Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sumo/Conventions

Makuuchi
I think this is one case where we're better off sticking with the Japanese, since we're talking about the proper name of the division and not just an expression like rikishi with an acceptably normal English equivalent. We don't, after all, plan to come up with English "code words" for every division, do we? So if we use some made-up English label for this one, it will be the only division for which we do this. I think it's less confusing to be consistent. I think the better course of action would be to see what they call it in, for example, the English-langauge sumo broadcasts of honbasho.

What I think we should do is to pick either "makuuchi" or "makunouchi" and stick with only one of them, to keep confusion to a minimum. I don't see this as a problem ATM, but we should probably set a standard for future reference. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In articles where someone has just written "the top division", it is not unclear at all what they mean to anyone, newcomer or no, is it? Having said this though, I have noticed that  in practice, when I am writing an article, I tend to write something like "the top makuuchi division" and then in later uses, just makuuchi.   I think as long as the word isn't used in complete isolation in the article, without an early clarification that it is the top division than it is okay to use makuuchi.  I think the current wording of this "convention" is pretty good, and would keep anyone (who bothers to read it anyway) mindful of overusing Japanese terms like makuuchi in isolation, even if the rules aren't strictly adhered to. Malnova 22:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of sumo terms
Proposition: remove the hard requirement to use capitalizations for wrestler ranks when used as a personal title (unless obviously at the start of a sentence) for the reason that most verifiable English-language sources do not appear to follow the Sumo Association convention. For example, articles in the Asahi Shimbun and Kyodo/Mainichi on Hakuho's punishment in February, and an article about Terunofuji's March pullout, all do not use this convention. JRHorse (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I would agree with this, I don't see yokozuna or any other rank as a "title" equivalent to say, "President Biden," and it seems to be that most sources treat it in the way JRHorse suggests. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Although the sources cited by JR do not really fall within the scope of MOS:PEOPLETITLES (because it denotes a description: "JSA demotes retired yokozuna Hakuho"; " Former sumo yokozuna Hakuho"), my own research shows that this convention is indeed not followed (as here "at the hands of ozeki Hoshoryu " which denotes a title). I think it would be worth mentioning in the conventions that we're not following MOS:PEOPLETITLES, even though ranks are also proof of status. - OtharLuin (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On that note, MOS:HONORIFIC specifies that honorifics titles should not be capitalized when used as a prefix with the exception of cases discussed in WP - OtharLuin (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There being no further updates in this section, do you want to proceed as follows:
 * Capitalization of sumo terms, including rank, division, and job titles should be avoided, as in komusubi, makuuchi, and sumo, except where the context calls for title case. or where it is used as a personal title, as in "Yokozuna Asashōryū". Proper nouns, such as the names of people or organizations, should be capitalized. JRHorse (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Transliteration template
I'd be okay with following this guideline going forward instead of italics, if MOS calls for it and other editors are willing to do the same.

Proposition: A small technical change to replace the mention of with , as the former tag does not appear to automatically italicize words unless another string is added.

I would also propose the use of as it has a similar effect compared with the transliteration template, unless there's a reason one should be used over the other. JRHorse (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the use of trans template is already imposed on us. Indeed, the update of the sentence in the conventions should be done. - OtharLuin (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes translja is the one we should be using I think. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There being no further updates in this section, do you want to proceed as follows:
 * When a Japanese/sumo term is used, every occurrence of the term should be italicized if the word is not in common English use. Per MOS:OTHERLANG, the template  should be used for each occurrence, which will automatically italicize the word. For example, makuuchi should be written as makuuchi. JRHorse (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Standardized presentation of record tables
Proposition The record tables must be completed with the Basho tag to complete the year, even if a career end occurs during the year. In addition, I also noticed that sometimes tables were completed with the tag INTAI when the wrestlers had passed away before their retirement. In this case, isn't it necessary to leave the last result without closing the table with a red tag because these wrestlers haven't "really" left the association? - OtharLuin (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm open to persuasion on this one, but Sumo Reference which is our main source for the tables always gives an intai date, even if it is because of death. I see you recently changed Ryūkōzan Kazuto to remove the red box but left the 0-0-0; that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The red box should indicate their final appearance on the banzuke, whether it is because of retirement or death. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually deleted the red part because it mentions "retirement" in the table caption. IMO, the case of Ryūkōzan is particularly interesting because he died while being mentioned on the banzuke of the following tournament, so the table needs a rank (because Ryūkōzan appears on the banzuke) without having the red (because he died and not retired, which is what the caption mentions) - OtharLuin (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Standardized presentation of wrestlers infobox
had raised this point during a discussion to try to reach a consensus on the mention of elder names in the infobox, which could also be similar to the mention of stable names. From this proposal I have identified three possibilities for establishing a convention:
 * Only the latest stable and elder name are mentioned
 * Only the latest elder name and all the stables are mentioned
 * All names are listed in chronological order

- OtharLuin (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * So long as stables and elder names are all mentioned in the article, which I'm sure is the case in most instances, I'd be in favor of the first option to keep things simplified in the infobox. JRHorse (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Mention of honorary suffixes
Proposition Remove suffixes such as -oyakata when they are mentioned. For example, "Michinoku Oyakata/Michinoku-oyakata was condemned after one of his disciples..." becomes "Michinoku was condemned...". WP:JAPAN manual of style does not prohibit the use of honorific suffixes (it simply asks not to capitalize them), but I find that systematically adding honorifics loses clarity. Everyone also seems to have their own convention on whether or not to add a hyphen while articles seems to mention only the elder name without honorifics (like here "JSA public relations manager Sadogatake said...") - OtharLuin (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support: Noting that I've also seen this used interchangeably by editors (including myself from time to time), I support this.
 * JRHorse (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support so long as it is clear from context that it is the stablemaster and not the stable being referred to. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment importance
I'm thinking about this again because I just reworded part of the Hakuhō article, but wouldn't it also be necessary to review how WP applies importance criteria to articles? Many WP's have several articles in the "Top" importance, but at WP:SUMO we simply put the Sumo article there. The way to proceed would be to ask the following question: "Is this article necessary to understand how sumo works?"

Top - Sumo, articles on professions revolving around professional sumo (gyoji, tokoyama, rikishi, yobidashi, judge (sumo), toshiyori), key figures who have defined the eras of sumo (Hakuho, Chiyonofuji, Taiho, Futabayama, Akebono, Takanohana maybe even Hitachiyama (?))

High - articles on yokozuna (maybe even on some pioneers like Takamiyama?), articles on important concepts for someone who already knows something about sumo (mawashi, sansho prizes, various lists...).

Mid - articles on ozeki, arenas and years in sumo

Low - articles on sumo details (mochikyukin) and other wrestlers - OtharLuin (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support/Propose - this all sounds reasonable, though if I were to ask this question in the case of Ryōgoku Kokugikan I would propose that as the most important and historically significant of all the arenas for professional sumo, this should be bumped up. JRHorse (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)