Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 8 August 2010

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:28, January 8, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

WP:VG/GL#Non-English games

This guideline set basically says that if the translated title resembles the original Japanese title in anyway, the romaji version of the title should be omitted. This was brought to my attention after Jinnai reverted my edits to the lead of Bishōjo game after I added "Bishōjo gēmu" and "gyarugē" to the lead. Basically, I don't think anyone does this on the project at all and I think it conflicts with the manual of style here. I'll be raising the issue at WT:VG in a bit, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference last time this was discussed陣内_Jinnai 17:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on that page concerns this discussion. That was concerning a specific romaji spelling. Not when romaji does not need to be included.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The last time it was brought up, WP:VG basically stated, "Bugger off." They don't give a damn about what WP:MOS-JA says. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its because it feels unnecessary when the item is item is an English word or it uses romaji, but without the special characters. Possibly also the tone taken that MOS-J superceded the VG guideline didn't help.陣内_Jinnai 04:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The romaji should be included unless it is exactly identical to the "English" name of the subject. That is why you don't see romaji used on Tokugawa Ieyasu or Bishōjo. It should never be taken into account whether or not the names are similar, because the Japanese language doesn't merely take loanwords from English, and while geemu (game) is most certainly English in origin, teema (theme), buranko (swing), etc. aren't. The romaji is meant for pronunciation purposes, and when you have something like "galge" and don't give the romaji, no one is able to tell that it's read as gyarugee.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, style guidelines with a broader scope are applied first and generally supersede those with a more narrow scope. WP:MOS-JA generally has a much broader scope that project-specific guidelines such as that used by WP:VG. This is the same for any time where guidelines may contradict. For WP:VG to override MOS-JA only on video game articles is not good, and Ryulong gives above some good reasons why. Including the romaji is not going to ruin the video game article, and it will enhance the usefulness of the article. It doesn't detract in any way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This does appear to be turning into another "bugger off" situation. Especially because Jinnai has cited a discussion that has nothing to do with this issue at hand, and is merely trying to use it to his advantage due to its length and complexity.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ninonioe - VG guideline's scope is probably larger than MOS-J as it includes not just video games, but those items releated to them. I would also say that it was never stated clearly why romaji was needed for names for English words during that whole discussion I cited even though it was brought up. The Japanese characters, yes its clear. The romaji, not so much.陣内_Jinnai 16:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please learn to spell my name. You didn't even come close, and I know you know how to spell it. (^_^) MOS-JA applies to any Japan-related article, and since any video game that was originally published in Japan is automatically Japan-related, it's covered. There are around 30,000 articles that are tagged as part of the project, and I know there are others which haven't yet been tagged. The romaji is needed because it shows how it's said in Japanese, something not always obvious, even for experts. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, no one from the WT:VG thread is coming here because they're being insular and stubborn.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that this is a big racist argument seeing as they refer to it as "English spoken with a bad Japanese accent", considering the fact that Fainaru Fantajī was absent from every single Final Fantasy main series video game page (FFX-2 still had the text from the last time I put it there). This has been rectified. .—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, please be civil. The VG project is not trying to be racist.

As I stated on the VG page, the romaji seems like overkill. Katakana is intended for Japanese to accommodate foreign words via its regular phonemes. It seems like a technicality to include the Japanese pronunciation for words that are intended to be pronounced in English or any other native language. I'm sure there are exceptions, like those you listed above, but for the most part I think it is unnecessary. (Guyinblack25 18:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

It's not only a pronunciation thing but it's a "how are these non English characters read" thing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

Also, I must admit that I'm playing catch up with the discussion, which seems lengthy and fragmented. Is there a collection of links to previous threads? (Guyinblack25 04:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

If you have the Kana version, why do you need the Romaji version? If it's almost the same to the international version or English version, then the Kana version is all that's needed, no? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a fair number of people in the world (I dare say "most") who can't read kana, so the romaji assist in those people reading them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But "ファイナルファンタジー" is intended to be read as "Final Fantasy". I would think that adding in "Fainaru Fantajii" would cause more confusion. As you said, most people can't read kana. That being the case, why would they know the Japanese syllables associated with the kana to read and pronounce the romaji correctly? (Guyinblack25 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

"Final Fantasy" what "ファイナルファンタジー" is intended to be read as, as you say. It is not what it is read as. That's where this manual of style comes in.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider that splitting hairs as the words are loan words from English. Mind you, I'd consider that a valid argument for exceptions, but not for common words an average reader on an English language site would know.

Regardless, if the reader has no context for Japanese kana, how would they be able to properly read or pronounce the romaji? (Guyinblack25 15:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

That's what this manual of style is for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You've said that twice, but I don't think I follow. Does {{nihongo}} provide a link to the manual of style as a reference for readers? (Guyinblack25 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

(editconflict)I agree with Guy. That's trying to split hairs without larger consesus (beyond this page) which ultimately just confuses the reader as they aren't clear which one is corrent to pronouce it as. It doesn't serve much purpose because ファイナルファンタジー is not suppose to be pronounced "Fainaru Fantajii"; it is meant to be pronounced "Final Fantasy" because those are English words. That Japanese vocabulary isn't adapted perfectly to English does not need to be emphasized as anyone pronouncing it "Fainaru Fantajii" when they could pronounce it "Final Fantasy" would just look stupid.

As exceptions to the rule, its a valid argument. One of those might be modern naming schemes for indivisuals. As some broad-all-encompassing statement, no and I don't think it would have much support outside here and the few daughter wikiprojects. The most comprable MOS to this, WP:MOS-ZH is not so rigid. By stating "there are no exceptions" you are trying to elevate (atleast that section) above a guideline to policy because guidelines are suppose to guide, not dictat, with allowances for exceptions. Coming here it seems those here are opposed to any form of exception even when it is a narrow one like English-loan words using katakana.陣内_Jinnai 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Guy: Well, it provides a link to Help:Installing Japanese character sets, but the purpose of the template is to A) Show the English name of the subject, B) Show the Japanese name of the subject, and C) show the method by which the Japanese name of the subject is read. You and Jinnai keep saying "but ファイナルファンタジー isn't meant to be pronounced as Fainaru Fantajii" but that's what the Japanese call it in their language, and it is their game.

@Jinnai: Why do you and Guy keep referencing the fact that "the Japanese can't pronounce the English name"? It does not matter if the title is a series of loan words or simply something in English that they decided to write in katakana instead of English. The fact of the matter is that it does not make the article worse to include Fainaru Fantajī Tuerubu in the lead paragraph. Articles on anime whose titles don't differ that much in English and Japanese don't seem to have any sort of problem using the redundant romaji as those at WP:VG feel such content would be. Why should Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy be treated any differently from Dragon Ball or Eureka Seven or One Piece? They shouldn't. It's Japanese text and as a courtesy to our readers we should include the romaji equivalent at all times unless the romaji equivalent is completely identical to the English title. There should not be any leeway to say that "it's not our fault that the Japanese language lacks the phonemes required to say 'Final Fantasy'". Hell, I've even just found that we don't even give the romaji for "Famicom" because of WP:VG's guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Or for that matter, none of Nintendo's hardware have romaji.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't consider "no harm" a strong argument for including something. Regardless, I believe that including it would do some harm by confusing those not familiar with romaji. Since the reader has no context for interpreting the romaji, it's superfluous to them.

Also, can you think of an instance where the Japanese romaji and English alphabet match up exactly? The two languages have different sets of syllables that follow different pronunciation rules. (Guyinblack25 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

I think this is the problem when it comes to people like Guy and Jinnai who could read the kana: they couldn't understand why the Romaji should be there, citing is as redundant. It's like saying '"ˈpliːsiəsɔər" is unneeded because we know how to pronounce "plesiosaur"'. That's the closest analogy I could come up with, and that's unfortunate. — Blue。 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I concede that could cloud my judgement, but I am trying to view this from a perspective of someone that cannot read the romaji properly. I believe that "Fainaru Fantajii" can easily be read as "Fein-ar-u Fant-agee" and "Doragon Kuesuto" as "Dora-gon Ku-S-utoh".

Perhaps if I offer a solution to my concern, that will help move this along. The average English reader does not know that Japanese follows a consistent pronunciation system for vowels and what those are, that the Japanese "R" is pronounced as a slurred "R" and "L" (call it what you will, but those familiar with Japanese know what I'm talking about), that there are a few foreign syllables that Japanese doesn't handle well, or that combinations of letters doesn't alter the pronunciation of syllables like they do in English.

If this information was easily provided to them when they read the romaji, then my concern is of no issue to me anymore. As Bluerfn alludes to, a link similar to Misplaced Pages:IPA for English would be good. However, I'd rather not have readers leave the article they are reading to understand how to reader "Fainaru Fantajii" when "Final Fantasy" is perfectly acceptable. I believe this makes reading the article more difficult than it should be. (Guyinblack25 18:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

Now you're just going insane with this Guy (how someone would go from "Fainaru Fantajii" to "Fein-ar-u Fant-agee" when "Final Fantasy" is a centimeter away). Believing that adding romaji would only confuse the reader is beyond ridiculous. Romaji exists because all non-Latin alphabet text on Misplaced Pages should have a romanization with it if the direct Romanization is different from the Anglicization. That's why there's such text as Moscow, Beijing, Seoul, etc. Japanese-made video games should not be treated any differently just because a WikiProject exists that finds text like Fainaru Fantajī, Gēmu Bōi, and Doragon Kuesuto redundant when the lay reader probably won't.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I pose a similar question to you then, why would someone need to see "Fainaru Fantajii" at all when "Final Fantasy" already there? I still maintain that the layman does not have the proper context to read the romaji. Knowing how to pronounce an English word using Japanese syllables does not aid the reader in understanding the topic. It simply provides them with a string of characters that they will likely interpret using English language rules.

Also, the city names you mentioned are technically loan words from other languages to English, not English words loaned to Japanese. You have no argument from me about including romaji for words of Japanese or non-English origin. But unless you provide some context for understanding the romaji similar to IPA does, I believe confusion is the likely outcome. (Guyinblack25 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC))

"Final Fantasy" is not the text in question here. "ファイナルファンタジー" is. Why should we provide a disservice to the reader to omit the romaji name of the title simply because it was always the Japanese approximation of the English title? Surely this would mean sweeping changes across the project to articles like Dragon Ball, Bleach (manga), Becky (television personality), Kamen Rider Double, Ultraman, Shuchishin, etc. Again, there is nothing about video games that makes them special. And two guidelines, one broadly focused and one made by a sizable WikiProject, should not conflict like this.

And anyway, even if there were to be some sort of change to {{nihongo}} to incorporate a link to any Help: or project based pages, it would have to entail teaching how to read Hepburn romaji which is fairly straight forward, even if it relies on the macron.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because the intent of "ファイナルファンタジー" is to be read by the English reader as "Final Fantasy" not "Fainaru Fantajii". As for sweeping changes, you exagerate. The proposal is narrow here-English loan words that use kana. As to sylable usage, the link with {{nihongo}} actually could be updated to link to a more appropriate help topic on Japanese pronunciation.

Finally to an earlier argument, "do no harm" is not a good reason. That reason is touted by people who want to create tons of plot-only or nearly plot-only (with only non-notable coverage) of works and elements. That argument doesn't fly there and it shouldn't fly here. There should be a notable benifit to reader and for having the romaji for English loan words generally doesn't meet that threshold imo.陣内_Jinnai 05:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is not what "ファイナルファンタジー" says in Japanese. The benefit to adding "Fainaru Fantajī" provides the reader with how the name is read in Japanese, not in English or "English spoken in a thick Japanese accent". I'm not saying "Final Fantasy" should be pronounced as "Fainaru Fantajī". I'm saying "ファイナルファンタジー" is pronounced as "Fainaru Fantajī" (fa-i-na-ru-fa-n-ta-jī) in Japanese, even though it is an approximation of the English words "Final" and "Fantasy". Because not everyone knows how to read Japanese, the romaji should be included because otherwise we are saying that "ファイナルファンタジー" is pronounced as "Final Fantasy", and that is providing a disservice to the reader. We are showing the reader what the name is in Japanese which is done on every article that features Japanese text other than ones on video games that have been subject to this bad guideline at WP:VG/GL.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break 1

(undent) We've had this discussion before, and my opinion is that we provide a disservice to the reader if we ram obscure, useless crap into the first sentence of every article. Tell me, what should the "Final Fantasy" article start with: by defining what it is, or by telling a hypothetical set of users fluent in Hepburn but unable to read katakana how to pronounce if they're pretending to be Japanese? Quite frankly, I think even the katakana are not particularly important and should be shunted out of the way into the infobox. Jpatokal (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the freaking title of the game, that's why it's important. That's why we have {{nihongo title}} to save time on typing ''''''''''.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See, that's the problem: you refuse to see the romaji as useful, instead coming to the discussion calling it "useless crap". It isn't useless, and it serves a very useful purpose by providing the pronunciation of the title for those unfamiliar with kana. Using {{nihongo}} also provides a link for those who can't view the Japanese title so they can install/activate the correct fonts. Including the romaji 1) does no harm, 2) does good by providing the transliteration of the kana, and 3) makes the entry much more complete. Inclusion of the romaji doesn't need to be "notable"; it never has and it never will. Just because it doesn't benefit you doesn't mean it doesn't provide a benefit to others. Without the romaji, the entry is not complete. Excluding it just because you feel like it, or just because you see to have an aversion to romaji of kana, is not a good thing. There has not been a good reason presented to completely ignore MOS-JA here. If an entire project wishes to ignore these guidelines, there needs to be a very, very good reason for doing so. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm using "Fainaru Fantajii" as an example, I think this issue extends to all romaji. It is presumptuous to think that the average reader will be able to read the romaji as it should be read. A link to provide them that knowledge will alleviate that, and I believe other editor's concerns about it's inclusion.

Is adding such a link an unreasonable request? (Guyinblack25 14:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

I don't even know how I landed here. I was just making my first ever post in a discussion page on "Jujutsu", and then I arrived here. This is an interesting discussion. I think, after all, it is how much Misplaced Pages is willing to offer help to people who comes here to explore knowledge. Including romaji spelling of a Japanese game that uses English words is of course no use to someone who doesn't care. But for someone who wanted to know a bit more about a tiny, far east country just because he/she learned a game title was produced in that country, it really does matter. If the existing romaji spelling wasn't the best way helping out these people, what other way could be more helpful. I always learned that westerners were more apt to find solutions whereas our admins (shame, what a shame) will want to look for reasons not to. You could always shut your doors easily. That's up to you. Honjamaka (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Romaji is useful in many, but not all, cases and I would not want to see it removed entirely. In general i'm for more info to help with translation and, FE, if the code would allow it I think we should have a way for {{nihongo}} to display furigana.

It is with respect to English loanwords that its usefulness often becomes dubious.陣内_Jinnai 21:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If the original name is comprised of "English loanwords", why shouldn't romaji of these loanwords be used? Sometimes the pronunciation is drastically different once it becomes a Japanese word.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is a valid argument for exceptions like remote control (リモコン, remocon) or apartment (アパート, apaato). But not for words that are close approximations like final (ファイナル, fainaru). The Romanized spelling differs from the English spelling, but the pronunciations are close enough that the need to know the proper Japanese pronunciation is negligible.

Regardless, without a link to explain Japanese pronunciation rules or some IPA equivalent, the romaji carries the possibility of confusing the layman. As you said, it's not incredibly difficult to learn, but without the tools to learn it I believe readers would be inclined to use English pronunciation rules. Where are we on exploring this addition to {{nihongo}}? I think this would be a valid compromise. (Guyinblack25 14:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

It does not matter if the pronunciation is similar or are close approximations. It is still romaji that should be written out. In the handful of cases where the titles are similar (the Final Fantasy games, the Mario games, the Dragon Quest games) it does nothing to benefit the article to omit the text from the lead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can clone the romaji by just envisioning a japanese person trying to say the English word, then I regard it as totally fake and edit will it out. Simply adding regional dialect doesn't make it something new. Then there is absolutely no reason to leave it in. The article shouldn't be a Hooked On Phonics lesson in the middle of random topics such as a video game. An example (possibly a bad one) that comes to mind to (maybe) illustrate the point: in an anime some people were saying individual characters, very loosely "seh, eeh, gahk", then would say it as a word and pronounce (loosely) "sayigaku". So, which is it? Take out the extra Us, L to R flips, and whatever other common nuance, then you get the original English word. Ok... so why would anyone put this romaji stuff in? Yes, it is just confusing.

Also, I REALLY like the idea of having alternate languages in the infobox. Ridding the starter paragraph of clutter that people can't even read or care about would be awesome. Odokee (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a regional dialect or a Japanese person trying to say the English word, and it is most certainly not fake. It is a standardized method by which to romanize Japanese text which should be required on all articles unless the romaji name is being used as the article title because it is effectively the English name, which is only ever the case with historic Japanese figures or the past two emperors. Nothing you say Odokee is even remotely correct. You may not care about the Japanese text, but other people do, which is why it's included everywhere. There is nothing that makes video games so special that they get to ignore this manual of style by implimenting their own for Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And referring to it as "fake Jap talk" is most certainly inappropriate, Odokee.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it fake was going a bit to far, but yes, it appears to hallmarks of dialect. At the very least, one does not need to know how a Japanese person pronounces an English loanword in most cases (again exceptions can exist). Its the same as a Japanese person not needing to know the way we go about pronouncing their words in most cases.陣内_Jinnai 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Section break 2

After a brief discussion on this topic with User:Ryulong, I have reviewed this thread in its entirety. I think this is a very close issue and there are strong arguments on either side. Coming to this discussion as an unaligned editor (i.e. neither a member of WP:VG or WP:JA), I hope my views will be helpful. I have condensed them into a collapsed frame below since they were a bit lengthy. To give an in-a-word summary: I think the best compromise is to alter the nihongo template to provide an additional note for Hepburn pronunciation (per Guyinblack25's earlier suggestion). I have given an example of such a notation in my solution #2 below. -Thibbs (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• For years I have been forgoing the addition of the romaji transliteration to nihongo templates when the transliteration is nearly identical to the English pronunciation. Like User:Guyinblack25, I too believe that this practice leads to confusion in the average reader. Because this field is listed as "optional" in the documentation accompanying the template I have always opted to use simply the English term followed by the Japanese approximation. The "disservice" to readers of failing to provide them with the proper Japanese pronunciation is, in my opinion, more than outweighed by the disservice to readers of giving the incorrect impression that 「ドラゴンクエスト」 is properly pronounced in Japanese as "Dora-gon Ku-S-utoh" (to use an earlier example). My use/nonuse of quotation marks on the term "disservice" is intentional here as in the first case the disservice is defined by a failure to provide extra information whereas in the second case it is the creation of false information. Clearly this issue only affects those who do not know the rules of translation, transliteration, and pronunciation, however this group of readers makes up a substantial portion of the Misplaced Pages readership. I don't think I'm far from the mark in assuming that the large majority of readers of English Misplaced Pages do not know these rules. Without looking to any other solutions, then, I think the question boils down to whether or not there are more readers who know katakana or who know Hepburn romanization. Luckily there are other solutions. So far in this thread we have seen suggestions of:
  (1) the creation of an official exception in MOS-JA to allow the omission of romaji transliterations of katakana transliterations of English if the English term already supplied was the loan-word adopted by the Japanese. Thus, for example, 「New スーパーマリオブラザーズ Wii」 could be written as New Super Mario Bros. Wii (New スーパーマリオブラザーズ Wii) rather than New Super Mario Bros. Wii (New スーパーマリオブラザーズ Wii, Nyū Sūpā Mario Burazāzu Wī). This solution presumably would consider terms like 「リモコン」 not to represent a transliteration of "remote control" but rather an altered transliteration requiring the use of a romaji field in the nihongo template.
  (2) the alteration of the nihongo template to include notations that would clarify matters for the layperson. For example instead of the current "elevator (エレベーター, erebētā)" we would have something more like "elevator (エレベーター, erebētā)"
  (3) the alteration of WP:VG/GL#Non-English games to bring it into conformity with MOS-JA without any other actions. This solution would almost certainly necessitate the alteration of the nihongo template's documentation as well to reflect the idea that the Romaji transliteration field is mandatory unless identical with the English field. Given the arguments advanced by User:Ryulong and User:Nihonjoe concerning the nature of the romaji transliteration and its usefulness to a certain segment of the readership as well as their arguments concerning the breadth of WP:JA, I find myself drawn most strongly to solution #2. I think that consistency is above all the most important factor and as long as we are consistent with our approach it isn't that big of a deal. I recognize that editors who are used to one set of style guidelines will be reluctant to adopt a new set so if this issue cannot be resolved then I suggest 3rd party arbitration. Most people coming to this discussion will have already made up their minds about the issue and its placement on the MOS-JA talk page already gives it a certain inescapable bias just as its placement on the WP:VG talk page would produce the opposite bias. Finally I would like to ask all editors who are currently engaged in this discussion to refrain from making large numbers of edits on the topic of this discussion before a consensus is reached. For those that think romaji is superfluous please refrain from removing it until this discussion is finished. For those who are adding romaji to articles, please refrain from this while discussions are under way. I think it's best to attempt to preserve the spirit of WP:BRD in all discussions that aim for consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, I was curious what those that wish to omit the romaji transliterations would favor doing in mixed situations like "Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (ファイアーエムブレム　暁の女神, Faiā Emuburemu: Akatsuki no Megami)" I assume everyone agrees on the idea that 「暁の女神」 should have a romaji transliteration to "Akatsuki no Megami", but I imagine there might be disagreement on what to do with the katakana portion of the name. What does WP:VG prefer? Perhaps "Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (ファイアーエムブレム　暁の女神, Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami)" is best? I've never known how to deal with these mixed words/phrases properly. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Third party comment: I agree with Thibbs. Unless consensus has been reached, removal and additions should probably cease. Ryulong in particular has been on a binge of additions despite lack of consensus. It seems counter-intuitive to debate these changes while at the same time making them. DKqwerty (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support option 2 as proposed by Thibbs, though I think that WP:VG/GL#Non-English games ought to be brought in line with WP:MOS-JA as well so we don't keep running into this issue. They (the two style guides) shouldn't be disagreeing in the first place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the second proposal as well. Though I recommend a creating a page in the Project namespace. Article space is not meant to be used as a how-to and project pages can include links for IPA pronunciation.

@Thibb's one more things- I would include the romaji if any non-katakana script is used. But I haven't given it any thought about Romanization like "Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami". I'm inclined to agree with that format, but I'm unsure at the moment.

@Nihonjoe- We're allowed to have our own opinions. Some of our best consensuses have come from disagreements. They aren't fun to deal with, but we're better off because of them. (Guyinblack25 02:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinions. I've never said that anywhere on Misplaced Pages about anything. I'm not sure how you read that into anything I've written. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my misinterpretation then. However, I can't help but feel that the opinions expressed by VG project members have not been welcome. I apologize if that assumption is incorrect. (Guyinblack25 04:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I've clarified my comment. I was referring to the two style guides, not to members of the VG project. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The second option is good, but rather than creating millions of links to Hepburn romanization, a link to a new Help: page or some project page would be better. Also, Putting "Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no Megami" in the third {{nihongo}} parameter should not be done, as it's pretty clear from all of the discussion here that it should be "Faiā Emuburemu" there. The third parameter should be entirely romaji. Not some mix of English (or whatever other originating languages) and Romaji. And Guyinblack, this would never have been an issue if a video game only guideline conflicted with the guideline for the entirety of the Japanese language and its use on the English Misplaced Pages. No article on anime, television, music, etc. does what WP:VG does. This should be an issue of conformity as well as benefiting the reader.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong- Editors and guidelines are allowed to disagree. So long as we try to reconcile those differences. I will leave it at that as I have no desire to rekindle a polarized discussion. (Guyinblack25 04:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I know editors and guidelines are allowed to disagree (I have voiced my issues with this MOS and some others in the past), but two guidelines should not contradict each other.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, back on topic to the proposal, I believe that adding ]: and ]: to the {{nihongo}} family templates might be useful. This is how {{zh}} works, even though Chinese has more systems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose this as that would be even more intrusive. There needs to be a balance here, and that goes too far the other way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If the second solution is adopted, I am also in favour of something like "elevator (Japanese: エレベーター; Hepburn: erebētā)" instead of "elevator (エレベーター, erebētā)". Fully spelled notations are a bit longer but they are much less confusing than those tiny question marks that you have to highlight to see where they link to. The first time I browsed Misplaced Pages I didn't even realize those were question marks. They are so small that the dot of the character usually blends with the stroke (when the nihongo template is actually used, not in this example). We here are all used to seeing Japanese characters, but how does a layman knows it's Japanese if they see "?" instead of "Japanese". ALL other languages on Misplaced Pages follow the "Language:" format (example: 4x4 Hummer, Chiang Kai-shek, Ragnarok Online, Gandhi, etc.). There is nothing special about Japanese that warrants a different treatment IMO. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand that Thibbs's second proposal is a good compromise choice, I'm not sure if it's really the best option. I readily admit the fact that I am not well versed in Japanese pronunciations and culture, and so when a title like Fainaru Fantajii comes in front of me, I usually want to see why that title's different from the English one only to find that it's just a borrowed term from English and that it's pronounced in the same way. I understand that I might be opening a firestorm of criticism against me for this statement but I feel that I'm probably representative of most English readers who don't understand what the romaji title might represent. I feel that titles with Romaji that are redundant to the English title really don't need to be included in the article as they will just serve to confuse readers. So before we decide on a choice, I'd like to make sure that we're all taking the same steps forward and not moving into a decision without being fully sure of the result: I want to be sure that this help page will be clear in explaining romaji, and I want to be sure that adding redundant Japanese titles that borrow from English is really necessary. Right now, I'm not fully convinced that they are. Nomader 05:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By your argument, we should not bother to include "ファイナルファンタジー" either, because it is merely a redundant Japanese title of the English title we have already. Again, there is nothing that makes anything about video games unique such that they should ignore this particular manual of style. The only time any romaji would be redundant would be if it was identical to the English parameter, which is why we don't have Naruto (NARUTO—ナルト—, Naruto) at Naruto or Kiseki (奇跡, Kiseki) at Kiseki (Kumi Koda song).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that "ファイナルファンタジー" should be included when the video game was originally released in Japanese. I think it signifies to the reader that it was originally a Japanese release. However, I don't think the romaji needs to be included if the Japanese title is literally supposed to be copying the English title's pronunciation. I understand your point, that you feel people may not understand what the katakana is saying; but if you list the romaji translation which is just trying to copy the English title, I'm afraid people will just get confused. Nomader 16:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But then why do you think Fainaru Fantajī should be excluded, when it is what the game is called in Japan when they talk to each other about it and write about it in the media? It's not copying the English title's pronunciation. It's the Japanese title's pronunciation. The only way we can clarify it is if we modify the nihongo templates and provide links to "Japanese language" and "Hepburn romanization". This way, much like the Chinese and Korean languages are treated, we will clearly show what the text is and there should not be any confusion and we give the reader all of the information necessary on understanding the language. There should be no reason to omit anything just because one project believes that romaji of waseieigo is redundant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What people write and talk about in Japan in their own language is not the concern of the English language Misplaced Pages. Japanese might have commonplace, established loan words such as those for coffee or apartment but an off-the-cuff mangling such as "ファイナルファンタジー" is no more Japanese than "Nihongo" is English. It's a katakana transliteration of an essentially English title. Including the katakana is useless, transliterating a transliteration back into Roman script even more so. bridies (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is still Japanese text and there is really no reason to not include the Romanized name just because it is similar (and not identical) to the Anglicized name. It is only redundant if it is identical.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think one argument that could be made in favour of the "Fainaru Fantajī" exclusion is that while "FINAL FANTASY" does appear in the Japanese logos, "Fainaru Fantajī" doesn't. Only "FINAL FANTASY" (in big) and "ファイナルファンタジー" do. This suggests that even the Japanese are supposed to be pronouncing the name as "Final Fantasy". Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat of an example of Furigana. The smaller katakana is explaining to the Japanese citizen who cannot read English how "FINAL FANTASY" should be read in their language. Of course, the Japanese solely use the katakana in their media for the whole, and the ENGLISH names for the individual titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an example of an English title with a katakana transliteration underneath and further evidence that the "Japanese" text is redundant and that the verifiability concerns put forth cannot be dismissed. bridies (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And consider this: if this hypothetical Japanese person cannot understand "Final Fantasy" they cannot understand (the meaning of) "ファイナルファンタジー". All he's gained is a transliteration and approximate pronunciation in a phonology he understands. What does that say about the argument that it is a Japanese language title? bridies (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The page title still uses the katakana as do the Japanese media. The Japanese Misplaced Pages exclusively uses the katakana title for their page titles when they could use the English alphabet titles and merely do as you have been talking about. They don't for a reason. And we should use the katakana for that same reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that they are a Japanese encyclopedia, and as such, their article titles should be in Japanese unless no katakana title exists. We are an English encyclopedia-- as such, I have to agree with Bridies in that the romaji really isn't necessary in titles which are just approximations of English pronunciations. Nomader 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, how Japanese language media or Wikis handle such issues as English and/or transliterations has no bearing on our practice. At the risk or repeating myself: all you're saying is that they transliterate the English into katakana, which is absolutely no reason for us to include those transliterations, let alone transliterate them back into Roman script. bridies (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It should at least be how this Wiki treats Japanese text. They don't transliterate the English into katakana. They use the katakana title that the developers use. Why shouldn't we provide the romaji for that name? Just because it resembles the English title? That really makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They do not need romaji because the katakana is a transliteration in and of itself.陣内_Jinnai 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Guyinblack asked for further opinions on the WP:VG talk page, I'll state for the record that I support option 1 and oppose option 2, largely for reasons already given. It is redundant information and contrary to what Ryulong said on the WP:VG talk page, filling up the very first line of an article with redundant information is harmful. I also think the lack of verifiability is a concern to at least some extent, as mentioned below and by Dave Fuchs on the WP:VG talk page. I watch over ABA Games and I remember people edit warring over transliterations without it ever being established whether the developer was even referred to by anything other than the purely Roman "ABA Games". bridies (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this matter to death before. Though I warned people, consensus was heading in the direction of decisions on a case-by-case basis. Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Answering to this deleted question, if you look up general Japanese dictionaries, you can find "ファイナル", "ファンタジー", and "イレブン". See , , and . And one of my paper dictionaries, the 5th ed. of Kojien has them all. They are well-used loan words in ja. And Japanese people pronounce fantasy as fanta-G, not fanta-C. Oda Mari (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked myself, hence the revert. イレブン, srsly. bridies (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So where are we on this? How does everyone feel about the "elevator (Japanese: エレベーター; Hepburn: erebētā)" format? My only concern with it is that the wikilinks go to articles rather than how-to-guides. What about Help:Installing Japanese character sets and something similar to Misplaced Pages:IPA for Japanese? (Guyinblack25 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

That's how other language templates are treated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the links to articles? (Guyinblack25 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Well, perhaps a link to the installation thing should be retained, but teh other language templates just link to the language's article. Template:Zh links to Pinyin, Chinese language, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with making it consistent with the other language templates. As I said above, we write "Russian:" before Russian titles or names, "Korean:" before Korean titles or names, etc. So there is no reason not to put "Japanese:" before Japanese stuff. I have no preference for where the links should go but I think we should keep them consistent throughout all language templates. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article links provide the best way for readers to interpret what they are reading in any foreign language. Providing them with romaji was a large chunk of this lengthy discussion. But what good is it if the layman doesn't properly interpret it? (Guyinblack25 14:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC))

That is still the general practice for other languages. The Chinese template shows links to the various Chinese romanization schemes. The Japanese one should show the main scheme used on the English Misplaced Pages in the article space, rather than to some help page or project page. The installation fix should still be in there somewhere, but a link to Hepburn romanization should be used in some format.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That part makes sense for Japanese words. However those templates and guidelines do not bother with English words because no one needs to know how to pronounce an English word in a non-English language in most cases. There are exceptions, but that's it.陣内_Jinnai 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That is because the Japanese are the primary culture that does not use an offshoot of the Roman alphabet and has a shitload of loanwoards since the Meiji period and they are pretty much the only video game developer in the Eastern world. Don't blame history for an excuse not to include Fainaru Fantajī, Doragon Kuesuto, Zeruda no Densetsu, or Gēmu Bōi.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know where that "blame history" part came from, but it doesn't get around the fact that you seem to be making the case that pronuciation is the key concern with having romaji which means loanwords do not need that; we don't worry about loanwords for any other language in which they are used with rare exceptions. Japan isn't more special than any other language. No one needs to know, in most cases, how to pronounce an English loan word in Japanese because the bottom line is that its a Japanese appropriation because on their language and vocal structure to mimic as closely as possible the English pronunciation.陣内_Jinnai 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Like Jinnai said I doubt this is even relevant but how do you justify a statement such as "the Japanese are the primary culture that does not use an offshoot of the Roman alphabet"? Or do you just mean the main language that has both a non-Roman writing system and a lot of loan words? And though most may not be well known in the West, video games are developed all over Asia. bridies (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese use their own writing system and have incorporated a lot of foreign words in their vocabulary since they began international interactions. Just because a word is a cognate does not mean we should not treat it as a word within that language being described. And also, the only other major nation that contributes to the video game industry in Asia that would even be vaguely important is South Korea. Japan isn't any more special than any other language no more than the topic of video games is to any other topic on Misplaced Pages. Why should the video games project have a special qualifier that states that certain romanizations should be ignored because words are loan words or cognates when no other project that works extensively with Japanese does?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How does that make the Japanese "the primary culture" with a non-Roman writing system? Loads of languages have "their own" writing systems and loads of them have incorporated foreign words. On the contrary, countries out with Korea and Japan have significant domestic video game industries and Korea's output of MMOs is certainly beyond "vague" importance. Unless by "video game industry" you mean "the video game industry as it impacts on your average Westerner". But what you said was that Japan is the only video game producer in "the Eastern world" (whatever that is). bridies (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the "primary culture" side-track, a point was made here I agree with. Video games aren't special. There is nothing intrinsic about video games that requires them to have a different titling format from other works (unless there is something I'm not aware of?). Some of the arguments being made against and for loanword Romaji really apply to all works published in Japan with loanwords, irrespective of genre. The argument shouldn't really be about whether video games should get their own exception, but whether or not the Japan MoS itself needs to be changed in how it deals with loanwords. Whatever the outcome, the rules for video games need to be the same as the rules for how we treat other titles using loanwords. A decision on loan words should be made across all Japanese titles, not only those for video games. Change it, keep it, whatever - but at least make it consistent across the project.

-- Joren (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The more I try to explain myself, the more questions arise. So here are my points:

• Japan and its language are the crux of this issue
• There is no reason to not treat cognates/loan words as Japanese words
• No topic deserves special treatment
• No language deserves special treatment
• It provides a disservice to the reader of any article to omit neutral and verifiable information, merely because one group believes it is redundant.

There.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you thought it was pertinent to make those nonsensical arguments about "primary culture", "history" and whatever else you should be able to defend them. You seemed to ignore my question, hence I repeated it. With regards to your latter points, this has been covered. It is a disservice to the reader of an article to fill the very first line of that article with redundant "information". Your arguments about "special treatment" are equally feeble: we don't uniformly enforce useless "rules" on the basis of a dubiously claimed fait accompli, when that rule is mere style guideline with a clear lack of consensus. bridies (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan is the primary producer of video games in nations where the language is not written as I am writing right now. And the history part is because Japan has taken on new words since it began international relations. Saying "ファイナルファンタジー" is English is not correct. It may have been English, but it is not English in the context it is beign used in. It is not a disservice to provide as much information possible anywhere. The only group that believes such content is redundant is WP:VG. And "special treatment" is exactly what WP:VG/GL does for video games with Japanese titles. As Joren touches upon, if a consensus is formed here, it should not only affect Japanese video games. It should affect Japanese music, Japanese film, Japanese television, Japanese literature, etc. Right now, WP:VG has their own special ruleset for Japanese text that is in conflict with how the rest of the project treats it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that first point, but again it's nothing like what you originally said. It is a disservice if that information is not information but redundant clutter, but I've repeated that enough already. I had to stand corrected on that particular instance of Final Fantasy (though it is still redundant for the separate reason that the primary source has "FINAL FANTASY" in plain English splashed across it) but still katakana does not automatically equate to Japanese. You may see the above comment for your redundant "special treatment" arguments though I would guess that WP:VG is probably disproportionately more prolific than any other relevant part of the project you care to point at. bridies (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain what I intended. And katakana is Japanese. And there is nothing to say that video games should be treated differently just because "WP:VG is probably disproportionately more prolific".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are to claim that what project X or Y does has any bearing on anything, then the relative profiles of those projects must be a concern. But in any case, as I said, the reason your "special treatment" comments are no kind of argument is that we don't uniformly enforce useless "rules" on the basis of a dubiously claimed fait accompli, when that rule is mere style guideline with a clear lack of consensus. bridies (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No reason has been given as to why video games can ignore the general practice of treating Japanese text like the rest of the project does. Having an entire WikiProject ignore this guideline is jarring when it is the only one. It's better to have uniformity than be different for the sake of thinking your method is better.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy?. Again, you're making a false claim of consensus and fait accompli and I'm content to let all the above arguments speak for themselves. bridies (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of improving Misplaced Pages, it would be better to have a common format so that the reader can have a consistent experience reading titles of Japanese works, and can know what to expect and what reading is what. It's jarring to the reader when different articles use different standards and the reader is left wondering what came from where and what its significance is. At least with the nihongo templates, it is clear what is translated, what is Romaji, and what is source language. It provides a uniformity that aids reader comprehension and, therefore, improves Misplaced Pages. Having loan words for some projects but not others breaks that familiar format that readers of Japan-related topics have come to expect and understand. If you wish to argue for a change in the guideline for Misplaced Pages as a whole, great, but IAR is meant to improve Misplaced Pages, not clobber it into little pieces. Ignoring all rules is a double-edged sword that can just as easily be invoked against VG's rules as against Japan:MOS's, and should be done with great care for the common interest of all Wikipedians, not just those belonging to a particular media project. If we're gonna talk about loan words, let's talk about it across Japan-related articles as a whole.-- Joren (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't understood why I invoked IAR. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a uniform general practice, but that if there were such a general practice, exceptions may always be made if there is a good argument for doing so (such as Final Fantasy having a plain English title on the box, or whatever). And secondly that pointing to existing style guidelines which do not have consensus (yes, be they at WP:VG, MOS:JAPAN or wherever) is not a valid fait accompli or there-is-a-consensus argument. Also different stylistic standards are not "jarring" at all. We have them for things such as referencing and structure and I really doubt the average reader notices, let alone cares. bridies (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A few things-

1. While Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー Fainaru Fantaji) has been mentioned many times, I think you'll find that many of video game project members would extend their rationale to similar loan words in other topics.
   • Final Fantasy is an example to help others understand the point we're trying to make.
   • I don't know why video games keep getting singled out, when the rationale is not intrinsically linked to video games.
   • Let's please stick to the idea presented.
2. The idea that the romaji provides information is only sound if the reader knows how to interpret that information. Otherwise, it does serve as clutter and creates the opportunity for confusion.
   • Without a pronunciation guide for the Hepburn romanization (and any foreign language really), readers are likely to read the English letters used in romaji with English pronunciation, which I think we can all agree is less than consistent.
     • Think of how often you've heard "Kuh-rod-dy" instead of "Kah-rah-teh", "Kerry-oh-key" instead of "Kah-rah-oh-kay", and "Ana-may" (I've even heard "Ana-me" with a long "E") instead of "Ah-nee-meh".
   • I concede that the affected population that would be confused is minimal, but at the same time I believe the affected population that would find the romaji useful is also minimal.
3. A consistent argument has been consistency. However, we need to keep in mind that this is a style guideline, which is suppose to allow for flexible application via common sense.
   • While our common sense may differ on occassion, Misplaced Pages still allows us the freedom to apply it.
   • I think you'll find that there is little argument from video game project members that including romaji is a good idea for a lot of cases. The argument from us is against an across the board approach, because exceptions do exist.
   • I believe a guideline can be worded to allow for minimal exceptions, while still conveying that exceptions are not the normal practice.

Having said the above, I hope we can focus on working together towards two things:

1. Update {{nihongo}} to provide links to pages that explain to the un-informed what they are seeing.
2. Create a sample wording for the guideline that will satisfy the different sides of the argument here.

(Guyinblack25 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

Section break 3

And as an aside to an earlier aspect of this discussion: it seems that for when the English name is different from the literal translation of the Japanese name, why is the English name included in the nihongo template as the first parameter and not separate them as is done in some anime articles? For example, I'd rewrite the first sentence of Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn as follows:

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, originally released in Japan as Fire Emblem: The Goddess of Dawn (ファイアーエムブレム　暁の女神, Faiā Emuburemu Akatsuki no Megami)...

Thoughts?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because precedent has always been set like that for video game articles. But I really prefer your re-written version, it seems to me that it makes the most sense and makes the alternative Japanese title more obvious to the reader. Nomader 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these kinds of titles ARE supposed to be separated (see The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for instance). Many editors just lump together all the titles in the templates even when they are totally different >_< I spend a lot of time separating these titles when I find groups of related articles that make this mistake. It's a very widespread mistake. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The formatting at ALttP is terrible though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in these cases, the Japanese title in a nihongo template should be separate, but some of your recent edits deviate from the intended usage, Ryulong. Note that games like Link's Awakening were never released under an English title in Japan, so it should actually read:

• The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, released in Japan as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island")

...unless the English title is official and commonly used in Japan, like It's a Wonderful World. If the translation of the Japanese title is not official, it is to be enclosed in quotation marks. However, I feel we have not discussed sufficiently enough yet how to treat official translations. Personally, I think it should read:

• Lufia, known as Estpolis Denki (エストポリス伝記, Esutoporisu Denki, officially translated as Biography Estpolis) in Japan Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

...with a reference always included for the official translation. Also, there were no strong objections to putting not commonly used foreign-language titles in footnotes if the length of its nihongo template would hurt the readability of the lead paragraph (as is the case with the Oracle games). However, I did not add it to VG/GL back then. Prime Blue (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting in the half-assed translation with romaji is not necessary when there's a literal translation. It should be clear that the title is the one in Japanese text rather than the one in English.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is not a translation but the phonetic title with the proper names written out in their intended form. However, I think it is misleading for readers when they read...

"The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, released in Japan as The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima) "

...because the game was not released in Japan as "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island". It was released as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima, and "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island" is an unofficial translation of that title. I am currently proposing a new Non-English games section on VG/GL, so feel free to join there and to discuss how these issues are handled. Prime Blue (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While the phrasing may be flawed, as someone that doesn't speak Japanese, I find the translation of the title to be more relevant informative than how to handle an unfamiliar language. —Ost (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prime Blue does have a legitimate point here because the way that is worded it will be seen that the title is not ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, but instead The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening in Japan because the former comes first.陣内_Jinnai 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with that is that English is longer (in general) than Japanese, especially for litteral translations. No matter what you do there is nothing that can be done with School Rumble: 2nd Semester – Summer Training Camp (of fear?)!! Ghost's Appearing in the Western-styled Building!? Fighting Over the Treasure!!! (スクールランブル二学期 恐怖の(?)夏合宿! 洋館に幽霊現る!? お宝を巡って真っ向勝負!!!の巻, School Rumble Ni-Gakki Kyōfu no (?) Natsugasshuku! Yōkan ni Yūrei Arawaru!? Otakara wo Megutte Makkō Shōbu!!! No Maki). What do you put into a notation because all 3 are long enough to impare reading flow.陣内_Jinnai 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that for discussing Japanese releases, the Japanese name should come first (or at least a Romanization thereof), because that is the official title. To put the translation first risks creating the false impression that the English translation itself is its official release title. However, I am confused about the proposed Romanization - why it is necessary to have two Romanizations in the Zelda example? Wouldn't it be enough just to say something like The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, released in Japan as Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island")

-- Joren (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is another issue here. Because ゼルダ is "Zelda", there is a push towards using "Zelda" in the romanized title and then "Zeruda" in the romaji title. By perhaps using

The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island (literal translation) (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima)

or some sort of footnote using {{r|group=Note|literal}} and using this as the footnote:

The title here is a literal translation of the Japanese release title. No official translation has been provided by .

This would eliminate the need for having two romanizations as well as providing the reader with the English before throwing Japanese at them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's counterproductive to have an entirely separate discussion to suggest that all of this information should be shunted to the footnotes where it doesn't exactly belong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, we already gave the reader English by listing the English-language release first. I don't see anything wrong with having the Romaji first with the English/kana in the parens, and it would cut down on the amount of text needed.

-- Joren (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The (literal translation), while it helps, still kind of throws me off. As a layman reading the article, I'd expect "released in Japan as..." to be immediately followed by THE official title, whatever it is. Given that expectation, my actual preference would be for Japanese followed by parens with Romaji and English, but that would probably be inconsistent with the rest of the MOS and English Misplaced Pages as a whole. So I would perhaps advocate for Romaji followed by parens with Japanese and English as the least confusing alternative.

-- Joren (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even that is inconsistant as in many instances the litteral translation will be wanted first for Feature articles because this is an English Misplaced Pages.陣内_Jinnai 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, we already have the English translation first. Remember, we are talking about "(English Title), released in Japan as (Japanese Romaji) (Kana) (English Translation)." -- Joren (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the ones i've brought up to FAC/FLC want it with the English literall first.陣内_Jinnai 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? My main sticking point is the wording "released in Japan as" specifically identifies it as an official title when it's not. If you have a better wording or phrasing to use that could address this concern, it would be good to know. Also, I take it you're talking about feedback from the FAC process? Perhaps those giving the feedback could be invited to participate in this discussion.-- Joren (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, please word your contributions to discussions more careful in the future. I explained before that the new proposed guidelines for video game articles suggest to use footnotes only when long Japanese titles hurt the readability of the article – so please don't misrepresent these proposals elsewhere.

Also, I strongly urge everyone involved here to continue this discussion about the translation of game titles over here. The rōmaji issue, however, should be kept and discussed here at MOS-JP, as it will affect all projects once there is consensus on it. Prime Blue (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary issue: lack of citation

If this is the wrong place for this discussion, please forgive the transgression.

I also think a lack of citation with many (and all that I've seen) nihongo templates is a problem. For example, this series of edits represents the addition of ten pieces of unreferenced information (never mind the already unreferenced Japanese characters). While all of this may represent simple fact to those familiar with Japanese, this is still the English encyclopedia; a foreign language translation like this should probably be sourced, no? I mean, where are these translations coming from? If the sources aren't up to WP:RS, why exactly are we including the info? If the sources do meet WP:RS, why not cite them? Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but it seems a simple and obvious oversight to just include this information unreferenced. However, given the current state of many articles employing the template, it's understandable why unreferenced information is assumed to be okay. DKqwerty (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Literal translations don't need to be referenced, and neither do romanizations. To require that would be insane. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then how the hell do I know when some anon. is adding translations that they're not just adding nonsense? How do I (not only as an editor, but as an information seeker) know that these "literal translations" aren't just made-up bullshit? DKqwerty (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's where WP:AGF comes in. It's not as if people are running rampant through the wiki and placing bad translations and romanizations into it. If you ever question the translation or romanization of something, ask at WT:JP and someone there will be happy to check it for you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See, now that seems insane to me, that I have to go begging people to tell me if a translation is accurate of not. It seems far more sane and logical to simply reference every translation (though I have no idea how that would be possible). Granted, it would have been easier to just reference them from the start and now it would just be a gigantic and unmanageable task, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that there's no way to verify this without asking someone. And how exactly is a non-editing reader supposed to know to ask WT:JP whether something is correct or not? I had to make a thread on an MOS talk page just to find out there's even a location to get translations confirmed; the average non-editing reader isn't going searching for help by way of MOS talk pages and project pages. Misplaced Pages isn't about asking someone for verification, it's about providing it upfront in an easily accessible and reliable manner. I know the reality of these video game articles is that so much information goes unreferenced, but that doesn't mean we can't at least start forming better habits. Or am I asking too much here? DKqwerty (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, assuming good faith and assuming accuracy are two different things. I can assume someone is trying to be helpful and thinks they know what they're doing, but that doesn't make it so. Instead, I prefer WP:V: should I really have to request a translation check every time Ryulong goes on a translation binge (without any edit summaries by the way) when I have no indication he can actually speak Japanese besides the "ja-1" userbox on heis user page? I don't get it. DKqwerty (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of editors with knowledge of Japanese, I'd say this would be of little concern as it can be easily verified. We also allow untranslated foreign language citations for article sourcing in Good and Featured articles. The topic title is not a big stretch from that.

I understand your concern though. But it is part of a bigger trend of un-experienced editors just doing what they do. All topics have articles that don't properly reference content. But the experienced editors provide the necessary sources what the reader to verify the article. (Guyinblack25 04:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Actually, two of our featured lists, Harvest Moon titles and Kirby media both cite the romanji and the katakana throughout the list. It's not too difficult if you can find the official Japanese site of a game, usually you can cite the page in order to cite the katakana in the article. I don't think it would be a bad idea to make sure people weren't throwing random words in Japanese out into obscure Japanese video games. Nomader 05:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for my edits to List of Mario series characters would need to be referenced because all I did was add romaji names to where they were not before. This is because we have a standardized method by which to transliterate kanji, hiragana, and katakana and that should not need to be referenced at all. I doubt that references should be needed for romaji for even the articles you cited. Likewise, titles of articles should not need to be referenced either. Why should you be required to verify what something is called?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are many reasons-- it would make sure that people putting up random translations weren't just putting up nonsense, and it would make sure that the most accurate translation available was posted. It wouldn't hurt to verify the proper Japanese name for a character through reliable sources, would it? Nomader 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The source media would be the reliable source in all cases, and that should be enough to verify that something within it is called whatever it is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Translations have not been subject to verification even in cases of feature article candidate promotions. I see no reason why we should start now for Japanese translations.陣内_Jinnai 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both you and Ryulong on this point, in that the source material should be more than enough. As someone who doesn't write Japanese particularly well, I've just always used referencing to be able to write the correct katakana in articles; however, per both of your comments, I feel that people who speak the language sufficiently should be just fine translating the source title. Nomader 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Referencing literal translations is just not practical, seeing how translation is not an exact science and many titles will have several unofficial translations across reliable sources. Prime Blue (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone weigh in on the HTML comments at List of Pokémon? They request sources for Romanization—which above I read as unnecessary— and seem to be challenged occasionally. Is this a special case? —Ost (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A short explanation: The HTML comments request sources for the "official romanizations of Japanese names" (e.g. "Lizardo"), not the Hepburn romanizations ("Rizādo") – it basically means "provide references for official romanizations of new Pokémon, otherwise provide just the Hepburn romanization" (like "Rankurusu", for example). However, as far as I know, Nintendo never provided a full list with all of these official romanizations. Hence, I think even the old ones should be removed where no reference is present.

182 (no, it was updated...200!) official romanizations for the Japanese Pokémon names were provided in Bandai's Kimewaza Pokémon Kids series, in that the cards included the names in Roman letters. See here. I will open a new section on the talk page there to ask where the other old official romanizations came from.

I hope that reply was understandable, as it is a bit confusing... :/ Prime Blue (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There have apparently been official Anglicized names for Pokémon as of late, so they can say that チラーミィ is "Chillarmy".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those explanations. They helped me understand the difference between Hepburn and official. I appreciate the note Prime left on the talk page, too. —Ost (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. :-) Prime Blue (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the need for romaji with English loanwords

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There has been an ongoing divide between the community as to dealing with English loanwords, specifically titles (but it has wider implications), where the words are loan words from English transformed into katakana equivalents. One side believes that unless there is significant difference between the pronunciation, no romaji (Roman alphabet) translation is needed as it is similar to a dialectical pronunciation (actual term eludes me) of an English word. The other side beleives there should be no exceptions made because most English speakers do not understand the Japanese language enough to comprehend pronunciation with just the katakana.陣内_Jinnai 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a "dialectical pronunciation" when it comes to the various loanwords in Japanese. They are words incorporated into the Japanese language from other languages, and should be treated as Japanese words, even if some are English cognates.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Not commenting, but you should reword that RfC as to what Ryulong mentioned, Jinnai. It is not loanwords that are discussed, but English words rendered in katakana. But as the "final" (ファイナル) example above has shown, it might be hard to make a distinction between the two in many cases. Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, romaji is a transliteration, not a translation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, there has been no new post for a few days now, so I am proposing the following ideas:

• Put a note on the WP:MOS-JP page, with a link to this talk page, stating that there is no consensus on how to deal with English loanwords. People can keep discussing the matter; however, I don't think this will be resolved anytime soon.
• Change the wording of the {{nihongo}} template from "aaaa (bbbb cccc)" to "aaaa (Japanese: bbbb, romanization: cccc)" as this is clearer and is how most other language templates are worded. Add optional fields for romanizations other than Hepburn (if they are used, "romanization:" should become "Hepburn romanization:" like how "pinyin:" becomes "Hanyu pinyin:" in the {{zh}} templates). Change {{nihongo2}}, {{nihongo3}}, {{nihongo4}}, {{nihongo core}}, {{nihongo foot}} and {{nihongo title}} accordingly.
• Consider changing the links of all language templates from Mainspace articles to Help: pages, and/or consider creating a main guideline page for all the templates in Category:Multilingual support templates as there doesn't seem to be one currently. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Megata Sanshiro's first point: Bluerfn removed the dispute tag after the last discussion had died down. I re-added it with a link to these sections, and unless a clear consensus is reached (which seems unlikely indeed as everyone disappeared yet again), it should not be removed this time. Prime Blue (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this guideline isn't the one that's disputed. It is WP:VG's guideline that is, even though all of the discussion is taking place here (and just because the WP:VG people are more vocal in opposing this).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that one user requested a disputed guideline tag and another one added it should make it apparent that this is a disputed guideline here, not to mention the whole discussion above, and the RfC. WikiProject Japan never had any consensus on MOS:JP saying romanizations for English words rendered in katakana should be included. And if you think it did, then gladly point out the discussion, because I think this is the main reason why you think VG/GL "contradicts" MOS:JP.

And if you have a problem with VG/GL having reached a clear-cut consensus on this issue in the past (and thus not being in line with MOS:JP having no consensus), then engage in the discussion at the respective talk page, which I have told you to do several times now. Prime Blue (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

When this issue was first raised I was told to do so here and on WT:VG because WT:VG/GL is so incredibly low traffic that it would have been pointless. The consensus made here will very likely affect both WP:MOS-JA and WP:VG/GL so it is actually redundant to have two ongoing discussions on the same issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So how about we create a subpage, move this discussion there, then transclude the subpage into its own section on both discussion pages, a la Misplaced Pages:Transclusion#Subpages? This should make this single discussion visible on both pages.

-- Joren (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong: Sorry, I was not aware of the recent discussion you began on the talk page of WP:VG. Had I known that the editors involved there reinforced the old consensus of omitting these romanizations, I would not have pointed you over to the talk page of VG/GL. Again, sorry.

Now, as to the issue at hand: MOS:JP will very likely affect several projects' guidelines (VG/GL included) once consensus is reached here. I spent a lot of energy on MOS:JP trying to bring the last discussion about romanizations to a satisfying consensus for everyone, but people simply disappeared when it came to forming clear-cut rules. So everyone will have to excuse me for not being too involved this time around. As stated above, this discussion will likely go on for a very long time. Until then, Ryulong, you should try everything you can to reach a consensus here if you feel these romanizations should be included (among other things, I even tried to enter mediation in the last discussion, but only a single user signed up), while at the same time respecting and following the guidelines of other projects.

And to avoid further misunderstandings, I have stated before that I am kind of indifferent to the issue at this moment, though I am even slightly leaning towards the inclusion of rōmaji in every case. My prime concern with nihongo templates, however, will always be the readability of articles. One always has to keep in mind that the majority of readers will come to Misplaced Pages to read articles, not to look for snippets of an article between kanji, kana, and romanizations (I think you could even take this last paragraph as a reply to the RfC...). Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Joren: A subpage would not really be necessary, because all any other project or guideline that would defer to this one, all that would be necessary would be a link to this guideline, as many other guidelines do.

@Prime Blue: The only times when I have ignored the guidelines are when I feel they get in the way of making the project as a whole better. That is what WP:VG/GL is at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The extensive arguments against the relevant MOS guideline, the fact this RFC exists and the fact the two guidelines disagree indicates that there is a dispute. It is plainly ridiculous to point to two conflicting guidelines (the VG one has plenty of discussion and agreement behind it) and state that one is disputed and one is not. You're statement that WP:VG associated editors are "more vocal" is also pretty rich when you have engaged in pointed editing, profanity and derisory accusations of racism. bridies (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, it is really hard to assume good faith if you are justifying your actions with "ignore all rules" at this point in time, after all the comments and warnings you have got for not following VG/GL – even though you were aware of the recent consensus.

Also, two questions:

1. Why did you re-add the dispute tag? You brought the issue up and the resulting consensus of WP:VG was clear.

2. Concerning the same edit: Why did you remove the under discussion tag pointing to the new guidelines proposal instead of just adding the dispute tag? Prime Blue (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer both questions, the item is disputed, but it is being discussed here, rather than in the talk pages of the video game WikiProject. Also, there was no "recent consensus" in the WP:VG talk pages. Basically, I was told to discuss what was happening here. The consensus concerning romaji is being formed here. Not at WP:VG. All I have done is edit those pages in accordance with this manual of style. And the only warnings I have received are from you who felt that there was a consensus, when there clearly was not. What is decided here will affect all WikiProjects that deal with Japanese text, which means it is more important than WP:VG/GL. Really Prime Blue, if you actually read this conversation you keep referring to, there was not a consensus because they are talking about this ongoing discussion and the discussion merely stopped at WT:VG.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• You just answered the first question, not the second one.
• People of WP:VG almost universally told you that these romanizations were not desired on the project, among them Jinnai, Anomie, Guyinblack25, David Fuchs, and Nomader. Ost316 gave a neutral statement, and Nihonjoe did not directly address the issue, though he is generally for the inclusion of those romanizations (unless he changed his opinion since the last discussion). However, how you took those comments (in conjunction with the fact that there was a previous consensus on the issue) as a "way to go" for all your VG/GL-disregarding edits on video game articles (again, IAR certainly is not justified) or how you took Guyinblack25's link here as "there is no consensus on VG/GL", I do not understand.
• The only discussion here is if these romanizations should be included or not, not if VG/GL should be overruled before there even is consensus on MOS:JP (unless this is what you are going for, but then I demand to know what the whole point of the above discussion is). Just because MOS:JP will supersede VG/GL once there is consensus here does not automatically make the guidelines at VG/GL disputed.

Prime Blue (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the discussion here as to whether or not to include the romaji for "loanwords" (English to Japanese cognates) would affect all articles that include such words, whether or not they be about video games. Clearly, if it is decided here that romaji should always be included, then WP:VG/GL will have to change such that the text forbidding Fainaru Fantajii or Suupaa Mario or Metaru Gia would be removed. What one project wants does not predicate whether or not it will be challenged by another project. The consensus here should very clearly dictate the consensus elsewhere, as this should be held as the parent guideline for dealing with Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that has been stated many, many times now. But VG/GL cannot be in line with MOS:JP if there is no consensus here yet. Unless VG/GL is...de-consensusated... ...I can't believe I'm writing this.

And again, I would like to have question 1 answered. Why did you remove the "under discussion" tag with the link to the new non-English games guideline proposals? I don't want to engage in an edit war over guideline tags, so I want to know a reason before I re-add it. Prime Blue (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because there should be a link on WP:VG/GL to the discussion here as to not make it so there are two parallel discussions on the same topic that reach separate consensuses because of the normal readers of that page. Keep the disputed one to point here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I bluntly explained here and in my later comment that my proposal does not touch the rōmaji issue at all. My proposal did not start a parallel discussion. Prime Blue (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then put your link back and keep the link here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. But I still can't say I understand why you think VG/GL is disputed and we're discussing it here. Prime Blue (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming into this late, but my feeling is... "Final Fantasy" is the name of the game. These are English words, with meaning in English, and the phrase has meaning in English. The name of the game in Japanese is still Final Fantasy, but transliterated to their local language. In other words, the name of the game in Japan is in English. Since it is in English, there's no reason to then re-transliterate the title back into characters English speakers can understand. The Japanese and romaji should only be included if the title is not a direct transliteration of a clearly English title. Shenmue is not an English word, and the katakani/romaji make sense there. Metal Gear Solid is clearly made up of English words, and adding "Metaru Gia Soriddo" adds nothing to an understanding of the topic.

Furthermore, there's another issue here; why Japanese? Ryulong suggested in a conversation that it was because the game was released in Japan first, but that is certainly not universal to video games, not even Japanese-developed ones. Is it the locale of the developer? Is it the location is was released in first? In that case, we run into problems with Metal Gear Solid having romaji, but Metal Gear Solid 2 lacking it. And, what about non-game title related concepts? Metal Gear (weapon) included katakana and romaji purely because, so far as I can tell, it had those in the Japanese version of the game, despite those words being English. I note that on the Japanese Misplaced Pages, in the article on Metal Gear, it says "(METAL GEAR)", acknowledging that the words are English. I don't see why we need to offer a transliteration to Japanese in two separate scripts (katakana and romaji) for English words.

The Japanese (and a transliteration thereof) should only be included if it is anything other than a straight transliteration, or if it a straight transliteration of a non-English word. Metal Gear? No. Final Fantasy? No. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? Yes. Shenmue? Yes. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But the names are not "Final Fantasy" or "Metal Gear". They are "ファイナルファンタジー" and "メタルギア", which I stated to you in other conversations. If a game is developed in Japan and released in Japan for the Japanese market, it falls under the umbrella of both WP:JAPAN and WP:VG, and would have to be written according to the guidelines. The fact that the guidelines conflict is an issue. If MOS:JA changes, it will affect other aspects of the encyclopedia. Making WP:VG/GL#Non-English games in line with this guideline and other language guidelines would be a lot easier than changing this guideline, and having every other project that depends on it (WP:ANIME, WP:H!P, WP:TOKU, etc) have to modify their guidelines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But those are not Japanese words. Those are English words, transliterated into Japanese. And the games are also released in America for an American market, sometimes by Americans. And that doesn't answer the issue of Metal Gear (weapon), which is a concept, not a game. It makes no sense to me to give the English, then transliterate that English into Japanese, and then give the re-transliteration of that back into English. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They are Japanese words. Just because they are cognates from English does not mean that they are not Japanese. The fact is that ファイナルファンタジーX and メタルギアソリッド were developed by Japanese companies. They were then released as Final Fantasy X and Metal Gear Solid in the international market. The fact that the Japanese media uses both "FINAL FANTASY X" and "ファイナルファンタジーX" to refer to the same game does not mean we should exclude the title as it is written in the Japanese language or exclude the phonetic pronunciation (romanization) of the Japanese title in the Japanese language. There is no reason to exclude any romanization of Japanese text unless it is identical (not similar) to the English version of that text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They are no more Japanese words than fainaru or rodina are English words. --Golbez (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"ファイナル" appears in Japanese dictionaries.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I will probably hate myself for getting involved here, but I thought I could provide an opinion from a different perspective. The prolific Duden - Deutsches Universalwörterbuch, for example, includes the English/French word "Franchise" though it is still a long ways off from being German, or from being in everyday usage in Germany – and it is also included in Duden - Das große Fremdwörterbuch. I'm just saying that the inclusion in a dictionary might not be the ne plus ultra when it comes to determining if a word has "crossed the border". Prime Blue (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "final" is not in the Japanese dictionaries. The word "ファイナル" (fainaru) is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, all you do is repeat statements, give evasive answers or no answers at all. It is really hard to have an orderly discussion under these circumstances. Prime Blue (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that certainly makes sense, since it would make as little sense to include "final" in a Japanese dictionary as it would to include 小銃 in an English dictionary. That doesn't mean that 'ファイナル' is a Japanese word, anymore than shoujou is an English word. They are transliterations of words from other languages, not translations. Dictionaries have to speak to their own language, after all. However, looking at the j-e dict, it appears "fainaru", in classic Japanese fashion (I'm looking at you, sutaato botan), has come into common use, so perhaps that's not the best example. Should we move on to "Gia" or "Fantajii" instead? --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of the game is Final Fantasy. Plain English. This is what is on the primary source, as shown above. bridies (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of the game is ファイナルファンタジー in the Japanese setting. That is what they have used for the past 20 years, in addition to "FINAL FANTASY". Stop saying that the Japanese don't know the name of their own game in their own language. And Prime Blue, VG/GL is disputed because my discovery of that guideline is why this whole discussion was started. This guideline should be the end all be all on treating Japanese text and no WikiProject should be making up their own guidelines that conflict with this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong- if this should be the end all be all on treating Japanese text on Misplaced Pages, then you have to work with the editors of the relevant projects to craft a guideline that makes sense to everyone and takes into account the ideas of those editors. The way things are going now, it looks like this will be a never-ending disagreement.

It doesn't matter which way would be easier, it matters which way reflects the collaborative efforts of the affected editors. I.e. a consensus. (Guyinblack25 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Right now, I don't even have to formulate arguments anymore. It is all there already, but I can't force you to respond to it. Prime Blue (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The only people discussing anything here are the video games editors and they're going to be wanting to make this guideline in line with theirs. I have yet to see anyone from any of the other projects that deal with Japanese text even show up here. None of these other projects even have guidelines to specifically treat this text, as they refer to this one. It's hard to come to a consensus on this page which would affect every other page when there is less and less input.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, you touch on another subject instead of giving a response. So I'll bring it up not for the first, not for the second or the third, fourth or fifth, but for the sixth time:

• Why do you think this guideline on VG/GL is disputed albeit the original consensus and all the recent reactions you got?
• Where is this contradiction between VG/GL and MOS:JP you continuously stress? How can VG/GL contradict MOS:JP if there is no consensus here yet?

Prime Blue (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine.

• The non-English games guideline found at WP:VG/GL is in dispute because it is being argued about on this very page. While you may think that what is decided here should only affect this page, you are wrong. This page is the guideline to deal with all Japanese text on the English Misplaced Pages. Right now, it is only myself arguing against you and several other members of WP:VG who for the most part support their guideline as it is written. When this discussion started weeks ago, I was told that I should use the higher traffic pages to discuss this, and that's why the threads were started at WT:VG and here. I had thought that the thread at WT:VG was intended to point people to this page to discuss it, but instead you have taken it as being the consensus agreement for everything regarding that project.
• And I apologize, and I realize that there is nothing specific on MOS:JP that specifically says "use romaji in all cases", but it does say "Revised Hepburn romanization should be used in all cases..." here. It is merely the general practice of every single other project other than those video game related to use the three first parameters of {{nihongo}} (of which the Japanese text is the only "required" parameter for technical reasons) when doing anything with Japanese text. This is the contradiction. As it stands, even though there is no consensus here over this or anything written in stone, it is the standard practice of everyone not in WP:VG to use {{nihongo|English|Japanese|Romaji}} in full, even if the Japanese name is merely an example of gairaigo from English. This has been the case for a while.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"In the Japanese setting" is meaningless drivel. What Japanese media do with an English title is no concern of the English language Misplaced Pages, even if the work came out of Japan. If a work has an English title, certainly if it is the primary title, it is redundant to include a transliteration in a script few English speakers understand, let alone provide a redundant transliteration of that transliteration. Especially in the first line of an article; at most it could be a footnote. This is the position uninvolved editors to the page are continually taking. On that note, Long's continued disparaging of VG editors is no valid argument. What userboxes an editor has or what talk space pages they frequent has no bearing on anything. Arguments are what count and it seems to me that this discussion shows that the WP:VG guideline has a stronger backing. If more input from other relevant projects is needed, I would suggest posting on relevant talk pages. bridies (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, don't call me "Long". No one does and it does not make any sense. I'm sorry if you find the text "ファイナルファンタジー" redundant. That's the name in Japan, and we are depriving the readers of this knowledge of excluding it, just as we would if we exclude "Fainaru Fantajī". And I am not "disparaging" VG editors. I am mentioning WP:VG editors because I have yet to see anyone, other than Golbez, Honjamaka, and Thibbs, that is not involved with this page or WP:VG, and only Golbez has been continually commenting here. We only have two opinions being presented here: those who support WP:VG/GL#Non-English games and those who support WP:MOS-JA. The only reason that VG/GL has a stronger backing is because the majority of arguments on this page are being made by those who primarily edit articles on video games, rather than articles on other Japanese subjects. I've posted on the relevant talk pages, but no one is coming for whatever reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Long means dragon to me, but fair enough. The name in Japan is Final Fantasy, per the primary source. You've disproved your own argument: if you've posted on talk pages and nobody has replied, it simply indicates how little profile those projects have in relation to WP:VG and why pointing to their practices means nothing, WP:VG on the other hand being a project with a large participation, on articles pertinent to this issue in particular. That editors backing the WP:VG guideline edit video game articles or are associated with WP:VG does not at all diminish the fact that the guideline has strong consensus and going on this discussion a stronger backing than the flawed MOS guideline. bridies (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted messages on WT:ANIME and WT:JAPAN. Those are not little profile or anything. And the WP:VG guideline still conflicts with the guidelines and general practices of at least 4 other WikiProjects that work on articles that utilize Japanese. I have yet to see anything that shows that WP:VG is bigger in scope than WP:JAPAN, WP:ANIME, WP:MUSIC and why it can have its own guideline for dealing with Japanese text that is entirely different from the other two. As far as you are concerned, Japanese at all does not need to be on any page if it is katakana and can be directly translated into English, such as on any game in the Mario series, Wario series, Donkey Kong series, Star Fox series, Final Fantasy, Earthbound, Dragon Quest, Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, or any of the consoles or handhelds.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many projects you can point to that nominally agree (probably because they've not given it much thought) with the MOS guideline if they have no editors willing to contribute to a discussion. Scope means nothing either if there's no participation. What I mean by "profile" or "prolific" is how many active editors a project has, how active they are in the talk space, how much quality content (peer reviewed content: FA, GA, maybe DKY) it has produced, that sort of thing. WP:JAPAN doesn't count its articles for quick reference, but WP:VG seems to have at least twice as many FAs and several times as many GAs. Furthermore, a large percentage of WP:JAPAN's peer reviewed content falls under the scope of either WP:VG or WP Military history (a behemoth among wikiprojects with several times as many FAs as WP:VG). So I really don't see how you can make these arguments on the part of WP:JAPAN and this part of the MOS. bridies (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is that because WP:VG has more FAs, GAs, and DKYs and that its members are the only ones contributing here, they should have the only valid opinion?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Ryulong's comment:

• If you are reading my comments here, you know that I am kind of indifferent though leaning towards the inclusion of such romanizations now and I have told you several times that MOS:JP will override VG/GL once there is consensus here. Stop spinning my words to make a point, there is no need to. About Guyinblack25's link from VG/GL to MOS:JP, read here.
• "Revised Hepburn romanization (described below) should be used in all cases" should refer to the method of romanization (like "don't use the other romanization systems"), I think. The current wording comes from Neier, apparently it was just newly worded without any specific objective – or at least without addressing the issue at hand.

Prime Blue (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure I can put it any plainer but I'm saying that a larger number of FAs, GAs etc indicate a larger number of activate, competent editors, which explains why there is a larger number of them here. That this larger number of editors all come from WP:VG isn't a valid reason for you to dismiss it as the video game guys ganging up on everyone else. Anyone from any project may have a valid opinion but if you have asked them to provide those opinions and they haven't, that suggests those opinionated editors are just not there. So you can't say "Project X, Y and Z agree with this MOS guideline and this shows it has consensus" when those projects do not have a significant number of editors who have debated or are willing to debate the issue. bridies (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to address two little things - loan words are not all from English (e.g. arubaito and randoseru). I don't believe that all katakana transliterations are "loan words" either since they are not integrated into the language. When I first saw a review of the new "Super Famicom" it didn't immediately occur to me that it just mean "Family Computer" and even thought I am pretty familiar with Japanese these days, when Gainax announced their "Pansuto" project I still had to look it up. On the other hand, ストライクウィッチーズ is no more a loan word than ドクター・フー - they are transliterated names, and while it may have come into common usage due to the age and popularity of the games, the same applies to ファイナルファンタジー (ファイナル as a word only exist as a disambiguation page on Misplaced Pages Japan so I wouldn't consider it a loanword on its own either). While I don't think it hurts to have the romaji there for these titles to indicate the Japanese pronunciation if nothing else, and I don't like removing information could potentially be useful to someone, I can see there is a valid point to be made for omitting them. Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter what people argue here, the fact always remains that putting a translation of a translation is redundant as far as the article is concerned. Ok, so I need help reading the Japanese stuff, but now I need to learn how to read these characters that vaguely resemble English? Dude, get the point that this is an English Misplaced Pages. Adding more layers that aren't English isn't doing good, especially if it is just the English turned on it's head by the addition of regional dialect from foreign countries. While I'm still against it all, I completely agree with the suggestions below as an appeasement. Then if I really care enough, I will do just as I would with any other topic on Misplaced Pages and move my mouse over the content and/or click on it to learn more. - Odokee (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a translation of a translation. It is effectively a transliteration of a transliteration. There is no regional dialect here. You clearly do not know what is going on here, and you would rather remove any Japanese text seeing as you find it redundant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is effectively redundant and also 99.9% useless to the populace. You're also just wrong. On multiple points, at that. There is a dialect coming into play, which is why words are so twisted in the end when really it is just how some dudes on the other side of the planet tend to pronounce things and then write it down that way in their language. Then you're taking it one step further and forcing us to look at horrid crap that you repeatedly edit into articles when no one else wants it there. For someone telling another person he doesn't know what is going on, you sure don't seem to pay attention to what people have been telling you. - Odokee (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A "dialect" is a variation of one language within itself. Katakana transliterations of English words is not a dialect of English or Japanese. And you are the only one with the opinion that anything is useless or horrid. Aside from my introduction of the word "series" into the lead section of The Legend of Zelda no one other than you has had any sort of negative reaction to my additions of romaji to any page, as you have been repeatedly edit warring to exclude it, including using misleading edit summaries to do so.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. They are still taking the English word and pronouncing it their own way. Them writing stuff down doesn't affect how they pronounce words. As for your other absurd claims, you again show me that you don't pay attention to what people around you say (and say directly to you), and you seem to be the only side of this "warring" going on by attempting to make the issue personal, with threats and bullying nonetheless. Despite what you may think, and as evidenced by the consensus most of the people on this topic appear to have, your edits are not as valuable as you seem to think. - Odokee (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all, the debate about Final Fantasy should tell you that others have an issue with it. It was however agreed not to go around pointedly changing articles one way or another until the dispute was resolved. The arguments over transliterations and dialects are extraneous, the point is they are redundant. I don't know how many more editors you need to hear this from. bridies (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus because the only people who have been discussing anything are those from the Japanese WikiProject and the video games WikiProject, and the only reason the video game WikiProjct editors have a majority is because there are more of them (numerically) discussing this. As it stands right now, I am the only person involved with WP:JAPAN and this guideline who is discussing anything at this point. We have not received any sort of input from editors of other Japanese subject areas for some reason, and it's impossible to form a consensus if barely any other point of views are being provided. The fact still stands that WP:VG has for whatever reason decided to make their own guideline to deal with Japanese text that goes against the general practices of every other project that deals with Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Again?. I already explained why this argument is invalid. WP:VG has a guideline regarding Japanese text which has a real consensus. The "general practices" you refer to are nominal only and through fait accompli at that. That an editor is involved with WP:VG has no bearing on their point of view. bridies (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify further: WP:VG is not a political party. It's not like it has a chairman who decides its stance then forces members to propogate it. The guideline exists because it has consensus, discussion, arguments behind it, not the other way round. You are trying to paint WP:VG as some vocal, opinionated clique when in fact as I have shown WP:JAPAN is the relatively insignificant project which has a fait accompli guideline no one is prepared to defend. bridies (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, that is not exactly true. While measures should be taken to inform all affected projects, receiving no answer from them does not mean that there is agreement/disagreement and that no consensus can be formed. If no other projects participate in the discussion (Shiroi Hane from WP:ANIME has participated even, but some more opinions would also be welcome), then it is just all of you who have to form consensus – until someone of the others raises their voice in the future. Prime Blue (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGLISH says "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." It also says "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical." Do we consider English loan words in Japanese as words originally in a Latin alphabet? If we do, we don't need to include the name in the native script (katakana) and its transliteration (romaji). If we don't, we should include names in katakana and romaji. Transliterations should not be omitted if there are words in non-Latin scripts. WP:VG/GL is not in line with this guideline because it says the transliterations are optional. It should be changed so that it follows the site-wide guideline. --Kusunose 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it comes from English surely it's already "Anglicized"... Nevertheless the prevailing argument is that combinations of English loan words with almost identical "Anglicisations" constitute "common sense exceptions" which you will see are allowed for by a style guideline. As an aside I'm obviously inclined to agree that the katakana isn't necessary in these cases either, but I don't think there's any support for that. bridies (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While the titles may simply be Japonifications of English words, I still think that does not mean they are under the umbrella of identical Anglicizations, because we still have "Final Fantasy", "ファイナルファンタジー", and "Fainaru Fantajī", which are the English and Anglicized name, the Japanese and Japonified name, and the transliteration of the Japanese/Japonified name into modified Hepburn. Unless we're dealing with Mario or Wario, there is probably not going to be a case, at least in the realm of video games, where the English/Anglicized name is identical to the transliteration from the original language.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is no different from any other language. Russian's don't pronounce English words (without a lot of practice) or write them the same. For example, they have trouble with words containing the letter "v" in English. That doesn't mean because of that problem we have to show when there is an English word used for something, be it a title, genre or whatever, the Russian pronunciation. That same basic rule is the same with English loan words for any language, including Japanese.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that we keep going back to pronunciation? This is not a dialectical issue. For example, Ragnarok Online could include the text "Rageunarokeu Onrain" but it doesn't (because there's no simple inline template to deal with Korean text), but why shouldn't it? Bleach (manga) has "Burīchi" on it, but that doesn't cause any problems, despite the fact that it has been clearly stated on that page that they call it "BLEACH" in Japan. Same goes for One Piece and KAT-TUN and K-On!, etc. Why is such a problem if the article is about a video game?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not take the following statements as an offense, it is not meant that way. But right now, I'll have to ask all of you what your desired end result of this circular debate is, as it seems to me that everyone is making the same points – reformulated – over and over. As I said below, we are now at a point where it should be apparent that the issue won't be solved with a simple "include" or "do not include". So, unless there is a good reason to, you should all stop wasting your time and energy over stressing arguments the other side will not accept anyway, and instead help to create a satisfying compromise (if you don't agree with the one presented, that is) and to bring other projects in to decide on one of the compromises. Otherwise, the discussion will eventually fizzle out, the edit warring will continue, and we'll all be here again some six months down the road. Prime Blue (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand, but the only reason the argument is circular is because there has barely been any other input other than Kusunose pointing out the stance at WP:ENGLISH. We need other projects' input.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There could be many more comments here that said "do not include", yet the other party would say "include". Just as much as there could be many more comments here that said "include", yet the other party would say "do not include". An RfC was certainly a reasonable step to take while the discussion was still semi-fresh, and Golbez', Shiroi Hane's, and Kusonose's participation is appreciated (not to mention the editors who contributed outside of the RfC section), but all the comments of the world won't make the concerns of the opposite party go away – because, as has been noted before, both sides have valid points. Prime Blue (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Prime Blue. It doesn't matter whether an editor is "from" one wikiproject or another. If an editor has the exact same arguments as another who is for (or against) the inclusion of perceived "redundant" romaji, the arguments won't suddenly gain more value just because of that. It would still be the same arguments. This issue isn't about video games, manga or anime. It's about "the romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language", regardless of what the loanwords are the names of. Many wikiprojects have been invited to this discussion, and if some didn't participate, maybe it's because they just don't care one way or another. Ryulong said Korean words should be romanized too, yet they aren't for some reason. Why? I don't think it's because they have a clearcut consensus about it; I think it's just because they don't care much about it. In my opinion, this discussion on English loanwords in Japanese should go on (and hopefully will end) with the people who do care. If someday an editor arrives and challenges the result with new arguments, we will have no more consensus, but we aren't there yet. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see more users joining in the discussion and I'd just like to briefly interject that WP:ENGLISH discusses naming conventions, which I believe means the name of an article; I don't read it as commenting on the inclusion of transliteration in text. —Ost (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions also covers not only covers the name of an article, but also deals with how to mention alternative names in the lead section, or how to mention the topic in (other) article texts. I referenced WP:ENGLISH because it is a relevant guideline for the inclusion of transliteration in the lead paragraph. --Kusunose 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, the items in question are identical. Just because you can put a line into Babelfish and translate it into one language and back again to get something different doesn't mean you are getting something new. Therefore this Hooked on Phonics lesson isn't needed. - Odokee (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Official romanizations"

Actually, I do have a new wrench to throw into the discussion, and I would appreciate Ryulong's (or Nihonjoe's if he's still following) input. I've mostly been in agreement with keeping the Romanizations, because I find them to be useful and I also value consistency across the entire project. I generally favor the inclusion of the transliterated Romaji in the nihongo templates. However, my current reading of the MOS makes me wonder -- we have a section dealing with names that instructs us to use the "official Romanization" - what does this mean?

Names of companies, products, and organizations

Honor the current romanization used officially by that party (i.e., Kodansha rather than Kōdansha, Doshisha University rather than Dōshisha University). If the entity no longer exists, use the most commonly used format. If this cannot be determined, use the Hepburn romanization as defined here.

1. Does this also govern the use of Romaji in the nihongo templates? Seems like it would to me, since "Japanese text should be marked with the {{Nihongo}} template".
2. Given the first point, in cases where there is an official English title that matches the katakana word for word, would that not be considered the official Romanization? (e.g. the company probably uses "Final Fantasy" more than "Fainaru Fantajī")

Because it seems to me that, if both of these assumptions are correct, the current guideline would already obligate us to include Romaji that matches the official English title exactly (e.g., we'd have to write Template:Nihongo title, which would make its use redundant. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the guideline entirely, which I am prone to do. By the way, sorry I haven't had much time to keep up/write responses; I have however been following the course of discussion and hope to continue participating. -- Joren (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. No, the "official romanizations" are only to be used in the first section of the nihongo template (e.g. Doshisha University (同志社大学, Dōshisha daigaku) instead of Dōshisha University (同志社大学, Dōshisha daigaku)), or elsewhere in the article where no nihongo template is included for the name (e.g. Doshisha University instead of Dōshisha University). The third section of the nihongo template is always the Hepburn romanization.

2. No more need to answer. :-) Prime Blue (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - your #1 is succinct and easy to understand. I wonder if we could have something like that in the MOS? Perhaps the Using Japanese in the article body section which mentions the nihongo template?

-- Joren (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be mentioned in the section 'Names of companies, products, and organizations' and read something like...

'For usage in the "English" segment of a nihongo template and plain mentions of those terms without a nihongo template, honor the current anglicization used officially by that party (i.e., Doshisha University (同志社大学, Dōshisha daigaku) instead of Dōshisha University (同志社大学, Dōshisha daigaku), and Doshisha University rather than Dōshisha University).'

Also, the 'Syllabic "n"' section should be incorporated somewhere under 'Names', too, as it is not treated as an exception to Hepburn romanization. Prime Blue (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What Prime Blue said. That section of the MOS is only for article titles, for the exact examples Prime Blue gives. This is why we have pages at Kodansha or Tokyo Tower rather than "Kōdansha" or "Tōkyō Tawā".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, why is there a separate header for "Article names"? I did wonder whether it was just talking about article names, but the product names which I quoted above is under a separate header "Names", which says "This section defines the proper way to write Japanese names on the English Misplaced Pages" which could easily be understood to mean names anywhere in the article.

Indeed. "Names" governs mentions in an article with and without nihongo templates, whereas WP:English and "Article names" (however, 1. could be reworded here slightly to be more understandable) are for names of articles. Prime Blue (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Joren (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, a romanization (a.k.a. rōmaji) is not English. It is a transliteration, not a translation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that distinction, that it's not a translation... What I was attempting to ask was whether under any circumstances an official English title that happens to match the katakana word for word could also be considered an official romanization. -- Joren (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you are bringing the translation/transliteration issue up again. "Final Fantasy" is not the official romanization for "ファイナルファンタジー". "Final Fantasy" is the official English translation of "ファイナルファンタジー". Perhaps the MOS should be clarified.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that modification to MOS:JP, but I wikified the terms for users that may not know what is meant. Prime Blue (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was kind of wondering how in the same MOS we could be mandating revised Hepburn and then talking about "official romanizations" elsewhere as though it were a synonym for trade name. Agree with the edit.

-- Joren (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consulting other projects

I do not think it is a good idea to change policy in the absence of these other projects. The fact that they are not contributing to the discussion does not mean VG or anyone else gets to represent them, it just means we need to work harder at obtaining their participation before changing policy that will affect all of them. Let's say two people on the project preferred Kunrei-shiki romanization. They could talk to each other here while everyone else happens to be away, change policy here (e.g. switch from Hepburn to Kunrei-shiki), then call it "consensus" - the rest of the project would be rather miffed. Isn't that rather similar to VG's point to begin with, that consensus here wasn't reflecting their project? And won't the other projects be able to say the same? The scenario I would wish to avoid is that a project wakes up one day to find the policy has changed without their input and they can no longer edit articles in the way that they feel is appropriate; a plight which VG might be able to empathize with. Policies should not be changed without active input from major projects affected by it, so we need to get wider participation in this discussion. Any thoughts on how we could do this? Perhaps going to the user talk pages of major contributors to other projects and asking them to come here? -- Joren (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

True words. The problem is to find out who the "big cheeses" in all the projects are. Number of edits? Important contributors to featured articles? History of helping in discussions to form a consensus on project guidelines? Tricky subject... Prime Blue (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not really what I said though. My main points are that the argument "Project X, Y and Z agree with this MOS guideline and this shows it has consensus" is not in itself valid and that "The editors arguing against this guideline are all from WP:VG" does not negate those arguments to any extent. Again, I'm not saying other Wikiprojects cannot have an opinion or that we shouldn't await further opinions from whatever quarter. Not to get into semantics but we're not talking about anything so serious as a policy here, merely a style guideline. bridies (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Bridies brings up a point I agree with completely. This should not be such a big deal. Flexibility among those involved (those currently as well as those that may join later) will help bring this to a resolution.

If more editors are sought, then hit up the projects again. Let them know that this will affect how they write the leads of their articles. If that doesn't work again, then there is the village pump. (Guyinblack25 16:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

Sorry if it seems like changing the subject then, but I do believe this to be important. I think it would be in everyone's interests if the other projects actively participated instead of having their assumed agreement with the existing guideline. Certainly those in favor of the existing guideline do not want these projects to be left out, either. Everyone agrees that their opinions are valid and needed, but I do believe we need to be more proactive about soliciting them. So, how can we better do this?

-- Joren (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong left notes at the talk pages of WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Hello! Project, WikiProject Pokémon, WikiProject Trains in Japan, and WikiProject Tokusatsu (are there any other projects affected by this?). But that was two days ago and nothing (I think) has happened since. As Guyinblack25 said, a more attention-grabbing notice could help. Some bold text here and there, and a better explanation on how a clear-cut consensus would prevent edit wars and affect many, many articles on a large scale. If that doesn't work, there's also your suggestion of notifying individual users, though as I said, I have no idea how to determine the projects' key people.

...or we simply redirect all project pages to this section here. ;-) Prime Blue (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Those projects (other than the defunct Final Fantasy project and the Square Enix project) are the only projects I could think of that are fairly independent that would be affected by this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this comment from Ryulong:

"I have yet to see anyone, other than Golbez, Honjamaka, and Thibbs that is not involved with this page or WP:VG."

It should be noted that we have yet to see anyone from WP:JA either, apart from Ryulong and Nihonjoe. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was Squenix omitted? If nothing else, Final Fantasy has been used as an example. —Ost (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a daughter project of VG.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No more than Pokemon or Anime and Manga is a daughter project of WP:Japan.陣内_Jinnai 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to inform individual users of the projects: grab the names of important articles (like this or this) and guideline articles (like this) and run it through the Misplaced Pages page history statistics tool. "User statistics" will show the contributors with the most edits, of which we can inform those who are still active on Misplaced Pages. It might not be the best way to determine who is an "important" editor or who does the most work, but it may show the users that care. And, as mentioned before, we cannot simply bring them over here and demand a simple "yes" or "no", but we will have to encourage them instead to think about solutions that will satisfy everyone. Prime Blue (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and that is an extremely useful tool. Thanks for the link.

-- Joren (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we definitely need more input than just the few opinions being expressed here, so far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As has been said, mere "include/do not include" opinions (with or without arguments to back them up) will not convince either side to change their point of view by 180° (or else the mediative comments would have succeeded by now). The previous discussion on the issue failed because not enough users involved collaborated on establishing consensus and instead insisted on their opinion. This time, we will have to find a satisfying compromise or this will go on forever.

I am currently compiling a list of users from the individual affected projects using the statistics tool and will uniformly invite them over in a few days to provide feedback on the first suggested compromise and, in case of disagreement, to provide additional suggestions for compromises.

To Ryūlóng: you already commented and did not agree with the first suggestion. Please give your reasons and an alternative compromise, so people have more options.

Lastly, this will probably be the final attempt at establishing consensus (if anyone has another idea, again leave a comment). If the new comments from the invited users cannot help decide a compromise, the matter might be best forwarded to the Arbitration Committee, as I feel we have taken every reasonable step before. Prime Blue (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the use of the tooltip. To me it feels a bit invasive, and all it does is put an underline. I've been reading that WP:VG thinks that adding the romaji for titles parsed in Katakana but can be directly translated into English (Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, Metal Gear, etc.) is redundant and they feel that they could use the space "taken up" by what they feel is redundant romaji for whatever other information they feel can be put in the lead paragraph/first line. Regardless, this is still in opposition to the practices of other projects that deal with Japanese text, and projects that deal with other non-Latin texts. The WikiProjects that cover Zeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) don't seem to have this issue, and on my computer the first line is entirely taken up by language-specific text. And before we move onto arbitration (which would probably be wholly unnecessary and just drag this out for another few months), the community at large could probably provide some input, as the WP:ENGLISH guideline is tied in with this as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I had hoped for more constructive criticism on my proposal. If your dislike of it is solely based on the missing explanation, I feel that this is sufficiently addressed in my reply to Joren below. If you still feel something has to be improved, leave a comment, and if you strongly object to it, give an alternate suggestion.
• It will probably be easier to explain why a compromise is needed by posing a question: Would you be ready to drop your point of view and exclude such romanizations in all cases? You will see that you are unable to answer this question with a simple yes. Just as much, the other party will be unable to answer the opposite question (replace "exclude" with "include") with a simple yes. And both parties have to respect each other's views on the issue, thus making both the extremes "include/exclude in all cases" not a viable solution.
• If someone of the exclude-party has a problem with the Zeus article, they can bring the issue to the attention of the project. We will continue with trying to achieve consensus on our issue here.
• If that last resort of inviting other users fails to be conclusive, I will have to admit that I'd much rather have the ArbCom take months and finally rule out a decision on what to do, than to see me back here in six months after being witness to plenty of edit warring, again wasting precious life time over mediating a discussion that, to be quite frank, (although the outcome will affect thousands of articles) is rather trivial to the overall goal of writing a good article.

Prime Blue (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not and should not be an Arbcom issue. They deal with editor misconduct, not disagreements on manual of style issues. The MOS must be the result of consensus, not something decided by a few people who mostly have no clue about the topic in question. At this point, I see no problem with some sort of compromise using the tooltip. If it can get rid of all this stupid posturing by some (not all) on both sides, it would be worth it. People digging in and refusing any sort of compromise is not acceptable. And compromise doesn't mean one or the other side "lost", either; rather it shows a willingness to work together to come to a solution which (while not necessarily optimal for either side) is workable and acceptable. While I prefer the {{nihongo}} template, I can see merit in using the tooltip version for extremely long titles. I think the {{nihongo}} tag is more effective for shorter titles, though. Perhaps we could come up with something incorporating both? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I am reading, they do not want to use the tooltip just for long titles, but rather for any titles they want to that they feel takes up space for what is being perceived as being redundant. Perhaps there could be some sort of hide/expand feature for long titles, but using it just so "Fainaru Fantajii" or "Suupaa Mario Gyarakushii" doesn't take up space in the first line seems unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryūlóng: It was Jinnai only who suggested to widen the use of the template to all Japanese text, but that was turned down pretty quickly by Megata Sanshiro and me, as that suggestion has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is also highly controversial to say the least (no one so far has suggested they have a problem with kanji pronunciations). And how to handle especially long foreign titles that could hinder the readability of an article is still the problem of individual projects – at least I think it should be kept separate unless we want to introduce even more trees. This also seems to be the first time where the exclusion is mentioned to be based on space issues and readability. The overall discussion is more about if the inclusion is redundant, or if the exclusion is a disservice, or if these are Japanese or English words, etc. etc.

Nihonjoe: It was just an idea if that last thing fails. I don't know if the ArbCom would even consider the case (given that this seems to be unprecedented), but their members sure suggest some...charming ways to ensure that consensus is built. For the rest, see my reply to Ryūlóng above.

I will notify the users in the list below in three days. That way, Ryūlóng has time to think of an alternate compromise if he still disagrees. Otherwise, I will invite them over to give feedback and improvements on the first suggested compromise, and to provide alternate ideas in case of disagreement. Prime Blue (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Was there any reason given that demonstrates why it is important to put the romaji in for English users? I am under the impression that having the original Japanese is already going too far (by having it in the lead), but the only reason I would hesitate about not having it there is just because of the scenario where other variants of a title are mentioned in various parts of the article and there is no good place to put the translations/originals. I don't see why the tooltip can't simply contain every title that isn't English (or the original English) unless it goes against policy, nor do I see why the romaji is there and being forced into our faces when we're not trying to learn how to read Japanese by phonetics. Frankly all I have been seeing is some guidelines being quoted and thrown back at everyone (along with forceful editing practices). - Odokee (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving pronunciations of kanji/hiragana that describe Japanese words or expressions is under no circumstances redundant. If you do not agree with the inclusion of foreign names on the English Misplaced Pages, you should bring it up on the appropriate talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those things were relevant to the issues brought up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odokee (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they addressed them directly, unless you meant something different and I didn't understand it. Prime Blue (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I invited them over, so at least the problem of too few user input is now solved. Prime Blue (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work trying to achieve consensus here and bring more users into the process. I'm sure this must be a time-consuming process.

-- Joren (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

List of users to notify

Okay, I am done with the list.

I picked users (whose last edits were pretty recent) with the most edits on project pages and randomly selected "important" articles. I don't want either side to accuse me of compiling this list in a biased way, so if you feel a project or "important" article was underrepresented, just add some users the tool gives you – as long as they are not added in a biased way.

I will inform those 80 users above with a uniform message in a few days. Prime Blue (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Added 2 more for anime and manga. The one major character article and One Piece (to round out something from the current 3 cash-cow titles). Except for one person, I think that is all the major members in that project.陣内_Jinnai 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you notified the non-existent User:Dinoguy. Perhaps you meant User:Dinoguy1000? Goodraise 11:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good raise. ;-) That was one of the users added by Jinnai. Guess he meant Dinoguy1000, so I notified him. Prime Blue (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A compromise?

Okay, I've got an...idea for a compromise that could satisfy both parties. Following up on Ost316's suggestion and my earlier mockups, we could actually have a new nihongo template created that employs tooltips for that specific issue. Bottom line, the idea is:

• Enforce employment of the following suggested template everywhere on the English Misplaced Pages, no exceptions for projects.
• It should be used in a few specific cases (for examples, see further down):

1. When the Japanese part of a nihongo template is all katakana and/or numbers and special characters pronounced as words of English origin, such as 2 ). Applies to titles, character names, etc.

2. When the Japanese (NOT the English) title in Roman letters was already given and the only difference in the Hepburn romanization is the pronunciation of katakana words and/or numbers and special characters pronounced as words of English origin.

• For these cases, this new template is created. Some name proposals are Template:Nihongo tip (I like that one best), Template:Engnihongo, Template:Romanihongo. Possibly also a second "Template:...title" version to complement Template:Nihongo title.
• The actual code for the template is exactly the same (save for the template call, of course) {{nihongotip|Name/title of something|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation (if needed)}}.
• But the result is different. Here's the actual examples for the two usage cases described above (this is what the new template code would produce). The numbers describe which of the two cases applies:

1a) Final Fantasy VI (ファイナルファンタジーVI)

1b) Jill Valentine (ジル・バレンタイン)

2a) Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island")

2b) Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon (美少女戦士セーラームーン, officially translated Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon)

• That way, we don't provide a disservice for the reader by deleting the actual pronunciation, while those opposing the inclusion of the pronunciation should not be disturbed by it anymore.

This is not the actual guideline, of course, but just a general explanation of the method. What do you think, ladies and gentlemen? I'm open to answering questions, so feel free to ask if something is unclear. Prime Blue (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the templates does not really help anything. Hiding romaji in a tooltip doesn't solve the issue when romaji should or should not be included.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to modify the templates, I'm suggesting to create a new one. And by now, after all these statements from both parties, it should be apparent that the problem can't be solved with a simple "include" or "do not include". You won't simply accept "do not include", just as the other party will not simply accept "include". If that is what you all are still arguing for, then this is a lost cause. Prime Blue (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Making a new template so the one project that does not like including something is not a compromise. It's still treating them as different when it comes to text that several other projects include.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest a compromise that will satisfy the editors from WP:VG? Prime Blue (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, because they want to remove anything that they feel is redundant from the first line, which would of course be any Japanese language text or romaji that resembles the English language name.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on, they haven't even answered yet. This seems like a tad biased. Prime Blue (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What's been done with the romaji then? If it's there but hidden I guess I'm fine with it, whether it's a footnote or whatever, anywhere but the first line. bridies (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

See the examples: The rōmaji appear when you hover the mouse over the Japanese text. Prime Blue (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I see now. For me it's an acceptable compromise. bridies (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I would want to have happen, if such a thing is possible. Then people can still read the article like a normal person would, instead of something comparable to what it'd be like if all the references weren't hidden into numbered superscript footnote links. Although, I still think it is silly to put all that stuff in when it's not English or even the original foreign name. - Odokee (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as they decide to step back a bit from it to meet a middle ground that satisfies both parties – which you proved to collaborate on. Prime Blue (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Two members of WP:VG have now shown to be open to compromises, so if you have another idea for a compromise, Ryulong, this is the best time for alternate suggestions. Prime Blue (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

it gets around problems of read problems (especially with long titles), footnotes just for the sake of title pronunciation, and is acceptable form of redundancy as its made much more clear with the romaji is for as it is linked to the rollover of the katakana.

I actually like the rollover better overall and would like to see it used even outside WP:VG as an option for any Japanese text instead of the traditional titles. The only problem I have is if this will work with extremely long titles in a readable fashion.

Test: School Rumble: 2nd Semester – Summer Training Camp (of fear?)!! Ghost's Appearing in the Western-styled Building!? Fighting Over the Treasure!!! 陣内_Jinnai 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, again, as I and Guyinblack said above, this discussion is about "the romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language", not just "the romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language in video game titles" or "the romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language in anime and manga titles" or anything else. There is no need to say "even outside WP:VG" as this was never about the WP:VG in particular. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How articles handle especially long titles is up to the individual projects – right here, we only decide a site-wide standard on how to handle the issue discussed above. Prime Blue (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was more about whether it could handle extremely long titles and ifso, how well.陣内_Jinnai 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's one way to find out...

-- Joren (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, a heads-up once more: It is the liability of everyone who does not agree to the present proposal to give alternate suggestions on an acceptable compromise for both parties – if they desire to be heard and take part, that is. If this finds support, members cannot just filibuster the discussion without participating in the consensus-building. Everyone is encouraged to have their own opinion and disagree, but state your reasons if you do, and most of all, help everyone to find an alternate satisfying solution. Prime Blue (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm still trying to make up my mind about this proposal. On the one hand, the tooltip isn't such a bad idea. Of course, I might be worried how it would work for mobile browsing/browsers with slim feature sets, but the concept isn't bad. However, I still have trouble with the fact that this solution, while it would indeed be applied across all projects, still breaks apart how we handle Japanese text by creating an exception for titles consisting entirely of katakana loan words. Well, maybe that's ok. But is lack of space in the lede really the only reason for not including Romaji? Seems like there were other important reasons why this got brought up...

One of the arguments raised against the inclusion of Romaji early in the discussion is that the average reader has no context in which to interpret Romaji. This is a valid criticism and also one we can address without breaking apart how we treat Japanese text - modify the question mark to point to a page that actually clues the reader in on what Romaji is. I suggested modifying Help:Japanese and using that, Ryulong pointed out that the page has a lot of things wrong with it. Ok, but can you help make it right? Nihonjoe made some proposed changes to Help:Installing Japanese character sets#Note; I also started a worksheet for modifying Help:Japanese. Could we perhaps put our heads together and come up with the best way possible to explain Romaji to the average reader? That would at least address what to me is the only real drawback of having Romaji.

Jinnai also raised a concern that to get articles up to Feature Article status, they might want the literal translation to go first. Anyone have some clarification on this issue? Is this something that could be remedied with a {{nihongoN+1}}?

If we were to address these issues, how would that be? At a bare minimum, we do need an informative, friendly help page for that question mark.

-- Joren (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• That is something that might be better off answered by those who oppose the inclusion of such romanizations. Personally, I just felt this new template was a good solution if both parties sticked to their point of view. One of the problems this discussion is plagued by is that the sub-arguments (even the good ones) brought up by one party to support their view are just not accepted by the other party ("people will only be convinced if they want to be"), thus creating a situation in which no one can see the wood for the trees.
• Partly answered to in the first point. Corollary: As mentioned below, I'm all for making the question mark link to a general explanation page on all-things nihongo. I think this is also the place where the underlined text in this potential new template should be explained: To me, it seems, people who will not know what text they are confronted with will naturally hover the mouse over the text and/or click on the question mark.
• The problem with using literal translations first is to find a factually accurate ("released as in Japan...") and/or verifiable ("known as in Japan...") wording to include them that way. I explained that in this edit over here (we're talking about official translations given independently from the work itself there, but the issue is identical to that with literal translations).

Prime Blue (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me: It keeps the romanji available for those who think it is necessary, while not uselessly showing it when it is redundant to the English text. It may be beneficial to do this for all romanji transliterations rather than just redundant instances, but I have no strong feelings either way on that issue and hope that wouldn't stand in the way of the compromise on redundant instances. Anomie⚔ 20:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Joren does raise a couple issues of importance. This would go against WP:Acess for having a tooltip usage, but it does seem to be the only item that has support on both sides.

The other, with literal translations, I think needs to be addressed by coming up with phrasing that doesn't make it sound like a literal translation was the version released.陣内_Jinnai 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:ACCESS prohibits use of tooltips for prose text. If it meant that tooltips should not be used at all, the template would not exist or be in use, I guess. And because I already see someone bringing it up: "Provide a transliteration for all text in a non-Latin writing system. Screen readers without Unicode support will read a character outside Latin-1 as a question mark, and even in the latest version of JAWS, the most popular screen reader, Unicode characters are very difficult to read." It again comes down to the redundancy/disservice issue both parties argue so much about. The one party thinks we already gave the text to be spoken by screen readers (first segment of the nihongo template), the other thinks a second (Hepburn romanization) pronunciation should be given. ...just to prevent all involved from wasting time and energy. Prime Blue (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think this is going to work. There have already been two discoveries of two guidelines that supercede both this one and WP:VG/GL that prohibit omission of romanizations (WP:ENGLISH) and prohibit the use of tooltips (WP:ACCESS). There is very likely not going to be an actual compromise that works with the higher guidelines.

The literal translation thing is another issue. In my opinion, it definitely would save room to write it as {{nihongo|literal/official translation/romanization (labeled as such through prose)|Japanese text|romaji}} rather than the current practice of {{nihongo|partially translated and romaji name|Japanese text|just romaji (if used at all)|literal translation}}. I doubt that the GA reviewer/FA reviewers will have an issue with the "Fainaru Fantajī Sebun" part of

Final Fantasy VII (ファイナルファンタジーVII, Fainaru Fantajī Sebun)

that would prevent it from being promoted to FA or cause it to be demoted from GA.

The only option I can think of would be rather than hiding it in a tooltip would be having an option to hide it similarly to navboxes, but I think that may still cause an issue when it comes to the screen readers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines don't prohibit anything. bridies (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are very good points. Ryulong appears to be correct; it seems we have already been superseded by these two guidelines. But as far as what we can do, would it be possible to agree on a standardized format for titles in the lede similar to what Ryulong is proposing? E.g. in accordance with the needs of the article, choose ONE OF the following for the first parameter: an official translation, a literal translation, or a romanization. (This gives editors the freedom to have the literal translation appear first) As normal, the second parameter is Japanese, the third parameter is Romaji. Finally, although left to editor's discretion, strongly discourage use of the nihongo template's extra tags in the lede paragraph, and move whatever info would go in the extra tags to a footnote instead. That could save a bundle of space, and I don't believe this will run afoul of either of those guidelines.

-- Joren (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put "official translation" or "English translation is literal" in the extra= parameter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:ACCESS comes down to the exact issue both parties have already discussed until the cows come home: "Why do we have to give a pronunciation a second time? Screen readers already read the first part of the nihongo template." "Because this is not a repeat of the earlier spelling." "But why would readers want to hear it a second time?" "It does not matter because WP:ACCESS prohibits the use of tooltips." "No you are wrong." "No you are wrong." "No, see this guideline here." "Irrelevant, see this guideline here.", and so on. You can all hang yourselves up on discussing WP:ACCESS, or you can work towards a common goal. To put it bluntly: If tooltips were prohibited in all cases, they would not be there. And if they are prohibited in this special case is another endless discussion. Prime Blue (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I hoped that this "long titles" and "official/non official titles" discussion would be held somewhere else as this has nothing to do with the original WP:MOSJA issue brought up here :( I'll just reply to the comment about WP:ACCESS and WP:ENGLISH:

• WP:ACCESS says: "Provide a transliteration for all text in a non-Latin writing system."
• WP:ENGLISH says: "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one"

I put the important parts in bold. The last sentence, in particular, states that the common English forms should be used when existent; in the case of ファイナルファンタジー, the common English form is Final Fantasy. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys...please...don't. :-( Prime Blue (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Megata Sanshiro: "Final Fantasy" is not the transliteration for "ファイナルファンタジー". That's a translation. So WP:ACCESS basically is telling us to use romaji. And like Prime Blue, I am getting tired of this. So this guideline does not need to be modified in any way. Rather WP:VG/GL should be brought in line with WP:ACCESS, WP:ENGLISH, and MOS:JA (which was my initial intention).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a transliteration (not to mention ファイナルファンタジー is itself a transliteration of Final Fantasy). WP:ACCESS is telling us to use one transliteration and WP:ENGLISH is telling us that "Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one". The systematically transliterated name is Fainaru Fantajī and the commong English form of this transliterated name is Final Fantasy. That is, WP:ACCESS and WP:ENGLISH do not tell us more than both sides had already been assuming or not assuming when this discussion started. We are at the same point as before WP:ACCESS and WP:ENGLISH were brought up. As for WP:MOSJA, it is precisely what is being discussed. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The part of WP:ENGLISH you are quoting is telling you not to use "Fainaru Fantajī" as the article title and not to omit "Fainaru Fantajī" from the text of any page. And stop mixing up what is a translation ("Final Fantasy") from what is a transliteration ("Fainaru Fantajī"). "ファイナルファンタジー" is not a transliteration of "Final Fantasy". It is a translation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical." You cannot deny that the Anglicization of "ファイナルファンタジー" is Final Fantasy. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and the transliteration of "ファイナルファンタジー" is "Fainaru Fantajī", which is not identical to the translation/anglicization "Final Fantasy".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So just because they don't use the same sounds within characters and thus create an approximation when spoken, this to you is a totally new word to address in the article, as if it magically turned important to the reader. That argument appears to be based on insanity. Your logic completely negates the reason for stating it to begin with, as a word would NEVER be identical. - Odokee (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find it redundant. The issue is that this is a written encyclopedia, and in the written language, "Final Fantasy", "ファイナルファンタジー", and "Fainaru Fantajī" are all unique. The first is the English name (official and literally translated), the second is the Japanese name, and the third is the transliteration of that Japanese name into a standarized method of romanizing Japanese text. To be blunt, deal with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And so we hit the crux of the issue. Is "Fainaru Fantajī" identical to "Final Fantasy", or not? I tend to say not, based both on the fact that the writing is different and so is the pronounciation. I understand there are reasons why others would say yes, because they are both based on the same word. For what it's worth, I'd also point out that I believe I recall seeing cases on Misplaced Pages where the Anglicization actually does match the Romaji letter for letter; in that case, of course it would be identical and therefore redundant to include it twice.

But... if we could set this neverending merry-go-round aside for a second, are there other ways we can bridge this gap? For example, are there ways we can make it take less space? Can we make the template more helpful? Can we have guidance encouraging users to use footnotes for certain info in the lede (e.g. specify translation source in a footnote instead of parens)? I've been trying to suggest ideas that would appeal to both sides but apparently my ideas aren't very helpful :) so if you have better ideas about how we can improve this situation, please advise.

-- Joren (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

About that first paragraph..... the thing is, people like Ryulong are behaving fanatical to the point where it still won't be identical, no matter what anyone says. There will always be something insignificant, like an O with a line on top of it, that will preclude it from being considered the same in their minds. - Odokee (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGLISH, aside from being (like other guidelines) "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" is littered with "should" this and "generally" that, which implies there will be exceptions. This guideline was not written up with something like "Sūpā Mario Āru Pī Jī" in mind. I also agree with what I think Prime Blue said in that we are not at all precluded from using a tooltip to hide otherwise redundant parenthesis if we can get consensus to make an exception. Nevertheless I am just about fine with the use of a footnote, as long as we do not keep these useless transliterations in the lead. As I see it we already have consensus not to include these romanisations, and this is more than generous a concession as ought to be made. bridies (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A majority is not a consensus. And while you may find "Sūpā Mario Āru Pī Jī" redundant, not every editor does. Omitting it is pointless. And it is important to use the Japanese pronunciations of the English letters because in some instances they are not read the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A large majority does not automatically equate to consensus, no, but it is still very much significant. bridies (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

There's still no consensus to omit romaji, especially when it now is against at least two other guidelines in addition to this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, and repeating the same impotent arguments about following guidelines for the sake of it isn't going to get you anywhere. You also seem to be labouring under the delusion that your agreement is actually needed for there to be a consensus. It is plain that the romaji will not be included "as is" in the lead as you wish. If you want to refuse the compromise, fine, but the only point you have which is too subjective to be proved wrong outright is "this is useful information and should not be removed" and if it comes down to it I'd wager a sizeable majority thinking otherwise will be enough to render that invalid too. bridies (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also baffled as to why you can argue that numbers don't count for anything while simultaneously insisting that we get more editors to the page, especially when they're probably not going to say anything that hasn't already been said. Suppose a load of editors turn up and agree with you, will you then cite not-a-democracy against your own position? bridies (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As said above, WP:ENGLISH is littered with "should generally", especially in the sentence quoted above, so it is incorrect to say that it is in contradiction with the proposed solutions; it simply is not conclusive. As for WP:ACCESS, it prevents using tooltips to provide information, and the whole point of the current discussion is/was to determine whether transliteration of English loanwords IS "information" (or a redundant text, or an alternative text for screen readers with no Unicode support, etc.). Besides, and again, an English loanword in Japanese is already a transliteration of an English word; ファイナルファンタジー is a transliteration of Final Fantasy. Also you keep branding the "not every editor does" card but apart from Nihonjoe I don't see anyone on your side of the arguments. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Bridies: I keep requesting input from other people because everyone here but Nihonjoe and I are editors of WP:VG who already have a preference for their own guideline. Getting editors from other aspects of the project who deal with Japanese text will get other opinions other than the ones constantly being stated on this page. I'm tired of seeing the same people (myself included) say the same shit over and over again to try and prove a point.

@Megata Sanshiro: Fine. "ファイナルファンタジー" is a transliteration of "Final Fantasy". But how is "Fainaru Fantajī", the phonetic transcription/transliteration/whatever of the Japanese text, not valid information that would preclude it from being used on the page and instead being shunted into a tooltip, a function barely used on the project as it stands?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I and others have already proved why this argument about Wikiprojects is garbage, time and time again. If you're sick of "seeing the same people say the same shit", maybe you shouldn't categorically ignore arguments you can't answer. Even if other editors did turn up, and those editors agreed with you, what then? It won't be enough for you to include the romaji by your own argument, and you don't seem willing to accept a compromise whereby the romaji is hidden. bridies (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to see more opinions rather than being beaten over the head with the "romaji is useless" arguments from the VG people. I'm not ignoring anything. I just have not seen any sort of amazing new idea or opinion being expressed here, other than exasperation towards me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"everyone here but Nihonjoe and I are editors of WP:VG who already have a preference for their own guideline"

Assuming bad faith now? Editors of WP:VG could also claim that you "already have a preference for own guideline". Notice how they didn't. Why? Because they assume good faith, unlike you. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming any sort of bad faith here. I am merely stating my opinion that the WP:VG editors have had their say on their guideline, and Nihonjoe and I have had our say on this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. First of all thank you for the message on my talk page, I have a strong opinion on the matter. I understand the reasons for the opinions expressed against including romaji for loan words as I have spent an hour having a thorough read of this entire talk page. I would like to describe why I would like to continue to see romaji being included for loan words as the WP:JAPAN guideline in its current version supports. It's a matter of context. I don't think I have seen anyone give a reason why a reader would need such information but such a reason exists - for I use this information several times every week.

A few people have stated words to the effect that the romaji is redundant or even trivial. Why would such information be needed in such an important position in the article? Well the first reason is external to the article. References. If a game (or anime in my case) was created in Japan then one would expect to find the official Japanese site in the external links and one could expect one or several references to be to a Japanese website. I frequent such sites and you will come across the romanji on these sites, sometimes even mixed in with English though sadly I don't have an example. Also, sometimes the romanji will be in a url or an image name. Let's assume that there exists a person who does not have any idea that romaji is. Would the romaji confuse such a person to believe that it is unrelated to the article if it was not explicitly stated on that wikipedia page? For example, a person searches google images, comes across Fainaru_Fantajī.jpg and does not make the connection that it is Final Fantasy.

I personally copy and paste the romaji from wikipedia articles for such image searches (and also copy romaji from other sites to search on wikipedia, so the reverse applies). It is easily identifiable where it currently resides, next to the kanji which I also use to search in the same way. There should be others that do the same. I'm sure someone will argue that the romaji could be displayed elsewhere such as in an infobox as the romaji is impossible to copy-paste in a mouseover tooltip.

I hope that this different point of view affects the thinking in how this information should be displayed. The romanji isn't soley there for pronounciation or completeness. It may clarify references in the article or confirm the link between information external to wikipedia to that material. Finally, it can and is used as a tool to gather further information such as when I perform my image search engine requests. For it to be hidden or moved would be an oversight in my view.--Squilibob (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Facilitating google image searches really isn't Misplaced Pages's job, and it is a massive, massive stretch to propose that someone isn't going to be able to tell Final Fantasy from Fainaru Fantaji. bridies (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in a way, facilitating searches is one of the missions here. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a springboard from which someone can do research on a topic (we constantly tell people doing research to do that rather than use Misplaced Pages as their source), and including the romaji in addition to the original Japanese and the English helps in that regard. Additionally, it' really is a stretch to assume that someone is going to be able to tell that Fainaru Fantaji is the same thing as "Final Fantasy" as they don't even look the same. Yes, it's simple and obvious to people like you and me who are familiar with Japanese pronunciation and know how an English word would be changed to Japanese pronunciation, but to the vast majority of people out there, the connection will not be made. Those people are the main main audience of Misplaced Pages. We should be making the article useful to them, not to us. Therefore, including someplace in the article the full romanization as well as the full original Japanese title, in addition the English title, is important, and it should be included in such a way as to make it require very little work on their part to determine that all three are just different ways of writing the same title. This is why tooltips are less than ideal, and why including them as a footnote is even less ideal than tooltips. Yes, longer titles are an issue, but most titles are not that long. I think exceptions can be made for exceptionally long titles, but for the majority of titles, including the Japanese and romaji is not going to be a huge burden and is not going to take up an inordinate amount of space. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, the addition actually does more harm than good. Most people won't know what the heck it is, and if nothing else it will cause the reader to stop understanding what he is looking at and then he has to force himself to forget what he just saw to move on. Because of this, your argument is reversed in that only to people like "us" will these additions make any sense. The original Japanese is fairly obvious, and it has that question mark thing to provide further clues, but the romaji is just sitting there, like some ignorant editor didn't know what to do and just wrote it down in the wrong spot. The template doesn't make any differentiation as to what you are looking at and the text just starts right from where the Japanese words left off. If anything, a tooltip or maybe even a footnote would be much more obvious as to what is going on. - Odokee (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Odokee, how does the addition of romaji cause harm? And how is the original Japanese "fairly obvious"? Not everyone knows how to read Japanese, so omitting a(n alternate) method by which to read Japanese does more harm than good. And the template makes plenty of differentiation you have

English (日本語, rōmaji, Miscellany) Miscellany

. The only way the template does not differentiate is that it does not label the Japanese texts as "Japanese" and the romanized texts as "Rōmaji" or "Hepburn".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much just explained this and you are asking a question in reference to the part where I just explained it. I'm going to assume that this is one of your cheap tactics to feign ignorance and continue an argument over a matter that has been previously discussed. - Odokee (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us would prefer that you assume something better instead. This is a big discussion and it's easy to lose track and/or misunderstand what others may have said. From what I understand, the "harm" comes in the form of using more space in the lede and possible confusion of what the Romaji means. Are there other areas of potential harm which I'm not aware of? Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the problem secondly named issue bleeds into, which Ryulong even seems to note, of how the romaji can further confuse people by not being differentiated at all in the space provided for it. I don't see any reason at all why everything is CSV but the romaji right next to the original Japanese. That is partly why I suggest tooltips/footnotes would be better, because then there would be indication of something happening there that isn't being indicated currently. - Odokee (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To Squilibob: I totally agree with you and Nihonjoe on copying and pasting kanji/kana from Misplaced Pages articles to Google, as I do that very frequently. But I'll have to admit I did not understand when you use the Hepburn romanization for searches. Using Google with "Final Fantasy" and "ファイナルファンタジー" sounds totally reasonable as that's where the results are at, but using "Fainaru Fantajī"? And for the reverse example, the point with Fainaru_Fantajī.jpg: Articles with Hepburn romanizations in tooltips still turn up if you use the search, for example see a "Chirāmii" search. The references case with the Hepburn romanization on Japanese sites you will have to elaborate on, as I did not grasp that one at all. :/ Prime Blue (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To Odokee: Tooltips or not, everyone who does not know what they are confronted with will click the small question mark () in the template, and once we did this here, there will be no more understandability issues. Prime Blue (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are proposed changes, then fine, fight for it and hopefully improve something. But... if the discussions at hand are about the current system, then they don't make any sense. Some people still don't seem to think anything is wrong. And if you mean a little, extra explanation in a linked article, then no I don't think that does much of anything. - Odokee (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following compromise:

• Format: English (日本語, rōmaji, Miscellany)
• Example: Jill Valentine (ジル・バレンタイン, Jiru Barentain)

This way the Japanese text is both accessible and not intrusive thanks to <small> </small> tags around the romaji. Additionally, there should be a comma between the kana and the romaji. (Apparently people chose to omit the comma because "it's ugly", which is a very weak argument IMO. WP:MOSJA shouldn't be in contradiction with basic grammar rules.) Thoughts? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Official and literal translations in the first segment of the nihongo template?

Moved this down as it is a separate issue. The new endless discussion in the compromise section is already more than enough. Prime Blue (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And as for putting independent official translations or literal translations first: As Jinnai said, you have to find a way to keep the sentence both factually accurate and/or verifiable. But I don't think there is a way to make it sound natural.

• Sailor Moon, Japanese title officially translated to Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon (美少女戦士セーラームーン, Bishōjo Senshi Sērā Mūn), Prime Blue (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King, Japanese title literally translated to The Little King and the Promised Kingdom: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles (小さな王様と約束の国 ファイナルファンタジー・クリスタルクロニクル, Chiisana Ōsama to Yakusoku no Kuni: Fainaru Fantajī Kurisutaru Kuronikuru),

I'll voice an honest "ew" there. First and foremost, we give foreign titles not commonly known in English-speaking countries, their translations are to be provided additionally if need be. Prime Blue (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have something like:

• Sailor Moon, also known as Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon (美少女戦士セーラームーン, Bishōjo Senshi Sērā Mūn)

or with more clarity...

• Sailor Moon, also known as Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon (美少女戦士セーラームーン, Bishōjo Senshi Sērā Mūn)

or if we insist on having phrasing...

• Sailor Moon, also known as Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon, officially translated as (美少女戦士セーラームーン, Bishōjo Senshi Sērā Mūn)
• Sailor Moon, officially translated as Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon (美少女戦士セーラームーン, Bishōjo Senshi Sērā Mūn)

It seems usable to me. If there are ways we could make it more natural...? (I'm just trying to think of ways we can save space that don't require hiding/omitting the Romaji to try and arrive at a compromise.)

-- Joren (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that to English speakers, works are not known by their translated foreign title in the overwhelming majority of cases (Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon being one of the few ambiguous ones). Take, for example:

• Castlevania, also known as Devil's Castle Dracula (悪魔城ドラキュラ, Akumajō Dorakyura), is a

People will say "Huh? Never heard that one around here." The descriptive wording "in Japan" will have to be added to identify where it came from, otherwise giving the foreign title itself is useless. And by adding "in Japan", we create a contradiction as it is not known by this English title in Japan. For literal translations, it's even more problematic:

• The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, also known as The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu Yume o Miru Shima), is an

Italics for literal translations are highly problematic as these were never identified as the "right" work titles. On WP:VG, for example, people use quotation marks to signify a translation is not official, thus making it this going that route:

• The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, also known as "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island" (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu Yume o Miru Shima), is an

Oy.

If this is just about saving space, one could also drop the foreign title with official anglicizations (e.g. Zelda no Densetsu), thus making it:

• Sailor Moon, known as Bishōjo Senshi Sērā Mūn (美少女戦士セーラームーン, officially translated Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon) in Japan, is a
• The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, known as Zeruda no Densetsu Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island") in Japan, is an

But it would not get around numbered titles like Baten Kaitos II (though there, the pronunciation does not even seem to be known). Prime Blue (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My proposals were mainly aimed at the earlier objection that in some instances, it is preferred to have the literal translation appear first. I'm not actually a proponent of that system, but I wanted to come up with some ways to save space. I'm still not even sure why it's such a big deal, but then I'm not really familiar with the FA process either.

-- Joren (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is because the English wikipedia's aim to serve English-speaking people who a vast majority do not know every language they will come across in Misplaced Pages and that those people want English to always go first because everyone should be able to understand the English wording without their eyes glazing over. WP:FLC is in a similar boat, but they're a wee bit more lenient, but most of them also want literal English in tables and the like and actual names listed in the prose for reasons already listed. Neither of them seem to think the original text should (as a rule) should go first.

That's why I think finding some way to phrase items that won't cause conflicts and lead to angry wikipedian feature article/list nominators should be devised.陣内_Jinnai 21:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Revised nihongo templates

Broke this reply to Megata Sanshiro off as it does not directly address the RfC's topic. Prime Blue (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: point 2, the utility of non-Hepburn romanizations has been extensively discussed in the past, and the current consensus is that they are not necessary: they add no information, and (unlike the various flavors of China) there are no political dimensions that require pinyin/Tongyong/Wade-Giles/etc. For this same reason, tagging every single Japanese romanization with "romanization", much less "Hepburn romanization" is also unnecessary. Jpatokal (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My main problem with the second point is, ironically, the same problem many of the VG-ers had with including Romaji for loanwords - it takes too much real estate. Having the labels Japanese: Romanization: etc. takes up space and makes it take longer to read the same content. As a general rule, I believe templates should draw as little attention to themselves and take up as little space as possible. That said, templates should also (unobtrusively) provide guidance where needed. To that end, I would suggest that the question mark in the Nihongo templates link to a page that not only teaches the user how to install character support (as the current link does), but also very clearly explains that the first reading is Japanese, the second one is Romaji, and here's what it means. It seems pretty natural for a user to assume that clicking q question mark is going to lead to an explanation of what it means. The present question mark, while helpful in its own capacity, does not do this.

-- Joren (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How about what I've added at Help:Installing Japanese character sets#Note? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start! My first impressions are that we might need to slim it down a bit and make it user-friendly, but either way it is good to have. I wonder if we could craft a sort of landing page, which would branch off into other links? First, have a brief explanation of what English (Kanji Romaji) is. We could then say "For more information on how to use the Nihongo templates, see Template:Nihongo/doc." and then have something like "あ should look similar to . If you see a box or a question mark instead, please see Help:Installing Japanese character sets." Then we could link to something like what Help:Japanese has for a brief pronounciation guide. For that matter, I notice there aren't very many things that link to Help:Japanese. Could we make that the landing page? But anyway, what we have now is helpful, thank you for taking the time to put it together.

-- Joren (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Following this train of thought, I threw something together: User:Joren/Help:Japanese. This would be intended as an augmentation of the existing Help:Japanese with the intention of making it the landing page for users that click on the question mark in the nihongo templates. It is severely lacking polish, but feel free to use/not use anything you want.

-- Joren (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - anyone is free to edit this page. Also, I'm not the author of most of its content; it is essentially Help:Japanese with a couple new sections at the top. I didn't want to experiment on Help:Japanese directly, so that's why I made a subpage. Feel free to improve it and if we like it, perhaps we can use it to replace Help:Japanese.

-- Joren (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility might be to make it up to the editor whether or not to specify the language or romanization. This could be done with optional parameters, or the user could simply add a note to the text being passed to the template. It is true that since this very MOS specifies which romanization to use, and since there aren't competing sets of kanji like there are in Chinese (traditional/simplified, etc), there generally isn't much ambiguity what language is being used in Japan-related articles. However, there are some situations that are ambiguous; e.g. if Beijing were to include the Japanese reading of 北京(ぺきん), then it would be necessary to specify the language (but not the romanization). Or in an article comparing systems of romanization in use for street signs in Japan, etc, it would be necessary to specify the romanization (but not the language). Of course, there's nothing that would prevent the editor from clarifying the language or romanization in use outside of the template, too, but at least we could make it look pretty as an optional parameter.

-- Joren (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the question mark in the nihongo templates should lead to a page that, first and foremost, explains the Japanese characters – with some installation instructions further down. Prime Blue (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain why romanization used for pronunciation instead of IPA—and maybe include it on the help page. I can probably better guess pronunciation from romanization than IPA, but I thought the assumption was that IPA was most useful for pronunciation on Misplaced Pages. I'd also like to propose my suggestion from WP:VG/GL; I think that it would improve readability if something like tooltips were used such as ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島.—Ost (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because romanization is merely easier to write and convey than the International Phonetic Alphabet when it comes to languages that don't use a Roman alphabet. Greek, Russian, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese all have standardized systems for romanization, which are based on phonetic pronunciation anyway. Also, I'm not even sure where tooltips are used.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're used in the list that I identified above, but I think I came up with the idea independently. I'm unsure where else tooltips are used, but I don't think lack of use is reason not to use them unless they are not used for a reason. There may be accessibility or other issues that I am unaware of, but I find it much less obtrusive to see a name and hover to get the translation if I want it. It's just a suggestion and one of my preferred methods, but perhaps both my thoughts would be better meant for dealing with all foreign languages. I just find it frustrating that wikipedia not only wants me to learn IPA, but also romanizations for different languages. And for Hepburn, I also apparently have to know how vowels are pronounced in Spanish. Though I'm occasionally weighing in on style and accept that others have more experience in this than me, I'm still trying to understand the need for unofficial romanization to an average English reader. —Ost (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand what you meant. So, basically, that would mean that the nihongo template is modified so the rōmaji shows up on hovering the mouse over the kanji and kana. It would basically look like this (note that these are mockups and not actual test templates):

• Zelda no Densetsu (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island")

Or with translations included in the tip:

• Zelda no Densetsu (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島,)

I kind of like that first one for work titles, but the issue still won't go away for very long (or multiple) titles like Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord that span several lines. And I absolutely hate how it would cause more "work" for readers in articles like Mount Fuji (having to mouse-over to see Fuji-san). That of course would not apply if a separate template is created solely for work titles. Prime Blue (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Ost316: There is no such thing as an "unofficial romanization". It is the romanization, and not an unofficial Anglicization. Hepburn romanization is a standardized method for transliterating Japanese, just like Pinyin is a standardized method for Mandarin Chinese and McCune–Reischauer is a standardized method for Korean. All are based on phonetic pronunciations, and it's better to defer to these and then to IPA (katakana, hiragana, and hangul all include the IPA pronunciations). And the tooltip thing really has no use outside of saving space when it comes to tables. The Oracle of... games page has the best solution for dealing with unwieldy titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my use of official, but I was using at was used in the above section essentially as a synonym for trademark, not as any slur against any other romanization. I also understand that you do not think there is much use for the tooltips, but I think that they are helpful if they improve readability by saving space while retaining information. But that's why I said that this was likely a broader issue than this venue since it would likely be an issue with all romanizations. Thank you and Prime for your explanations and weighing in. I don't expect an encyclopedia to explain how to pronounce a foreign word when encountered, but I can really only speak from my own perspective. I would guess that there are other readers like me that tend to skip over most unfamiliar foreign text and pronunciation to find the translation, but I understand that if they are useful and conventionally provided. —Ost (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Evening. I am no expert but I believe there is more than one romanji system, so as I see it even the Japanese can't always agree on these issues. My pennyworth is: include romanji if you wish, it can`t hurt.andycjp (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is more than one, but not on Misplaced Pages. We use revised Hepburn, as stated in the WP:MOS-JA. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another section

Well, I've been invited to this discussion. Since this discussion is an absolute cluster to the point where I've no idea where to put this, I'm starting a new section. I have several reasons why this is a bad, bad idea:

• Loanwords do not work that way. A word borrowed from Language X into Language Y is not a word in Language X. It is a word in Language Y of Language X origin.
  • Dictionaries will back this up. For example, both fainaru and fantajī are in Japanese dictionaries.
  • English itself has several loanwords. Anybody with half a brain considers them English words. Hell, the fourth word of this post, invited, is a loanword from Latin (from inuitaui, IIRC). It is not a Latin word. It is an English word of Latin origin.
  • Hell, English has several loanwords from Japanese itself. The English word "Tokyo" is not the Japanese word Tōkyō; it's just that the former was borrowed from the latter.
• Japanese loanwords contain several doublets that should be treated as separate words. For example, the word for "energy" was borrowed twice, as enājī from English and as enerugī from German Energie. The word for "sabre" was also borrowed twice, as seibā from English and as sāberu from Dutch sabel.
• Many loanwords that appear to be from English at first are actually borrowed from other Germanic languages. Aside from enerugī and sāberu above, we also have tēma for "theme" (from German Thema, not the English) among others. A scheme like the one proposed will confuse people who don't know the etymology of Japanese loanwords.
• While most loanwords attempt to approximate the original pronunciation within the rules of Japanese phonotactics, others deviate from normal expected pronunciation. For example, I've seen "decade" borrowed as dikeido rather than the expected dekeido. Anglophones who cannot read katakana cannot be expected to know when the pronunciation deviates from a simple conversion to Japanese phonotactics.
  • Loanwords in all languages drift in pronunciation all the time. For example, pick any English loanword from Latin: no way in hell is the original Latin pronounced anything like the English loanword.
• Also how do you mix native words and loanwords under this scheme? What, will you only transliterate half of titles like 美少女戦士セーラームーン? Will we see garbage like Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon (美少女戦士セーラームーン, Bishōjo Senshi)? That's just absurd.

Please excuse the lack of actual kana in my post--I've yet to install SCIM on the machine I'm typing from, and I'd rather not spend ages copying and pasting from a kana table. jgpTC 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I already feared that people joining in would feel the need to justify include/exclude comments, so I'll try to explain the purpose of the invitation better: It is a given that such romanizations will be included, we are just trying to determine how to do it to be okay with those who feel they should not be included. One possible compromise was suggested (on which feedback is appreciated), other compromises are being looked for. Also, thank you for coming over! Prime Blue (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the rollover idea, it makes it too difficult to copy and paste. Nobody wants to have to hit the edit button just to copy text. I wonder if Misplaced Pages syntax supports something like the hottip functionality at TV Tropes, where you click on a * (or any other symbol of the editor's choice), and it displays the full text inline (and you can click the * again to re-collapse the text). jgpTC 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See my answer here. Is there a specific case in which tooltips could be discouraged because the Hepburn romanization would have to be copied and pasted? The collapsible thing was also raised above, it sounds like a good alternative to me. Prime Blue (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And about that; considering both the possible clutter involved and typical readability by English visitors, would it be shrewd to just put all translations into the tooltip/collapse location? Especially for long titles, this solves many problems and keeps things simple for English readers that just don't give a crap about what words translate into. Also imagine it as a footnote: a hypothetical section called "Not English" beneath the references, where we can see lists of variants of the original word from a foreign language, instead of forcing it all into often barely intelligible prose.

1. reference here
2. Official translation taken from blah blah blah
3. Official translation taken from blah blah blah
4. Official translation taken from blah blah blah
5. Official translation taken from blah blah blah
6. Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd. (23 October 2007). Castlevania: The Dracula X Chronicles (PlayStation Portable). Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. Japanese: 悪魔城の城主、邪心の神、ドラキュラ伯爵の復活であった。 Konami translation by Ken Ogasawara: Dracula, lord of darkness, master of the devil's castle, walks among us.

• Project-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment