Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/March 2018

Talk & archives for WP Japan

Project talk 2006 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Task force talk/archives ↔ Baseball (1) Bibliography (1) ↔ Cinema (1) ↔ CJKV (1) ↔ Districts and municipalities (1) Gaijin tarento (1) ↔ Military history (1, 2, 3) Music (1) Mythology (1, 2, 3, 4) Owarai (1) Politics (1) Prefectures (1) Royalty & nobility (1) Science & technology (1) Shinto (1) ↔ Tokyo (1) ↔ Transwiki ↔ = joint task force
Old notice board All of 2004 Jan–Mar 2005 Apr–Jun 2005 Jul–Oct 2005 Nov–Dec 2005 Jan–Feb 2006 Feb–May 2006 Jun–Dec 2006 Jan–Jun 2007 Jun 2007 – Sep 2008
Related talk/archives Anime and manga (index) Hello! Project (1) Pokémon (index, PAC (1, 2), PAC 2) Sumo (1, 2, 3) Square Enix (index) Tokusatsu (index) Trains (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Search the archives:
V·T·E

Min-on Concert Association

I have been submitting an article on the Min-on Concert Association and made edits based on suggestions from editors. I was referred to this page but am not sure how to present the article to the editors here.19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgrlee16 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Stgrlee16. The draft of the article can be found at Draft:Min-on_Concert_Association. I added a couple of things. Maybe other people can add some more. In any case, why don't you go ahead and submit it once more? The references it already has look like plenty for the initial version of an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Margin,will do.Stgrlee16 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New map module for WPJA

Frietjes created a new module for use in infoboxes and anywhere else a map showing all of Japan is needed. See Module:Location map/data/Japan complete for details on usage. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Module:Location map/data/Japan Kansai, created by Bellezzasolo and tweaked by Frietjes. Feel free to use them as appropriate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Can anyone clarify whether there is one preferred date format for Japan-related articles? Is it day-month-year (DMY), month-day-year (MDY), YYYY-MM-DD (all numerical) or something else, particularly with respect to publcation/access-dates for citations. I can't find anything specific in MOS:JAPAN which means the fall-back is MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATETIES. I'm bringing this up because I seem to be going around in circles at User talk:Marchjuly#Date formats and here. Biografer has been going around various shogi-related articles and changing |date= and |acess-date= to a all numerical format because apparently the YYYY.MM.DD format is used on some Japanese-language websites. I've tried exaplaining that there is not (at least per my experience) one preferred date format used in Wikipedia articles in general, and that date formats do not really need to be changed without a fairly good reason (ala DATETIES) and a talk page consensus typically needs to be established in such cases. The articles generally follow the MDY format with respect to article content; this doesn't mean this has to be the format used for citations, but it is an acceptable format per MOS:DATEVAR, and does not need to be changed without good reason. When the dates have been returned to their original format with an edit sum citing MOS:DATEVAR, etc.; they are reverted back with an edit sum "Fix". The access-dates are also being updated when it's not exactly clear why, i.e., whether the links are actually being verified for accuracy and to be nont dead, or whether it's just to update the date for the sake of changing the date.

Another issue that needs to be clarified is the |date= parameter for {{Expand Japanese}}. Typically with respect to template such as these, the date is intended to be the date the template was originally added to the article. Biografer, however, is going around chagning these dates to the current date. For example, yesterday on Reo Kurosawa, Biografer made this edit changing the date from "November 2017" (the date the template was added to the article) to "February 2018"; today Biografer made this edit changing "February 2018" to "March 2018". If this is how it's done, then next month on April 1 the template date will need to be changed to "April 2018" and changed again as well for each subsequent month. This seems illogical since these dates are intend to let others know how long an article has had a particular issue and also sometimes for categorization purposes. Pretty much all of the articles in Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia would need to be updated regularly if this is how the template is intended to work.

Anyway, I have decided to post here to try and get these issues resolved once and for all. So, any opinions either way would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical dates are not allowed as a general-use format by MOS:DATE. It has to be dmy or mdy. I have no idea whether there should be a preference for one of those two over the other for Japan. Accessdate can be numerical but date cannot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assuming by Accessdate can be numerical that this does not mean "accessdate needs to be numerical", and that "can" implies some kind of consensus may be required. MOS:DATE refers to article content per se which clarifies that, What about the "date" parameter in a citation template? Is that the "date" you're referring to in but date cannot? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The date parameter in a citation template must be spelled out in English, not numerical. The same is true for dates in the text of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdates can be YYYY-MM-DD (if used consistently in all accessdates), but in text they can be only Month Day, Year, or Day Month Year (either one consistently), depending on the WP:ENGVAR. Japan does not use English as an official language, so WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATEVAR have absolutely nothing to do with the articles being Japan-related—WP:JAPAN cannot enforce a particular DATEVAR.
The |date= parameter should definitely not be updated—we need to know how long the tag has been there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all numerical dates can be used in citations, and have used them before myself. The issue, however, seems to be that Biografer feels that the all numerical format is the preferred format for Japan related articles or at least shogi Japan brelated articles. Many of the articles being changed have multiple citations where the MDY format has already been established, yet these are being change to an all numerical one. DATEVAR (or DATERET if you prefer} states that an established/existing format should be retained unless there’s a good reason to change it. When queried about the changes, the response has been that the numerical format is the preferred format because certain websites written in Japanese use that format. Links to a few of these websites are then provided as proof that Japan prefers the all numerical format. It’s almost as if DATETIES is trying to be forced to apply using Japanese instead of English. That might make sense on Japanese Wikipedia for different regional variations of Japanese, but not sure if it makes sense. Regardless, if the consensus reached here is that the default date format for citations in Japan/shogi related articles is to use the all numerical format, then that’s fine and have no problem going around an doing the clean up needed. As for the other template date changes, I’m not sure why but Biografer seems to think they need to be kept current and that they are somehow connected to the access dates of the citation templates. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The style conventions of external sources has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia styling—we have our own Manual of Style, and MOS:DATERET overrides the preferences of individual editors.

"if the consensus reached here is that the default date format for citations in Japan/shogi related articles is to use the all numerical format"—we cannot come up with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to do such a thing. User:Biografer, you need to stop this now. People routinely get blocked for exactly this sort of behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this map Japan uses YYYY-MM-DD. And stop threatening me with blocks @Curly Turkey: otherwise this will be your last gobble. I don't do it without a reason as you see.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer: you realize that this comment—which will permanently on record—will be used against you when this inevitably goes to ANI? You've had it explained to you why we do things they way we do at Wikipedia, and you have been linked to the relevant guidelines. You've run out of excuses.

Marchjuly: you are free to revert all the changes Biogafer has made. If Biografer gives you trouble, we'll take it straight to ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: and @Curly Turkey: Before anyone will revert anything look at this map. This is my final excuse. It clearly marks yellow areas which are China and Japan as YMD (I am dubious about Canada). But if this map means nothing, then fine. I will succumb to the Wikipedia Order.--Biografer (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated many time in other posts on other pages, all three date formats are used in Japan in materials written in English. We can agree on that. Where we disagree is that you seem to think the all numerical format is the predominant one being used in Japan because that is the one used on some Japanese websites; therefore, that is the format which needs to be used on Wikipedia. As others have pointed out in this thread and on other pages, that is not how date formats are determined on Wikipedia. As for the map, sure it has meaning when it's used in context; for example, "this map shows that the YYYY-MM-DD format is used in Japan" is a correct statement, but "this map shows that the YYYY-MM-DD format is used in Japan, and therefore that is the format which must be used by Wikipedia articles about Japanese subjects" is not a correct statement. When you create an article you can select the citation/date format as you see fit; if someone subsequently comes along and wants to change the format being used, they need to have a good reason for doing so per MOS:CITEVAR or MOS:DATEVAR. A good reason for doing so would be typically something like the current format is not an acceptable one per WP:BADDATE, MOS:DATEUNIFY or some other guideline, or there is a strong "national variety of English" type reason as explained in MOS:DATETIES. Editors don't get to change ciation/date formats because they personally like one format more than another, or because the a cited source uses a certain format; they are expected to retain the existing format absent a fairly need to make a change. In such case, it's often a good idea to discuss things on the article's talk page first to see if there exists a consensus to make such a change.

Anyway, today's date can be written as "March 2, 2018", "2 March 2018" and "2018-03-02" in English and all three are acceptable on English Wikipedia, but which one is used is determined by relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia may use date formats used in reliable sources to help identify acceptable types, but it's the policies and guidelines which determine which format should be used. So, once again, you need to show which policy/guideline says that the all numerical format needs to be used with respect to articles about Japan or shogi professionals. Also, as I posted on my user talk, it best to keep new comments related to this discussion on this page so that everyone can see them. Posting on my user talk makes it easier for me to see, but not for the others participating in this discussion. If people are responding to you're posts as fast as you want them to then (1) maybe they're busy and haven't noticed the post, (2) maybe they're thinking about their repsonse, or (3) maybe they just don't want to respond. Pinging someone does not mean they will instantaneously respond or are obligated to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Biografer: You're clearly not reading what people are telling you. People also get blocked for WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I also know that admins find reasons to block other editors just because (seen that many times in various Wikipedia entries). I also know of policies such as WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, but I need to assure you all that I am here to build an encyclopedia. We started this discussion to come to agreement of some kind, not to spur it up to AN/I. Let's keep this discussion to the dates and guidelines and policies regarding them not the others, Curly Turkey.--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: So, if I will attach the map to MOS:DATETIES will it suffice or will it still be a no-no?--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's something you should discuss at WT:DATE. Policy and guideline pages can technically be edited like any other page, but since they tend to affect all articles or all users, etc., it's generally better to discuss them first per WP:CAUTIOUS. The best place to do that would be on the relevant talk page or at a place like WP:VP/P. I don't see the point for adding that information especially if you're going to say "See this map because it shows that the YYYY-MM-DD should be used in Japan..." because that would not be a true statement in my opinion. You can, however, try and convince others that it is if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with comments above. It is irrelevant how dates are written in any language other than English. We don't format dates as "1 april 2018" in Dutch-related articles because that how it's written in Dutch sources. So, changing the date format to all numerical because that's how it's written in Japanese is wrong.

Clean-up templates should retain the date that they were added to the article. As said above, this is used for tracking purposes. DrKay (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We use yyyy-mm-dd format in special cases (such as tracking or indexing). But in the main we use English-language style on the English-language Wikipedia, which is mdy or dmy. Local consensus is not allowed to override this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: Yes, in the main we use either mdy or dmy but when it comes to accessdate articles regarding China for example, on English Wikipedia, we use YYYY-MM-DD format. For as far as I know, dates in refs might be written differently then the dates in the article.--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "dates in refs[citations?]might be written differently then the dates in the article" is a bit ambiguous. For publication dates "differently" encompasses only mdy or dmy, not numeric. Is there anything about this you do not understand? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note regarding YYYY-MM-DD in Japan. Yes, that's correct to a degree, but the actual format in Japan is along the lines of 2018年2月21日. That is not the same as writing the date 2018-02-21, but rather the equivalent of spelling it out in English as 2018 February 21, which we do not do in English. Any dates in references or the body of the article that are written in YYYY-MM-DD format should be changed to the date format established in the article (either "21 February 2018" or "February 21, 2018"). There are no exceptions to this on the English Wikipedia. If one of those two formats has not yet been established for the article, then pick one based on the version of English used in the article. If none has yet been established, establish one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful insight @Nihonjoe:! I wanted to invite you and @Yamaguchi: to this discussion but was in fear of being accused of canvassing. Unfortunately, I think you might misunderstand what the discussion is about here. We are trying to come to agreement weather to use YYYY-MM-DD format in accessdates, and consecutively in dates of citations, not the main article. Main article will remain mdy (and I have nothing against it), its the dates in citations that are bothersome because this map shows that Japan uses the same date format as China and Korea.--Biografer (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: See my comment above, specifically the "Any dates in references..." part. That's referring to accessdate, though not using that phrase specifically. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with waht Nihonjoe posted above and actually intended to write something similar as a reponse to you on my user talk yesterday, but didn't want to split this discussion up any further. As Nihonjoe points out, a date like "March 3, 2018" is most commonly written in Japan/Japanese as 2018年3月3日, which is not exactly the same as "2018-03-03". If you look at enough websites written in Japanese, you'll also probably find things like "2018/03/03", "2018.03.03" or even "平成30年3月3日". All of these date formats can p be used, but the fact that they can be used doesn't mean that they need to be used or should be used on English Wikipedia. The same can probably be said about any language which uses a "different" format to express dates. What you do not seem to get here is that when a date format (even for citations) has been established, there is no need to go around changing it to another format without a very good reason (e.g., WP:BADDATE or MOS:DATETIES) for doing so. Moreover, changing a citation style or date format is probably one of those things which you can be WP:BOLD and try, but which you should discuss on the talk page and establish a consensus for if by chance you are reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this type of post @Marchjuly: because of 2 typos that you made! That is exactly what I was doing by changing the date. I was being WP:BOLD, and now its my second day of discussing it without editing any articles.--Biografer (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You were bold and you were reverted because you made a change to the date formating which was considered contentious. At that point, you should've discussed/proposed changing the date format on the article's talk page. The is no "Wikipedia house-style" when it comes to citation styles or date formats; multiple formats are acceptable as explained in MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:CITEVAR. The YYYY-MM-DD format is one of the acceptable formats for citations, but it is not the only format. It can be used, but it doesn't need to be used. So, unless there's a good reason which requires that the format be changed to an all numerical one, there's no reason to do so. This is what people have been trying to explain to you. Now, if think there's a "good" reason for making such as change, then you should clearly explain why in your edit sum or in a subsequent article talk page post. If someone reverts your change and leaves an edit sum clearly explaining why, then they feel that your reason is not good enough. At that point, you should discuss per WP:BRD. You've also not clarified why you were changing the dates in the {{Expand Japanese}} templates. This is clearly unnecessary as well as others have pointed out. Does this mean that you now understand why these template dates do not need to be changed or do you think they still need to be changed? As for the errors in my last post, if you're not just being snarky and really have a hard time understanding that "waht" was intended to be "what", especially in that context, then others might start assuming that item 5 of WP:CIR#Language difficulty is a possible issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through similar discussions before, so perhaps I should throw in my 2 cents. Japan writes dates in variations of the yyyy-mm-dd format (sometimes as 2018年2月21日, sometimes as 2018-02-21 and sometimes with the year based on the emperor's year of ascension, although that is becoming less common). However, in English writing, Japan uses yyyy-mm-dd, and practically all the forms found in both US and UK writing. The US and UK form typically depends on where the writer was educated or where his teacher was educated or which market he is writing to (eg car makers typically use US formats because the US is their biggest market and they want to keep their biggest market happy). Which comes down to English writing in Japan has no real preference and all 3 forms allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT can be used in Japanese citations with no preference. MOS:DATERETAIN also comes into effect - if an article already has a predominant a date format for the citations then that format should be retained. Changes are only allowed to bring the few outliers into line with the others in that article or if consensus has been reached on the talk page to change it. Stepho talk 00:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, there was an edit conflict when we both were trying to post a response; so, I've inserted my last post above yours since it was intended to be a direct response to what Biografer posted.

I think you've just summarized what everyone else posting above has been saying and everyone, other than Biografer, seems to understand. It is generally considered that the citation style/date format used by the first major contributor is the one which should be retained unless there's a good reason to change it per both MOS:CITEVAR and MOS:DATEVAR. People may disagree on what qualifies as a "good" reason to make such a change. When that happens, a consensus should be established on the article's talk page for the change. Biografer was changing the date formats in quite a number of articles. When the edits were reverted citing relevant policies and guidelines, Biografer simply reverted the reverts. Since there were so many articles involved, it was pointed out on Biografer's user talk that there was no need to change the date format and the response was "All of those shogi players are Japanese so they use year-month-date and 2. Mdy in both article and sources can be confusing for editors. Fair argument?" which is not an absolute truth on multiple levels. Other attempts were made to discuss/explain things on Biografer's user talk here and here, but were unsuccessful. So, the discussions moved to other pages like User talk:Yunshui#Relationship between template dates and access-dates and User talk:Marchjuly#Date formats, and eventually ended up here. Biografer only seems to have stopped converting the date formats because of this warning added by Yunshui at User talk:Biografer#Changing dates. Note the additional warning added today by Alex Shih. Curly Turkey posted above that I should just go back and revert to the established date format, but I've decided to wait until this discussion is resolved. It does seem, however, that it actually has been resolved and that it is just Biografer who is still arguing that the all numerical format is the one which needs to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih warning was unnecessary.--Biografer (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding @Marchjuly: comment above, we are not arguing, but discussing. I got your point, but you were failing getting my point, which thankfully Nihonjoe explained better, and now we are even. As for reverts, you don't need to listen to user Curly Turkey, if you are an adult (about which I have no doubt about). Curly Turkey is not your teacher (sensei) or your boss. Another thing to mention, reverts can be considered disruptive (if you are planning to do massive reverts), try to ignore them for now. I wont edit them. I will go to bed and tomorrow I will write articles (unless I will be blocked). Consider that this discussion is closed. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should be real careful to not cast aspersions on other editors like Curly Turkey either directly or indirectly. Curly Turkey does not need my permission to edit any more than I need his permission to edit and there's no need to say he is not my "teacher" or "boss" since doing so comes off a bit snarky. I'm sure he and everyone else who has posted in this thread understand quite clearly understands that we are all expected to edit in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and not per the personal instructions of other editors. In addition, I'm pretty sure I understood your point just as well as all the others who have posted comments in this thread, so if I failed to get it then most likely everyone else failed to get it as well. When everyone seems to be failing to get your point, then perhaps the problem is that "your point" is not (at least in the opinion of apparently everyone who has posted so far) in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

As for "arguing", the word also means "discussing" (see wikt:argue) and that is the context in which I was using it. You have argued your position for using the YYYY-MM-DD date format for citations, and others have argued there is no need for such a change. This does not mean, we are fighting with each other; it means we are discussing.With respect to mass reverts, they are occassionally needed to undo mass changes made to articles, especially when those changes were not done in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Ideally, the person who made the original changes goes back and cleans things up themselves after it's pointed out that they were made in error.

You posted that this discussion should now be considered closed. What does that mean exactly because WP:CLOSE has a specific meaning with respect to discussions such as this? Are you sugessting that you are willing go back and undo the changes you made or are you still suggesting that the dates used in citations have to be YYYY-MM-DD? You have also still not commented on the issue of the "Expand Japanese" template dates. Are you in agreement that the dates should not have been changed (and therefore are going to return them to their original dates) or do you still insist they need to be updated to the current month-year? Is it your intention to go around and change all of these templates from "March 2018" to "April 2018" on April 1? So, please clarify what you mean by "closed". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue Biografer hasn't been "discussing" at all, given how they've simply ignored all pointers to and explanations of guidelines and policies.

It's funny how many people here have tried to Mansplain how date formats work in Japan. This is WikiProject Japan. The participants here are very well aware of how dates are formatted in Japan.

Just do you know, Biografer: YYYY-MM-DD is the format I use for accessdates on all the articles I am the primary editor on, including my two dozen Featured Articles. Nevertheless, I don't systematically disrupt Wikipedia by violating WP:DATERET with my personal preferences. Now show us some good faith and revert those guideline-violating changes you made. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get off saying people are "mansplaining" here? At least half the time (if not far more), no one has any idea what gender the other editor is (most usernames give no clue), so that's a ridiculous thing to accuse other editors of here. Please keep such accusations to yourself as they do nothing but disrupt things. They never, ever help in any discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I've been mansplaining, then my bad. My intent was to try and figure out a way to explain things to Biografer; it was not to point out the obvious to others. FWIW, I picked this talk page for exactly the reason you've given above, but I also placed notifications on other talk pages; so, maybe not everyone who posted here is a member of WP:JAPAN. Biografer is currently under block per below; but perhaps they will take your advice and go back and clean things up once they are unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was 98% sure a block was on the way. Oh, well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' posts

@Biografer: I originally posted something about this on this thread here, but removed it because I didn't want things to go off on a weird tangent. However, after this post I think it needs to be pointed out. Please stop edting/copy-editing other editors' posts. There is no need for you to go around and make any "corrections" to other editors' posts. Talk pages are not articles, so spelling errors, grammar errors, etc. do not need to be corrected. If you notice a spelling error, etc. that makes a post difficult to understand, you can ask for clarification; however, you do not need to "fix" it except in certain specific cases. If there's a serious format, syntax, layout error which affects the page's format or otherwise makes the thread hard to follow for other editors, then sometimes those can be fixed per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors or WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors. When that happens, you should make a separate edit and leave a clear edit sum as to what you're changing and why. If you notice any mistakes in things you've previously posted, you can change them per WP:REDACT. Changing or correcting others posts, however, like you've been doing is something you should avoid per WP:TPO. This has nothing to do which date format is being used, and I'm happy to continue that discussion above; however, if you "edit" another one of my posts, I will ask an adminstrator for assistance at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: First of all, forgive me that I ignored your previous posts regarding this issue. Clearly, there was a lot more info then that, so that post might have slipped through. I for one like when people spell stuff correctly. That way, it is easier for me to follow what is being said. I hope you will agree with me that I am not doing it for a malicious intend. Since I can't edit your posts, maybe you will fix administrator error yourself, please?--Biografer (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: Just don't edit others' comments, even if they make mistakes. Minor formatting (like fixing a broken link, fixing indent level, and similar things that don't change what they wrote) is okay, but just do not ever edit another editor's comments. Just don't. Period. It causes too many problems. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Like what problems? I see one problem here, that is when someone makes typos, the post becomes hard to read for me (and probably everyone else). My suggestion to Marchjuly is to get the bloody spellchecker. Every Windows and Mac software comes with it! Even iPhone have it. By the way, @Marchjuly:, what software are you using?--Biografer (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biografer It causes people to think you're changing their comments, even if you aren't. It causes people to not trust you, which is a big problem on a collaborative site like Wikipedia. If other editors don't trust you, it can be hard to work with them on anything and be productive because they're always worrying that you're changing others' comments. The solution is simple: Do. Not. Do. It. Ever.

If you get annoyed by others' typos, suck it up and deal with it like an adult. It's your problem, not theirs. Everyone makes mistakes, and if you constantly point out others' mistakes (whether directly or by being passive-aggressive and changing their comments without their knowledge), you will end up being blocked. Again: Do. Not. Do. It. Ever. Just don't. It's really quite simple. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed my first post about this, so you simply might not have seen it, which means I'm not going to say you ignored it. However, now that you’ve been advised about WP:TPO, you should stop doing that to not only my posts, but all other editors’ posts. Also, just some friendly advice: I also don't like spelling/grammar errors and I try to correct mine when I find them; however, you are going to have ignore those made by others unless they really do affect the meaning of the post. If you start regularly posting things like "please correct the spelling of XXXX" or "BTW, XXXX is spelled incorrectly" or "'XXXX' does not have a "u" in it", etc., you're going to start having problems with other editors. It's best just to ignore things like "adminstrator", etc. when the meaning is obvious. I'm sure others would be able to find errors in your posts (even in your last post above), but they don't point them out unless there's a real need to do so. If you keep doing these things and then get all self-defensive and say people should use a spellchecker because you don't like spelling mistakes, you are going to quickly end up at ANI. You simply do not need to edit another editor's post because even a minor change might possibly change the intended meaning. Moreover, if you do feel there's a need to edit another editor's post (see WP:TPO for some common examples of when this is considered OK), then it's a good idea to do it in a separate edit which clearly explains why you are making the edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing typos doesn't change a meaning (unless you are referring to a to an), then yes, they might. I for one change my mistakes when I see one but I am not saying that I am perfect. I encourage people to fix theirs, and its not an order. Using a spellchecker was just a friendly suggestion. Perhaps, I shouldn't have say it in such an aggressive way... Sorry about that.--Biografer (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hope we are still on good terms and thanks all for the advices. :)--Biografer (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised not to edit others' posts, esepcially to fix typos or spelling errors, yet you choose to ignore that advice and continue on as before by here. As a result, you can explain why you feel there's a continued need for you to copyedit other's posts at WP:ANI#Biografer "correcting" others' talk page comments. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hello everyone, みなさん、こんにちは,

@Narutolovehinata5: and I have been desperately attempting to retrieve an image for Konomi Suzuki. However, to no avail, our last resort is to contact her agent directly. If anyone is knowledgeable in Japanese and is not too busy, could you please translate this request for permission for us? That would be extremely helpful.

Dear Amuleto: I am one of the many volunteer editors of Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), a Web-based collaboration.
We are currently improving an article based on singer Konomi Suzuki. Wikipedia is a multilingual open-content encyclopedia that strives for complete and reliable content. Volunteers from around the world collaboratively create content. However, the article could use an image of her: an image provided by your company and approved for licensing would really help our readers understand her singing career. We plan to use the image on our article on Konomi Suzuki.
It is to that noble end that I make this request. However, for Wikipedia to use the material, you must explicitly release the image under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 International (often referred to as CC-BY-SA). In essence, CC-BY-SA allows you to retain the copyright and authorship of your work, but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). You can read the complete license at "https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License".
If you grant permission for use, we will credit you for the images, and state that it is used with your permission and link back to the article it is featured on.
I sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise me of your decision by email, at example@gmail.com and I will gratefully forward it to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thank you, and I hope you will consider accepting this request.

We appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but many Wikimedia Commons pages have already been translated into mutliple foreign (non-English) languages; for example, c:COM:L and c:COM:ET have Japanese versions at c:COM:L/Ja and c:COM:ET/Ja respectively which might be helpful. You can also try to asking for help at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers because if a freely licensed image may also be used in ja:鈴木このみ (if that's the same person). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono

Please look at this discussion:

Talk:Suzukake no Ki no Michi de "Kimi no Hohoemi o Yume ni Miru" to Itte Shimattara Bokutachi no Kankei wa Dō Kawatte Shimau no ka, Bokunari ni Nannichi ka Kangaeta Ue de no Yaya Kihazukashii Ketsuron no Yō na Mono#Requested move 4 March 2018

--Moscow Connection (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dōshi-michi

Resolved

– Posted (by me) while too irritated to remember the existence of Google Books. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it: I enjoy the sight of a script being mangled (all those backwards hanzi/kanji in tattoos, etc) or presented in a novel way. So when I saw this sign, I had to take a photo.

Well, now to find a suitable context. I was about to add

[[File:Dousi-miti-sign.jpg|thumb|right|Reminder (in Nagamata, Dōshi) that this is Dōshi-michi]]The road goes through [[Dōshi]], and for some of its length is also known as Dōshi-michi (i.e. the Dōshi road).

to the sorry stub Japan National Route 413. But I couldn't find a "reliable source" for the name 道志みち (or indeed for the less popular 道志道), so I didn't.

The Japanese-language web is a mere bog of blogs, it sometimes seems. Sniff. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A brainwave came later: Google Books. Fixed! -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably missing almost everything here. Don't understand the first bit about backwards letters etc etc, and can't see much wrong with the sign, except to say that for vertical writing it's normal to use capitals, since they fit in boxes, just like kanji (etc) do. But as for point-missing, the obvious unmentionedness is that this is a palindrome, if michi is not written in hiragana, viz. 道志道. I would really like to add to the palindrome article about the standard concept of 回文 (lit. "rotating writing"), and how you get a different effect depending on the script. There was an article, probably in the Japan Times about this, some decades ago, but no chance of finding it now; it pointed out how "Akasaka" is not a palindrome in Japanese, but "Masako-sama" is. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I

t

'

s

unusual to write in the roman alphabet from top to bottom (as I did there), particularly when this is in lowercase. I find this rather charming. Just as I find a tattoo (by and for a non-reader of CJKV characters) saying 忍者 or whatever upside-down charming. I did indeed notice that this was 道志みち and not 道志道 and guessed-diagnosed some palindromophobia. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiryū Festival

I am working on List of Important Intangible Folk Cultural Properties and am wondering into what subsection the designation of the Chiryū Festival should go. Should it go into 民俗芸能 (渡来芸・舞台芸), i.e. Folk performing arts (Entertainment from Abroad and Performance Arts), as indicated by the (often somewhat outdated) database or into 風俗慣習 (祭礼（信仰), i.e. Manners and customs (Religious festivals and beliefs) as it says for instance here? Also there is a possibility that there are two designations. So basically what I am asking is whether the festival has been designated for the puppet play or as a festival (for floats, etc)? bamse (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It appears to me that the designation goes only to the puppet play (知立のからくり), so I think the former is correct. I cannot find any records of the festival being designated on its own as 風俗慣習 in 重要無形民俗文化財 anywhere. Alex Shih (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this which if I am not mistaken talks about this issue. Would appreciate if somebody who knows Japanese could take a look and just see what it says about the Chiryū Festival (知立の山車文楽とからくり) and the respective subsection (民俗芸能 (渡来芸・舞台芸) or 風俗慣習 (祭礼（信仰)?). Thank you. bamse (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Abdotorg mass-prodding Morning Musume members

I would like to draw attention to User:Abdotorg who has prodded many articles about Morning Musume members today. See his contribs for March 17.

The concern he states is "fails WP:NMG". While, as you may understand, every or almost every Morning Musume member who has been in the group for some time, is notable. Firstly, every one of them has been the subject of multiple articles in the Japanese media. Secondly, many have been members of several independently notable groups (like Kei Yasuda and Aika Mitsui, both of whom Abdotorg prodded too today). Thirdly, most of them have released solo DVDs and Blue-rays that charted on Japan's national chart (on Oricon).

I'm writing to you here cause I've already met User:Abdotorg at K-pop articles and I'm not sure he will listen to me. But maybe he will listen to you. (Basically, I know that my sole opinion doesn't matter much. I've met him here: User talk:Abdotorg#Members sections and here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 3#Members sections. The member sections he removed en mass from K-pop group articles still remain deleted.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if they have released a DVD that has charted on oricon they definitely pass notability and merit a wikipedia article and in that case I agree that the articles should indeed be kept - please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this aspect. I personally find point 6 of WP:NMG questionable but since it is there please also undo prods I have made in that aspect. Abdotorg (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

Dear Japanese readers,

What does this mean: https://i.imgur.com/4qMypQO.png

It's a screenshot from the credits of Pokémon Trading Card Game (video game), Japanese version. I know the lower text reads Hadoson (Hudson Soft), but what does the upper text mean? I tried OCR and Google Translate, but the results were questionable.

Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s “Geemu Seisaku” or “ゲームせいさく”. “ゲーム” means “game”, while “せいさく” (制作) means “create” or “produce”. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Do you think it means that Hudson developed the game, or did they produce it, as in, a Video game producer?
The reason I ask is this: Talk:Pokémon Trading Card Game (video game)#What exactly did Hudson do on this game? - Manifestation (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manifestation: Hudson was one of the developers for the game. It means they likely contributed code. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so too. The game is graphically similar to Pokémon Gold and Silver, which was developed by Game Freak. I strongly suspect Game Freak was at the very least involved with the graphics, which could mean that Hudson contributed to the code. It seems that the only way to solve this 'mystery' is to cross-reference the list of staff members with those of other games, so that I can find out which person belonged to what company. But that will gobble up a lot of my free time... Anyway, thanks for your help, Nihonjoe and Marchjuly. Take care, Manifestation (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't played it in a very long time, but I don't remember it being especially similar to the Gen2 core series Pokemon games except insofar as they were both technically RPGs for the Game Boy with an overhead perspective, as well as a weird story structure that seemed to be designed to parody the main series games (at the end a professor appears and tells you that you should love and respect your cards, etc.). The specific differences I recall were really more general user interface than graphical ("towns" were very limited and one travelled between them with an overworld map similar to the "Fly" HM in the core games), mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GAN: Hachijō-jima

There's a Good article discussion happening at Talk:Hachijō-jima/GA1. If someone else can come look at this, that would be great. I've done an initial review, so now we need someone to implement the changes. I'd do them, but then my review wouldn't be valid for making it a Good Article. Thanks for any help! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one or two people can come look over this and make the suggested changes, that would be great. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I reviewed it, so I can't be the one making the changes. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just another plea from me to help finish this GAN. If 2-3 people can come help at Talk:Hachijō-jima/GA1 and address the items mentioned there, it will go quite quickly and we'll have another good article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We were able to get the article up to GA level and it's now a Good Article. Thanks to everyone who helped. The article has now been nominated for a Did you know?, so you're welcome to participate in that discussion, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive links for 2018 missing

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Project talk, which appears on the top of this very page, the links to 2018 archives (Jan/Feb so far) are missing. Do they need to be added manually or does this work automatically? bamse (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bamse: They are added manually. This has been fixed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people

Hi all. This is what the Japanese people article looked like at a random point in 2014, and this is what it looked like earlier today. It has slowly been taken over by genetics creep. Every time a new study is published it gets added to the page; sometimes the additions are good faith edits, and other times they are intended to push a particular point of view.

Today I took the step of breaking almost all of the genetics out into a new Genetic studies on Japanese people article in line with others like Genetic studies on Turkish people, Genetic studies on Croats, Genetic studies on Gujarati people, Genetic studies on Bulgarians, etc. In my opinion the article on Japanese people is now somewhat more balanced, as it was in 2014.

I foresee that this may earn some pushback. I'm happy to change things again if other editors disagree, but I'd appreciate it if interested editors here would participate in any further discussions that take place at Japanese people. Also, does anyone have any suggestions on how to avoid the accumulation of more genetics creep in the future? Dekimasuよ! 06:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu: Good job. I like it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of low-standard GAs to be improved to FA

@Margin1522: I don't really understand this edit summary. Yes, the article is currently classified as a GA, but only because it has been GA for over a decade (since the "bad old days" when articles with no secondary citations could be GA). Given how much could be said about Bashō relative to Ariwara no Narihira and others, one would imagine that to meet the comprehensiveness criterion of FA it would need to be longer. Even if it is determined to still meet the GA criteria twelve years on, it is a long way from being FA material.

The list in general is quite messy. I actually didn't notice until just now, but it is apparently supposed to be for "top importance" articles, and yet Junichiro Koizumi (a "high importance" article) is listed (as an A-class when it's actually C-class). Presumably this is either a failure to update the list when the article was downgraded or the result of a good-faith mistake of someone listing a page where it doesn't belong.

Anyway, IMO the list should be either comprehensive and list all GAs that haven't been delisted yet, or should exclude "legacy" GAs like the Bashō article that are only GAs because standards on Wikipedia used to be much lower and no one has gotten around to either reassessing or improving them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was simply a restatement of the purpose of the list. I suppose proposals to improve or update the list could be discussed here. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That purpose was not obvious: there are a lot of Japanese GAs that are not listed there, and my original edit summary addressed that appropriately, so if you are going to revert you should provide a specific reason that addressed the concerns I stated up-front. I was honestly kind of surprised at how fast my edit was reverted, given how infrequently the main project page gets updated -- you have never edited it, for example.

Anyway... who's not for allowing removal of old GAs that do not necessarily meet current GA standards and would require significant work to even ensure they keep their GA status, let alone are promoted to FA? The Bashō article is actually something I'd be willing to tackle to bring to FA myself within the next few months (one thing that's holding me back is that my copy of volume 5 of the Koten Bungaku Daijiten disappeared in 2015) but even I think listing it here in its current state is not doing much good.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with you about the quality of the article, but you probably should have submitted it to WP:GAR first. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: Yeah, but I was just recently attacked for trying to make the GAR process more streamlined (so folks like me could actually file them without getting a bunch of procedural nonsense wrong). When the GAR procedural guidelines are actively being rewritten to discourage the process's use, filing a GAR should never be a prerequisite for anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with that, and pulling a GA from a list of GAs when you've got a dispute like that going on looks awfully WP:POINTy—particularly when it's a list of "articles to improve". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you opened any GARs lately? I opened a couple in 2015 and encountered no procedural problems, then the instructions for filing them suddenly got very long and convoluted, and all three of the ones I filed in 2016 had filing errors. Anyway, the dispute in question was actually resolved a year ago and POINTily brought up out of the blue last week, not by me, and has nothing to do with WP:JAPAN anyway; the relevant question here is whether telling project members that they can help bring the Basho article to FA status when it is only even a GA because of a technicality is a good idea or not. I think we should probably be having a conversation as a project about the whole list, which is sorely outdated, but I don't see the problem with removing a single entry one has examined and determined not to be appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not disgreeing about the quality, but you must be aware that you'd encounter pushback if you're going to circumvent procedure. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I still don't see how removing entries from an arbitrary list that apparently very few people are monitoring is "circumventing procedure", and even if the article was GARred as you are recommending it could still be listed as a B- or C-class top-importance article to be improved to FA, so outright delisting it then would still be circumventing procedure by that logic.

Unless you're telling me that it's meant to be a comprehensive list of all the top-importance articles, and happens to include a number of errors (making it difficult to read because it doesn't directly say that), in which case my outright removing Basho was procedural no-no either way and GAR had nothing to do with it (I don't reject its importance assessment, for what it's worth). If that's the case, I admit I was wrong and will switch to removing the non-top-importance articles and adding in the ones that aren't there (?) regardless of my assessment of the quality of the articles.

As an aside, Basho is one of those articles that, regardless of the steps that have been put in place to make GAR as difficult as it is, would actually be easier to fix than to GAR, so the article's currently being GA is actually completely irrelevant to my opinion on this matter.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an arbitrary list—it's a list of articles marked "Top importance", and includes those that are even "Start" class. You're not saying Bashō of all people shouldn't be on that list? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: No, I'm not. I do think that if it is meant to be a complete list of top importance articles regardless of current quality then that should be made clear (it definitely wasn't clear to me, which was the only reason I removed it), and the Junichiro Koizumi article should be either re-assessed as top importance or removed. (I also, honestly, would place Fujiwara no Teika on a similar level of importance to Basho from a WP:JAPAN -- as opposed to a western pop-culture image of Japan -- perspective, but that's really beside the point.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be clearer than titling it "Top importance articles → FA"? If you think Fujiwara no Teika should be "Top" rather than merely "High", nothing's to stop you from changing the article's assessment (unless someone WP:BRDs—do you think that's likely?). Re: Koizumi—perhaps he was "Top" whenever the list was made, but he's currently "High" (and therefore shouldn't be on the list). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the list of top importance articles, then the " → FA" part is unnecessary and misleading, as it implies that this is the list of top importance articles that one or more members of the project thought specifically worthy of the project's members pushing to FA status, for one reason or another. Granted, the inclusion in the list of articles that are already FA probably should have tipped me off, but ... well, it's really just a mess. Is Category:Top-importance Japan-related articles the place where the actual up-to-date list of top importance articles is? That lists 113 C-class articles where the list under discussion currently has 107, and 23 B-class articles where we currently have 26; presumably most of this can be explained by editors changing the assessments without updating the list, but is that really acceptable? I actually did change Teika from mid to high back in 2015, and I'm pretty sure the reason I didn't unilaterally change to top was because "top" importance assessments need project support in advance (?). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing misleading about it. It's been poorly maintained, but the objective is clearly to show what stage "Top importance" articles are at in the hopes of getting people to raise their classifications. If it's important to you that it be properly maintained, then volunteer to maintain it. These pages are meant to be helpful to those of us back-of-the-house—readers don't see these things. It's really not something to get worked up about.

I haven't heard anything about "Top" assessments (or any assessments outside A, GA, and FA) needing project support in advance, but if it's true—why not submit it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hikimi Wasabi

I review drafts on English Wikipedia. While reviewing other submissions, I stumbled upon this draft and found that its references are in Japanese language. Would be great if anyone with good knowledge of English and Japanese could verify and approve/decline the draft. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dial911: Looks like Curly Turkey took care of it back on March 12. Thanks, CT. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should have mentioned it, since I got there from here. There's still some stuff that could be cleaned up there that I didn't know how to deal with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Dial911 (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

四神 - Genbu, Suzaku, Seiryu and Byakko : beasts of the four directions

Well, whatever they're called, there is an article at Four Symbols (China); perhaps there should be a bit more about the Japanese names for these, and their popular reappearance in video games and the like. (I know little about this, except that I sell jigsaw puzzles of them.)

Meanwhile, I started an AfD for a duplicate article called Four Benevolent Animals, which might be of interest to some people here. Not sure if the "Japan" category should be added... Imaginatorium (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]