Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/August 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk & archives for WP Japan
Project talk
Task force talk/archives

↔ = joint task force
Old notice board
Related talk/archives
Search the archives:
V·T·E

"Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind"

The usage and primary topic of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is under discussion, see talk:Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order?

The current MoS-JA specifies we should use the FAMILY–GIVEN name order for those born before 1868, and GIVEN–FAMILY for those born 1868 or later, unless trumped by WP:COMMONNAME. This leads to situations on the edge where, within a single article, certain figures will be FAMILY–GIVEN and others GIVEN–FAMILY—as in Kanae Yamamoto (artist), where Hakuei Ishii is described as the son of Ishii Teiko. Such an example consciously follows the guidelines, but appears to be a sloppy mistake.

Should MoS-JA be amended to allow uniform name orders in cases like this? And how far should this be taken—should an article on Japanese history have both "Tokugawa Ieyasu" and "Shinzō Abe"? How broad should the grey zones be? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "mixed" articles are obviously inconsistent and confusing. The MoS should be a "Manual of Style", and the first rule of style (George Orwell, I think) is "Break any of these rules rather than commit a barbarity". The guideline of pre/post 1868 is not necessarily one I like, but it is clear and reasoned, but it should be used to determine the name order used within an article. I also think that every article involving Japanese names should have a headnote explaining what is going on. If there is an article about Shinzo Abe's comments on Tokugawa Ieyasu, well, again the headnote should explain. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that something should be added to the MoS stating that uniformity of name order within an article is preferred, with the order used for a given article determined by its primary subject(s). It wouldn't be a perfect rule (I'll admit that seeing "Ieyasu Tokugawa" would be a little jarring) but I think it would be an improvement over the status quo. I suspect that incremental improvement is the best that can be aimed for; so long as the MoS calls for using different orders in different situations we'll always have edge cases. Cckerberos (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I too would support a Wikipedia decree of one or the other across the encyclopedia, but as long as the order differs from one article to another, I think it ought to vary within an article as well. The reason is that the rule appears to be one not of writing style, but of naming style. The idea appears to be that the writer doesn't choose a person's name, the person or the society in which he lived does. Saying what we call a person depends upon who else is mentioned in the same article seems pretty odd to me. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I adamantly oppose using ALLCAPS or smallcaps for any naming. I think the current guideline is very clear, and gives preference to the most commonly used in reliable sources, even if it is someone born prior to 1868. If it can be established in reliable sources that the 1868 divide no longer exists (it did almost 10 years ago when this MOS was established), then we can just go with WP:COMMONNAME without any fallback. The current wording is meant to catch anything not covered by COMMONNAME. As for naming order differences within an article, does it really matter? If people are interested in someone whose name order might be opposite that of the article topic, they can go to that entry and read up. If there isn't currently an article for that person, they will still be able to find the info on the person as they will have the full name. I don't see that it's a huge cause of confusion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow WP:COMMONNAME for the title (it's policy, and trumps any made-up 1868 "convention" that only exists on WP and hasn't even been vetted by WT:MOS; i.e., that's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). Thereafter, use a consistent format within the article. And, no, don't use small-caps or all-caps. In reference citations, use |last= and |first= to obviate the issue there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • WP:COMMONNAME is what is followed. There is no made-up convention here. It was established because that's what academic articles and other reliable sources were doing at the time it was created. It was vetted by those who knew what was going on at the time it was created, so there's no need to say it has no standing. It's been what's used for almost 10 years, so (if nothing else) it's the defacto standard since everyone is using it as a basis for such decisions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: this is not a LOCALCONSENSUS issue, and there is far more to the issue than you're aware, and I think eveyone here will assure you that using COMMONNAME for evey single last article will result in thousands of endless talkpage battles over what's "really" the COMMONNAME for any particular figure: for isntance, the current prime minister. Is his COMMONNAME "Shinzo Abe", because that's what the vast majority of widely-read newssources use (and thus what most readers will expect)? Or is it "Abe Shinzō", because that's what the vast majority of specialized articles (and thus RSes) use? And repeat for every single Japanese bio article—and it's guaranteeed to be fight after fight as each figure has a different balance of newssources vs specialized sources. Every "solution" to this problem is "wrong" in some important way, and we're trying to figure out the most workable solution to avoid the endless talkpage bickering. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • You're making the frequent but serious mistake in supposing that, for COMMONNAME purposes, news sources are not reliable, or at least are less reliable than specialist ones. The exact opposite is the case. The very point of WP:COMMONNAME / WP:UCN is use the most common name in English usage, not the "most favored by academics". See WP:Specialist style fallacy for details of why this "use academia-approved names and styles" approach is irrational when applied to Wikipedia. And if most sources give the name order as Shinzo Abe, but we know the first part of that properly has the diacritic, then the article title here should be Shinzō Abe. The rationale for the name order has nothing to do with the rationale for including the diacritic; they're totally severable arguments. We wouldn't have "endless talk page battles" over this sort of thing if people would actually pay attention to RM and AT discussions and their results. The entire purpose of that erstwhile guideline is to do precisely that, and codify as best practices some standards based on observation of what WP has been deciding via consensus and why. I appears to be failing in this regard, and is instead codifying whatever is wanted by whoever yells the loudest and longest on insular talk pages like this one and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Overly topical style and naming guidelines have a strong tendency toward domination by the argumentum ad nauseam tactic. This is the very crux of the LOCALCONSENSUS problem, and it's why more and more style discussions are centralizing at WT:MOS, and naming discussions not involving style at WT:AT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @SMcCandlish: You're making the frequent but serious mistake in supposing that, for COMMONNAME purposes, news sources are not reliable, or at least are less reliable than specialist ones.: I made no such supposition—I presented both POVs as an example of where this will quickly boil down to endless "discussions" about which name order is best for each article, depending on the mix of newssources vs academic sources and the feelings of involved editors as to which deserves more weight. You'll notice I took no position myself. You're no doubt unfamiliar with the endless talkpage battles over name order that already occur with Japanese names—taking away a default will only multiply and lengthen those—and I doubt you'll find a WP:JAPAN regular who disagrees with that assertion. COMMONNAME utterly fails with Japanese names, as both configurations are typically very common—sometimes even on the same page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Curly Turkey: Then the obvious answer is to give the names in the order they really are in real life for these subjects, the native family-first order of Japanese, since the English-language sources are so inconsistent that they even contradict each other from sentence to sentence. This conclusion appears to be inescapable. If there is no determinable common name [order], then using the native name form, which is to be found in reliable sources and is consistent, must, per WP:V trump a WP-invented "convention" based on an arbitrary date.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Not to mention the obvious irony of using LAST= and FIRST= to clarify, um, which is last and which is first? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, we could easily solve that by adding |下= and |上= parameters. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I've long had a problem with the "|last=" and "|first=" parameters' names, myself. While something like "family" and "given" should be aliases to them, it's still really obvious what their purpose is, and they do their job adequately. The objection to the parameters on the basis of their names is essentially the fallacy of equivocation, in this case the changing of the definition of "first name" and "last name" on the fly to present an absurdity we can all see through. Everyone here, I think, knows full well that "first name" and "given name" are, in English, synonymous, and "last name" and "family name" and "surname" are synonymous. No one could seriously believe they refer to the order in which they appear even when we know that a particular culture uses the opposite ordering used in Western cultures. Even most school children probably would figure that out, and I see no evidence that actual WP editors are too confused to use the parameters correctly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • If you don't know enough about Japanese names to know which is surname and which is given name, perhaps you shouldn't be working on article about Japanese topics? It's really not hard to figure out. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
          • The irony appears to have passed you by, but we are not concerned with the problems of editors, but with the problems of readers. A passing Icelander who sees that Hakuei Ishii is described as the son of Ishii Teiko might reasonably be excused for the misunderstanding that Japanese names work like Icelandic ones, where Hans Jensson is the son of Jens Eriksson (excuse errors: I do not actually speak Icelandic). I think the convention for Chinese names is more or less universal that they are not messed with; what proportion of the population thinks that Mao Tse Tung was Mr Tung I do not know. But the fact that Chinese names have the family name first is common knowledge, and having discovered it, the problem is conquered. With Japanese names, the principle is different: just planned confusion: names are or are not written backwards, and only an expert can tell. That is why, I believe, WP should provide explicit help on every relevant article. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • There's no irony involved. I was speaking of editors, but the same applies to readers. If we are providing both names, it doesn't matter which order they are in as anyone who spends an hour or even less looking into topics about a Japanese person will be able to figure out pretty quickly which is the surname. Regarding providing help for people, we can co-opt the little ? created by the {{Nihongo}} template and give basic instruction there. That is found on almost every article about a Japanese topic, so it would require minimal effort getting it into articles since it's already there. Right now, it links to Help:Installing Japanese character sets, but it could just as easily point to Help:Japanese, which gives a quick rundown of the basics regarding Japanese names, and so on (including a link to Help:Installing Japanese character sets). I think that would actually be a good idea since there is less of a problem with installing Japanese characters now than there used to be (most modern OSes have Japanese enabled by default, as far as displaying the characters when browsing). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
            • To get back to what User:Imaginatorium said earlier, the very problem here appears to be that we are doing something consistent with Chinese (family name first, followed by give name[s]), but not doing this for Japanese. The result is confusing to readers, and to editors not steeped in that erstwhile guideline. It appears to be based on an arbitrary date, and is not even being used consistently. On top of this, it's leading to cases where different styles are being used in the same article based on the birthdates of the persons to whom the names apply. I have to strongly suggest that this whole idea is a dismal failure and must be abandoned. Just use family name first, except in cases where the WP:COMMONNAME is unequivocally the other way around and be done with it. We have simple templates for the latter kind of case so that we can construct lead sentences of the form "Givenname Familyname (Japanese: Familyname Givenname) is...", thus obviating any confusion of the "This person is Japanese, so that first-occurring name is the family name, right?" variety. No problem, all fixed, please move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I wrote the section on naming in English for the Japanese names article. The sources I used say explicitly that the common naming of Japanese people in English is different from those of Chinese and Koreans. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Many of us would like to see it go all FAMILY-GIVEN (especially those of us who live with that style day-to-day), but (a) there's much opposition to that (which is how we got here in the first place); and (b) it seems to fly right in the face of COMMONNAME, as newssources overwhelmingly use GIVEN-FAMILY. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
                • That's not entirely consistent, though. It appears to done more frequently by some English-language publishers than others, done more today than it was a few years ago, and done for some subjects more than others – possibly because the subjects favor it themselves, or because some publishers feel it's become conventional in specific contexts (e.g. for government figures and for actors). As an example, Shinzō Abe uses that name order officially in English-language publications of the Japanese government, including his own official website.[1] The artist Hajime Sorayama now does likewise on his own official website[2]; though I know from my own memory and bookshelf that he was more often referred to as Soryama Hajime until comparatively recently (and his earlier-edition art books gave his name this way), most coverage I can find via Google today now uses Western name order. WP:COMMONNAME would require us to use this Western order for both subjects. That doesn't make it a default for everyone. News sources are not the only reliable sources, either. If we don't settle on the native Japanese name order of family-first, then we probably should have no convention at all, especially not one cut in half by an arbitrary date. Simply follow WP:COMMONNAME. It can usually be determined through an n-gram search. For unusually new subjects (e.g. newly notable young actors) the sources cited in the article should be enough to figure it out. If there are hardly any to cite, cf. WP:N and WP:AFD. >;-)

                  But let's be realistic: If, as Curly Turkey suggests above, this solution is not actually tractable, because too often the sources are about evenly split, and any given English-language source may even contradict itself on the same page, then the obvious solution is to do what the native language does (family first), and dispense with any attempt to try to figure out (WP:NOR) what the "true" common name may be by further weighing and constrasting various sources that are themselves trying to figure out what they should do. The clear fact of the matter certainly seems to be that the two forms in English-language sources are in flux (even "transition" is a stretch, since it implies that the trend toward given-first will be permanent, a WP:POV we are not in a position to prove). Far too much weight is being given to what, right now various news sources are doing. If the there isn't clearly a WP:COMMONNAME case to be made, without question, for the subject at hand, then use the native name order. Very simple solution, nothing to argue endlessly about. Apply a basic principle: Go back to what we know is a certain fact. We know what Japanese name order is. We may get conflicting hints from different kinds of sources what the "preferred" rendering is in English (but preferred by whom, according to whom?), and this is indeterminate, so we should not rely on conflicting sources that don't agree on a matter that ultimately devolves to a form of POV pushing about how Japanese names "should" be rendered by Westerners.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

                  • It's not only the news, but also the vast majority of non-Japanologist/non-Japan-specialist publications use Western order for modern Japanese people. Remember that Wikipedia's audience is the average person, so the naming order should reflect what one would expect the average Joe to see. If there is a split with any subject on how many sources use Western naming order versus Japanese naming order, consider the audience of each publication. John Power wrote an article in The Indexer where he says: "However, Japanese almost invariably give their names in the Western order when using Western languages. This practice, also universally followed in Western newspapers, magazines and most books, became established in the Meiji period (1868–1912), when Japan was opened up to the West." and he identifies "scholarly publications" and especially those by Japan specialists as the main exception. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to comment on best practices here; but as an intelligent reader/editor who is semi-literate in Japanese and Japanese topics and could conceivably stray into these articles -- I have on my desk a book on early Japanese art I was considering working from when I signed in today -- my thought is just that the more clarity, the better. If this requires a hatnote so be it. If the date is arbitrary perhaps this should be addressed. If the practice was brought over from articles about Chinese topics, this may be wrong. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions about a Japanese book

I have some questions about the book about the Istanbul Japanese School.

  • Mine, Toshirō (峰 敏朗). イスタンブール日本人学校. 峰敏朗著（JETRO books, 46） 日本貿易振興会, 1998.2. NCID: BA35636978. ISBN: 4822408108. See profile at CiNii.

Is the person who wrote the book independent of the school? Did the school have any role in producing the book? In other words would this count as a reliable, independent secondary source on Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope - according to this blurb he was the school's first principal. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for checking! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's okay, Mr. Stradivarius, there's three other sources that I'd like for you to evaluate:

  • "リオ日本人学校＝総領事館内で新学期スタート＝「水害にめげず頑張ろう」." Nikkey Shimbun. April 15, 2010.
  • "日本人学校の現状" (Archive). São Paulo Shimbun. 13 March 2008. Retrieved on 8 May 2015. "リオデジャネイロ日本人学校（藤内博校長）は小学部と中学部の２部構成で、それぞれ６学級の児童11人、１学級の生徒２人の計13人。 同校は60年、石川島播磨重工がイシブラス造船所に派遣された社員の子弟の企業内教育施設（日本語補習校）を開設したのが始まりで、生徒53人で授業が行われた。80年代には創立最多の約４００人の生徒数となった。しかし、94年に同造船所が閉鎖されたのを機に減少していった。"
  • "リオ・デ・ジャネイロ日本人学校前校長" (Archive). Revista, Japanese Chamber of Industry and Commerce in RJ (Câmara de Comércio e Indústria Japonesa do Rio de Janeiro/リオ・デ・ジャネイロ日本商工会議所). 特集 リオ・デ・ジャネイロ日本商工会議所50周年記念誌 「創立50周年－更なる未来へ」. p. 33-35.

The two newspapers (Sao Paulo Shimbun and Nikkey Shimbun) are well known Japanese papers in Brazil. I think the authors are independent of the schools, but I'd like to know whether they give significant, non-routine coverage to the topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: What's the topic you're writing about? Associação Civil de Divulgação Cultural e Educacional Japonesa do Rio de Janeiro, or something else? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Yes, it's this topic, although the issue is actually an AFD on the Portuguese Wikipedia: pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Associação Civil de Divulgação Cultural e Educacional Japonesa do Rio de Janeiro. One Portuguese editor wants help in determining whether the sources meet the criteria for notability. The Portuguese criteria seem to be translations of the English ones: Critérios de notoriedade and pt:Wikipédia:Relevância. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The two newspaper sources do indeed have significant coverage of the Rio school, and neither of the authors are named, so we should assume that the sources were both written by the newspapers' journalists and are therefore independent. The other source is primary, as the author is a former principal of the school. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I really, really appreciate it! I notified Zoldyck. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I will evaluate what can be done in the voting page. --Zoldyick (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

IB and/or Cambridge eligibility for Japanese universities

An editor stated at Little Angels International School that a student who attends an "unauthorized school" can still get into a Japanese university if he/she gets an IB diploma and/or Cambridge certification. Is there a reference/source which states this to be the case? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the requirements vary from university to university. According to this, some Japanese universities will accept IBs only, but most also require the National Center Test of University Admissions. That's also backed up by this source. There should be quite a few other sources available in English. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I added the citations to the page. If there's something saying the Japanese accept Cambridge exams that would help too WhisperToMe (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ni no Kuni mobile games

Hi there! I'm looking for some references regarding the Ni no Kuni mobile games (Ni no Kuni: Hotroit Stories and Ni no Kuni: Daibouken Monsters). Since these games were only released in Japan, and my grasp on the language is still quite basic, I was wondering if anybody at this WikiProject would be able to help me (I'm assuming there's quite a few people here that speak the language quite fluently). If you can find any information regarding the development, or some of the reviews, please let me know. Similar development/reception information regarding the Japan-exclusive Nintendo DS version of the game (Ni no Kuni: Dominion of the Dark Djinn) would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article from online version of ja:日経トレンディ, mostly about the background of relationship between GREE and Level-5. And here is an article from online version of Famitsu, deals with Hotroit Stories, introduces it's positon in the story of whole series. Game system about Daibouken Monsters here.[3][4] But unfortunately I couldn't find any information about development.--Akiyama(tentative) (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for finding those! I'm sure they will be very helpful. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just made a super-messy edit to an article lead -- any advice?

I just did this. The previous wording was both technically inaccurate and insufficient, but the new wording is probably unreadable. Since I wrote it it's kind of difficult to be objective (obviously it's not unreadable to me). Any thoughts on how it could be improved? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It looks fine to me. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The sentence would work without "which is also the name of a specific sect within the branch". The fact that Nichiren-shū is also a sect could be mentioned in the "Major Nichiren Buddhist schools and organisations" section. Alternatively, this clause could be put in a footnote: 日蓮宗 Nichiren-shū 1
1. Nichiren-shū also the name of a specific sect within the branch.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Japan WikiProject input request

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal.

Another user and I are up for a mutual topic ban from "Japanese culture" because our mutual interaction ban has been an absolute failure. I and at least one other (User:Sturmgewehr88) believe the TBAN proposal is too broad and should be changed to "new religious movements based on Nichiren Buddhism". The proposer (User:Beyond My Ken) disagrees. If I am indefinitely banned from "Japanese culture" -- the only topic area I have ever shown any interest in editing -- I'm probably going to leave Wikipedia, except to maybe appeal the ban.

Some input from other WikiProject Japan members would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

From Shogun to Prime Minister

I have come across this recent edit, which purports that Itō Hirobumi, Japan's first Prime Minister, "succeeded" Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last Shogun. There is a corresponding entry in the infobox of Yoshinobu's article. I do not agree with the articles saying that the two subjects preceded/succeeded each other. The main reason being that there was a period of almost 20 years in between them during which time other groups of people were de facto rulers. But before deleting the two entries, I would like to hear the opinion of others. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with you. In the article, it says "On November 9, 1867, Yoshinobu tendered his resignation to the Emperor and formally stepped down ten days later, returning governing power to the Emperor." Following year, on Junuary 3, 1868, Meiji government abolished the position of shogun (ja:王政復古 (日本)), so Tokugawa Yoshinobu is the last shogun of all time. In regards to the governing power, Emperor Meiji is the one who succeeded in 1867.--Akiyama(tentative) (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Akiyama(tentative). Since it's been a week and nobody else has spoken up, I'll make the changes. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD notification: New army sword

New army sword and Neo army sword have been nominated at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#New army sword would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/August_2015&oldid=1136414639"