Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/September 2013

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

{{Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation}}

Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

there's no "King" of Japan...

Can you folks have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revere_the_King,_Expel_the_Barbarians#Requested_move and weigh in? This guy is t-rexing through the article, it needs Japan experts, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"King of Japan" is a title used by the shogun outside of Japan (the title is not used inside Japan), during the Ashikaga shogunate. -- 65.92.182.123 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That's an odd explanation. I'm pretty sure no shogun ever left Japan. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think they might mean that's how they were referred to outside of Japan. For example a bloke from France having a chin-wag with a lass from Yorkshire talking about him (if such an occaision happened). Watashinotabi (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The use of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran is proposed as a discussion topic at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Titsingh's Annals of the Emperors of Japan. There are also implied questions about whether Gukanshō and Jinnō Shōtōki are reliable sources for articles such as the List of emperors of Japan. --Enkyo2 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction: the use of a 19th-century French translation of a 17th-century history book as a representation of current historical consensus is being challenged there. I have no problem whatsoever with this or other old sources being cited as sources on themselves, and I think they should be mentioned in articles where they are relevant. Specifically, I think the sentence "The Gukanshō lists Empress Jingū as a tennō in her own right, although the Nihon Shoki and others only list her as an imperial consort.[ref=Brown, Gukanshō]" is good; on the other hand, "Before the Meiji Period Empress Jingū was generally listed as a separate tennō in her own right, but since 1868 she has been relegated to the status of an imperial consort.[ref=Brown, Gukanshō]" is a bad sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Moritoshi-1860-Mito.jpg

File:Moritoshi-1860-Mito.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese junior colleges proposed mergers

Eleven short articles on junior colleges affiliated with other colleges or universities in Japan are currently proposed for merger. The list and more information are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Japanese junior colleges proposed mergers. Cnilep (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

File:๋JapanVolleyballlogo.jpg

File:๋JapanVolleyballlogo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

RIAJ certifications

Do we have an archive for the list of albums released before 1989 or so and certified by RIAJ? I can't seem to find one unfortunately. I was looking for Seiko Matsuda's certifications btw. 五代 (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics

I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to give Talk:2020 Summer Olympics a top importance rating for WPJ - I can understand, however, that it may be too early to give this rating since its impact has not taken full effect. Thank you, JTST4RS (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that it has been awarded a low rating, sorry for getting it wrong... JTST4RS (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no way it's a low importance article and the editor who designated it as such doesn't seem to be a member of WPJ. Cckerberos (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, I was surprised by the "low" rating too, though I don't have the confidence to challenge/change the rating myself being a relatively new editor. I also originally assigned it to the sport task force though this seems to have been removed. Would it be acceptable to reinstate this, or is there a rule prohibiting assigning an article to two task forces? JTST4RS (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that some users just copy over the importance of one project to fill in all the project banners. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but, it does happen. I do see why someone might think it would be "low", since it is still 6 years away, and was just announced. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Now that I've examined it a bit closer, I notice that when they rated it low, they also removed the sport task force, which is a very unusual thing to do. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses and the clarification regarding the task forces - the article has been reviewed again (not by me) and upgraded to "high" with the sport task force reinstated. After reading this thread, in hindsight the "high" rating is probably more appropriate for the time being - it would seem more appropriate to consider an upgrade closer to the time. JTST4RS (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hitachi Seaside Park Japan

This article in Afc hasn't been edited since last March. Is it worth improving? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is one of the seventeen Japanese National Government Parks and there is a Japanese article ja:国営ひたち海浜公園. So it should be promoted to an article from the Articles for creation page with a tag {{Expand Japanese}}. The tile should be Hitachi Seaside National Government Park following precedent.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that ¥, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Importance of Kitsune

We're having a light discussion and could use another opinion at Talk:Kitsune#WPJ rating. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Collars of the Order of the Chrysanthemum

Category:Collars of the Order of the Chrysanthemum has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Still got this OR fork

Kirishitan still needs zapping/merging into History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. Is there anyone with the time/expertise to do it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okinawan wiki?

Is there no Okinawan-language Wikipedia? Would there be any support for one?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Refer to meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Okinawan. Many of the RfNLs at meta have been dead for many years. I'd presume support is quite minimal at the moment, as is the chance for it to be approved, because there are very few native speakers who are able to contribute to such a Wikipedia project, and keep it active and alive with new content on a regular basis. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Importance scale on Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment

I've noticed that on Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment#Importance scale that Cuteness in Japanese culture is listed as an example of a "mid" importance article, but if the talk page of the article is checked (Talk:Kawaii, "Cuteness in Japanese culture" redirects to "Kawaii") it is clear that it has been rated "high". However, I'm not sure whether it is the rating of the "Cuteness in Japan culture/Kawaii" article which needs to be downgraded to "mid" or whether it has been upgraded and an alternative page needs to be listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment as a "mid". If the latter - I am presuming that the project would appreciate a suitable recommendation for the alternative. Sorry if I've made a misunderstanding JTST4RS (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Mid seems more appropriate - reset. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I evaluated the article at High importance; it was previously at Low importance. I evaluated it at High because it is a pervasive aspect of Japanese culture. "Kawaii" permeates school textbooks, instruction manuals, city mascots, anime, and everything in there. Every ad campaign, every service announcement, every public venture, whether the 2005 Expo or (I'm sure) the 2020 Olympics is represented by a "kawaii" mascot. Please don't get me wrong, it's not that I like kawaii/cute crap. I find some of it wearisome and/or loathsome. However, it is an integral part of the culture, and is makes many products instantly recognizable around the world as "Japanese". - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I must say that if I were basing where to put Cuteness in Japanese culture in terms of the definitions on the assessment page I myself would probably be leaning towards "high" - I remember seeing a video on BBC world [1] following the rise of that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu "song" which to me qualifies it for the "had some impact outside Japan" criteria. My issue is that I, and I should imagine other editors new to assessing articles, have been using the "Cuteness in Japanese culture" as the threshold to consider an article "mid" since it is the example on the assessment page. If the article is in fact high, I fear that articles may have been assessed too harshly due to this high benchmark. Either way, if the eventual conclusion is that Cuteness in Japanese culture is indeed high, then I believe an uncontroversial article needs to be given as the example - preferably one whose importance will not change over time. I don't understand how the article ended up as the "mid" article example, however, since it never has been rated as such. JTST4RS (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, there are two issues that can be addressed here:

Kawaii Importance level

The importance of the article Kawaii has fluctuated. Please state what importance level you think it should be rated and why.

  • High - "Kawaii" is a pervasive aspect of Japanese culture, and many products are instantly recognizable around the world as "Japanese" because of it. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • High - Significant topic in academic writing on popular culture, aesthetics, and art. (E.g.: Yano, Christine R. Pink globalization: Hello Kitty's trek across the Pacific. Durham: Duke University Press, 2013. -- Bornstein, Thorsten. The cool-kawaii: Afro-Japanese aesthetics and new world modernity. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2011) Prburley (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd look at it another way: I think you have too many high-level articles, compared to other projects. For example, comparing here to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, you have similar numbers of classified articles - their your table and their table (plus they have 19,000 unclassified) - but you have about twice as many "high" level. If you are going to have over 2,000 highs then maybe Kawaii belongs, but .... If you think the fact that there are two recent books about a topic makes it "high", I think you're mistaken. But these classes hardly matter unless anyone is going to act or prioritize actions based on the classification, & these days this is too rarely the case. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure comparing one project to another is the best way to go about it, myself. Every project has its own policies and culture after all. See for example, WP:Religion. They have more Top-importance articles than any of the other three categories, more than High & Medium combined. It's a little bizarre in my book, but one of their members explained their policy. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The aim should be some sort of consistency, & I think the better projects tend to show it with each other, though many smaller ones don't, typically over-grading everything. The Religion project is a combination of all the sub-projects like Christianity etc, where the ratings are done, but even so the results are nuts I'm afraid. No way do they follow their own guidance on that page. One issue is that some ratings only get reassessed more realistically for the sub-project and not the main one - see Arjuna. My own main project, Visual arts, long ago decided not to attempt importance ratings, which is one route. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Importance evaluation page example

There needs to be an un-controversial example of Mid-importance on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment#Importance scale. Suggest an example here:

  • Having looked at the list of FA/GA "mid" articles perhaps one/two of: Kitsune, News (band), Fujiwara no Teika, Sakurajima or Tengu. JTST4RS (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Toilets in Japan - Well-written article, B-class, but looks GA. Stable, un-controversial, and should retain same level of importance over time. Fairly important within Japan, and notable as a Japan topic, without a huge impact in or outside the culture. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Toilets in Japan is a very clever suggestion - it's a topic anyone whose visited Japan would be aware of which is ideal for a project page, but not well known to anyone who hasn't visited. My issue is that perhaps it's a little vulgar to put on a key project page. Having given a thought to possible topics on similar lines, pachinko sprung to mind - the problem is that it's currently rated low/start though I think the article is due for a reassessment. (I did also thought of Izakaya though this has been rated high. Note that Tengu has been removed from the options as it has been reassessed as high). Thanks, JTST4RS (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've given it a little more thought after pachinko was still too high. The articles might need a little work but how about Recycling in Japan or 100-yen shop. For the former recycling has some different symbols and collection systems in Japan but they're no way unique enough for significant coverage, 100 yen shops can be seen as Japan's take on variety/"one cost fits all" stores, JTST4RS (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Noodle}}

Merge request here. Templates {{Pasta}} and {{Chinese noodles}} have been proposed to be merged into {{Noodle}}. --Cold Season (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Photograph request at the Tokyo National Museum

Is there anyone living in or near Tokyo willing to go to the Tokyo National Museum? There's a photograph I need of some specific haniwa shown playing drums, which are a part of their regular galleries, the (日本美術) or Honkan (本館) here. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing for info on how Japanese names are written in Chinese

Does anyone know of sources that talk about how Japanese names are written in Chinese?

I need sources for Japanese_name#Japanese_names_in_Chinese_languages WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/September_2013&oldid=1142156548"