Talk:Reikou

Nihongo template
Does it have any purpose, except to make people lose the will to continue editing Wikipedia? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does serve a number of useful purposes, as explained on the template's page, and should normally be used when Japanese script is added to articles, as recommended by the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles. But if you find the syntax somehow confusing, there is no problem with just writing the Japanese text next to the English text, and letting another editor add the Nihongo template later, as was the case with this article. It's no big deal, and not really something that should make you "lose the will to continue editing". --DAJF (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * However, when I write "in Japanese this is 麗紅" and then that is replaced with a floating question mark and the same word written a different way, that actually does make me lose the will to continue editing. It's not an improvement. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Amongst other things, the "Nihongo" template provides a link (the floating question mark) for the benefit of readers who have problems viewing Japanese fonts, so I would consider it an improvement. But if you think there are better ways of handling Japanese text, it would probably be better to start a discussion on the template's talk page or preferably over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. --DAJF (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in such an interaction with Wikiproject Japan. It seems to me that is a place for people who enjoy quibbling. If there is a justification for the nihongo template in computer users' lack of fonts, then surely it would be better not to put inline Japanese text in the articles at all, but put them as footnotes. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What on earth was the motive to move this?
The name is registered name of a plant variety. What on earth decided the editor to move this? The references give the name in English as "Reikou". JoshuSasori (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My bad. All the sources said "in Japanese". Of course, the spelling there should be evidence enough for you that Japanese does not have a single, uniform romanization system, but a lot of the time it is seen as critical to represent the long vowels as such. And on Wikipedia, when there isn't a standard English spelling we use Hepburn. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)