Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/September 2008

Naming of Mountains in Japan
As most of you know, many of the names of Japanese mountains incorporate the name mountain or peak in the name (dake, yama or san). I have been browsing many of these articles, however, and there does not seem to be a consistent rule that is followed when naming these articles. For the most part, it seems as though these words are generally translated into their English translations and dropped from the mountain name, but I have found a few exceptions. Furthermore, some opposition was voiced when the topic came up a few months ago here, saying that these translations simply change the name of the mountains and sound silly. (An example a user brings up is the use of shima and jima in article names instead of dropping it and using the English translation of island, though there are discrepancies here as well that are not addressed in the MOS:JA.) There is also no mention of this in the MOS:JA. Is there a definitive way of naming these article that can be mentioned in the MOS:JA, or does this need to be discussed further? --TorsodogTalk 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This should probably be discussed over there. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This exact same issue came up in the context of islands a while ago. I offered a simple and concise solution that nobody seemed to like.  I can't for the life of me remember what article's talk page it was on though.  -Amake (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something dear to my heart as well. The rule of thumb I have basically been following is thus.
 * 1. If it ends in -san, -yama, -dake, or -take I rename it Mount Name. Akadake becoumes Mount Aka. There are a few exceptions to this rule: (a) If the name is sinicized like Daisen, (b) If the name is so well known in that form Daisetsuzan Volcanic Group, (c) If the name would be too short, this is a bad example, but Mount Ōyama (Kanagawa), but I would just leave this article Ōyama instead of Mount Ō. We could say that if the name is only a single syllable (granted here it is probably two mora), then leave Mount as -san, -yama, etc.
 * 2. If it ends in -hō (峰), I have been translating that as summit, as in 1839 Metre Summit.
 * 3. Some mountains do not include any form of the word mountain in their name. These I have been leaving as is. Examples. Biei Fuji, Pinneshiri, and Mount Nyu should be Nyū. I should also add a note, that I have not been translating the Ainu forms of mountain, like the example Pinneshiri. Sure we could try to do Mount Pinne, but we would run into two problems. One, we would be translating Japanese transliterations of Ainu names and might not get it right. Two, what do you do with Poroshiri-dake? Mount Mount Poro? I think Mount Poroshiri works better. -imars (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point where we must be careful is the tendency to name mountain ranges and volcanic groups as mountains. I just went through moving Yatsugatake to Yatsugatake Mountains mountains. Although this range is listed in the list of 100 famous mountains of Japan, this is not really a single mountain. The list of 100 famous mountains also lists Tateshina, which some also include as part of Yatsugatake. So I created the Yatsugatake Mountains, and split it into two sub ranges: Southern Yatsugatake Volcanic Group and Northern Yatsugatake Volcanic Group. From there one could create individual mountain articles if that is needed or desired. Similar was my handling of Daisetsuzan. There is no single mountain called Daisetsuzan, so it made no sense to make the article Mount Daisetsu. Same is true of the article Mount Hakkoda. This is also a mountain range and not a single mountain, but the book Deathmarch on Mount Hakkoda prejudices us to handle this as a single mountain.
 * Well, I have given you my feelings on the topic. I hope that you find this useful. I am certainly open to discuss the points. imars (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My position on this issue has always been clear: dake, yama or san, etc are integral parts of the proper name of the mountain in question. To make half-a-translation is to render the proper name incorrect, and in many cases meaningless. Ōshima is not "Ō Island" and likewise Yatsugatake should not be "Mount Yatsu". The unwieldy and redundant Mount Ōyama (Kanagawa) is easily resolved with [Ōyama (Kanagawa)]. In other languages, Mont Blanc is not listed as "Mount Blanc" nor is Matterhorn as "Matter Peak". K2 is simply "K2", not "Mount K2" and Annapurna is not "Annapura Range". There is no need to add the English word "Mount", "Summit", etc to any article which describes a geographic feature by its proper noun name, and even less reason to mutiliate the correct proper noun name. The issue with some editors intent on changing names apparantly just to show that they have some passing knowledge of the Japanese language continues to puzzle me. Should Kōriyama, Fukushima be renamed "Mount Kōri, Fukushima"? Should Yamashiro Province be retitled "Mount Shiro Province"? This makes as much sense as "Mount Haku" in place of the proper noun "Hakusan" --MChew (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you raise a very good point. It would certainly simplify the convoluted system we use now in many ways. Your approach is very much what the German articles do, I believe. Zugspitze is Zugspitze. Jochberg is Jochberg. But I believe that the half-translation is a historical tradition. Mount Fuji is certainly the most prominent and well known example in the English language. After that, probably Mount Suribachi. These examples existed before Wikipedia. Would you make articles for these mountains Suribachi-yama and Fuji-yama? How for do you take it? Do you use Tsushima-kaikyō for the Tsushima Straits or rename Tokyo bay to Tōkyō-wan? When do you translate and when do you not translate? imars (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as always, we will end up some exceptions to the rule. Just as WP:MOS-JA (for reasons which I do not completely agree with) does not want to use macrons on certain words which the editors collectively feel have gone into the "English consciousness" (daimyo versus daimyō, Tokyo versus Tōkyō, but insists on Kyūshū for Kyushu etc), "Mount Fuji" and "Mount Suribachi" and a handful others have become well known in English in those forms to become exceptions. But to call Gassan "Mount Ga"? I think not. Regarding other geographic features, I think that many of these will still need to be debated case-by-case. Tsushima Straits is an international waterway, and should use its internationally recognized name since more than one country is involved, in the same way as Sea of Japan is used in place of "Nihonkai". --MChew (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is how the Geological Survey of Japan handles this issue: Name of volcanoes in Japanese imars (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of "metre"
I think it may be good to incorporate this into the MOS-JA. The reason is because all of the English I saw in Japan when spelling this word used the American spelling of "meter" as opposed to the British spelling "metre". I think we need to remain consistent across all Japan-related articles. Thoughts? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I use US spelling, I'm not sure this is best. Perhaps because it puts non-native speakers of English in charge of English. Or perhaps because it puts non-Wikipedia editors in charge of Wikipedia. Haven't thought it out fully, but my hunch is to follow the broader Wikipedia style, even though inconsistent. Fg2 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To an extent, they already are, since Wikipedia follows established norms rather than setting its own for the most part, just the same as how we report what has already been reported elsewhere, but don't do original research. As for putting non-native speakers in charge, I don't think it does since they have made the choice to adopt the style and spelling of English used by one particular country. I don't see how it's a stretch to therefore do the same when reporting about that country here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's special about "meter"/"metre", Nihonjoe? I'd guess that you also consistently saw "color" rather than "colour" and "fire" (somebody from a job) rather than "sack". More or less accurately, Japan's institutions use US rather than British English, which isn't surprising. Although of course individual people in Japan are free to use British English. And it seems odd for Wikipedia's "MOS" to decree that US English is the rule for articles about Japan. (Next will it say that articles about Japan should use US units of measurement? To my surprise and disgust/amusement, they seem to be increasingly used for all the made-in-China technology: 3 インチ LCDs on digicams, 1200 dpi printing, etc.) Tama1988 (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually never saw "fire" as that was always written in Japanese. I don't see how it is odd to use the version of English used by the country in discussion. And your line of reasoning for inclusion of other things is a little extreme (though they already use "dpi" as it seems to be an industry standard). The main thing which brought this up is the title of a mountain which had "Metre" in it (1839 Metre Summit). Since it would not be spelled that way in English in Japan, I don't think it should be spelled that way in the article (just as we wouldn't change the title of a book published in England to use American spelling when creating the article here). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a point worth discussing. You've given a reason and a specific example. I'll continue to think about reasons or other support for my reaction. Let's hear reasons and positions from others too. Fg2 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, I gave the British English spelling because I was following the spelling conventions of a number of other mountain articles. There is also WP:ENGVAR:

''The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial.''
 * Given that, I grant you that American English is much more prominent in Japan for understandable reasons. Does that count as "strong national ties to a topic"? imars (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a big task to debate whether Japan gets all US English or not. Nihonjoe's question is much more immediate and accessible than that: should we use the spelling "meter" or should we leave it unspecified, as it presently is? The discussion need not discuss which country the spelling came from or why or how, but can instead focus on the present status of that spelling in Japan. If Japan has a widespread preference for that spelling, that would speak in its favor. Fg2 (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Shima Sakon (historical figure)
The article on Shima Sakon has been moved to Shima Sakon (historical figure). I propose to move it back. Shima Sakon is now a redirect to a disambiguation page. Even if the disambiguation page were itself at "Shima Sakon," I'd prefer that the article on the historical person be moved back to his name, but especially since it's a redirect, I'd prefer to move it back. Unfortunately, the move is blocked. The redirect goes to Sakon Shima, the disambiguation page, which has only two entries: the historic person and the Tenjho character. Not enough for a disambiguation page, in most cases, and the name order is different. Those are a third and a fourth reason to move Shima Sakon back to his deserved place. So an article has been moved from the correct title to make room for a redirect to a disambiguation page when there aren't even two articles with conflicting titles. I think it's clear-cut... . Any other opinions? Fg2 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that. A simple "For the Tenjo character, see Shima Sakon" at the top should suffice, no? LordAmeth (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll second LordAmeth's opinion. -Tadakuni (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved it back. Please let me know if I got all the relevant pages as there were several. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds
Hi! I just wanted to put forth a quick appeal: We would love to have more Japan-related featured sounds. If you know of anything out of copyright, please nominate it at WP:FSC. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We'd love to have more Japan-related sounds, featured or not, at Commons:Category:Sounds of Japan. Fg2 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll juist go nominate the singing sand and nightingale floor ones. =) It's a start! Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That' wasn't what I had in mind, but as creator of the latter I won't complain -- thanks! Fg2 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know it's not what you had in mind - we do need more Japanese sounds - but it's pretty good. it'll need a little cleanup, though, so I'll save it for tomorrow.
 * Of course, we still need more. We don't even have any music from Noh plays or Japanese theatre. Sorry, I'm severely ill at the moment. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear you're ill, and hope you recover soon. Regarding theatre, my instincts tell me performances are copyrighted, so it'd be excellent if someone could find something with an appropriate license. For Commons, public domain would be ideal. Related forms such as bunraku and nagauta as well as stand-alone excerpts like Takasago and Atsumori; minyo; historical recordings of rakugo, kodan, the list of performances goes on...  Fg2 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sufficiently old recordings should be fine (wth a little care). - I mean, weren't there any recording studios in Japan in, say, the 20's? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After doing a quick, quick search (I'm talking first hit on Google), I found this site. It seems to be a list of many Japanese recordings pre-WWII. I'm by no means an expert on copyrights and things of that nature, so would any of these be available for public domain? --TorsodogTalk 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright on recorded works only lasts fifty years from publication (see Section 6 Article 101 here). While there may be some difficulty documenting them, if they really are pre-WWII, then they are definitely out of copyright. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When I put the Kimi ga Yo recording up for featured sound, I got the information from the plate the recording came from. Just Google around, you will find it eventually. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll probably be easier for a Japanese speaker, but I'll certainly set to work if noone else does in a week or so. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found another similar site with recordings here. This also seems to document what record the recordings appear on, but I cannot find any dates for these. If someone wants to maybe point me in the right direction on my talk page regarding what exactly I need to track down and how in order to upload these, I will happily do it. --TorsodogTalk 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds: renewing the call
Calling all project members. Since Commons:Category:Sounds of Japan started in January 2007, ten files have been placed in it. This is a good repository for all kinds of sound files having any relation to Japan, provided they have an appropriate license. The ramen vendor, the hi-no-yōjin watchman and the public-safety recording (turn off the fires and beware of burglars) broadcast on the public loudspeakers at night, the clap-clap-clap clap-clap-clap clap-clap-clap clap, the sounds of crosswalks and railroad crossings, sounds you recorded at the sumo tournament, pronunciation files, the "sucking air" sound Japanese people make when someone asks them to do something they'd rather not, crowd-singing at soccer matches, anything in ja:日本の音風景100選. Please add your uploaded files to the category on Commons.

Also, maybe we should add Requested Sounds somewhere on the project page and the Portal? Fg2 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can add a requested sounds section to the portals page. Personally, I didn't even know about a requested sounds category on Wikipedia, so I think it is a great idea to get the word out as much as possible. Also, if we get some other quality sounds (featured or otherwise) other than just Kimi ga Yo, I would even like to have a selected sounds section on the main page of the portal as well. --TorsodogTalk 06:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I misunderstood the category link. For some reason I just assumed it was a link to requested sounds, not a link to current sounds in the commons. Is there a current category for requested Japanese sounds that I can simply pull from to make the section on the portal, or would this have to come from somewhere else? --TorsodogTalk 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to throw this over to you, but... there's 28 ogg files on Japanese Wikipedia. (that I found by searching for "ogg" in the 画像 namespace) Here are a few I think are very good, and should be transferred to commons:


 * Image:Waterharpsound.ogg (Needs translation and explanation - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE nominate this for featured sound once you've done that)
 * ja:画像:Kanku.ogg - If the copyright's okay, how about one of these slice of life recordings for FS? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the sound at the commons under the title Image:223 series train recording.ogg. I have translated as much as I could, but I feel as though I'm missing something. For example, can anyone find out what Line this train is running on when this recording was played? Once I get this information, I will nominate it as a FS. --TorsodogTalk 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ja:画像:JRW207_1000andJRW223_0vvvf.ogg
 * ja:画像:JRW HanwaLine Izumi-Sunagawa Teisya.ogg


 * Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime minister?
I haven't been following the news closely enough. Prime Minister Fukuda has announced his intention to resign; that much I know. Has he actually resigned? Has his resignation been accepted? Or is he still the prime minister? The Main Page (In The News) says he resigned, and Japan now says the post is vacant. Not sure whether these are accurate. Anyone? Fg2 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he's still the prime minister. Because the official 首相官邸 site has this page. Oda Mari (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still got his name on it, so it looks as if he is still prime minister. Thanks, Mari. Fg2 (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See 代理, ja:日本国憲法第70条 and ja:日本国憲法第71条. As Fukuda is not seriously ill or dead and still have his seat, I think he is the PM till the next one is appointed. And there's no news about 代理. Oda Mari (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely Fukuda is. Remember last year? See 入院・内閣総辞職. Abe announced his resignation on September 12 and hospitalized on September 13, yet he was the prime minister till September 26. ...このように安倍首相は退陣まで公務復帰できなかった状況だが、与謝野官房長官は「首相の判断力に支障はない」と内閣総理大臣臨時代理は置く予定はないという方針をとっていた.... See also Shinzo Abe Oda Mari (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the last one clarifies that announcing intention to resign can take place weeks before the person stops being prime minister. Fg2 (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems actually pretty clear by itself: In case of crisis or natural disasters (tectonic plates aren’t intersted in politics) there has to be a government able to react quickly, after all.--Asakura Akira (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There will always be a caretaker PM and Cabinet. A resigned PM will stay in office until a successor is chosen, the same is true after a general election. Offically, the successor will only take office after the Imperial appointment (PM and ministers are ja:認証官). If the PM’s post falls vacant the cabinet will have to resign; but it will keep working with the designated replacement (nowadays generally the chief cabinet sectretary) taking the PM’s position (that would be 代理). (Details are laid out in the Constitution and the naikaku-hō/Cabinet Law).

Sado, Niigata
Something has caused the map on this article to show up huge all of a sudden, can this be fixed somehow? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Something is very strange about the problem. It seems like it has to do with the split template. That brings up another question though—why was the split template added in the first place? --TorsodogTalk 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was indeed the template's fault. I removed it as it is not specified anywhere what is being proposed to be split off from the current article. --TorsodogTalk 05:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of administrative country subdivisions by country
The article Table of administrative country subdivisions by country has information on Japan's second- and third-level divisions that needs checking. Is it correct? Fg2 (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look right to me. 47 都道府県 is correct.  Beyond that it depends on the prefecture:  For Hokkaidō it's 支庁, but for everywhere else it should be 市, 郡, and (for Tokyo only) 特別区.  Then you have (non-特別) 区, 町, and 村.  I don't think 大字, 字, or 丁目 should be included as they are not 自治体s (though you could make the same argument for 郡).
 * Also I don't believe 政令指定都市 should be placed above regular 市 or 郡. -Amake (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Practically 政令指定都市 is placed equally with 都道府県. ja:政令指定都市. Oda Mari (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mari, I understand that the G.O. cities (政令指定都市) in practice have some of the powers of prefectures. That's a good point. What concerns me here is the concept of level. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but my idea about level is that the top level is the country. It can be subdivided. Every subdivision is a to, do, fu or ken; and every place in Japan is in one of the to, do, fu or ken. So the to, do, fu and ken are first-level divisions. Every to, do, fu or ken can be subdivided. The question is, what are the subdivisions? My answer is that they are the shi, cho, son, and tokubetsu-ku. In this level, the shi include all cities, from the G.O. cities down to the ones with the lowest population. At this level, the cho and the son are only the ones with municipal governments (not the smaller parts of shi etc.). Every place in Japan is in one of the shi, cho, son, or tokubetsu-ku. So the shi, cho, son, and tokubetsu-ku make the second level of divisions.


 * Also, I do not include the subprefectures or the districts. I include the units that have elected governments. Every part of Japan has a national government, a prefectural government, and a municipal government. The heads are the prime minister, the governor, and the mayor (by "mayor" I mean 市長、町長、村長). Every person who has voting rights can vote in the elections that elect these three leaders (indirectly or directly). Subprefectures and districts don't have elected governments. Also, they don't cover the whole country. So I don't include them as a level. The subprefectures appear to me to be little more than branch offices of the prefecture, and the territory the branch offices cover. The districts don't do much; they're largely historical relics and postal addresses.


 * The G.O. (政令指定都市) are still part of the prefecture. Even people who live in a G.O. city can vote for the governor of the prefecture. When a city becomes a G.O. city, it does not leave the prefecture (contrast this with the way a town, promoted to city status, leaves the district). In fact, many prefectures have their main offices in G.O. cities like Yokohama. So I don't think G.O. cities belong in a level separate from other cities.


 * Of course, as Mari pointed out, the G.O. cities have more powers than other cities. But that's generally true of subdivisions. Being at the same level does not mean the same thing as being equal. Tokyo is at the same level as Shimane, but the governor of Tokyo has more clout than the governor of Shimane (to pick one example). Cities, towns and villages are at the same level, but an important city has more powers than a mountain village. I feel the G.O. cities should rank with the other cities, towns and villages.


 * It's possible I've made many mistakes, and especially it's possible I'm using the wrong concepts of things like "level." I hope people will point out my mistakes. Fg2 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're not going to count districts or subprefectures, then 市町村 and 特別区 should all be on the same level. Then beyond that, only 政令指定都市s are divided into 区s.  So how about this:
 * Level 1: todōfuken
 * Level 2: shikuchōson
 * Level 3: ku (G.O. cities only) (Edit: non-autonomous)
 * I see plenty of application forms, etc. take this style of categorization for the part where you write your address. -Amake (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your Level 1 and Level 2 are very much the way I see Japan. Level 3 has a surprise in that it applyies only to G.O. cities, but that's probably something I simply didn't know. Fg2 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your idea about level, Fg2. Level one:都道府県, Level 2:市町村 plus 23 特別区 in Tokyo ja:市町村. And that's all. GO City's 区 has no autonomy. So the 区 is just an admistrative unit under the Go city. Oda Mari (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Need reference for Battle Royale (film) being filmed at Hachijokojima
The site Battleroyale.net said that Battle Royale (film) was filmed at Hachijokojima. Is there a source written in Japanese that states this? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know about a source, but the Japanese Wikipedia says "some scenes." See 「八丈小島 （一部シーンのロケ地）」 in the 関連項目 section (the last section before External Links) in バトル・ロワイアル (映画). Fg2 (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There has to be a book where all of the filming locations are revealed. It may be in Japanese, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sueo Matoba - what is the kanji?
Sueo Matoba is cited as being a cannibal in World War II. What is the kanji for the individual? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to 小笠原事件, there's a 的場末男. Fg2 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion
Discrimination lawsuits and incidents in Japan has been submitted for deletion. See the discussion here —  Cactus Writer |   needles  18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I put it in WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan. If you don't have that project on your watchlist, it's a good addition. Fg2 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Anomebot2, geodata for dissolved municipalities, and categories
The Anomebot2 placed geographic coordinates in the article Tokyo City, a dissolved municipality. Since the convention (see WikiProject Japan/Districts and municipalities) is to put this information in articles on current municipalities but not dissolved ones, I removed it and asked the bot's owner how to proceed. I received the following reply on my Talk page: Regarding the Anomebot's erroneous tagging of Tokyo City: although the bot is programmed to ignore dissolved municipalities, since the article hadn't been categorized as having been dissolved, the bot didn't spot it as such. The approriate categories look like this; Category:Dissolved municipalities of Ehime Prefecture: the bot simply looks for the word "dissolved" in a category name. Can you supply a list of dissolved municipalities, which I could add to the bot's placename blacklist, or suggest another heuristic which might detect these cases without explicit categorization? -- The Anome (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC) So, that leads to the following question and point:
 * 1) Does anyone have a list that would assist The Anome?
 * 2) We can work with the bot by putting articles on dissolved municipalities in the appropriate categories.

For starters, I've put Tokyo City in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Tokyo. Fg2 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone wanted to create a list, that'd be fine, but I think having the locations in the appropriate categories would work better. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
Please see Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Japanese British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Crusade against articles on japanese local election
User:CalendarWatcher have added delete-tags on Minato mayoral election, 2008 and Fujimi mayoral election, 2008. He seems determined to do it on other similar articles too. For me I think it's extremely important that they are kept because there are no other english sources that give this information. Also it's a fun interest to add for me (and some others too) in the same way some other users finds it important to add info about trainstations in nowhere (that's meant as a joke, not an offense). I am planning to open up a vote on deletion, could you support me in that? Best regards --Jonte-- (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: There is now a vote open here (for Fujimi) and here (for Minato), please give your support. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Help in getting a license for an image
I picked the image for the fifth generation computer Image:FGCS_computer-pim-m-1.jpg from this location at the ICOT a long time ago. A license on the site claims that the material is in the public domain, but I've since tried to mail them without getting any response. Can someone fluent in japanese contact them or locate the email address I should actually use in the more well-maintained Japanese version of the site here: http://www.icot.or.jp/ARCHIVE/ it would be appreciated. Nixdorf (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the ICOT link page, ICOT belonged to here and this is their inquiry form. Write your name in the first row with お名前, then your e-mail address in the second and the third row. And write your inquiry in the box. I hope this is the right place to ask. Oda Mari (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Nixdorf (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Tsukimi!
The article on Tsukimi itself could use some work, any takers? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, on this day of celebration someone took the opportunity to go on a rampage with a sickle. Is there an article on Wikipedia about this?  If not, is it worth making one?  --C S (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since only one was killed, maybe a section at Hakusan, Ishikawa is better. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Japan-related
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Japan-related featured sounds
Keep up the good work! =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1871 incident
In 1871, there was an incident in which an Okinawan fishing boat crashed upon Formosa (Taiwan). As I understand it, there was some sort of struggle between the Okinawan fishermen and a number of local natives, which ended in the deaths of nearly all of the Okinawan fishermen. As Peking and Tokyo became aware of the event, it developed into a major international incident, leading to sovereignty debates over both Taiwan and the Ryukyus, and playing a major role in the eventual decision by Tokyo in 1879 to abolish the Ryukyu Kingdom and fully annex the Ryukyus as "Okinawa Prefecture", over China's protests.

Here's my question - does an article for this incident already exist? If not, what should we call it? There is an article on the Japanese Taiwan Expedition of 1874 which resulted, but does the original incident not merit an article as well?

George H. Kerr, a British historian of both Okinawa and Taiwan, calls it the "Formosa Incident" in his book "Okinawa: the History of an Island People", though that is of course a term useful from the Okinawan/Japanese point of view. From the Taiwanese point of view, I'm sure it could just as easily be called the "Ryukyu Incident". Neither is sufficiently objective or explanatory for our purposes. Louis Frederic's "Japan Encyclopedia" calls it ryūkyū kizoku mondai (琉球帰属問題), the term also used in the Japanese Wikipedia's article for the Taiwan Expedition (there's no separate article for the incident on the Japanese Wikipedia), a term which translates roughly as "Ryukyu Belonging-to Problem".

I do not know whether or not I will write such an article any time soon, but in the meantime it would be good to have a standard title to link to, even if it is a red link.

I have begun a discussion as to whether or not this article needs be created, and what it should be titled, here. I invite anyone interested to contribute to the discussion in a calm, distanced, professional, objective, and mature manner. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As the 1871 incident led directly to the 1874 punative expedition, it can be considered as all part of the same series of events. As the article Taiwan Expedition of 1874 is in dire need of considerable expansion, it would be nice to have at least a paragraph on the 1871 incident. As you mention, this is the way it is treated in Japanese wikipedia. Certainly, if there is enough material to make a full article on the 1871 events, why not? But if it only going to be a 1-2 line stub, then it would not be so helpful, and it might be better to keep as part of "Taiwan Expedition of 1874" until more material is available? --MChew (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates of historical events: Japanese, western calendars
I recall a discussion about which calendar to use for historical events, but don't recall the outcome. My question is about this edit, and the matching date in the article on the Battle of Sekigahara. They give September 15 as the date of the battle, but the Japanese Wikipedia identifies the fifteenth day of the ninth month as the date in the year Keichō 5, in other words, the date according to the Japanese calendar; by the Western calendar, the date is October 21, it says.

So are we correct in giving "September 15" as the date of the battle, or should we elaborate on it by calling it "the fifteenth day of the ninth month according to the Japanese calendar (October 21, 1600 according to the Western calendar)"? Fg2 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think for dates such as that, both should be given. I don't have a preference for the order in which they are given, but it should appear something like this: date format 1 (date format 2) (bold just for emphasis here). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, so the Western calendar should be used by default. However, Japanese dates may be worth a parenthetical note. Jpatokal (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That just looks like a mistake and should be fixed to be October 21. As for why the Japanese calendar date should be given first, with the "Western" date in parentheses, I don't see much of an argument for it.  We certainly don't do this for articles on history in general, e.g. we don't date Battle_of_Thermopylae based on the Greek calendar.


 * Obviously in the case of citing historial documents or making direct quotes, we can't change the date to Western calendar, but even then an editorial note of the Western calendar date would be appropriate. --C S (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In my view, the discussion thus far misses the point. The Battle of Sekigahara happened when it happened.  The event itself remains the same regardless of whether the Gregorian calendar is referenced or alternate dates using Japanese era names are used.


 * In the English Wikipedia, I know of no instance in which Gregorian dates are disfavored. We may disagree with the Shōwa period scholars who declared conclusively that Emperor Jimmu was born in 660 B.C. (or 2600 years before February 11, 1940) ... but that is a different issue entirely.  I would have thought that the two dating systems are entirely interchangeable.  For example, there is no question that the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji took place in 1707, but there may be some difference between our current notions of when an eruption is said to begin and what was commonly understood in 18th century Japan?  Am I correct in believing that there is no question about when the Ansei Great Quakes caused destruction and loss of life?


 * According to Britannica On-line, the important Sekigahara battle date is October 20, 1600 ....
 * If A = Saturday, October 21, 1600 = the 15th day of the 9th month of the 5th year of Keichō (慶長十五年九月十五日)
 * If B = Friday, September 15, 1600 = the 8th day of the 8th month of the 5th year of Keichō (慶長五年八月八日).
 * Then A ≠ B ?
 * I'm guessing that the relatively trivial difference between the Japanese Wikipedia and the Britannica is this: Wikipedia focuses on what happened when the fog lifted and the two massed armies could actually see each other; and the Britannica focuses on that time when the two massed armies took their final positions awaiting the opportunity to clash.


 * The problem with the difference between the Japanese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia is that the September 15th date is inadequately explained. As the article page shows, the sole source for this article is just one slim book:
 * Bryant, Anthony J. (1995). Sekigahara 1600: The Final Struggle For Power. Oxford: [[Osprey Publishing. 10-ISBN 1-855-32395-8; 13-ISBN 978-1-855-32395-7
 * In fact, this source identifies the battle as decisively concluded on October 22, 1600 -- which is not inconsistent with the Japanese Wikipedia. This book takes the position that the struggle for power is better appreciated and understood in the context of a long campaign which included a fateful day when something important happened. According to Sekigahara 1600: The Final Struggle for Power, "Mitsunari entered Ogaki on September 15, 1600, and he had no idea that Ieyasu was already planning his return to Osaka;" and in the 5th paragraph of "The Battle" section of Wikipedia's Sekigahara article explains that "on September 15, the two sides started to deploy their forces."


 * The question becomes something like when does a battle become a battle? Am I the one who is missing the point somehow? --Tenmei (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we all know that a point of time can have more than one representation. Nonetheless, events, as you point out, can be defined differently according to different people, and some may chose to say a battle may start on a certain day and others may say it happened later.  So your comment that "The Battle of Sekigahara happened when it happened" is somewhat puzzling, in light of your later comments.  That's a tautology of course; assuming you intended more than a tautology, presumably you meant an event's time of occurrence is indisputable, but actually as you pointed out, it isn't.  Different people may say it happened at different times.  That's why it is important to rely on reliable sources that state such and such happened on a certain date.  In the case the two references references mentioned (the book and Britannica), they all agree on either October 20 or 21 dates as the start of the battle.  So we don't need to address such questions as "when does a battle become a battle", as interesting as it may be to ponder.  We can just list that some references give the 20th while others give the 21st.  --C S (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to, Keichō 15-9-15 is Sunday, October 21, 1600 in Julian calendar. --Sushiya (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't read Japanese, but I believe this is a mistake. If you use NengoCalc, it will convert the 慶長五年九月十五日 into October 21, 1600 in Gregorian.  (Some of the instructions for NengoCalc are in German, but this webpage gives some instructions, particularly "For dates Tenshô 10/9/18 (Oct. 4, 1582) and before, dates are in the Julian calendar, but from the next day, Tenshô 10/9/19 (Oct. 15, 1582) the dates are the Gregorian calendar.")


 * By the way, I believe you meant to type Keichō 5-9-15, since otherwise there is no way you can get 1600 (regardless of Julian or Gregorian). Tenmei made the same typo (but in Japanese) above.


 * This is all a bit confusing, so let me point out the two ways "September 15" has arose in this discussion. One way is that "September 15" could just be a bad way of saying the 15th day of the ninth month in the Japanese calendar.  The other way is that you could define the battle to be earlier when troop movements began (around September 15).  But both sources (including the book) that we have so far agree more or less that it was October 20 or 21.  This is in close agreement with the Gregorian date corresponding to Keichō 5-9-15.   --C S (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's my mistake. I inputted Keichō 15 instead of Keichō 5. Sorry for confusion. --Sushiya (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Summarizing the development of this thread, Fg2 asks several questions at once with this one well-chosen illustrative context:
 * 1. In using the phrase "which calendar to use for historical events," I construe an implied either/or response. This word choice plausibly mis-frames the potential discussion. It is a well-settled convention that all dates in the English Wikipedia are presented in standard Gregorian calendar terms, but there are times -- and perhaps this important battle is one of those times -- when a date presented in the Japanese era name format will be helpful or even essential, e.g., see Imperial Order of Meiji. Whether both dating systems should be presented is something which can only be determined on a case-by-case basis with relevant factors varying according to context. In any event, my view is that ·日本穣 and Jpatokal are precisely on-point, crisp and correct. Yes or no?
 * 2. An implied second question has to do with date equivalents. In my view, I would have thought it obvious and well-settled that the Gregorian date and the Japanese nengo dating must be expressed as precise equivalents. Yes or no?
 * 3. The more interesting and difficult question has to do with that discrepancy between the September 15th and October 21st. As it happens, for different reasons, consensus amongst interested editors recently changed Battle of Gallipoli to Gallipoli Campaign.  I have the impression that the author of the sole source used in this article would prefer a similar conceptual change in the way the epic Sekigahara battle is contextualized.  In my view, the September 15th date was probably a mere error -- but Fg2 recognized the provocative and potentially open-ended aspects of that mistake.  In the end, this cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" .... which ultimately explains why Fg2 began a thread here; and I'm persuaded that CS succinctly restates the heart-of-the-matter. --Tenmei (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the key question here, which is not being addressed, is simply this: Is it appropriate to represent the Japanese lunar calendar date of "the fifteenth day of the ninth month of Keichô" as September 15 1600, i.e. the fifteenth day of the ninth month? And I should think the answer should be a definitive no. The reason we have these difficulties in trying to pin down the dates of historical events is precisely because our sources cannot be relied upon to be fully clear about which dating system is being used, and therefore not clear whether something happened on September 15 (i.e. the 8th day of the 8th month of the 5th year of Keichō) or whether it happened on the 15th day of the 9th month of Keichô (i.e. October 21, 1600). We should make efforts to not repeat these errors. LordAmeth (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LordAmeth posits Occum's Razor reasoning, which I had mistakenly ignored.
 * A review of the Sekigahara edit history reveals that the date in the introductory paragraph was changed from October 21 to September 15 by an anonymous user from Oregon in early June 2008.
 * The date in the infobox was changed from October 21 to September 15 by another anonymous user from a Copenhagen secondary school in late November 2007.
 * The nature of the other edits made by these anonymous contributors lend weight to LordAmeth's point-of-view. --Tenmei (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose that, in articles which need it for one reason or another, we include the date like this: Western date (Japanese era date). This will allow both to be there, and leave no ambiguousness. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example to illustrate what the proposal means? As it stands, a reader who misses the word "era" could take it to support a statement like "The Battle of Sekigahara took place on October 21, 1600 (September 15, 1600)." I presume that's not what you mean. Maybe "The battle of Sekigahara took place on October 21, 1600 (the 15th day of the ninth month of the fifth year of Keichō)."? A proposal would also do well to refer to Manual of Style (dates and numbers), either to confirm or to override the main manual of style's guidance on Julian and Gregorian calendars. Fg2 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like "October 21, 1600 (or Keichō era, September 15, 1600)". I think it's important to let people know the era. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm against including the Japanese calendar date as "september 15". I think this is extremely confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the custom (followed presumably by some people) of translating "the ninth month" as September.  It is better to highlight somehow that the date is Japanese per the recommendation in the MoS page linked by Fg2, "Where a calendar other than the Julian or Gregorian is used, this must be clear to readers."  Perhaps, "Keichō era 5年9月15日".  When someone sees that, I think it would be pretty obvious it must be a date in a different calendar system.  So I would agree when it is useful to give both dates, Western date first followed by Japanese in parentheses, with the latter along the lines of what I suggested.  --C S (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with C S on this. We should avoid using English (Western) month names, such as September, in the Japanese date. It's a rather artificial designation to decide that the ninth month of a completely different calendar system should be called "September", and will only create confusion, especially when the length of lunar months or the number of months in a lunar year don't match up properly to the 12 month Western calendar, or when months don't line up well with the seasons (if the 4th month of a given year took place in the winter, would we still call it "April"?). LordAmeth (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said: "something like". I think it needs to be fairly short, whatever it is. Do either of you (or anyone else) have any ideas on how to state that in a concise manner? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought "October 21, 1600 (Keichō era 5年9月15日)" is a way to state "that" in a concise manner, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "that". It has the advantage of: 1) avoiding the likely (in my opinion) confusion with Gregorian/Julian dates that would arise by using "September" 2) being short, otherwise we would need another way to write "the 15th day of the ninth month of the fifth year" that is shorter 3) Japanese characters in conjunction with the Arabic numerals, it is a big hint that this is an alternate calendar date 4) it is consistent with the standard Japanese manner of writing the date using the Japanese calendar --C S (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support unambiguous dates as proposed by 日本穣, of course. --Tenmei :(talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am having difficulties following the conversation because I know next to nothing about old Japanese calendrical systems, but I do know that we have a serious problem in out hands: having to deal with more than one date for one event is normal, and so is being unable to solve the problem. And its root is surely errors and/or ambiguities during conversion by our sources. When known, I would definitely quote the date in the original system, as LordAmeth suggests. In any case, when I have different dates to deal with, I highlight the discrepancy. Agree with C S and LordAmeth. urashimataro (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I now fully understand the problem and I think I have an example of the mess using western names for Japanese months can cause. This is from the article Minamoto no Sanetomo on which me and Tenmei were working to fix he date of his murder.

There is a scholarly discrepancy in the specific date of the assassination -- on the 26th day of the 1st month of the 1st year of Jōkyū (Tuesday, February 12, 1219) according to Titsingh, p. 235; Murray, p. 504; Brinkley, Frank. (1915). A History of the Japanese People from the Earliest Times to the End of the Meiji Era, p. 339; Ponsonby-Fane, Richard. (1962). Sovereign and Subject, p. 140. Alternately, Sanetomo's death is recorded as January 27, 1219 according to Mass, Jeffrey P. (1995). Court and Bakufu in Japan: Essays in Kamakura History, p. 157; Kamiya, Michinori (2008). Fukaku Aruku - Kamakura Shiseki Sansaku. Vol. 1, pp. 17-23; Mutsu, Iso (2006). Kamakura: Fact and Legend, p. 103. Japanese Wikipedia identifies Sanetomo's death as February 13, 1219.

Turns out that, according to Nengocalc, Titsingh is right. Why there should be a 1-day discrepancy between Japanese Wikipedia and Titsingh, I don't know. I think that, when possible, we should specify a date in both the the original system and in the western system, avoiding calling the ninth month of a Japanese year "September". Would it be possible to create a template for this that made clear the procedure followed to arrive to the western date? Hope I am making sense. urashimataro (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes you are making sense. I believe this is why people are against the practice of "ninth month" --> "September".


 * I think there is unanimous agreement here on including both dates (Japanese one in parentheses), and also agreement that the Japanese date should not look similar to the Gregorian/Julian dates. (I think there is also unanimous agreement in the last case too, if I interpret Fg2 and Nihonjoe's comments correctly). The only question seems to be how to accomplish this.  I suggested a format above; it was only tentative before but thinking on it I think there are several good reasons for it, which I explained right above.  --C S (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context this thread seems to have developed, it looks like I should plan to re-visit almost every article to which I've contributed. Are we moving towards consensus which will encourage contributors like me to invest time in editing each occurrence of all dates in a consistent format:
 * Julian calendar/Gregorian calendar date ( Japanese era name date )?


 * At present, the many articles about the various Japanese era names use the following citation patterns. I tried to vary the format -- saying the same thing in a variety of ways; but now I begin to worry that this was exactly the wrong thing to have done.  In this limited cohort of articles, there are the following alternative patterns:
 * the __th day of the __th month of the __th year of nengō followed by the Julian/Gregorian calendar date in parenthesis or
 * the __th day of the __th month of nengō [year number], followed by the Julian/Gregorian calendar date in parenthesis or
 * nengō [year number], the __th day of the __th month, followed by the Julian/Gregorian calendar date in parenthesis


 * If only the month is known, as is the case in the following excerpts from Keichō, only the Gregorian calendar year is indicated:
 * Change of era
 * Keichō gannen (慶長元年); 1596: The era name was changed to Keichō to mark the passing of various natural disasters. The preceding era ended and a new one commenced on October 27th of the 5th year of Bunroku.
 * Keichō 5, in the 9th month (1600): Battle of Sekigahara. The Tokugawa clan and its allies decisively vanquish all opposition.


 * A similar but slightly modified pattern is used when a specific day is known, as is the case with the following excerpts from Jōkyū. The concurrent reign-dates for Emperor Juntoku and Emperor Chūkyō are indicated in English and in Japanese for redundant clarity.  Time is indicated in three ways -- with Julian/Gregorian calendar dating, with dates using Japanese era names and with reign year dating -- and hopefully, the text is not unclear.
 * Jōkyū 2, in the 2nd month (1220): Emperor Juntoku visited the Iwashimizu Shrine and the Kamo Shrines.
 * Jōkyū 3, on the 20th day of the 4th month (May 13, 1221): In the 11th year of Juntoku-tennō's reign (順徳天皇11年), the emperor abdicated; and the succession (‘‘senso’’) was received by eldest son who was only 4 years old. Shortly thereafter, Emperor Chūkyō is said to have acceded to the throne (‘‘sokui’’).
 * Jōkyū 3, on the 9th day of the 7th month (July 29, 1221): In the 1st year of what is now considered to have been Chūkyō-tennō's reign (仲恭天皇1年), he abruptly abdicated without designating an heir; and contemporary scholars then construed that the succession (‘‘senso’’) was received by a grandson of former Emperor Go-Toba.
 * Jōkyū 3, on the 1st day of the 12th month (January 14, 1222): Emperor Go-Horikawa acceded to the throne (‘‘sokui’’).


 * There is a slightly different pattern used in the article about Tokugawa Iemochi:
 * On the 5th day of the 3rd month (April 22, 1863) of Bunkyū 3, Shogun Iemochi travelled in a great procession to the capital. He had been summoned by the emperor, and had 3,000 retainers as escort.  This was the first time since the visit of Iemitsu in the Kan'ei era, 230 years before, that a shogun had visited Kyoto.


 * Are the above dates unclear? Does it help to place our discussion about dates in the Battle of Sekigahara in a broader context with illustrations of ways in which the two dating systems are complementary and helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

-- I think we should slowly but surely change dates written in the past. It can be done, given time. And we should absolutely standardize a procedure and a format for future use. I would use something like April 1, 2008 (Heisei 20, 1st day of the 4th month), in English for people who don't read Japanese.

One more thing: in a situation where an historical event can have four (five including the　original nengō. Look at the mess in that Sanetomo article.) dates already attached to it, I think it's essential for our own Gregorian date to have a modicum of credibility that, when possible, we calculate it directly from the original nengō using always the same trustworthy tool (for example Nengocalc) and that we explicitly say (in a note, for example) how it was obtained. There are two options:

A. We can use the Gregorian date found in the source and write in a note that it doesn't agree with the standard Nengocal value and is wrong.

B. We can discard the Gregorian date in the source and use the value we calculate, and write in a note: "Value obtained directly from the original nengo using Nengocalc. This is the option I favor. urashimataro (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this format: April 1, 2008 (Heisei 20, 1st day of the 4th month) (with the links I added). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of more specific commentary at WP:MOS-JP, I plan to begin using the format urashimataro proposes. If such a modest step does mitigate predictable errors, it seems worthwhile; but I would tweak this format slightly.  The Western date in regular typeface with the Japanese date in italics could be seen as more consistent with patterns already accepted -- as in the evolving Template:Nihongo ... English|Rōmaji.  The italic font may be construed as a subtle visual clue that the Japanese dating system is different but equivalent:
 * Julian calendar/Gregorian calendar date ( Japanese era name date )?
 * April 1, 2008 (Heisei 20, 1st day of the 4th month)?
 * We'll see how this tweaked format fares across an array of articles.--Tenmei (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The italics are a good idea. I have no objection to the proposed format.  If the NengoCalc value differs from some source value, we should of course note it as suggested.  --C S (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I I have already applied the format to the article Minamoto no Sanetomo. urashimataro (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I personally believe that the proposed format discussed in this thread is the one I prefer, it does make sense to note that other choices or preferences are equally valid, e.g., the following from the National Archives of Japan:
 * "This is a procession of Ryukyu King Sho Eki's missary visiting to Edo Castle in 7th year of Hoei (1710) . Emissaries going to Edo to offer felicitations for generation changes of Tokugawa Shogunate and gratitude for succession to throne of Ryukyu kings were called "Edo pilgrimage." Edo pilgrimage for this year left Ryukyu on July 2 and returned to Ryukyu on March 22 of the following year, 1st year of Shotoku . The delegation comprised 168 persons and was called the largest delegation in the Edo Period."<:ref>National Archives of Japan: Ryūkyū Chuzano ryoshisha tojogyoretsu, scroll illustrating procession of Ryūkyū emissary to Edo, 1710 (Hōei 7) [n.b., underlining added by Tenmei for emphasis.]
 * I'm guessing that the additional information is unhelpful in this context; nevertheless, it seems appropriate to acknowledge it. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide in Japan
Probably one of the most interesting things about crime in Japan to non-Japanese is the lack of it. On the other hand, Japan is well-known for having a suicide problem. So I was surprised to see there was no corresponding article suicide in Japan; instead, it redirected to seppuku, which is clearly inappropriate, although related.

Thus I have created a new article "suicide in Japan", with hopefully no objection to removing the redirect (but I include a note at the top to seppuku). I encourage people to come by and make some edits to hopefully give a better coverage. Right now, it is just the beginning so I make no claim of quality (also I have not yet formatted references properly, so it seems there are more references than actually being used).

I have also been editing crime in Japan, which has many defects, and hopefully I eliminated some of the essay-like issues (here, again, I have not yet formatted refs properly, sorry!). One thing I put in the lede, but have not yet included material on is the controversy of doctoring of crime statistics. I know this is a very controversial topic, so if you know about it, I encourage you to contribute. I think some of the best sources for that is only in Japanese, but I don't read Japanese. --C S (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job so far. I played with it a little bit, then created Harakiri (disambiguation) after noticing a need for it. Not exactly related, but there you go. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to nominate it for Did you know! =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of crime in Japan? How about, "There is a lack of reported crime in Japan?"  Sorry, had to vent.  I guess I need to go put that in the article with a source that supports it. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese honorific -kakka
Hi, I asked a question over at Reference desk/Language about the Japanese honorific "-kakka" which has not been answered to my satisfaction. If Japanese-speaking people from this WikiProject could chime in on that question, I would really appreciate it. —Lowellian (reply) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

VAIBS is back...
My wiki work is limited to tinkering with articles and posting/answering questions on talk pages, so I'm bringing this matter to attention here, to be taken up by some kind editor with better wiki-skills.

It has only been a couple of days since this deletion: and the article is back: Discrimination and racism in Japan. At a brief glance, the new article seems exactly the same as the deleted one. If I know my wiki-rules, resurrection of a deleted article warrants a speedy deletion? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, just tag with the appropriate CSD tag,, which I'll do now.  --C S (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro
Hello, I have been contributing to the Japanese film My Neighbor Totoro, and I was wondering if anyone at this WikiProject could help implement a citation into the article. The citation in question is: Does anyone happen to have access to Asian Cinema and can cull any useful information from the article? Thanks! — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)