User talk:Bendono/February-May 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old Japanese & Classical Japanese

Hi. I've made minor changes to Old Japanese (infobox) and Classical Japanese language (copied infobox from former & edited) and just wanted to get your feedback. --RJCraig 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to a lack on focus on Classical Japanese language, I decided to create Late Old Japanese. It focuses solely on the language of the Heian period. The former can, and sort of attempts to, focus on the literary language (文語). Thus, I altered the template on Old Japanese and moved the template from Classical Japanese language to Late Old Japanese. Bendono 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I see your point. Maybe we should change the name of the classical article to "Literary Japanese" or something similar? (Or create a new page and redirect?)
I've got a copy of the 日本語文法大辞典, which includes (traditional) conjugation tables for different historical periods (Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Early Edo (Kamikata dialect), Late Edo (Edo dialect) and Modern). If these coincide with the divisions you have in mind, I could add the tables. (Although, personally, I prefer a more modern linguistic analysis along the lines of Vovin's A Reference Grammar of Classical Japanese Prose over the traditional Kokugogaku one.) Let me know what you think when you have time. --RJCraig 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have that book too. The tables are fairly useful, but I memorized them long ago. Except for the names, the divisions generally coincide with what I have in mind. Vovin is nice too, but unfortunately I do not have a copy with me now. Just for reference, Kamikata should be read as "Kamigata". It is western Japan, in particular Kyōto and Ōsaka. Bendono 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(D'oh. I knew what it meant, just not how it was read. Doesn't come up in conversation often, y'know. ;) --RJCraig 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Džín Nigárd

¡Hola! LOL...you did catch a little late indeed ;) . Poor Gene Nygaard (Džín Nigárd in Czech, Jin Naigard in Spanish), we were just making fun of him with the differrent language translations of his name at Waldemar Matuška's talk page. It's nothing, I was just stating a point on how uncomfortable it is when others misspell your name claiming that it's okay in their own language. It's water under the bridge now. See you around! Adiós, Rosa 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shochu

You updated the whole shochu page to use macrons. The lack of macrons was deliberate - the Japanese style page suggests they only be used for the first usage, and without macrons thereafter. Therefore that is what I did. If you have no overriding reason to have macrons I will revert your edit. Akihabara 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the WP:MOS-JA suggests that macron'd romaji should only be used once. The kanji 焼酎 should only be used once, but, not the correct romanization. Shōchū is not a mainstream word recognizable by enough English speakers to be exempted, ala Sumo and Tokyo. Neier 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Neier. I do not have much to add to that. Bendono 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New categories for old Japanese texts

I see you created a number of new period categories. Great! :-) For consistency with your new categories, perhaps Old Japanese texts and Late Old Japanese texts ought to be changes to Old Japanese and Late Old Japanese—i.e., “text” dropped from their names. This would also solve the issue of whether the articles on the language of those periods should be included under their respective categories as well.

I also recently created an “Edo-period works” subcategory. This leads me to my next question: Should we also create “xxx-period works” subcategories for each of the major historical periods? In the one hand, it could be argued that such parallel categorization was overkill; on the other, users searching categories for literature of difference periods could conceivably be looking under any one of three classifications: linguistic period (Old, Late Old, Early Middle, etc.), historical period (Yamato-Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Ashikaga/Warring States, Edo, etc.) or literary period (which usually coincide, at least nominally, with the historical periods).

Your thoughts? (Might as well work this out first rather than have to clean up redundancies later! <g>) Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In my haste, I accidentally omitted the word "texts". Rather then drop "texts" from Category:Old Japanese texts and Category:Late Old Japanese texts, I think that the new ones should be renamed with "texts" in line with the existing categories. I have already submitted move requests to that effect. My intention was for them to be a list of texts by linguistic period. Without "texts", the purpose of the categories seem too vague. I probably would not add non-texts to the list, but if someone thinks it is relevant, I do not have a problem with their occasional inclusion (or removal).
I can also see the point / value of classifying them by literary period as well. Perhaps we could have both; I do not think it needs to be exclusive one or the other. Although they will for the most part overlap greatly. Bendono 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed how that developed. Ironically, I had created “Late Old Japanese” before creating “Late Old Japanese texts,” noticed (what I thought was) my own hasty error, and immediately corrected it! I think dropping “texts” from the linguistic-period categories would making it easier to justify including articles about the texts and the article about the language of their particular periods under the same category, which in turn could facilitate finding these inter-related articles. (If I’m not mistaken, the whole idea of the categories is to group articles cover similar or related content to make them easier for people doing research to find.). Personally, I think the historical/literary period categories would also be useful in this sense, so the overlap shouldn't be a problem.

Further, I think that the historical-period categories should be made into subcategories of both Japanese literature and their respective umbrella historical-period categories; e.g., “Edo-period literature” (currently “Edo period works”) should be a subcategory of both “Japanese literature” and “Edo period” (which it now is! <g>). Regards, Jim_Lockhart 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami

Hiya Bendono; howzit going? I noticed tonight that you watch the Tsunami page, too; so I thought I’d let you know that there’s some sort of policy about avoiding Wikilinks in headings and subheadings—and the tsunami article is full of them! If a term in mentioned in body text, wikilinking only in body text is good enough anyway. Too many redundant wikilinks get distracting. Regards, Jim_Lockhart 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good evening. Actually, I do not regularly monitor the Tsunami page. I was just fixing some missing macrons (a major pet peeve of mine). I agree: too many links are distracting and redundant. Feel free to remove them if I do not get to them first. Bendono 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ll restrain myself so we don’t wind up tripping over one another! <g> Jim_Lockhart 13:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nippo Jisho

Hi. All I did was update the spelling. The book was written at a time when the letters I and J, and U and V, were not distinguished from each other in the Latin alphabet, but nowadays we would write Arte da Lingoa de Japam, Arte Breve da Lingoa Japoa, and so on. Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was probably spelled with an "I" in its original edition, too, but we don't do that anymore. Still, I understand that this may be arguable... FilipeS 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Japanese era

I put back your correction to Template:Japanese era. The issue wasn't that your edits were bad, but that Template:Nengo needed to be updated as well. These templates are a little too complicated for their own good, but there is unfortunately no documentation. Mike Dillon 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the way to do this without breaking anything would have been:
  1. Add "Chōroku" to Template:Japanese era without removing "Choroku"
  2. Change Template:Nengo from "Choroku" to "Chōroku"
  3. Remove "Choroku" from Template:Japanese era
I believe this would have made the fix work without any intermittent errors. Mike Dillon 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tennō and Nengō in pre-Bunsei context

An old phrase comes to mind -- something like, Honto ni gokura-sama, deshita-ne?

Thanks for your kind comments.

Please allow me time to compose an apropriate response in an unconventional, yet subject-appropriate 17th- and 19th-century context:

  • Klaproth, J. (1834). Supplement aux Annales des Daïris. Paris.
  • Siyun-sai Rin-siyo. (1652). Nipon o daï itsi ran; ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon, tr. par M. Isaac Titsingh avec l'aide de plusieurs interprètes attachés au comptoir hollandais de Nangasaki; ouvrage re., complété et cor. sur l'original japonais-chinois, accompagné de notes et précédé d'un Aperçu d'histoire mythologique du Japon, par M. J. Klaproth. Paris. 1834. [Two digitized examples of this rare book have now been made available online: (1) from the library of the University of Michigan, digitized January 30, 2007; and (2) from the library of Stanford University, digitized June 23, 2006.]

In brief, I suspect that appending -tenno and redundant kanji may be arguably appropriate in the comparatively narrow context of pre-Kōmei nengō. I'm more confident that this view is more defensible in the even more narrowed context of pre-Bunsei nengō.

Tentatively, I propose continuing with my current project, which is to harmonize nengō from Ōei (1394) through Keiō (1865).

This means that I want to double-check each nengō to ensure that the diacritical notations on each screen are consistent with the list in Japanese era names.

And this means I will be double-checking that the addition of -tennō (which you question) will be at least uniform in the following instances:

and

Then I will stop editing for format.

Then I plan, little by little, to flesh out each nengō with what I find in the Titsingh translation of Nipon o Daï itsi ran. As I work with this text, it may become clear that adding tennō was insightful (or perhaps it will become plain that this was a mistake a priori).

Why not wait a while to let this issue mature a bit more?

What's the harm? The number of readers who will be wandering into this area of Wikipedia is necessarily limited; but if I'm at all close to being on the right track, it's probably worth the minor, temporary inconvenience that this plausibly redundant data might create.

Ooperhoofd 09:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Toshiro Mifune

1. I'm not sure if the IMDB counts in that respect since I believe its policy is to use French circumflexes for Japanese figures 2. Now, as for Mifune, shall I move it to Toshirou Mifune? (As the site states?) WhisperToMe 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to just me. There is clearly room for discussion. As always, I prefer "Toshirō Mifune", but I can also accept "Toshirô Mifune". "Toshirou Mifune" is rather ridiculous, but it is better than "Toshiro Mifune" which I will oppose. I would return it to "Toshirō Mifune" for now and if you are unhappy with it, then either discuss it further at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and / or use WP:RM. Bendono 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll move it back to Toshirō Mifune at default and see what to do next WhisperToMe 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: - Someone else did it WhisperToMe 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Genichiro Sata

Let me find more sources...

Japanese government uses "Genichiro Sata" as well: http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/abedaijin/060926/18sata_e.html

WhisperToMe 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Others include:

WhisperToMe 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, as for "This is well known and there has been ongoing boycotts for years. Would you move the page back if you found a single English reference that uses "Gen'ichirō Sata"?" - I would if he has been proven to use the name.

Let me search Gen'ichirō Sata without wikipedia and see who comes up. WhisperToMe 00:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Gen%27ichir%C5%8D+Sata%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search - All I see are Wikipedia sources. Nobody else uses the name with the macron. WhisperToMe 00:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC) - Using the other order http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Sata+Gen%27ichir%C5%8D+%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search = No google hits WhisperToMe 00:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, and thanks for your comments on my talk page. I agree with you completely on each of the points you raised, and always add macrons to articles and content whenever I can, however, since you weren't referring to me directly and instead on the issue of Kōichi Yamadera (whose macronned spelling I support), perhaps it would be better if you posted your points at the main talk page for Kōichi Yamadera or a related policy article (WP:MOS-JA, etc.), as it would be perhaps more accessible this way? By the way, your contributions and articles are always of great interest, so would you perhaps consider sharing news of these on the Newest Japan-related articles (^_^)? Thank you again, and I hope you've been doing well. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The regulars at WP:MOS-JA are very familiar with me. I have raised my objections on many occasions. Some issues have certainly been improved, but there are still many problem areas, as you are surely aware. It is a daily battle to ensure proper macron usage, which is rather sad. There is tremendous opposition to diacritics, and merely raising the issue again at WP:MOS-JA is almost like asking for trouble. While I did make comments about trade names in regards to people there last week, there really was not much discussion. Feel free to follow it up if you like. At the time, I really do not have the time to dedicate to a full, long discussion as has historically occurred. However, I read all of the messages there and will give support where I feel it belongs.
In the future, I'll try to remember to add my articles to the newest list. Bendono 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanto

Just so you know, Kanto is not Kantō.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Pokémon articles linked to [[Kanto]], a region of Japan (incorrectly spelled). These links are automatically redirected to Kantō region. If you are unhappy with this redirect, then I suggest replacing the link with [[Kanto (Pokémon)|Kanto]]. Bendono 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they all got piped to the Pokémon Kanto.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not just piped, but the original links need to be fixed. Initial inspection appears that they are being taken care of now by another user. Bendono 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)