WikiProject Japan | (Rated Project-class) | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006 | - | ♦ | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2007 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2008 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2009 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
2010 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2011 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2012 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2013 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
2014 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2015 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2016 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 2017 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
Task force talk archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Active and joint task force talk pages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Descendant and related project talk pages | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Miho Jinja
Should Miho Jinja be moved to Miho Shrine? bamse (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure. Neither seems to be terribly more popular than the other, and they don't have a website (in Japanese or otherwise) as far as I can tell. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought "Jinja" should always be replaced by the word "shrine"!? bamse (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, you're right. I need to go refresh my memory on a few things there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I thought "Jinja" should always be replaced by the word "shrine"!? bamse (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Translation fishing terms
For this list I am struggling with the translation of: 海士漁具, 磯見漁具, 釣漁具. Would appreciate any help. Thanks. bamse (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here's my shot at it:
- 海士漁具 (amagyogu) - Diving tackle, perhaps used by divers seeking oysters, mussels, sea urchins, etc.
- 磯見漁具 (isomigyogu) - isomi tackle, not sure what the "isomi" is...it literally means "seeing the beach" or "visible from the beach" (or something like that), so maybe surf fishing tackle?
- 釣漁具 (tsurigyogu) - Angling/trolling tackle, pretty straightforward on this one.
- Hope that helps. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Shouldn't those be gyogu? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yes. Thanks for catching that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- 磯見 fishing is described here.[1][2][3] Fishing from a boat using a 磯見鏡(hydroscope) and gig, grains, or hook.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, maybe it's fishing in a boat near the shore? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what the term would be, but it looks like it's indeed fishing near the shore (rocky shore?), but doing it with a hydroscope (a box with a glass window in the bottom). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The page 2 says:
- "使用場: 本郡ノ沿海ニシテ陸ヲ去ル二三町深八尋位海底岩礁ノ處 Point of use: Inshore of this district 2-300m from the land, water depth of 14m, seabed reef."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- "漁船: 本村叩網ニ使用スルモノト同一ノ「カンコ」船ヲ用ユ Fishing boat: The same Kanko boat as used for tataki-ami"
- "使用法: 海船一艘ニ漁夫二人乗組ミ採取具ヲ搭載シテ使用場ニ至リ磯見鏡ヲ以テ海底ヲ注視シ... Usage: Sailing a boat with Two fishermen and fishing equipments to a fishing place. Watching the bottom of the sea with a hydroscope..."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not within the scope of this project, but hydroscope could do with some TLC. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The page 2 says:
- I don't know what the term would be, but it looks like it's indeed fishing near the shore (rocky shore?), but doing it with a hydroscope (a box with a glass window in the bottom). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- So, maybe it's fishing in a boat near the shore? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Shouldn't those be gyogu? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. bamse (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
History of Japan dispute
History of Japan has just been delisted as a GA. Withing 12 minutes of the delisting the nominator relisted it, despite the amount of work that needs to be done on it to bring it back to GA status. The nominator is now editwarring to keep it nominated. Can we get some more eyes on the article? It would also be nice to get some editors to help work on the article and work out its many flaws—it's an imoprtant article and needs the attention. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was told during the good article review that the article met 70 to 90 per cent of the good article criteria. It always takes at least several weeks to get a nomination picked up, but actually it usually takes months, maybe even six months, for a nomination to get picked up. I'm certain that I and other users can finish the remaining 10% or so in that amount of time. If not, the person who picks up the article will simply tell us what needs to be done, and then can pass or fail the article depending on whether or not we do it.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- And he's done it again, despite being warned on his talk page. Could an administrator deal with this, please? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do believe the article meets all the good article criteria, and I simply want it to be on the review queue so that we can eventually find out whether or not the future good article reviewer agrees partially or wholly with my opinion. However, because this article is not likely to be picked up for a long time, there is plenty of room to make even further changes to the article before the review comes. I will take requests from other users on how to make the article even better before the next review takes place.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The article was just delisted. No edits have been made since it's delisting, so it can't possibly have been brought up to GA. You're being disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- In general I think the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality. Whether it actually is of good level quality can only be determined by the person who picks up the nomination. If it's really very far from being ready, it will simply fail nomination, right? I suspect that it is pretty much ready, at very least 70 to 90 percent is not much more, and I am expecting that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and possibly recommend further changes. Please, let's just wait and see what the future reviewer wants. Until then, I will make whatever improvements to the article which you ask me to make.05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)CurtisNaito (talk)
-
- The article was just delisted. No edits have been made since it's delisting, so it can't possibly have been brought up to GA. You're being disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do believe the article meets all the good article criteria, and I simply want it to be on the review queue so that we can eventually find out whether or not the future good article reviewer agrees partially or wholly with my opinion. However, because this article is not likely to be picked up for a long time, there is plenty of room to make even further changes to the article before the review comes. I will take requests from other users on how to make the article even better before the next review takes place.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe this article to already be of good article quality, but if anyone disagrees, just tell me what to do. I will implement any changes which are recommended. 05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)CurtisNaito (talk)
- And avoid discussion at all costs, we know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, please knock it off. User:Prhartcom explicitly stated in his close that he was a neutral observer -- his "percentage estimate" was not a statement that he agreed with your point of view that the article was GA quality. You need to respect the views of others a lot more than you have. None of the users who supported delisting (either explicitly on the GAR or by expressing negative opinions of the article on the talk page) had any malicious agenda in doing so. We all legitimately felt that the article, then and now, was not GA standard. Your immediately renominating the page upon its being delisted by unanimous consensus is disruptive and counterproductive. I still think you may have something to offer the article (you appear to be the only one with time to read the not-ideal sources that currently form the bulk of the article's references so you can at least provide quotes to help verify or falsify the points of contention). But you need to be able to edit collaboratively and engage in constructive discussion on the talk page -- immediately renominating with any acknowledgement that the article still needs improvement is a pretty gross slap in the face of everyone who has been working so hard to convince you that the article is not "fine the way it is" and needs improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't unanimous consensus. Four or five users opposed delisting. However, the main point I want to make is that the future good article reviewer will probably ask for revisions to clear up any remaining issues, and I will implement those revisions. I will also implement any revisions which might be necessary before the review, which is not likely to occur for months. I was wondering what the rules are for renomination, and when I checked them it seemed like it was not an inappropriate act. One portion of the good article FAQ states "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."CurtisNaito (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can you name them? I can only think of you, Calvin999, TH1980 and Hko233. The first was the original reviewer, who showed extremely poor judgement in the review and had a vested interest in covering his tracks by not having the article immediately delisted; the second has devoted virtually all of his energy on Wikipedia to undermining everything I do over the last five months; the third was an SPA from September 2008 to June 2015, when he/she showed up suddenly after a seven year absence, and his/her opposition to delisting was in line with the SPA POV he/she registered the account for the purpose of promoting. None of them have any substantial history of editing Japanese history articles or contributing to that article in particular. On the other hand, every user who supported delisting has been editing a wide variety of articles over many years, including many in this particular topic area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was noted during the good article review that, "in looking at this article it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." It was said that the article was "70–90%" towards good article status. As you noted, at very least four experienced Wikipedia users offered their well-reasoned opinions against delisting. Clearly, the article was either good article quality or on the verge of it. I am expecting more changes can be made to the article both before and during the next good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, your use of the passive voice (It was noted, It was said) is incredibly deceiptful. You know full-well that the person who wrote those words was the same person who closed the discussion as having a delist consensus. Who on earth are these "at very least four experienced Wikipedia users" I supposedly noted -- you appear to be misquoting me to my face now. Please get back to helping us improve the article and stop this childish bickering and gaming of the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to continue improving the article before and during the future good article review, whether the article currently meets 70% or 100% of the good article requirements. I hope other users, including TH1980, Hko233, and others, will participate as well. I don't think we should be denigrating their opinions, and ultimately, anyone who is willing to contribute to the article will aid the article's chance of passing good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's totally okay for you to denigrate the opinions of everyone else in the worst possible manner -- by completely ignoring them. Anyway, if you are actually interested in improving the article, please respond to me on the talk page rather than endlessly arguing in the Wikipedia namespace. I know you don't agree with what I posted there a few hours ago, and I know if I implement my edit you will try to throw it back in my face later. Please acknowledge that the source you cited was inaccurate and fringe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have been very prompt in implementing all suggestions which can be reliably sourced. I'm not going to ignore anyone.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've been exasperatingly persistent in avoiding all attempts at discussing suggested additions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, about a month after it was suggested that you insert a reference to Japan's national epic, you did so but did not mention that it was Japan's national epic, instead including a bizarre factoid that, while not inaccurate, is useless to our readers and far out of the scope of a general historical survey article. When asked to correct this, you essentially said "You do it!" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The facts I included were from Totman, which is a general overview covering all Japanese history in 600 pages or so. I figured that the information in that overview would also make a good summary for the History of Japan article. However, once you clarified that you wanted the article to mention its historical reputation, I also added that. I told you that if you have a better source you can add it as well, but for the purposes of this article I think Totman is a very reliable scholar of Japanese history.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- @CurtisNaito: You know the last time I checked, you also screwed up the Battleship Yamato addition by placing it in a random place and making it more of a factoid than anything (haven't checked to see if it was corrected yet). I'm pretty sure that Dennis Brown's warning also included "making editing miserable for others" so just keep racking up the evidence for ArbCom buddy. Oh and make sure your response to this is something like "there was nothing wrong with the article", "the article is GA quality", or "there was no consensus to delist", since those are the main falsehoods you keep repeating. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was told to add information on the battleship Yamato, but I was not told what specific information to add. I wanted to put the information in an area where it would not seem out of place. It was mentioned in the article that the Japanese Navy was resorting to kamikaze tactics by 1944. In other words, the Navy was becoming desperate. This seemed like a good place to mention that the very next year the Navy sent Yamato on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan. However, if you have a different idea for how to include this information, I'm willing to discuss it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- You were told exactly what information to add on the Heike Monogatari and Minamoto no Yoshitsune. You responded by adding exactly what random nonsense happened to be in the extremely limited sources you have access to. Or perhaps your own interpretations of this random nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to the quote you provided I was supposed to mention "Japan's national hero (Yoshitsune) Japan's national epic (the Heike Monogatari)". I did mention those topics, but you didn't tell me to say "Heike Monogatari is Japan's national epic". I mentioned those topics based on the sources I had, and I didn't realize that you wanted a quote which included precise phrase "national epic".CurtisNaito (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- And that's why I said your sources were inadequate. What are you trying to say? We're just going in circles at this point! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think we should be cautious about building the article based off personal opinion rather than the views of scholars. As I said, a general, one-volume history of Japan includes only the most pertinent information. Such books are condensations of all the available sources on Japanese history and by reading such books, we can determine what topics scholars believe are the most significant. Each of us may have a personal opinion about what details are best to mention, but it's the opinion of leading scholars which should be our focus. The points of fact I included were the ones which scholars, rather than Wikipedia users, found to be most important.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, Japan's tradition of setsuwa ("storytelling") was producing many powerful and well-developed war sagas, most notably The Tale of the Heike which recounted the key events of the Genpei War. is "the most pertinent information" on the Heike Monogatari!? More pertinent than the fact that it is Japan's national epic? Or is it being Japan's national epic just "my opinion"? I thought I cited it to Keene, almost certainly the highest-regarded Japanologist alive today. What on earth are you on about now? If you keep up this IDHT nonsense the GA review will open and fail because no one has been able to do anything to improve the article... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, since Keene's book was specifically about Japanese literature, I think it includes more than the barebones essentials. Probably the majority of topics in this article should only include the essentials, which is what the overview histories contain. My view is that the article would stand a greater chance of passing if it focuses primarily on the information viewed by scholars as most important, which is what I included, rather than just what users think is important.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Again I must say -- In addition, Japan's tradition of setsuwa ("storytelling") was producing many powerful and well-developed war sagas, most notably The Tale of the Heike which recounted the key events of the Genpei War. is "the barebones essentials" on the Heike Monogatari, but the fact that it is Japan's national epic is not!? Are you mad? Anyway, my impression of the work as Japan's national epic predates my reading of Keene. I don't remember where I first read it, but it may have been in one of Sansom's general histories. Did you make any effort to see what he says? He is still a much better-regarded authority than any of the relatively obscure authors you insist on naming in the article text. (Although I do recall reading this obscure 19th-century book around the same time as A Short Cultural History -- it might have been from that. Anyway the fact that Nagai Kafu, one of the most important literati of early 20th-century Japan, and Donald Keene, one of the most important Japanologists of late 20th-century America, said the same thing of the work makes this claim notable, and virtually every reputable commentator who has written on the work in English has said something similar: for example, the work's most recent translator into English said (Tyler 2012, xxi) "No work of Japan's classical literature influenced more pervasively the art, literature and drama of later centuries. Heike is a seminal masterpiece of Japanese culture." (And don't even think of saying -- because experience tells me you already are thinking of saying this -- "if the work's translator devoted 800 pages to the work and he didn't say national epic then we shouldn't either".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, since Keene's book was specifically about Japanese literature, I think it includes more than the barebones essentials. Probably the majority of topics in this article should only include the essentials, which is what the overview histories contain. My view is that the article would stand a greater chance of passing if it focuses primarily on the information viewed by scholars as most important, which is what I included, rather than just what users think is important.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, Japan's tradition of setsuwa ("storytelling") was producing many powerful and well-developed war sagas, most notably The Tale of the Heike which recounted the key events of the Genpei War. is "the most pertinent information" on the Heike Monogatari!? More pertinent than the fact that it is Japan's national epic? Or is it being Japan's national epic just "my opinion"? I thought I cited it to Keene, almost certainly the highest-regarded Japanologist alive today. What on earth are you on about now? If you keep up this IDHT nonsense the GA review will open and fail because no one has been able to do anything to improve the article... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think we should be cautious about building the article based off personal opinion rather than the views of scholars. As I said, a general, one-volume history of Japan includes only the most pertinent information. Such books are condensations of all the available sources on Japanese history and by reading such books, we can determine what topics scholars believe are the most significant. Each of us may have a personal opinion about what details are best to mention, but it's the opinion of leading scholars which should be our focus. The points of fact I included were the ones which scholars, rather than Wikipedia users, found to be most important.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- And that's why I said your sources were inadequate. What are you trying to say? We're just going in circles at this point! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to the quote you provided I was supposed to mention "Japan's national hero (Yoshitsune) Japan's national epic (the Heike Monogatari)". I did mention those topics, but you didn't tell me to say "Heike Monogatari is Japan's national epic". I mentioned those topics based on the sources I had, and I didn't realize that you wanted a quote which included precise phrase "national epic".CurtisNaito (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- You were told exactly what information to add on the Heike Monogatari and Minamoto no Yoshitsune. You responded by adding exactly what random nonsense happened to be in the extremely limited sources you have access to. Or perhaps your own interpretations of this random nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Sturmgewehr88: Don't forget "Dr. Blofeld and Prhartcom opposed delisting because the article meets 70-90% of the GA criteria, is well-written, and has all the basic elements of a good article". (苦笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Caveat (I can't believe I have to add these to every remotely tongue-in-cheek post I make these days): I'm not saying those users didn't say those things (except for "70-90% of the GA criteria", which is of course CurtisNaito's interpretation of Prhartcom's ambiguous "We're 70-90% there"). I am saying those users both explicitly stated that they hadn't examined either of the complaints (sourcing and comprehensiveness) raised at GAR. The latter user did the delisting him/herself based on a clear consensus to delist; the former expressed credulity to the idea that there were sourcing and OWN problems with the page, just that he wasn't willing or able to weigh in on either matter one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was told to add information on the battleship Yamato, but I was not told what specific information to add. I wanted to put the information in an area where it would not seem out of place. It was mentioned in the article that the Japanese Navy was resorting to kamikaze tactics by 1944. In other words, the Navy was becoming desperate. This seemed like a good place to mention that the very next year the Navy sent Yamato on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan. However, if you have a different idea for how to include this information, I'm willing to discuss it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @CurtisNaito: You know the last time I checked, you also screwed up the Battleship Yamato addition by placing it in a random place and making it more of a factoid than anything (haven't checked to see if it was corrected yet). I'm pretty sure that Dennis Brown's warning also included "making editing miserable for others" so just keep racking up the evidence for ArbCom buddy. Oh and make sure your response to this is something like "there was nothing wrong with the article", "the article is GA quality", or "there was no consensus to delist", since those are the main falsehoods you keep repeating. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've been exasperatingly persistent in avoiding all attempts at discussing suggested additions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have been very prompt in implementing all suggestions which can be reliably sourced. I'm not going to ignore anyone.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's totally okay for you to denigrate the opinions of everyone else in the worst possible manner -- by completely ignoring them. Anyway, if you are actually interested in improving the article, please respond to me on the talk page rather than endlessly arguing in the Wikipedia namespace. I know you don't agree with what I posted there a few hours ago, and I know if I implement my edit you will try to throw it back in my face later. Please acknowledge that the source you cited was inaccurate and fringe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to continue improving the article before and during the future good article review, whether the article currently meets 70% or 100% of the good article requirements. I hope other users, including TH1980, Hko233, and others, will participate as well. I don't think we should be denigrating their opinions, and ultimately, anyone who is willing to contribute to the article will aid the article's chance of passing good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, your use of the passive voice (It was noted, It was said) is incredibly deceiptful. You know full-well that the person who wrote those words was the same person who closed the discussion as having a delist consensus. Who on earth are these "at very least four experienced Wikipedia users" I supposedly noted -- you appear to be misquoting me to my face now. Please get back to helping us improve the article and stop this childish bickering and gaming of the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was noted during the good article review that, "in looking at this article it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." It was said that the article was "70–90%" towards good article status. As you noted, at very least four experienced Wikipedia users offered their well-reasoned opinions against delisting. Clearly, the article was either good article quality or on the verge of it. I am expecting more changes can be made to the article both before and during the next good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can you name them? I can only think of you, Calvin999, TH1980 and Hko233. The first was the original reviewer, who showed extremely poor judgement in the review and had a vested interest in covering his tracks by not having the article immediately delisted; the second has devoted virtually all of his energy on Wikipedia to undermining everything I do over the last five months; the third was an SPA from September 2008 to June 2015, when he/she showed up suddenly after a seven year absence, and his/her opposition to delisting was in line with the SPA POV he/she registered the account for the purpose of promoting. None of them have any substantial history of editing Japanese history articles or contributing to that article in particular. On the other hand, every user who supported delisting has been editing a wide variety of articles over many years, including many in this particular topic area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't unanimous consensus. Four or five users opposed delisting. However, the main point I want to make is that the future good article reviewer will probably ask for revisions to clear up any remaining issues, and I will implement those revisions. I will also implement any revisions which might be necessary before the review, which is not likely to occur for months. I was wondering what the rules are for renomination, and when I checked them it seemed like it was not an inappropriate act. One portion of the good article FAQ states "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."CurtisNaito (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, please knock it off. User:Prhartcom explicitly stated in his close that he was a neutral observer -- his "percentage estimate" was not a statement that he agreed with your point of view that the article was GA quality. You need to respect the views of others a lot more than you have. None of the users who supported delisting (either explicitly on the GAR or by expressing negative opinions of the article on the talk page) had any malicious agenda in doing so. We all legitimately felt that the article, then and now, was not GA standard. Your immediately renominating the page upon its being delisted by unanimous consensus is disruptive and counterproductive. I still think you may have something to offer the article (you appear to be the only one with time to read the not-ideal sources that currently form the bulk of the article's references so you can at least provide quotes to help verify or falsify the points of contention). But you need to be able to edit collaboratively and engage in constructive discussion on the talk page -- immediately renominating with any acknowledgement that the article still needs improvement is a pretty gross slap in the face of everyone who has been working so hard to convince you that the article is not "fine the way it is" and needs improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Mada mada/madamada
人生はまだまだ続く: Jinsei wa madamada tsuzuku or Jinsei wa mada mada tsuzuku? My natural reflex is towards 'mada mada', until I realised まだまだ is listed in its own right as an adverb in dictionaries. The JASRAC song database doesn't seem to consistently list songs as being either way, and a google scholar check shows both transliterations seem to be used fairly often. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is "madamada"---I don't get the feeling that it's just two "mada"s (à la "very very") but a ten in its own right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, I get the feeling that the second "mass" would be dakutenned if it were dakutenable, like 次々 . Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen it both ways. I tend to use it as a phrase rather than a word, but I don't really have a solid preference. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- In such cases, I check WorldCat to see how academic libraries have treated it (in general, Library of Congress romanization rules are very helpful: [4]). I ignore the results from Japan or Europe, which tend to be less strict and focus on North American institutions. It seems "madamada" is the majority option: [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. Michitaro (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sok Pok Kim
I recently rescued this article from an inactive user's sandbox. It seems to be an incomplete translation of his Japanese article. If anyone would like to finish expanding/translating it, and provide some useful Japanese external links/refs, it would be appreciated. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Where is a list of Peruvian schools in Japan?
Does anyone know where there is a list of Peruvian international schools in Japan? For example the Brazilian Embassy in Tokyo lists all of the Brazilian schools in Japan, but I haven't yet found such a list on the website of the Peruvian embassy... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure. I tried a few searches and came up with nothing. Perhaps there aren't any? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- This is just a hunch, but I suspect there are Spanish-based schools, but none that are specifically Peruvian. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- WhisperToMe: There's a Japanese Wikipedia page listing two such schools: ja:ペルー学校. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding that! I was able to start Colegio Hispano Americano de Gunma (it has upper secondary school to age 17) and I'll see what I can do about the Hamamatsu Peruvian school. I don't know if there are any other Spanish language international schools but if there are, please let me know! WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- And one more : Mundo de Alegría, which is a combined Peruvian and Brazilian school WhisperToMe (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding that! I was able to start Colegio Hispano Americano de Gunma (it has upper secondary school to age 17) and I'll see what I can do about the Hamamatsu Peruvian school. I don't know if there are any other Spanish language international schools but if there are, please let me know! WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Uncited formulaic phrases in Japanese Emperor articles
It's as if someone came up with a set of clever-sounding phrases and decided to copy-paste them into a large number of articles on Japanese Emperors with no regard for whether or not they conveyed any information, or even if they were true.
First example is one I complained about years ago in the talk section to a relevant article, and got no response. In many of the articles on the ahistorical legendary emperors of Japan we find something about his posthumous name that goes:
- It is undisputed that this identification is Chinese in form and Buddhist in implication, which suggests that the name must have been regularized centuries after the lifetime ascribed to Suizei, possibly during the time in which legends about the origins of the Yamato dynasty were compiled as the chronicles known today as the Kojiki.
This is from the article on Emperor Suizei but it occurs in many other places. It's cited in this particular case to
- Aston, William George. (1896). Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. OCLC 448337491 pp 138-141.
If you actually go and look this up, you find it says absolutely nothing to support the statement. It's instead a chronicle of events during the reign of Empress Suiko with no commentary at all on the posthumous name of any of her supposed predecessors.
All of these need to be cited. Moreover, they need to be explained. What about the name is "Chinese in form and Buddhist in implication"? It sure sounds Japanese to me, and I detect nothing especially Buddhist about the literal meaning of "joyful healthy peace" the article reports. And "undisputed"? Really? That'd be a first, in any aspect of ancient Japanese history.
Another example I found just now, while browsing through articles on Edo period emperors, and it goes like this:
- Go-Yōzei's Imperial family lived with him in the Dairi of the Heian Palace.
This is from Emperor Go-Yōzei of course, but it occurs in the articles for all Edo period emperors except one. It may occur for earlier emperors too, but I haven't checked. As the cited source is print-only I'm unable to verify it, but I presume it's related only to the subsequent list of Imperial issue and not the problematic statement. That's because the problematic statement is patently false. No Edo period emperor could possibly have lived in the Dairi or any other building of the Heian Palace because that complex burned down for the final time in the 12th century and was never rebuilt again! Clearly they must have been living in the Kyoto Imperial Palace, the actual imperial residence of the time (between times it too burned down). Blindly copy-pasting this phrase from article to article regardless of whether or not it's cited, or even true, is just not good. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reading the pages in the ref you give above, there is nothing about the section you quoted, so it may be good to review that and anything else added by the person who added that originally. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looking through the history, the reference to that work was first inserted on 14 Aug 2007 by John Smith's, though the insertion is as a general reference, not for anything specific. The page numbers given in the reference are those from the index of the book referenced, even though a quick glance didn't show any reference to Suizei on the listed pages (this was a quick scan, not a thorough reading of those pages, so I may have missed it). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please provide kanji
I don't want to get them wrong. Shōichi Saba and Ichirō Terao need kanji, thank you!
- I added the Saba name by finding him in the ja wiki. The English article is more detailed than the Japanese version, so for once our article could be used to improve theirs!
- I couldn't find an article for Terao, but I added what I think is the only logical way of writing it. I have confirmed it via a google search. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you need any more Japanese bronze wolf recipients' kanji names, have a look at page four of this .pdf. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
2015 Japan Series
Hiya. Just a note from this baseball editor that 2015 Japan Series should be posted to the Main Page via WP:ITN shortly. Any help you can provide for that article (especially with Japanese language sourcing) is greatly appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a bit late to the party, but I fixed one error in the series notes section and added some further details. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
縄文の里・朝日 奥三面歴史交流館
Looking for the commonly used English name (or if not available a good translation) of this. bamse (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pictures from the museum just show the signs saying Jomon no Sato Asahi, or Asahi Jomon no Sato. I can't find references to the museum in English at all, so I guess that's as close as you'll probably be able to find. --Prosperosity (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you can get a brochure from the place they'll often have an English (or at least romanized) version of the name in the copyright notice. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Although in my experience "-no-sato" names are usually not translated. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you can get a brochure from the place they'll often have an English (or at least romanized) version of the name in the copyright notice. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- This site lists it as "縄文の里・朝日 奥三面歴史交流館 (ジョウモンノサトアサヒ オクミオモテ レキシ コウリュウカン)", so "Jōmon no Sato - Asahi: Okumiomote Rekishi Kōryūkan" which I would translate as "The Dawn of Jōmon Settlement: Okumiomote Historical Interactive Museum". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)