto if I left a romanji lying around somewhere; we should name and link to the form of romanization being used, however, rather than just leave it at "romanization".

Edit: Gah. I see now. Wiktionary labels all of their Japanese romanization romaji and I had assumed it was a revised and official form of Hepburn similar to what Korea did to MR. Really, it's just a completely useless label that does just mean "romanization". — LlywelynII 18:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Weigh in kan: I'm not sure where the idea came from that it's from a 1962 talk. It's from the source cited, in the place cited. I was aware that he was an elderly person speaking a good long while ago, but the broad claim made by a credible figure led me to think that it was so widespread at least some use still occurred. If it's completely died out, I think the custom should still be mentioned as a historical feature, with a second source on its having passed from use.

Because the title at the cited reference is "Excerpt from the Report of the 47th National Conference on Weights and Measures 1962, NBS Miscellaneous Publication 244" Imaginatorium (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tsubo: As a matter of adherence to WP:READER, I make it a point never to remove valid information from an article, unless SCOPE means it should be placed elsewhere. (See above, for the call to remove exact conversion amounts from these units on the basis of aesthetics.) Even if the information were questionable but likely true, I'd just add a {{fact}} tag. What you missed was that the information about the tsubo was just moved to a better location down the page.

@Italics: That's absolutely a fair point. I don't think inclusion into the OED is a whim or even a poor criterion for treating something as an English word instead of foreign text, but it probably looks much worse here to treat the nativized terms differently.

Thanks for all the helpful feedback and links. — LlywelynII 17:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Unit names

Imaginatorium corrected my misunderstanding regarding romaji: it's just a romanization of the Japanese word for romanization. We shouldn't leave the table as that, though.

(Interjection): Strictly rōmaji is the romanisation of the Japanese for "Roman alphabet"; it's just that in general modern usage (almost exactly the opposite of what Romaji says in the last setence of the lead), it is almost always used exclusively to refer to romanised Japanese, and it is this (ab)usage which has been borrowed into English slang. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is better?

A) Romanization with a link to "Hepburn romanization" under the Japanese header (include both momme and monme on the weight table)

B) A separate "English" header (include catty and foot as names along with shaku)

It seems superfluous to have English along with the romanization, since so many of these units don't have any other names in English, but maybe we could have two columns and just combine them for most terms. — LlywelynII 18:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there an actual cite that lists catty, picul, etc. as Japanese units? I am aware that the same Chinese characters were used in many East Asian languages to refer to their respective weights and measures, but I've never seen anything to suggest that picul and catty were ever units used by Japanese people between Japanese people. Rhialto (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That comment seems very poorly taken. First, it's off-topic for this section although it possibly indicates a vote for A. Second, there are already cites in this article and their articles notes concerning each unit's "Japanese name". These are historical English names for these units. Third, this article isn't about "Japanese people's Japanese names" for their units. That's ja:尺貫法. This is the English Wikipedia. That said, such names shouldn't be included in the "romanization" section of the tables (they already aren't), should note that English usage is being described (they already do), and should note that the usage is largely historical (they mostly do: candareen certainly isn't but catty sees some use and picul still seems to be more common than tan in present scholarship). — LlywelynII 03:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to add "English" names, where they exist - either the similar unit ("inch" for sun, as in "Japanese inch") or the Malay orinating names which were used as extrasinitic (hope that's a word) terms, like "candareen". It is just important to be able to distinguish romanised Japanese words from non-Japanese words. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If these Malay terms are to be included, it should be made very clear they are not native Japanese terms, as it might otherwise cause confusion. While terms such as "French pound" and Russian pound" cause little confusion because English speakers default to thinking of a pound as the Avoirdupois unit, no equivalent assumption arises when people see "catty", which may well cause people to do further research in incorrect places if it is not made clear. Rhialto (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly valid and may even deserve a short name section describing the former ubiquitous Malay terms, the broad acceptance of Hepburn, and a terse explanation of what happened to momme/monme. You're right we want to avoid UNDUE emphasis on what are now largely just historical terms, even though they need mention and clarification. — LlywelynII 15:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Fluctuating romanisation

This footnote: "The kan is also sometimes known in English as the kwan." is one of many similar statements which are confusions of "being called something different in English" with "having wobbly romanisations, sometimes all over the place". It is also one of many referenced to a book published in 1845, 14 years before Hepburn went to Japan. This article is supposed to be about the Japanese units, not about the many attempts, some stumbling, some botched of various writers attempting to relay probably unreliably obtained information in English. So there is no real meaning in any of these things like kokf, kwan, kati and so on. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese units in the English language. That necessarily includes their names, although you're right that some (particularly kokf) may be so uncommon that even mentioning them runs afoul of FRINGE. With the exception of obvious errors such as Card.'s large units, though, we shouldn't remove any sourced information. Collecting it is precisely what Wikipedia is here for.

You're right that we want to avoid UNDUE focus on the alt names. If the name/romanization is uncommon enough, the alt forms (like kati and the italicized forms of tael) could be shunted to the unit's separate article or even a Wiktionary entry. I think everyone agrees that both momme and monme should be both be mentioned here. Against Rhi, I'd submit that historical use of the Malay terms tael, catty, and picul were formerly common enough (e.g.) that they deserve mention here. Against your own helpful note, I'd submit that kwan is another such common form of the name that it should be mentioned here as well. — LlywelynII 15:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My concern with tael, catty, picul et alii. is that it isn't clear that these were actually used specifically for the Japanese units, not not generically as an East Asian unit of a certain size, similar to how any archaic European units of approximately half a kilogramme gets called the "$country pound". That kind of usage doesn't mean that the European unit (or the East Asian unit) is or was called the pound (or whatever); it simply means that early metrologists used terms they hoped their readers might already be relatively more familiar with in order to explain new terms. If it can however be shown that catty was, without additional qualifications, used unambiguously to refer to a Japanese units, then fair enough, it should be included. That is to say, catty should be used as the routine term for it, and not as a means to explain what the unit is. Rhialto (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

But the article is entitled "Japanese units of measurement", not "Japanese units in the English language". It should be about the units, not about various attempts to represent their names before there was a systematic method of romanisation. Actually the case of the "w" insertions ("kwan" for "kan") is special, and could be described by someone who knows more about it than I do: it represents a genuinely different (dated) Japanese pronunciation, not a "different English name". The problem is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of (coherently written) articles, and precisely not a simple collection of naively accumulated factoids scraped from historical documents. Almost certainly kokf, for example, only occurs in isolated texts or even a single text; it is no more notable than the lists you occasionally see in WP articles of historical "variant spellings" from the era before there was even a concept of "spelling".

As for "catty" etc, these were standard names, borrowed from Malay, and used to refer to the Chinese units (斤 in this case). As such of course they will have been used to refer to the Japanese, and any other variants of the same unit-name, just as "pound" may be used to refer to the German Pfund, French livre, etc. But of course they should be distinguished as exonyms from the Japanese names. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese units of measurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211141235/http://homepage3.nifty.com/such/shumi/shumi3/shumi3.html to http://homepage3.nifty.com/such/shumi/shumi3/shumi3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Wiki: 尺貫法 and 尺斤法

The linked Japanese wiki page says: 'kan' (「貫」) is a unit unique to Japan, so the name shakkanhō (尺貫法, しゃっかんほう) is unique to Japan. In contrast, the unit system unique to China is not the kan, but the kin (jin?) (「斤」), so it is called the shakubinho (?) (尺斤法)". I can't find what the correct pronunciation is of "尺斤法" in Japanese. Is there a reliable article about this? -Artanisen (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I expect not. Googuring 尺斤法 gets me only the WP:ja article, and a dictionary that has sucked up the WP article, plus lots of references to 尺貫法. I think 尺斤法 would have to be read 'shakkinhō', but this does not appear in the first large dictionary to hand (大辞林). I will delete this as not reliably sourced. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are some usage examples:

• 満洲読本 昭和12年版: In the context of building Manchukuo, the Japanese called the Chinese system "尺斤法" "しゃっきんほう"。
• ja:小泉袈裟勝 used the term in 中華人民共和国における計量標準および計測技術 (1976) p.47, and as an invented term (within quotation marks) to contrast with 尺貫法 in 秤 (1982) p54.

but anyway, the topic is a bit out of the subject of this enwiki article: "Japanese units of measurement". --Wotheina (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

... I see you haven't added it yet. Well, WP:ja is not an "RS". The end. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Ancient sources

Reference 15 - Renouard (1845) - is a book published about 14 years before Hepburn went to Japan. Its romanisation of Japanese terms is therefore obviously not standardised, and we should not be using it to say in the present tense that this or that odd romanisation attempt "is also seen in English". I do not see that a source this ancient is necessary: there are plenty of modern books which can give us unit factors, for example. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)