Talk:List of town tramway systems in Japan

{{Navbox The English Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia. An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese; that is, use Mount Fuji, Tokyo, jujutsu, and shogi, instead of Fuji-san, Tōkyō, jūjutsu, and shōgi. However, the romanized Japanese form should always be listed in the opening paragraph.
 * state  = collapsed
 * title  = Manual of Style (Japan Related) Quick Reference
 * navbar = plain
 * below  = ==English words of Japanese origin==

Pluralization
Some Japanese loan words are usually pluralized according to English grammar rules, although this usage may sound odd to Japanese speakers. A few examples are tsunami, tycoon, and futon, which take the plurals tsunamis, tycoons, and futons. In the case of more specialized Japanese words such as koi, sushi, haiku, anime, ronin, manga, or dojo, English-language speakers are often familiar with Japanese word usage, and the words usually lack plural forms. For a few words, such as geisha and kamikaze, both forms of pluralization are acceptable. When in doubt, it is probably best to use a dictionary for reference. Helpful tools include the Merriam Webster website for American-English usage and the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary for British-English usage.

Capitalization of words in Roman script
Titles of songs, and the names of singers, companies and so forth are often capitalized when written in Roman script within a Japanese-language context or (in flyers, posters, etc.) for a Japanese audience, and the relevant publicity departments or fanbases may vehemently insist on the importance of the capitalization. However, these names and name elements are not excluded from the guidance provided by the main manuals of style for English-language Wikipedia, listed above. Words should not be written in all caps in the English Wikipedia. For example, although the title of the manga Bleach is always written as "BLEACH" in Japanese (e.g. in its article within Japanese-language Wikipedia), it should be written as Bleach within the English-language Wikipedia.

Using Japanese in the article body
Generally, Japanese script for a word can be added to the text the first time it is introduced, provided that the word is not linked to another article on the English Wikipedia. In that case, the linked article should be edited to show the Japanese script in the opening line, if the text is not already there. Japanese script should only be added once per word in an article, and not added when it already exists in a separate linked article, with exceptions noted below.

If the word is linked to an article which includes the Japanese script, then, Japanese characters are unnecessary in the original article, unless they appear in the context of a list or glossary, such as Glossary of sumo terms, or Tōkaidō Main Line. In those cases, having several Japanese words appear together in context may be beneficial to some readers, and the script should not be deleted.

Japanese text should be marked with the Nihongo or Nihongo2 templates.

Linking to Japanese Wikipedia
Use interwiki links to link to the equivalent article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Additionally, there is generally no need to use inline links to the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article for any words in an article. If a word is important enough to warrant a link, it will have an article here, in which case a standard link is sufficient.

When interwiki linking to the corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia, omit spaces from the Japanese page name. For example a page beginning
 * Junichiro Koizumi (小泉 純一郎) …

must be linked as 小泉純一郎 (no space between 小泉 and 純一郎).

Romanization
Revised Hepburn romanization (described below) should be used in all cases, excepting the few unusual circumstances discussed below. Wikipedia uses the version of Revised Hepburn described below because it is generally accepted by scholars and it gives a fair indication of Japanese pronunciation to the intended audience of English speakers. People who care about other romanization systems are knowledgeable enough to look after themselves.

Macrons should be used in all cases outside of those specifically mentioned below. Use of apostrophes should be avoided except in the case of the syllabic "n" followed by a vowel (see "Body text", below). Excessive use of hyphens should be avoided.

Body text
Take care with these points regarding usage in article body text (anything that is not the title of the article):
 * 1) For transliterations from kanji and hiragana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can click on the special characters below the Wikipedia edit box, or see Help:Macrons for instructions on setting up your computer to input them directly from the keyboard. You can also enter the HTML entity &amp;#333; for ō, and &amp;#363; for ū. All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii.
 * 2) For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo). If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists, use it (i.e., Homard (ja:オマール Omāru) rather than Omāru, and Zha cai (ja:ザーサイ Zāsai) rather than Zāsai). Otherwise, macrons should be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".
 * は, ヘ and を as particles are written wa, e, and o respectively.
 * 1) Syllabic n ん is generally written n (see below).
 * 2) Syllabic n ん is written n&#39; when followed by a vowel or y but not when followed by another n.
 * 3) Transliterated terms should be italicized in accordance with Manual of Style. Note that proper nouns (place/person names) should not be italicized.
 * 4) Do not capitalize suffixes in the titles of historical periods and events, such as Edo period, Tokugawa shogunate, and Recruit scandal.
 * 5) Names should be romanized according to common usage (see below), which includes unconventional romanizations by licensees (e.g., Devil Hunter Yohko and Tenjho Tenge).
 * 6) City names should include macrons in all cases, except for Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, and Kobe. These cities are well-known around the world already.
 * 7) Likewise, prefecture names should include macrons in all cases, except for Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto. The capitals of these three prefectures are well-known around the world already.
 * 8) Island names should include macrons in all cases, except for Ryukyu Islands, Bonin Islands, and Iwo Jima. These islands use the common English name.
 * 9) For other Japanese terms which are used frequently in English (such as sumo), any clearly established romanization should be given preference.

The original version of Hepburn used m when syllabic n ん is followed by b, m, or p. While generally deprecated, this is still allowed in titles for cases where the official romanization continues to use m (examples: Asahi Shimbun, Namba Station). In the modified Hepburn romanization system, unlike the standard system, the "n" is maintained even when followed by homorganic consonants (e.g., shinbun, not shimbun). Use Google to check popularity if in doubt, and create a redirect from the n version.

Article titles
Article titles should follow all of the points above, with the following exceptions:
 * 1) Article titles should use macrons as specified for body text except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries (e.g., Tokyo, Osaka, Sumo and Shinto, instead of Tōkyō, Ōsaka, Sumō and Shintō).
 * 2) Where macrons are used in the title, appropriate redirects using the macronless spellings should also be created which point to the actual title (e.g., Tessho Genda and Tesshou Genda pointing to Tesshō Genda).
 * 3) For proper names, redirects should be created for the Japanese name order which points to the actual title of the article (e.g., Genda Tesshō, Genda Tessho, and Genda Tesshou pointing to Tesshō Genda).

Category link sorting of names and macronned titles
In accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization, articles with macronned titles should not use macrons for category sorting. If a title has macrons in it, the non-macronned version of the title should be used in category sorting. Additionally, the DEFAULTSORT  template should be used directly above the category list:



This will put the page in the correct order in every category of which it is a member. Please also use a comma after the family name in the case of names of people in order to ensure correct sorting with all names across Wikipedia.

Alphabetical order
Lists of romanized words in the English Wikipedia should be ordered in alphabetical order, A-Z, instead of the common Japanese ordering system which is based on the kana characters. In the case of names, alphabetize by family name, not by given name. Words with macrons should be alphabetized as if the macron was one of the normal 26 letters. In cases where two words are exactly the same except for a macron vowel in one word, the non-macron version should be listed first.

This rule also applies to lists of prefectures or other place names, and is in contrast to the Japanese standard of ordering from north to south. Exceptions to this rule can be made when the geographic location or arrangement is important to the overall context of the article, such as in the article Prefectures of Japan. Articles which fall under this exception should always explain the non-alphabetic sort order used within the article.

Words ending in 絵 (e) and 画 (ga)
For words ending in 絵 (e), place a hyphen directly before the "e" in the romanized word (e.g., yamato-e, ukiyo-e). Do not use a hyphen for words ending with 画 (ga) (e.g., manga, nanga). Do not use a hyphen for words beginning with 絵 or 画 (e.g. emakimono rather than "e-makimono").

Other languages
The transliteration of other languages such as (but not limited to) Ainu and Ryukyuan should use the accepted standard transliteration for that language, if any. If there is no accepted standard transliteration for that language, and the word is generally written in katakana in Japanese, a direct katakana to rōmaji transliteration — without macrons — should be used (e.g. ドウモイ becomes "doumoi" rather than "dōmoi"). If no other accepted transliteration method exists, the Japanese transliteration as described here should be used.

Japanese terms
Give the romanization for any name or term written in kanji or kana when the Japanese pronunciation is different from the English pronunciation. Use the pattern:
 * English (Japanese characters rōmaji)

Then you can use the English term in the rest of the article.

For example:
 * At 3,776 meters (12,388 feet) tall, Mount Fuji (富士山) is the highest mountain on the island of Honshū …

Do not use the  tag to further annotate the kanji, as many browsers cannot display it properly.

Template
There is a template (Template:Nihongo) to help standardize the entries for Japanese terms.

Usage example:
 * New Meikai Japanese Dictionary (新明解国語辞典)

appears as
 * New Meikai Japanese Dictionary (新明解国語辞典)

The first entry appears before the brackets, the second is the Japanese term in kanji and kana, the last is the reading in modified Hepburn romanization described here. The question mark ? is a link to Help:Japanese.

Names
This section defines the proper way to write Japanese names on the English Wikipedia. If you are unsure of how to write a name after reading the information below, please post your question on the Talk page. Please note that in all cases, a redirect should be employed for any commonly-used romanization other than that indicated here in order to cover alternate usages. Redirects for the opposite naming orders noted below should also be employed. That is, if an article is titled "given name + family name", a redirect from "family name + given name" is required; and, vice versa.

Names of historical figures
For a historical figure (a person born before the first year of Meiji (1868)), always use the traditional Japanese order of family name + given name and family name + + given name for Japanese characters. Names from Japanese mythology and folklore fall into this category. For example:
 * Tokugawa Ieyasu (徳川 家康, January 30, 1543 – June 1, 1616) was the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate …

Macron usage in the name of an historical figure should adhere to the following, in order of preference:
 * Use name most commonly used in academic journals and texts;
 * Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary;
 * If none of the above is available, use the macronned form.

Names of modern figures
For a modern figure (a person born from the first year of Meiji (1868) onward), always use the Western order of given name + family name for Western alphabet, and Japanese style family name+ +given name for Japanese characters. For example:
 * Junichiro Koizumi (小泉 純一郎 Koizumi Jun'ichirō, born January 8, 1942) is a Japanese politician …

Spelling, including macron usage, of the name of a modern figure should adhere to the following, in order of preference:
 * Use the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet;
 * Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary;
 * Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;
 * Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Dutch, or variations); or
 * If none of the above is available, use the macronned form.

Pseudonyms
In the case of an actor, athlete, author, artist or other individual who is more well known under a pseudonym, use the pseudonym as the article title, and note the additional names they may use (e.g., birth name, other pseudonyms), following the standards above.

If the individual is more well known by family name + given name, a redirect for that should be used as well, and the article should note the multiple ways the name is used.

Names of emperors
For Japanese emperors before Emperor Hirohito, including emperors from both the northern and southern courts during the Nanboku-chō Era, use the form Emperor {name}, which is a partial translation of their posthumous name. The word Emperor is an integral part of the name and not merely a title, so it should be capitalized and the article the should not appear before it. It is also acceptable to refer to a Japanese emperor without "Emperor", so long as the first appearance of the name uses the above format. Be sure to create appropriate redirects so that the version of the name without the title will bring the reader to the correct location.

Although posthumously named Emperor Shōwa, Hirohito can be called Emperor Hirohito (or simply Hirohito), as this continues to be the most widely known name for him in the West. Similarly, the current emperor may be referred to as Emperor Akihito, or just Akihito. It is incorrect to refer to him as Emperor Heisei, as he will not be renamed Heisei until after his death.

Place names
For prefectures, use the form {prefecture-name} Prefecture without ken, fu, or to, for example, Tochigi Prefecture. As an exception, use the title Hokkaidō Prefecture when refering to Hokkaidō (北海道), for dō (道) being an integral part of the prefecture's name cannot be omitted.

For cities, use the form {city-name}, {prefecture-name} ; for example, Otaru, Hokkaidō.

For districts, use the form {district-name} District, {prefecture-name} ; for example, Tosa District, Kōchi.

For towns and villages, use the form {town or village-name}, {prefecture-name} ; for example, Kamikuishiki, Yamanashi.

For wards in cities, use the form {ward-name}-ku, {city-name} ; for example, Naka-ku, Yokohama.

For the 23 special wards in Tokyo, use the form {ward-name}, Tokyo ; for example, Shibuya, Tokyo.

Suffixes
Suffixes such as "City", "Town", "Village", and "Island" are generally superfluous in English and should be avoided. An exception is when differentiating between two municipalities of the same name (i.e. if a town is "promoted" to a city of the same name), or between a prefecture and city of the same name (e.g. Saga Prefecture and Saga, Saga). Even in that case, though, "city of {name}" (lowercase) is preferred. When referring to the city government, use "City of {name}" (uppercase).

A notable exception is Tokyo City, a historical city that existed in what is now Tokyo, in order to avoid possible confusion.

When suffixes are appropriate, capitalize them. For example, Tochigi Prefecture; Kashima District, Ibaraki; Ise Province; Himeji Castle; Tokyo Station; Satsuma Domain.

Temples and shrines
Use the Japanese name and insert a hyphen before bō (坊), dō (堂), in (院), ji (寺), gū (宮), sha (社), taisha (大社) and tera/dera (寺). However, write the English word "Shrine" in place of jinja (神社) and jingū (神宮). Use common name instead of formal name (Kinkaku-ji, not Rokuon-ji; Yama-dera, not Risshaku-ji). All words are capitalized and place/personal names should be offset with a space. Use redirects liberally.

Do not add the word "Temple" into the title. Do not write English translations of names in article titles (where appropriate, they are welcome within the article, e.g. "The Temple of the Golden Pavilion"). Do not prefix -san names (山号) (e.g. do not write "Kinryūzan Sensōji"; simply write "Sensōji"), unless absolutely necessary to distinguish famous temples of the same name and provide a disambiguation page, for example, Kaikozan Hase-dera and Buzan Kagura-in Hase-dera.

Examples:
 * Temples: Sensō-ji, Kiyomizu-dera, Sanjūsangen-dō, Byōdō-in
 * Shrines: Nikkō Tōshō-gū, Fushimi Inari-taisha but Meiji Shrine (Meiji-jingū), Oyama Shrine (Oyama-jinja)

Train and Subway stations

 * The default name is X Station.
 * When necessary, disambiguate by geographical location: Y Station → Y Station (Prefecture) → Y Station (Prefecture, City).
 * Stations on private lines that have the same name as other train or subway stations in the same prefecture are disambiguated as Z Station (PrivateCo). For example, there are two stations named Asakusa Station both located in Asakusa, Tokyo. One is an interchange station for 3 different train companies and one is a smaller station for the Tsukuba Express. As a default, the major station would be Asakusa Station, while the Tsukuba Express station is Asakusa Station (Tsukuba Express).

Addresses
Japanese addresses should be written "Western style", where the order of specificity is specific to general, e.g.
 * {building number} {neighborhood}, {ku, city / town, district}, {prefecture}

For example, 愛媛県西宇和郡伊方町湊浦123番地 should be
 * 123 Minatoura, Ikata-chō, Nishiuwa-gun, Ehime-ken

This is the opposite of Japanese style. Other things to note:
 * Include, but do not translate, suffixes such as -ken, -shi, -chō, -gun.
 * Drop 丁目 (chōme), 番地 (banchi), etc. and include only the numbers, hyphenated. E.g. 1丁目2番地3号室 should be 1-2-3.
 * Note that when the neighborhood's name contains a number, the neighborhood should not be reduced to that number. E.g. 三番町 should be Sanban-chō, not 3.
 * Include 甲 (kō), 乙 (otsu), 耕地 (kōchi), etc. after the banchi numbers.
 * 大字 (ōaza) and 字 (aza) should be treated as prefixes to the neighborhood part of the address.
 * Linebreaks are not required between any address elements.

Names of companies, products, and organizations
Honor the current romanization used officially by that party (i.e., Kodansha rather than Kōdansha, Doshisha University rather than Dōshisha University). If the entity no longer exists, use the most commonly used format. If this can not be determined, use the Hepburn romanization as defined here.

Names in titles
If the name in question is a title (i.e., of a book, an award, etc.), the name order within the title itself should not be changed. For example, the Ina Nobuo Award should not be changed to Nobuo Ina Award even though Nobuo Ina is a modern figure as defined above. However, a redirect pointing at Ina Nobuo Award should be put in place for Nobuo Ina Award in order to avoid any possible confusion.

}}

Style issues
I have added a cleanup tag, as the article needs some tidying up to bring it in line with Manual of Style as follows. --DAJF (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Japanese is not necessary for linked place names, and is generally discouraged in Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)
 * 2) There is no need to itallicize headings.
 * 3) There is no need to link to years alone.


 * You have failed to justify any of the above with reference to context (i.e. to this sub-list). I have therefore removed the tag. Ldemery (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, could you explain what you mean? I might be being a bit dense today, but I genuinely don't understand. As far as I am aware, the Manual of Style applies to all Wikipedia articles, and the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) applies particularly to Japanese-related articles (such as this). As I mentioned in my comments above, it discourages the use of Japanese for linked place names. Is there any reason why this article does not come under these guidelines? --DAJF (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess this is the reason (quote from the Manual of Style, Japan-related articles): "If the word is linked to an article which includes the Japanese script, then, Japanese characters are unnecessary in the original article, unless they appear in the context of a list or glossary". --Kildor (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now edited the article to bring it more in line with the MOS guidelines, so I have removed the "Cleanup" tag. --DAJF (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License revoked; this article must be purged
Because of persistent vandalism, on a large and growing scale, by an individual who identifies himself as "DAJF," I have decided to revoke the license for this article and demand that it be purged from Wikipedia forthwith.

Pertinent facts and circumstances:

1.) (a.) I, Leroy W. Demery, Jr., created this article, typed in the data, and referred extensively to my own research.

(b.) I acknowledge that others have contributed to this research and to this article, but assert that this fact is not germane to the license revocation matter at hand. I assert that most of the "skill, labour and judgment" (to reference a legal test used in the United Kingdom) used to prepare the work, prior to the beginning of the vandalism referenced above, was mine.

2.) It is a well-known fact that the copyright laws of the United States of America do not make clear whether the creator of a work, having granted previously license or release, or right under copyright, may revoke this license, release or right under copyright.

3.) Case law in the United States of America suggests that the creator of a work, having granted previously license or release, or right under copyright, might revoke this license, release or right under copyright "for cause." Such "cause" might include, for example, circumstances where the work has been used for purposes of libel or slander. Such revocation of license, release or right under copyright "for cause" might be enforced against a specific person or persons (i.e. natural persons, companies or corporations).

5.) Statutes and case law in the United States of America do not proscribe revocation of license, release or right under copyright "at will," enforced against a specific person or persons.

In other words, under United States law, I claim the right to demand deletion of this article from "Wikipedia," to impose stipulations as outlined below, and to enforce this revocation of license in a court of law (if necessary).

Stipulations of license revocation:

Within five working days of today, March 31, 2008:

1.) The Wikipedia article titled "List of town tramway systems in Japan" shall be purged forthwith.

2.) The stated reason for this purge shall be "at will" - that is, at the demand of the person who created the page (me).

3.) The article, once purged, shall not be replaced, nor reproduced, in whole or in part, on any Wikipedia page, nor divided among multiple Wikipedia article, nor published in any form by any employee or agent of the Wikimedia Foundation.

4.) With reference to the "dichotomy of facts, and expression thereof" as this term might be used in United States courts of law, I acknowledge that the facts and dates contained in the above-referenced page might be researched, for the purpose of preparing a replacement article, by some other person (or persons). However, this person (or persons) shall not duplicate the selection and arrangement of facts and information in the above-referenced page. In addition, this person (or persons) shall not reproduce any fact or information that reflects my "skill" or "judgment," or that cannot be referenced to any source other than me, or works authored by me, whether published or unpublished.

In the event of non-compliance by the date specified, stipulations 1.) - 4.) shall remain in force, with the following additions:

5.) Any work (as this term is used in U.S. copyright law) created by me shall not be used as a reference, or for any other purpose, in any Wikipedia article, nor in any other work published by the Wikimedia Foundation, its employees or agents.

6.) All other Wikipedia articles created by me, or those with most of the "skill, labour and judgment" provided by me, shall be purged forthwith; stipulations 2.), 3.) and 4.) above shall apply in these cases.

In some locations, the posting date "April 1" might appear; nonetheless, the above is not a joke. Ldemery (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have purged other material on this page because it is now irrelevant.Ldemery (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have in addition sent this, in the form of a hardcopy letter, to the head office of the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. Ldemery (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOREVOKE for a discussion of the implications such requests have on the entire project. -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The essay in question is just that - an essay. It does nothing more than state the opinion of one, or more, individuals. I hold, and assert, an opposing opinion - the GNU Free Documentation License is revokable, and, under U.S. law, could not be otherwise. Note in particular the following statement: "The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the English Wikipedia and various other projects, has not to date expressed an opinion on this matter." That might reflect the fact that the text of the license does not address the issue -- contrary to what is implied in the essay. Please be assured that I have addressed these issues in my letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. As for the "implications such requests have on the entire project," these are not germane to the legal issues at hand. Ldemery (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In short, you can't revoke your contributions under the GFDL. So please stop with this behavior. Thanks SirFozzie (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So says you. I say different. Ldemery (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And you would be wrong. But more to the point, what IS the point? It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it", right there at the bottom of the page every time you submitted an edit. It's a bit late to be stamping your feet and threatening to take your ball home. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the opinion or you and of SirFozzie and Calton and me for that matter are largely irrelevant. As I mentioned in my talk page comment, you should wait until the wikimedia foundation receives your letter. If they believe your claim has merit, they may ask us to remove the material. But I think this highly unlikely and until and unless we receive a directive from them or from the courts, we are not going to be removing material because of a claim you make based on legal principles which go against the very tenet of wikipedia's copyright policies. In other words, there is no point bugging people who have no authority to do anything about it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your request to revoke the GFDL for your contributions has been considered and the community declines to accept it. If you believe your contributions are being used in violation of copyright, please see Contact us/Article problem/Copyright for the next steps to take. Elfits (klat) 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Romanization of place names
I have addressed this issue directly on User talk:Ldemery, but as I am not sure whether User:Ldemery actually reads his talk page, I will also post similar comments here...

I have reinstated all of the romanized place names that were deleted in a long series of edits by User:Ldemery. They all appear correct to me, and there is no need for mass deletion. If any of the romanized names appear inaccurate, they can be tagged on the page for myself or other editors to check. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see . "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." "They all appear correct to me" does not obviate the need for citation. Ldemery (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the first time I have heard of citations being required for the romanization of Japanese place names, but I'll be happy to add links to provide verifiability. --DAJF (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Say what? Anyone with the slightest background in Japanese knows darn well - or should know, darn well - that, although pronunciations ("readings") of dictionary words are standard, those for geographic and personal names are not. To give a good example: 中谷. Contrary to your previous assertions, this is not a matter of "romanization," but of pronunciation, aka "phonetic transcription." The name above might be pronounced "Nakatani," "Nakaya," perhaps "Nakadani," "Nakiwa" or "Nakamaru," perhaps even "Chūkoku" or "Chūgoku." The fact that you have not heard of a "requirement" to check, and reference, phonetic transcription of geographic and personal names (other than those "widely known") does not obviate the matter at hand. Such checking is "necessary" (and, in the scholarly "hardcopy" literature, is expected.) The name above is a good example of one that you would have to check - and reference - even for a location in central Tokyo, unless "widely known." Ldemery (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ --DAJF (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your citation for 豆田 = "Mameda" illustrates the problem. You merely provided a link to the Japanese "Wikipedia" page that describes Mameda town - today. You did not establish that this reading was used 1.) locally, 2.) at the time when the tramway operated, and 3.) by the tramway operator. It was not uncommon to find localities - and businesses - which used "local" pronunciations ("readings") of place names. This practice has faded, but has by no means disappeared: in virtual defiance of Tokyo-based authorities, Kyoto clings to "Kyoto-ben" pronunciations of certain well-known place names. Thus: 豆田 might well have been "Mameda." It might also have been "Mameta." This being a Kyushu place name, it might also have been "Mameden;" "Zuden" and "Tōden" are, as is said, "unlikely but not 'impossible'." Ldemery (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in opening sentence?
Now that details of a number of tramway systems have been removed from the list, maybe the opening sentence ("It includes all tram systems, past and present.") will need to be modified to reflect the fact that it does not list all tram systems that have operated in Japan. --DAJF (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that most readers English would make the logical inference: that "all tram systems" in the opening sentence above refers to the title: "List of town tramway systems in Japan." The fact that "all town tramway systems" is a subset of "all tram(way) systems" should not require constant reiteration.Ldemery (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It may not require "constant reiteration", but it requires mentioning at least once. Ideally, the introduction should include a definition of "town tramway" to distinguish them from the other kinds of passenger tramways that are not included on this list. In the meantime, I have reworded the opening paragraph appropriately, since the statement "It includes all tram systems, past and present." was clearly incorrect and misleading. --DAJF (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Name of system"
The current column contains a strange mishmash of transcribed Japanese formal operator titles (e.g. Musashi Chūō Denki Tetsudō (武蔵中央電気鉄道), informal (nick)names (e.g. Kawasaki Shiden (川崎市電)), line names without operator titles (e.g. Nikkō Kidō-sen (日光軌道線)), English formal titles, perhaps official, perhaps not (e.g. Hakodate City Transportation Bureau), and English informal (nick)names and jargon (e.g. "Sapporo Street Car"). A uniform and explicit practice is needed, and this needs to be applied. Forthwith. Ldemery (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the previous blanks. To paraphrase a comment by yourself (User:Ldemery) in Talk:List of town tramway systems in Oceania, "Perfectionism is the enemy of the good." --DAJF (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uniform and explicit practice remains unspecified; obvious need for same remains; this is hardly "perfectionism." Ldemery (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima: August 6 and August 9, 1945
I have once again removed the statement "Operation suspended 6 August 1945 because of damage caused by atomic bomb attack. Service restored in stages from 9 August 1945." The cited reference does not address this.

The August 6, 1945 date is undoubtedly correct. However, absent a reference, with citation (perhaps even a brief footnoted explanation), the statement that "Service restored in stages from 9 August 1945" does not belong. Absent a reference, the statement is fanciful, indeed, preposterous, and has the distinct cachet of an "urban legend." Once again, please see WP:PROVEIT. Please see in addition WP:REDFLAG. Although not (quite) a "fringe theory," this is obviously an "exceptional claim" that requires a "high-quality reliable source" - a published reference, in Japanese. Ldemery (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion - not "town tramway systems."
The following are candidates for deletion from this list because they were (are), arguably, not "town tramway systems:"

Akayu, Tokyo-Kanamachi: Labeling these systems as "town tramways" seems far-fetched; see Wakuda.

Nikkō: More of a rural tramway than a "town tramway."

Ichinomiya: More of an electric light railway than a "town tramway."

Takaoka: Admittedly, a borderline case, but on the suburban or electric light railway side of the border.

Kyoto-"Keihan Keishin Line," Never a "town tramway;" certainly not so today.

Osaka-Kobe; Ōita - Beppu: Admittedly borderline cases, but on the suburban / intercity side of the border.

Karatsu: Suburban/rural in character.

Kitakyūshū - Nōgata: Electric light railway, never a "town tramway," certainly not so today.

Kurume-Mameda (phonetic transcription of 豆田 remains unverified): This entry needs to be reworked along the lines of Niigata - provided that such a service was in fact operated within Kurume. Neither Wakuda nor Haraguchi establish this.

Saga: Neither Wakuda nor Haraguchi establish that this was a "town tramway," rather than a suburban or rural tramway - or one licensed as a public carrier but in fact serving some military function. The latter might help to explain the curious lack of photographs; Haraguchi presented no photos and Wakuda stated that he had never seen one. Ldemery (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Closure dates - discrepancies between English and Japanese references
I see that a number of closure dates were deleted (rather than tagged) by User:Ldemery due to concerns about discrepancies between the English-language citations and Japanese references (notably Japanese Wikipedia articles). The reason for the discrepancies (in most cases, by one day) is because Japanese railway closure dates are normally given as the day from which services no longer run, whereas English railway closure dates usually indicate the last day on which services run. I personally think it would be acceptable to retain the full dates and explain the apparent discrepancies in a note in the article, but, for the time-being, I have simply reinstated the dates without specifying the exact day. This at least avoids any apparent contradictions between English and Japanese reference sources. --DAJF (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the "source," it is the "article." Closure dates need to be presented according to well-established practice in English-language articles (and reference materials): the last day on which service operated. In this case, Japanese practice (there is "more to it" than just "the day from which services no longer run") is not germane to how information is presented in the English article. Ldemery (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the discrepancy between English and Japanese sources is not the problem, I'm confused as to why the dates were so hastily deleted. I have therefore reinstated those that are verifiable, and included an explanation at the top of the article which explains the difference in the definitions of "closure date" used by English and Japanese sources. --DAJF (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)