Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese)/Archive Feb 6 04

Romanization
Use the Hepburn system in principle. This system has several variants. We have to work out the details.

Notes
 * 1) &#12495; and &#12504; as particles are spelled &lt;wa&gt; and &lt;e&gt; respectively.
 * 2) &#12531; followed by &lt;b&gt;, &lt;m&gt; or &lt;p&gt; is spelled &lt;m&gt;, the rest &lt;n&gt;.
 * 3) &#12531; followed by vowels or &lt;y&gt; is spelled &lt;n'&gt;.
 * 4) &#12483; doubles the following consonant except for &lt;sh&gt;, &lt;ch&gt; and &lt;ts&gt;. They are spelled &lt;ssh&gt;, &lt;tch&gt; and &lt;tts&gt; respectively.

If we also use &#12492;&#12526; (nwa), we should use &lt;n'&gt; before &lt;w&gt;, or otherwise not. I think it is needless. -- Nanshu

Long vowels can be spelled several ways. For exapmle, &#12458;&#12454; can be:


 * 1) ou (following the original)
 * 2) &#333; (with a macron)
 * 3) &#244; (with a circumflex)
 * 4) oo (doubling)
 * 5) o (indistinguishable from &#12458;)
 * 6) oh (ad-hoc solution, only for &#12458;&#12454; or &#12458;&#12458;)

Which do we adopt?

I like the second, but so many articles need fix in this case. -- Nanshu

First, this is a hard question to reach the concrete consensus. My guess is not make a convention about long vowels, meaing use common usage in English. -- Taku 04:00 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Not all terms have "common" usages. I do not think Japanese era names are commonly used in English. We may as well introduce the principle for these words. -- Nanshu 11:54 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not all. Ok how about I still think there are still some common conventions. For example, it seems that a person and place name is usually written without an ascent while Kamikaze or tokko is probably with &#333; so Tokk&#333;, probably because the sound in that case is more important.


 * By the way, I am not a big shot here. No one is such. You don't need to consult me to settle the convention, including the name of a Japanese emperor. But of course, I welcome to ask me for comments.

Anyway the difference between long and short vowels is significant in Japanese as tones are essential to Chinese. Articles on Chinese terms include Pinyin with tone numbers in parenthesis in the first sentence. In the same way, representing the second notation in parenthesis will be good. -- Nanshu 11:54 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Why is the table only showing katakana? Should the table also include hiragana for completeness sake? -- User:Kowloonese 10:14pm Mar 28, 2003 (PDT)

Simply because... --- Nanshu 06:24 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
 * You can easily find Hiragana counterparts if you know Japanese.
 * Extension characters such as &#12532;&#12451; and &#12484;&#12449; are rarely used in Hiragana.

Name Order
family name + given name or given name + falimy name?

A proposal

Although historical figures are spelled in original order, modern Japanese are generally romanaized in reverse order. That's confusing. So I suggest that every article for a Japanese is spelled in original order and redirected from the reverse-order page if required.

For example, the article on the current Prime Minister should be "Koizumi Junichiro" and "Junichiro Koizumi" should be redirected to "Koizumi Junichiro". -- Nanshu 05:19 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is exactly what I was thinking. See Prime Minister of Japan. The order of name is disastrous. I second this proposal. While common name convention is important, the trouble of current confusion certainly outweights that of benefits. We keep redirect too, so it should not be much trouble. -- Taku 05:28 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * This might confuse people who are unacquainted with Japanese naming styles as to the Japanese person's first name, particularly in articles on people who are becoming rather well known here in the states with Western-order names. -- Pipian 06:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Conversely, putting the names the wrong way round might confuse people who are acquainted with Japanese name ordering. I think we should keep the proper (Japanese) order, as a general rule. This seems to be the usual usage nowadays (though there are some exceptions). --Zundark 09:09 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Has this issue been decisively settled? Both formats still seem to be used.  My preference is strongly in favour of using western order when writing names in Romaji.  When Koizumi, Murakami, Mishima or any famous Japanese person is written about in a mainstream English newspaper or magazine, the name is always, without fail, written given_name family_name.  And what of Japanese who emigrate to the US and become naturalized citizens there?  Should we suddenly switch from family_name given_name to given_name family_name?  The standard should be, IMO, to write the name the way a Japanese person would introduce themselves to an English speaker and the way they would be written about in a newspaper; ie, 'Hello, my name is Junichiro Koizumi and I am the Prime Minister of Japan.' -- Tlotoxl 00:21, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All you need to do is to put people in as the form of name they are currently known as, with the traditional version (if they aren't using it) put in brackets and a footnote linking to the latter to explain the difference. And if someone is known by the modern form, that should be the main page, with a redirect from the traditional version. FearÉIREANN 17:12 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * So, something like (for someone not using the traditional order):


 * Ayumi Hamasaki [Hamasaki Ayumi] (Insert Kanji Here) Insert article text here?


 * Or for using traditional order:


 * Utada Hikaru (Insert Kanji Here) Insert article text here


 * Am I right? -- Pipian 19:02 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Names for Emperors
Currently discussed at Talk:Emperor of Japan. See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles).

How does the above relate to common English usage? --mav 19:51 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia lacks unity regarding Japanese romanization now. For exapmle, most Japanese names such as &#12392;&#12358;&#12365;&#12423;&#12358; Tokyo lacks long-vowel signs (the fifth case), but the first case can be found at Japanese era name (e.g. &#12397;&#12435;&#12372;&#12358; nengou). That's confusing. And I think an encyclopedia would denote long vowels (e.g. neng&#333;) at least once. -- Nanshu 01:59 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

What does "not Meiji Emperor, Meiji Emperor" mean? Why twice? -- Zoe

So good they named him twice!!! STÓD/ÉÍRE

Japanese naming conventions
Moved from Village pump on Thursday, June 12th, 02003.

Japanese Name Conventions. Does Wikipedia have any? I've seen so many various articles with names listed either way:


 * Western-style (Hikaru Utada)
 * Japanese-style (Utada Hikaru)

It might be a good idea to set something down if there isn't one set in stone already. I personally suggest Western-style, if written in English/Romaji, but Japanese-style if written in Kanji (Unicode character entities).

-- Pipian 05:38 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Kanji names should be in Japanese style and Romaji names should be Western IMHO. (IOW I agree) Emperorbma 05:48 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Alright. I brought this issue up on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page, as apparently the issue still hasn't been settled on. -- Pipian

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese) would be the right place.--Nanshu 22:45 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As every encyclopedia does, Wikipedia should list Japanese people by family name. Non-Japanese Wikipedians look confused about Japanese names. --Nanshu

Quote from Talk:List of people
 * I am confused by listing-manner of Japanese people.
 * I hope it should be standardized ,but Kurosawa Akira("Kurosawa" is last name & "Akira" is first name) is in K and Miyazaki Hayao("Miyazaki" is last name & "hayao" is first name) is in H now... -- Lupinoid

--

I don't see why we can't apply the same rule that we apply in general most everywhere else in Wikipedia: the most common name by which the subject is known in English. Why should we pick either Western-style or Japanese-style for all individuals? One way, we'll end up with "Kurosawa Akira"; the other way, we'll end up with "Ieyasu Tokugawa," neither of which is, to my mind, an optimum result. Naturally, lists should be alphabetized by family name, whether that name is put first or last. - Montr&eacute;alais 07:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with this. I am saying that, where there is doubt to which order to use, we should default to given name first, family name last. This way, users and linkers will know the general convention to use, and we won't have to run around wondering which rule is in effect in general. For the special cases of authors, artists, and historical figures who are widely known by family name first, we can always advisewriters to create the primary entry with the name as it is best known, and a redirect for our standard first/last convention. --Zippy 21:06, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How about Chinese names or Korean names and names from other places? What is the surname of Osama bin Laden? The fact is that not all names are treated like western-style. How about historical Japanese names? Kakinomoto no Hitomaro should be called as Hitomaro Kakimoto no? We don't want to impose more confusions to wikipedians. Forget new convention and stick to established order. I think what is unfortunate to us is that there is so many confusions about Japanese names in English communities. We are not supposed to change the world. -- Taku 00:45, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's calm down. How about we say that, absent a more common English variant, we use the order the person uses? - Montr&eacute;alais 19:03, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Then the trouble is there is Ayumi Hamasaki while there is Utada Hikaru (note Hamasaki and Utada are a family name). Isn't it confusing? I prefer consistency over common usage. I think it would be surprising to readers that every Chinese name is put in the order of family name first followed by given name while there is a mixed order in Japanese names -- Taku 00:16, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * One way, we'll end up with "Kurosawa Akira"; the other way, we'll end up with "Ieyasu Tokugawa," I think that's a bit of a red herring given that commoners in Japan were not even permitted to have family names until the 1870s. Moreoever, Tokugawa is far from contemporary -- it's kinda like how we don't require require Jesus Christ to be listed by given_name family_name, either.  Of course Tokugawa demonstrates the existance of two cases in listing Japanese names, but IMO it demonstrates that the name order decision can be largely based on the time in which the individual lived.


 * I think we should have some sort of cutoff (say the Meiji Restoration) after which all but the most famous people (those who go by one name, for example -- though I can't think of any off the top of my head) would follow the order of given_name family_name, regardless of what a google search for common usage shows up. Well, unless such search shows the inverse order being several orders of magnitude more popular.


 * I really can't see, for example, why Kobo Abe is listed under Abe Kobo -- every single English language publisher writes his name as Kobo Abe and if you were to search for his book in a store or library, it would be catalogued under his last name. He'd also, if still alive, surely introduce himself as 'Kobo Abe', too -- so why is the encyclopedia keen on reinforcing what I can only see as some kind of western fetishism for an exotic east?  -- Tlotoxl 07:33, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think we should anglicize Oriental names and list them accordingly. If the family name is Woo and the first name Shino; then we should write Shino Woo; not Woo Shino. This is the English wikipedia and we need to treat all names similarily; regardless of origin. Pizza Puzzle


 * I agree with this statement. Especially in an increasingly international world, I think it makes sense to favour a standard over common usage for names.  The standard, as I would see it, is that unless a person specifically chooses to be referred to in English using a different name order or is a historical figure known only by a different order, names should always be listed given_name, family_name.

Don't oversimplify the problem. This is not a question of either anglicization or not. This is a question of practical matters. As I stated everywhere in wikipedia, the problem to impose the western order can be summaized following: In short, don't be an idealist. This is a problem we need to live on with compromise. -- Taku 07:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Hardly Chinese and Korean names are given the western order. It would be so strange that ONLY Japanese names follow the western convention while others follow their native orders.
 * Historical figures have complex structure of names. It is impossible to change the order of Kakinomoto no Hitomaro while no is not a middle name.
 * Most of list with Japanese names combine contemporary and histroical figures such as List of Japanese politicians and List of Japanese authors. It is certainly unrealistic to state which order each entry is listed.
 * Most of reference books use a native order. We don't want to make wikipedia look out of place.
 * Not few readers expect a give-name first order for Japanese names. It is unrealisitic to expect the same naming structure for eastern people as that for western names.
 * The western order IS NOT STANDARD!!!


 * Thanks for the sincere reply, Taku. For my own part, I don't care too much about the order of Korean or Chinese names -- I haven't read many (any?) Korean or Chinese authors in the original language or in translation and I haven't lived in Korea or China.  Someone else more knowledgeable on the subject can worry about that.  I agree with you entirely about historical names and see no need to change them (though I disagree that it's impossible to change the order of Kakinomoto no Hitomaro -- many European names also have bridging particles (e.g., 'van Gogh')).  I agree that using different orders for historical figures and contemporary individuals is strange, but given that Wikipedia has eschewed LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, I think it's the most reasonable remaining option.  What will happen if Ichiro becomes a naturalized American -- will his entry suddenly change from Ichiro Suzuki to Suzuki Ichiro?  Will his children appear as Xko Ichiro underneath his Ichiro Suzuki?


 * You've got a point on reference books, though I think at least as many use Last_Name, First Name. At least for Haruki Murakami and (to a slightly lesser extent) Kobo Abe, I also know that they are always referred to in that order.  Can you really be sure how many readers are expecting a given-name first order for Japanese names?  How can we possibly know such a statistic?


 * The western order IS NOT STANDARD!!! -- of course not, but it is the standard in the English language, with which I was referring to. I agree that we have to compromise.  Personally I liked the LASTNAME, firstname suggestion the best on a technical level, though I doubt that such a system would never seem intuitive to anyone who hadn't lived in Japan or at least published in Japanese journals.


 * In summary, I think the current compromise is wrong. I just don't think it's right that novelist Kazuo Ishiguro appears given_name family_name where Haruki Murakami appears family_name given_name.  Of course Kazuo Ishiguro is now British and Murakami is still Japanese, but if articles are placed according to the names by which the individuals are known, then both authors should be placed by given_name family_name.  I also find it a bit ironic, because original language of their works aside, I think that Murakami is also more western in style than Ishiguro.


 * And what's to be done of Fujimori Alberto -- should the fact that he's known as Alberto Fujimori be damned and his name changec according to his new citizenship?

--Tlotoxl 08:59, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't want to sound intimidating or sarcastic. The sad fact is that we don't have a solution; the debate is endless. You have great points, which I really can't refute. Wikipeida is not only a place where you can find a confution about names from outside English speaking world. -- Taku 22:12, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the Japanese wiki, go ahead and use lastname firstname format. This is the English wiki. We don't need confusion about whether, or not, the person in question was oriental, or not; and whether, or not, said person used the oriental naming convention, or not. In English, we list surnames last -- regardless of the originating culture. Pizza Puzzle


 * In short, that would be impossible. If you allow me to list up few of examples, Osama Bin Laden and Mao Zedong. Don't try to simply the matters. In English, we cannot have a coherent convention about the order of names. This is the world where we live.

Anyway, I suggest some compromise: authors and artists should be listed with the western order since it seems more common. Look at amazon.com and reference catalogs in the library. Otherwise, I don't know seriously. Good luck for historical figures. -- Taku 22:12, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The following was moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies):

I've just brought up Japanese names at the Village Pump (again) but right now I'm going with Western-style for written in English (or Romaji) and Japanese-style only for Japanese characters. I'm still working out kinks in the formatting though, but this seems to be the most logical choice (particularly as more and more Japanese names appear in various locations here in American literature and Anime and other aspects of Japanese culture become more prevalent (see: Yuki Kajiura and her release Fiction coming out here in July, and Hikaru Utada and her expected release sometime this fall, along with the entire anime phenomenon). It seems to me that in these cases, they seem to adopt the Western-style of naming, provided they are writeing the names in Romaji.)

Though I certainly see the logical reasoning behind supporting native order, it seems a little contradictory to go against the flow of popular culture and the rest of Wikipedia as well. I suppose there could be some sort of boilerplate text to such an effect (or perhaps linking to an explanation of Japanese name styles whenever the Japanese name is clicked? Though that seems a little counter-intuitive)

In any case, it would be a good idea to have such a naming convention pinned down soon as Japanese culture becomes ever more popular, and this uncertain naming convention spreads. Already on the Music of Japan page, I noted that Ayumi Hamasaki (whose name is in the Western order) is grouped as if her name was in Japanese order, whereas other names are in Japanese order or mixed (I changed Hikaru Utada, as I'm in the process of writing and expanding that page as per my current opinions on Japanese name conventions)

Here's to hoping we can resolve the Japanese naming issue soon.

-- Pipian 06:15 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Surname first is the usual convention in my experience. E.g., "Kobayashi Koichi" gets more than three times as many hits on Google compared to the inverted "Koichi Kobayashi". --Zundark 10:14 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * A search on google for "Kobayashi Koichi" will also (did also) include results for "Kobayashi, Koichi" and hits for a lot of other languages other than English. Given that the difference between the two methods of writing it is therefore likely to be less than 3:1 in favour of a non-standard (family_name given_name) order, I say that we stick to the standard.  I think it also merits mention that any work published by a Japanese writer and translated into English that I have ever seen elects to follow the given_name family_name standard used for Western names. -- Tlotoxl 07:43, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Some of the Google hits for "Kobayashi Koichi" are indeed bogus, but so are some of those for "Koichi Kobayashi". E.g, one of the top ten hits for "Koichi Kobayashi" is actually from a comma-separated pair of names in the other order: "Kobayashi Koichi, Kobayashi Satoru". It's true that some of the hits are in languages other than English, but I doubt this makes much difference. Use the Advanced Search feature to restrict the search to English and you still get a ratio of more than 3.7 to 1 in favour of Kobayashi Koichi. (Calling the Japanese ordering "non-standard" is merely rhetoric. Were it not for the context, I would have interpreted it as meaning the reverse ordering.)


 * As for your last comment, it may be that this is common practice (I don't know), but it is not universal. For example, the book "Keshi and Uchikomi: Reduction and Invasion in Go", translated from the Japanese, is credited to "Iwamoto Kaoru 9 Dan" (Iwamoto being his surname). --Zundark 11:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. You're convincing me that Kobayashi Koichi should probably be written in that order -- but then again, you're talking about a very traditional Asian game.  I also have trouble saying Enka singers' names in FN-LN order in English because somehow it just seems to traditional, to alien to the English language to try.  A book being credited to "Iwamoto Kaoru 9 Dan" is also highly unusual, because the credit is basically a romanization of the person's title within Go circles in Japanese without any translation.  If there were an article written about "Iwamoto Kaoru 9 Dan" I guess it should be entered under "Iwamoto Kaoru" or "Iwamoto Kaoru 9 Dan", given that that is clearly what this person (or the representing organization) wishes to use.


 * No such evidence exists for everyday individuals like Hiroshi Teshigahara, Kobo Abe, Haruki Murakami, Junichiro Koizumi (his Elvis CD: 1) or Ryuichi Sakamoto (in fact quite the opposite evidence exists from how their name is printed in the press and on their products) -- and yet only Sakamoto and Teshigahara's names appear in the order that one has to assume they want them to appear in English.


 * --Tlotoxl 12:04, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The other thing everyone needs to consider is audience. Is the audience of this site going to understand that the names are set up as Surname-Given Name. Sure, those who speak Japanese or follow Japanese sports or watch anime will understand this concept, but what about the remainder of the users who will think that "Miyazaki", "Utada" or "Hamasaki" is a "first name" (in English parlance) and will never know better? It just confuses people.

I also don't understand the idea of how placing the given name first is an insult. Look at the reverse: if I'm in Japan (I'm an American), I would expect to be introduced (or introduce myself, I suppose, although I don't speak the language) as Surname-Given Name.

Anyways, I support the idea of displaying names as [English Given Name] [English Surname] [Japanese Surname] [Japanese Given Name].


 * RadicalBender 00:34, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Please read the comment above then you will see this is not a simple issue at all. I don't think the placing given name is first insult for anyone. You have a good point that the audience might assume Miyazaki is the first name. It is likely but the trouble is if we want to make sure which one is the first name, then you need to change a representation of a quite number of Chinese names, which is unrealistic and practically impossible. Interesting is this is the very point once I proposed before. I proposed regardless of nation, culture or whatever, simply put the first name first and the surname following it. It simplifies the representation of names and the readers never be confused about which one is the first name. This, it turned out, was unaccepted. Part of the reasons is a quite number of Japanese figures, particularly historical figures are known for their native order and quite oftentimes, they have more complex structure of names, which make impossible to reverse the order. I wish we could have simple scheme. -- Taku 04:51, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * A simple scheme? Let me try to think of one... -> Brion VIBBER :)

I've read an abundance of the commentary above and I agree that it is a very complicated issue. However, I've been looking for alternate examples of how this is handled in conjunction with names in English (like large databases, i.e. the IMDb) to see how others handle it. Most seem to continue to place the information as [Given Name]-[Surname] (I'm trying to avoid the use of the phrases "First Name" and "Last Name" for the purposes of this discussion). Also, most film and TV credits display [Given Name]-[Surname] as well, but only when written in English (or romaji, I suppose). Translated manga distributed in the U.S. generally seems to use the format of [English Given Name]-[English Surname] ([Japanese Surname]-[Japanese Given Name]).

Perhaps we could have a default of [Given Name]-[Surname] display (again, in English only, I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the kanji would always be displayed as [Surname]-[Given Name]), and then for historical or political figures where [Surname]-[Given Name] is more popularly recognized, there could be one of those default notes that could be copied and pasted for display to avoid confusion.

I've been looking for outside reference to find a solution. Unfortunately, my older copy of the Chicago Manual of Style only addresses Chinese names (as in Chiang Kai-shek, which is technically [Surname]-[Given Name]). *shrugs*

I only recommend the above as a way of heading of confusion before it starts. I know that, for me, the reason why I think this way is because I went around for years unsure of whether "Hikaru" or "Utada" was the given name. This is always a source of confusion. I can't imagine how others who know nothing about Japan must feel.


 * RadicalBender 22:54, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I have recently watched a movie called Read My Lip in whcih the credits are displayed with the format of Takuya MURATA (murata is surname). As Brion states, I like that style pretty much. I prefectly understand RadicalBender's comment. Neither wester and eastern style causes confusion. Unfortunately, however, I don't think the idea above works well. We may have different conventions for kind of people, like for historical figures and others. It means in other words, different people is headed with different headings and you cannot tell which one is surname unless you know him or her. Because readers who is unfamiliar with that person wonder which one is surname, the convention really doesn't help. The current one, regardless kind of person seems better, if far away from good.-- Taku 03:44, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're doing Taku -- the debate is obviously ongoing on what order to use, you said yourself on September 22, "Anyway, I suggest some compromise: authors and artists should be listed with the western order since it seems more common," and yet you continue to move artists from western order to Japanese order (e.g., Hiroshi Teshigahara). Your points are all good, and I agree that it's good to have a standard convention, but shouldn't we have a concensus before continuing to move all the names around?


 * I also notice that you wrote:


 * It means in other words, different people is headed with different headings and you cannot tell which one is surname unless you know him or her. Because readers who is unfamiliar with that person wonder which one is surname, the convention really doesn't help. 


 * That's also true (imo especially true) if we have a different convention (Japanese order) for Japanese nationals from that which we use for the Western world; if a reader sees a Japanese name, must they read the entire article to acertain the person's nationality (and know the Wikipedia convention) before knowing which name is the family name? Does that really make things less confusing?


 * Anyway, it's all a big mess and it is clear that no solution is perfect. Personally, I blame our ancestors ;)
 * --Tlotoxl 06:10, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First, I have proposed a compromise, which contradicts the current convention saying the name order of articles of Japanese figures must be a Japanese order. My move was in line with the current convention, not of compromise. I agree if we have just one convention, namely western-order, things are so straightforward, simple, no dispute--the time to have a party. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If we cannot have one convention, I don't think any convention can be non-confusing. Anyway, yes, blame the world. This is not our fault. -- Taku 02:32, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

Names of Railway stations
In his early edits, Nanshu was correct to capitalize the "S" in "Station" in railway station names used as article titles. (For example, Kobe Station, which someone later changed to Kobe station.) "X Station" is a proper noun, and Naming Conventions states that the second and subsequent words should only be lowercase if the article title is not a proper noun. --Sewing 16:22, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, there are already too many "station"s with lower-case s's, and it'll be too tedious a task to change them all... looks like it's time for a robot! --Sewing 17:05, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't care for capitalization. I'm not a native speaker of English. --Nanshu 01:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think capitalization makes sense as Sewing points out. Besides, it is consisten with other cases like X River, X City. If we have agreed, sure we can use a bot, not need to engage in tedious tasks for us humans. -- Taku 16:30, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Name order 2

 * Taku is rather enthusiastically changing all Wikipedia entries so that Japanese names are listed in family_name given_name order in English, though not all names have been changed (see, for example: Ryuichi Sakamoto and Nagisa Oshima). I think it's a mistake, but we never really came to a consensus and I guess Taku is more motivated than me or any of the others opposed. -- Tlotoxl 08:07, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, this is an English-language encyclopaedia and names should appear in the conventional English forms. At least now I know which way round Taku is writing them. Adam 08:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously in agreement with you on this one, but the topic is a bit difficult (particularly with historical figures who are known widely by family_name given_name). Anyway, if you want to join the debate, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese) is the place to do it. -- Tlotoxl 09:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Adam, sorry that I didn't answer your question. What I was looking at. As you know their order is the traditional Japanese order, family name followed by given name. Actually the order is currently norm in articles related to Japanese history as are the most of history books and reference books about Japanese history. It is inconsistent and confusing. Now, contemporary figures tend to follow the western order as are newspapers. See Japan general election, 2003 for instance. Figures follow the western order while List of Japanese politicians follows the Japanese order for the consistency. -- Taku 16:26, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * That's a bit confusing -- why is Yoshiro Mori in GN-FN order while Junichiro Koizumi is in FN-GN order? -- Tlotoxl 16:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ack!, that was a mistake. It should be Koizumi Junichiro, which is much more natural in English writing. Well, you can say my mind is confused. -- Taku 16:37, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

While I think that historical figures should be as-best-known (generally FN-GN) and more recent figures should be GN-FN, I think consistency, at least within a single article, is important ;) -- Tlotoxl 16:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wanted to mean Junichiro Koizumi, which is natural and normal in English writing. For clearlity, Junichiro and Yoshiro are the first names. -- Taku 18:42, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Taku, 90% of English-speakers don't even know that Japanese put their names FN-GN, and even fewer know about Korean names. (Hungarians do the same, by the way, and very few people know that either.) Also, it is definitely not clear to English speakers that "Junichiro and Yoshiro are first names." I have two university degrees, and when I look at Abe Iso I have no idea which is his FN. That is why an English-language encyclopaedia must use the English convention, GN-FN. Otherwise the result will be hopeless confusion. Adam 23:27, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You can find my response to this in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese). Please realize that the order of Japanese figures' names follow the convention that seems settled now described in Wikipedia Naming conventions (Japanese). I understand you have an opinion but please first try to change the convention. If people started to follow different conventions, that would be mess. -- Taku 02:07, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

I have read everything at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese) and saw no sign of an agreement ever being reached, mainly because you insisted on disagreeing with everybody else. Adam 02:48, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * And? I have my point and you have your point. I just address my opinions. Please feel free to set up voting or whatever to change the convention. -- Taku 04:37, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * OK so you were wrong to say they was a "settled convention", yes? There is no settled convention. It is true that we both have our opinions, but the issue is that this is an English-language encyclopaedia, and therefore it is not just a matter of opinion which way names are written. What if I were to wander into the Japanese Wikipedia and start changing eveything to suit western styles, hmm? I would be called a cultural chauvinist and a racist, yes? I am not accusing you of that, I am just making the point that an enyclopaedia is for readers, and English-language readers do not understand Japanese name conventions. Adam 05:37, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Right, the convention should be the convention that seems being used practically now. I perfectly understand your point. I don't advocate the Japanese order is better or something. This is an en.wikipedia. The beauty is everything is expressed in an English language. All knowldge is accessible to English speakers without any further understanding of antoher language. You are not trying to impose English-centrism or something. Unfortunately, Japanese names are expressed in Japanese language and any effort of adaptation poses some complications. Often, it is not simply able to reverse the order for names like Sei Shonagon and Minamoto no Yoritomo. List of Japanese politicians is a good instance. Should the current prime minister of Japan be put as Junichiro Koizumi or Koizumi Junichiro? I understand we should follow English conventions any time but what if it simply doesn't work? -- Taku 05:48, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

-- Taku 05:48, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

What are the circumstances in which simply reversing the name order will not work? Adam 05:54, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sei Shonagon and Minamoto no Yoritomo for instance. Shonagon is not a first name and no is not a middle name. -- Taku


 * Sorry for doing this in your personal talk, Taku. I don't think that the Japanese problem is really very unique.  Take Alexander the Great or Jesus Christ.  Historical figures are difficult in any language regardless of the country of origin.  Junichiro Koizumi, on the other hand, is widely known in the west as Junichiro Koizumi, and his own collection of Elvis hits has his name written in that same order.  Outside of traditional Asian/Japanese sports such as Sumo, Judo or Go, I really don't see any reason to write modern (say post-Meiji) Japanese names as FN-GN.  But anyway, I repeat myself ;)  I hope we eventually come to a mutually non-aggravating solution. -- Tlotoxl 06:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we should move this to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Japanese). I agree that this sort of complication is not unique to Japanese names. By the way, interestingly all Chinese and Korean names follow their native order and why do we make an exception to Japanese names? I also agree that most of contemporary figures follow the western order. Oh, hey look at my name, Takuya Murata where Takuya is a first name. I think your idea, drawing a line between post-Meiji and pre-Meiji is nice. But the trouble is that people live across the border. The question is like Fukuzawa Yukichi or Yukichi Fukuzawa. I don't know the answer. -- Taku 06:25, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Taku gives two examples of Japanese names which can't follow the western naming convention, but they are both from mediaeval Japan. The same is of course true of mediaeval European names - Robert of Burgundy didn't have a surname at all, so he is listed under R for Robert. But that is irrelevant to a general discussion about how modern Japanese, Korean and Hungarian names ought to appear at Wikipedia. It is only Japanese names that seem to be subject of debate. No-one is creating articles on Il-Jong Kim or Nagy Imre. And as far as I can see the only reason that Japanese names are still being disputed is because of Taku's stubbornness on the matter. Adam 06:24, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, actually I am not insisting but rather questioning the convention saying the name of Japanese figures must follow the wester order. As you see, I frequently contribute to Japan-related articles and I do have a problem how to adapt Japanese names. In contemporary case, I try to use the western order like Japan general election, 2003. If you see Koizumi Junichiro or Yoshiro Mori for the article, it would be very unnatural. But for instance, what should I use the western order or the eastern order for List of Japanese politicians? I do want to have a concrete undisputed convention that I can simply follow. Tlotoxl's suggestion might be a starting point to discuss. -- Taku 06:31, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

What is the problem with following the western name convention for List of Japanese politicians? If you want a "concrete undisputed convention," fine: follow the western name convention for all modern Japanese names. What is the problem? If you like, do it like this:

Takako Doi (Japanese name order: Doi Takako), Japanese politician etc

Perfectly simple. Adam 08:12, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can I support the idea that Japanese (and other Asian) names be written in the traditional order? Take for example go players (I'm a go player, though I'll never qualify to be on this list ...). I think it would be absurd to have such names 'reversed'. Yamashita Keigo is how he is known, in the West as in Japan. It is perhaps somewhat different for political figures, whose name will appear in newspapers with family name last - they deserve at least a redirect.

Charles Matthews 08:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias do not exist for the 5% of English-speakers who know enough about Japan to know what go is or who know that Japanese puts the surname first. They exist for the 95% who do not know these things. On Charles's logic we should just write the entries for Japanese people in Japanese and be done with it - that shows just as much contempt for the readers this project is supposed to be serving. Adam 09:44, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I can't accept this at all. The logic that names in titles be the name usually used of someone is not in dispute, I think. 'Contempt' - I think this is the wrong register of language for this discussion.

Charles Matthews 10:20, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well u can't have it both ways, Charles. If names should be "the name usually used of someone" then in an English-language encyclopaedia that must be the English standard naming style. But that's not what u said earlier. And I maintain my point that deliberately using a form that will confuse readers because you, the writer, prefer it, does show contempt for readers. Adam 12:48, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hang on. I just said that certain people are usually known under a certain style of naming. You just pointed out that go is a minority interest, which is true but not relevant. Those minority-readers will know a Japanese/Chinese/Korean person as X-Y. This will not confuse readers who don't know of them at all. This is different from the case of a Japanese politician who is generally known in the West, in style Y-X, because news reports mention him (or here, in the case of Doi).

And I don't see why you can't be civil about this. Names matter greatly in Asian culture, for one thing.

Charles Matthews 13:16, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think names matter greatly in all cultures. As I wrote above, Outside of traditional Asian/Japanese sports such as Sumo, Judo or Go, I really don't see any reason to write modern (say post-Meiji) Japanese names as FN-GN..  I support the writing of the names of Go players, Sumo wrestlers and others in FN-GN order because that is the order in which they are known both inside and outside of Japan.  That ordering really is limited to traditional sports, though, and just about all other modern Japanese present themselves in English in GN-FN order.  Why can't we just make an explanatory page that describes the three name ordering cases: historical figure (FN-GN), modern participant in traditional activity (FN-GN) and contemporary westernized order.  This page can be linked to from all entries for Japanese figures.


 * It's hardly ideal, but IMO it's a LOT better than what we have now when people like Kobo Abe and Haruki Murakami are listed in the order you will never see their names written on the English editions of their books -- whereas others such as Ryuichi Sakamoto appear in GN-FN order as on his CDs. -- Tlotoxl 13:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When I am writing in a Japanese encyclopaedia I will defer to Asian cultural sensibilities, which are generally rather overstated IMHO. In an English-language encyclopaedia Anglophone cultural sensibilities take priority, and English-speakers expect to see the GN-FN name-order for all names except Chinese. I know this isn't very logical or culturally sensitive, but that's the way it is. It would be absurd to have three different naming conventions for Japanese names in one encyclopaedia. If people know that all modern Japanese names follow English name-order conventions, they will look in the right place. If you really think people will look in this encyclopaedia for Mishima Yukio rather than Yukio Mishima, you can create a redirect. Adam 15:02, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm really not so certain about having three systems, it's true, but just like Jesus Christ appears under the name by which he is known, there are many historical Japanese figures (such as Sei Shonagon) who are known in the west ONLY by FN-GN. It may not be consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia if we make the rest GN-FN, but it's the only sensible way to write the name.  Yukio Mishima, being modern, should certainly, IMO, appear GN-FN. -- Tlotoxl 15:18, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We already discussed mediaeval Japanese names, including that one: see above. I specifically said modern names. Adam 15:25, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure, I remember, it's just that when you said it would be ridiculous to have three systems it sounded an awful lot to me like you meant that anything more than one would be crazy. It's late in Japan; I'm tired.  My bad.  -- Tlotoxl 15:30, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'Anglophone cultural sensibilities' - oxymoron or what? Actually, I'm British: count me out of American cultural sensibilities, at least. As if there weren't plenty of Hindu, Muslim, African sensibilities of English-speakers. I was in Uganda recently - that's anglophone, even anglophile, but they prefer surname first. It's a shameful argument for an international project to entertain. All to save some boilerplate text.

Charles Matthews 16:09, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * sighs deeply* And when they look in the Britannica do they expect to find Milton Obote or Obote Milton? You see, the more you try, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. The more diversity there is in name-order conventions, the stronger is the argument that a reference source should have a single and predictable one. This may be an international project, but it is not a multilingual project - it is an English-language one, and the English convention is GN-FN. An English-speaking Hungarian opening an English-language encyclopaedia knows to look to Imre Nagy and not Nagy Imre, and I would be prepared to bet that most English-speaking Japanese will have the same expectation.

(Incidentally Ethnologue tells me that they speak 45 languages in Uganda, and that only a minority speak English even as a second language.)

Adam 03:14, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think many Ugandans would type in Obote Milton, here at WP. Now, that question can be answered by discussion on good practice on redirects. (For example, Idi Amin would need several.) The question of the page title can be answered by a convention on page titles for people; for which I understand the default is 'use the commonly used name'. The default - no doubt there is more to say. As for how names are used by the author of an article, in that article, that would be a third matter. Conflating these three issues helps? I don't think so.

There are between 50 and 60 groups in Uganda having their own culture. English is an official language there.

By the way, in what sense do you speak for WP, when you say 'this' is not a multi-lingual project?

Charles Matthews 08:51, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Then don't you think the readers would expect to see Fukuzawa Yukichi instead of Yukichi Fukuzawa? He was from modern Japan. -- Taku 08:28, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * A search on amazon.com suggests to me that readers expectations are pretty much up in the air, but would probably expect him to be listed under Yukichi Fukuzawa. -- Tlotoxl 08:35, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And very interestingly this amazon.com gives Fukuzawa Yukichi. You cannot count on amazon.com about Japanese authors. -- Taku 08:43, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Taku, that same search result was in the link that I posted -- it showed him being called both Fukuzawa Yukichi and Yukichi Fukuzawa -- hence my saying that readers expectations are up in the air; there is no standard. Given that both are common, however, and that the summary of the best 10 (?) results showed more Yukichi Fukuzawas than Fukuzawa Yukichis, I don't see any problem in using whichever order is more convenient for wiki.  If we go with a Meiji divide, then this would mean entering his bio under Yukichi Fukuzawa.  -- Tlotoxl 08:50, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)