Talk:Dai-ichi

Untitled
What does this mean?
 * The kanji in parentheses in this article are sometimes presented as just two equal-length parallel bars (like top and bottom of box with no or faint sides); and not the unequal parallel bars of "ni" (see below). If not here, the main, linked articles may have the kanji; also, the edit page may show the kanji.

Why is there any doubt as to what kanji is in the article? 129.10.231.44 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. There was a time when the kanji were not reproducing correctly on the page but it appears to be fixed now. I'll remove the paragraph. Swliv (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary and notability edits
Two separate but related issues:
 * 1) The "notability" box was added with the explanation "dubious, but useful for the moment" and the box itself goes on to say "notability [may be established] by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." I don't follow that. As a word/phrase, it has a dictionary citation. Most of the work of the article was finding the various uses of the word/phrase, which were numerous and I think usefully gathered here. The box goes on to say if notability is not established the article may be merged elsewhere. If a good "dai ichi" definition, with the kanji, were available at Wikt. (see #2 below), I could see that standing in for this article. The value of seeing the multiple uses of the word/phrase would I expect be lost in a central point but could be found through a search and I could let that go without serious concern.
 * 2) To say, as another editor did in placing the Wiktionary box on the page, that this article is "dictdef-ish" is undeniable. I started the article because it was not easy to find what the then-prominently used term from Japanese meant. It took me a while to find out so I probably missed the height of curiosity on the subject, but I helped ease some of it. Three sub-issues:
 * A) The editor, interestingly, used the kanji as the "look up" in his Wikt. box. That would seem to place it out of reach of those coming to the subject as I and other English-speakers (non-Japanese speakers) did. We can't even enter kanji on our computers.
 * B) If one clicks on the kanji as provided in the box, one goes to a Wikt. definition only of the Mandarin, unrelated except in graphic form to the Japanese use of the kanji.
 * C) If one searches Wikt. for "dai ichi" or components, one finds only "ichi," not "dai" (in Japanese), not "dai-ichi" in the form as covered exactly in this article. There is this entry which seems to be related certainly to the subject of this article but with a totally different kanji.

To conclude, I am not able to correct the Wikt. issues but for the considerable meantime I would suggest this article still serves a useful function for non-Japanese speakers.

I will add that I was building, in starting and helping maintain this article, on experience in a substantial rebuilding of the Tahrir article at its recent topical moment. Perhaps that one too will come to see its notability questioned. It hasn't so far and in fact has had a pretty good continuing life I would say. I don't want to overdraw any parallels, but one element particularly rang a bell, here, relative to Wikt. and in that case the use of Arabic on the page. Some discussion here Talk:Tahrir may be of interest relative to the Dai-ichi article. Wikt. in that case was in effect also inadequate to the task, I think I can summarize. And I'm not putting Wikt. down, here. I'm just saying I hope decisions will be made with functionality, needs and uses recognized all round.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant point is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Exceptions to that are when a term itself is notable (e.g. "fuck"), which dictionary citations usually don't help prove since dictionaries by their very nature are barely discriminate. This page could probably be made into a valid WP:Disambiguation page though, which would make notability concerns irrelevant. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the point. There's some argument that this term -- always a "blank" term to me; I spent the first few days wondering if the insurance company or the (late-, it turned out) bank, of which I had heard, had an interest in the nuclear plants -- has achieved independent notability. Though I know it's still more a term than a subject. Anyway, without studying the disambiguation criteria in detail, I'm glad to take the dab suggestion. I know the dab process took place "around me" at Tahrir and I don't know/can't tell whether the Dai ichi article now particularly requires more work to meet dab standards. It seems to me like a somewhat-more-elaborate-than-usual but still-all-helpful dab page, if so converted. I'm open to suggestion. If none, and no objection, I'll add the dab tag and take off the notability one. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

More ...
Seikku Kaita, your 2012 addition of 'There is a sound-alike common first name with different spelling' in the page leaves me wanting more. If you or anyone could specify the name, in English and in Japanese, perhaps in a new section titled '"Dai-ichi" meaning "number one" is distinct from' (or any less clunky title of your choice), the page would be substantially improved. Many thanks. Swliv (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)