Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/March 2009

An editor has placed succession boxes at the bottom of the articles on the Tokugawa shoguns (see e.g. Tokugawa Ieyasu). These use templates I'm not familiar with, including {{S-hou}}. That one, or another one, displays the text "Regnal dates." I looked up "regnal" in Merriam-Webster's online version, and it says the word is specific to monarchs and their reigns. Since shoguns were not monarchs, I wonder if anyone has a more appropriate template, together with the knowledge of how to incorporate it into the templates inside templates in these succession boxes. Alternatively, since the articles have information boxes at the top, listing predecessor and successor, do we want these succession boxes at all? Fg2 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer to use Template:Succession box. It's simpler and cleaner, and you can put whatever titles you want in it, rather than having it preset to "regnal dates" or anything else inapplicable. As for it being redundant or repetitive with the infoboxes at the top... I personally like this particular template; I like the way it looks at the bottom, pointing clearly left and right for predecessor and successor like a section of a timeline. I like that you can use it for multiple titles at once (for example, many modern officials have a stack of boxes showing their predecessor and successor as Prime Minister, as Foreign Minister, as Diet representative from X District... Many daimyo have multiple succession boxes representing their position as daimyo of X domain and as head of Y family/clan). LordAmeth (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps articles like Ashikaga shogunate, Muromachi period and Ashikaga Takauji et al. provide useful models for handling the Tokugawa shogunate, Edo period and Tokugawa Ieyasu et al.:

• 1. Template:Succession box ("Muromachi shogun" succession box) and
• 2. Template:Ashikaga dynasty (Japan) and
• 3. Template:Ashikaga chronology (Japan)

This combination of a conventional succession box with navagation templates has also proved useful with Emperor of Japan, List of Emperors of Japan and Emperor Nintoku et al.:

• 1. Template:Succession box ("Legendary Emperor of Japan" succession box) and
• 2. Template:Emperor Nintoku (Japan) and
• 3. Template:Monarchs of Japan

Compare Kamakura shogunate and Minamoto no Yoritomo, which have only succession boxes and no optional navigation templates. In due course, I would have envisaged:

• 1. Template:Succession box ("Kamakura shogun" succession box) and
• 2. Template:Minamoto/Hōjō dynasty? Template:Kamakura shogunate dynasty?
• 3. Template:Minamoto/Hōjō chronology? Template:Kamakura shogunate chronology??

In this context, I note that there are other useful navation templates currently in use on three of the Tokugawa-related pages:

• Tokugawa shogunate, Edo period and Tokugawa Yoshinobu incorporate
  • Template:Tokugawa Organization Chart and
  • Template:Tokugawa officials
• Tokugawa Ieyasu includes
  • Template:People of the Sengoku period

In my view, this strategy of deliberate redundancies has proven workable. It is plausibly helpful because of variations in visual learning and comprehension styles. The comments of Fg2 and LordAmeth create a timely opportunity to review these corollary sets of articles from an overview perspective. --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, a minor quibble perhaps, but I'm not really a fan of how the succession boxes on Tokugawa Ieyasu and Ashikaga Takauji specify the period that came before (Sengoku Period and Kemmu Restoration respectively). Neither the Sengoku period nor the Kemmu Restoration were people, let alone shoguns, and so I would argue against their inclusion as "predecessor" in these succession boxes. Notice how the succession boxes at the bottom of George Washington don't provide "colonial period" or any other such link as Washington's predecessor either as US President nor as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. Ito Hirobumi's succession box, likewise, does not provide Edo period or Roju or anything of the sort as his predecessor as Prime Minister of Japan, and rightfully so, since he was the first; neither the Edo period nor the Roju were ever "Prime Minister". LordAmeth (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quibble resolved: Sengoku period and Kemmu Restoration are deleted. --Tenmei (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Potentially useful Tokugawa "navagation" templates (modeled after the Ashikaga corollaries) are an arguably worthwhile:

• 1. Template:Succession box ("Tokugawa shogun" succession box)?
• 2. Template:Tokugawa dynasty (Japan)? -- under construction
• 3. Template:Tokugawa chronology (Japan)? -- under construction

Format alternatives are roughly parsed at Template talk:Tokugawa chronology (Japan).

Responding explicitly to Fg2's question at the top of this thread: As a matter of personal preference, I would rather see a plain succession box. For me, it would be better if this "regnal" option were reverted. It is redundant, but not in an arguably helpful way. I would restore the pared-down succession boxes which were previously posted. Similarly, I would actively resist using "enhanced" regnal option for Ashikaga shoguns and Kamakura shoguns. For me, the info box at the top of the page is offers a better graphic or visual analytics tool.

I note that this regnal succession box format has not yet metastasized beyond Emperor Komei in the List of Emperors of Japan. In these articles, as well, the info box at the top of the page seems better strategy. --Tenmei (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is only my opinion, but to treat the office of Shogun-particularly in the case of the Tokugawas-as a purely political role seems a bit of a simplification. The Tokugawas were of royal blood as they were a branch of the Minamoto dynasty and they were the first to make the office of Shogun truly hereditary (although it had been hereditary in the past). In effect, during the Edo era Japan possessed two ruling dynasties-that of the Imperial House of Yamato and that of the Tokugawas. At the beginning of the Edo era, Tokugawa Ieyasu made it explicitely clear that the Shogun would be concerned with earthly matters, especially governing the land in the Emperor's name, while the Emperor would be relegated to a spiritual role. Over time, the shoguns stopped consulting the Emperor and did what they pleased. They puppeted the Emperor and his court and kept Nippon in their grasp for over two centuries. When Nippon was opened to foreigners, they signed their treaties with the Bakufu, not with the Emperor. In my opinion, this is not mere governance, it is rule. Therefore, I replaced the plain boxes with regnal boxes. However, I am willing to accept suggestions. --Aumnamahashiva (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, the issue isn't really about whether or not the shoguns should be considered "regnal." It's not about their role in history, but is rather a practical matter of the fact that the basic succession boxes are simpler, cleaner, and more widely usable (and thus more capable of being standardized across different roles, so that shoguns and prime ministers and daimyo etc etc can have the same boxes). On a practical basis, outside of the argument of whether or not the Tokugawa were royalty (they weren't), what is gained by using regnal succession boxes? Is there a practical reason that you believe these boxes to be better tools than the basic ones?

In any case, the Tokugawa connection to the Imperial line via the Minamoto heritage was a longshot at best. While this connection was claimed in order to help boost the image of legitimacy of Tokugawa rule, and while the shoguns did sometimes use the title "Great Prince" (大君, taikun), they never claimed titles such as King or Emperor. They are not considered by any major historian today to have been royalty, and are never described or named as such except in centuries-old primary source documents which confused them for being King or Emperor. (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

LordAmeth -- I just want to situate your last paragraph in a context of the Foreign relations of Imperial China. In 1433 (Eikyō 5, 6th month), the Emperor of China addressed a letter to Shogun Yoshinori in which the Chinese presume that the head of the Ashikaga shogunate is effectively the "king of Japan."<:ref>Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, p. 335.</ref> --Tenmei (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Propsosal: I suggest restoring the older, plainer succession box format; but first I want to acknowledge that the edit made by Aumnamahashiva was not "wrong" per se. Indeed, I'm confident that everyone appreciates the good intentions which are made clear in the comments posted above.
Fg2, LordAmeth and Aumnamahashiva: This is my argument in favor of this proposed resolution: I can't distinguish between (a) mere personal preference, and (b) an arguably persuasive impression that the regnal boxes are unhelpful. I don't know how to resolve this issue when it's parsed in this manner. However, I can address the substance of the term "regnal." I don't have to rely on my judgment to know that the Tokugawas are not royals -- despite impressions which may have been formed in Beijing, Lisbon, Madrid or Rome. This is because:

• 1. In Japan, the essential nature of Imperial legitimacy was resolved in the Nanboku-chō period. Without possession of the Imperial Regalia of Japan, the Tokugawa's fall outside the category necessary for royalty to have meaning in a Japanese context. In Jinnō Shōtōki, Kitabatake argued that possessing the Imperial Regalia of Japan is an absolute and indispensable condition for being recognized as a Japanese monarch.<:ref>Brownlee, John S. (1991). Political Thought in Japanese Historical Writing: From Kojiki (712) to Tokushi Yoron (1712), pp. 108-109.</ref>
• 2. The emperors alone control time (see "regnal year" in context of Template:Chronology) -- they are the ones who proclaim the beginning and end of the unique eras (Nengōs) by which the flow of time is historically parsed in Edo period Japan. For all their temporal powers, the Tokugawa shoguns were sometimes known to regret that this power to define time periods remained outside their control.<:ref>van Schendel, Willem. (2001). Time Matters: Global and Local Time in Asian Societies, p. 80; Fiévé, Nicholas. (2003). Japanese Capitals in Historical Perspective, p. 236.</ref>

For these two reasons, I would argue that the regnal boxes are inappropriate for shoguns in the Japanese context -- wrong for the Tokugawa, for the Ashikaga, and for their counterparts in the Kamakura shogunate. --Tenmei (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I invited plausibly relevant observations or comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns. --Tenmei (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No comment could be construed to mean not much interest in this topic? --Tenmei (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This this thread will soon be archived; and participation was too small to be called consensus. Boldly, I will take it on myself to take two further steps:

FIRST -- I'll post an explanation and a link to this thread on each of the Tokugawa shogun talk pages; and

SECOND -- I'll revert the regnal succession boxes.

No doubt we will be revisiting this again in the future? I suppose now would be the time to post any objections, reservations, suggestions, comments, etc.? --Tenmei (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I received a request on my Talk page (apparently from the same anonymous editor who asked a similar question here) to look into the sourcing for this file: File:Flag of the Republic of Ezo.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which purports to depict the flag of the short-lived Republic of Ezo. Does anyone here know of any definitive source (which does not simply reproduce the SVG file above, which seems to have originated with a Wikimedia Commons editor) that indicates Ezo flew a flag like the one our article says it did? --Dynaflow babble 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the flag is sold at a Japanese flag shop on the web. Find --歴史的な旗-- with black font on the left near the bottom and click アジア（旧）with blue font on this page. You can see the list of historical flags in Asia and find the flag there. Oda Mari (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Slightly better link - the same page on the same site, without annoying frames. You might also ask Zscout370, our image's creator, what his source was. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been asking the source of the flag lately. First, I appreciate the link regards to the flag, and saw the image on the page. However, the page doesn't have a reference of the flag (as far as I saw), leaving me the question unsolved.

On the other hand, the creator of the image on Ezo Republic, I did ask not so long ago. He replied that he saw it somewhere, but he did not bring the source either.

As I left a comment to Dynaflow in the other day, we still don't have the reference about the flag. And it is quite clear that we need to find out (at least I would like to know) the reference if we keep the flag on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.191.54 (talk • contribs)

I found this official site of a temple uses the flag as Ezo Republic and the description of the flag on this portal page of Hokkaido matches the image too. I don't think the flag shop and they are not related. I find no reason to doubt them. If you think the removal of the image is needed, please prove us that the image is not the flag of Ezo Republic first. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The image in the first of those links is so similar to ours (the only appreciable difference I can see is that the blue field in the temple's GIF uses #000084, whereas our SVG has its blue field in #000080), that it might be open to question if one depiction had any influence on the other, and in which direction that influence ran. It may also be that only a verbal description survives, and the flag thus needs to be reconstructed according to that description (e.g., see Blazon and Flag terminology). Are we willing to accept as valid a flag image reconstructed solely from a more or less rigorous description? If the answer is yes, then, based on the citable source above, the Ezo flag image should be fine to keep in the article. --Dynaflow babble 06:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This magazine [1], published by Shogakukan - a source one can call a generally-accepted reliable source, has an illustration of the flag, which is basically the same as those available on the net. To note though, I have never seen a better description of the flag than saying it was "a chrysanthemum (symbol of Imperial rule) and a red star with seven points (symbol of the new Republic) on a sky-blue background". The red star on the so-called Ezo flag one can find today seems to copy that of today's Hokkaido flag. At any rate, citing the Shogakukan magazine is probably laundering the info source reliablity.

As for that temple's site metioned by Oda-san, to me it really - honestly - appears to be dubious. Only to mention some reasons why I think so are - 1. that site has no info about who they are exactly. only a mail address. No location, no phone, no nothing otherwise. They only try to suggest they are in Nanae, a place close to Goryokaku. 2. the site's flag resemblance to the one in wikipedia has already been mentioned by Dynaflow. 3. The lead-in text of their site about the Ezo Republic, is an almost exact match of that on wikipedia Japanese. In addition, there is at least another part on that site which is again a close-exact match with wikipedia. 4. the site curiously carries a lot of nationalistic messages than a usual temple site would have. Yutaka Sozoryoku (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't read the content on the temple site. Yes, they are really dubious as a religious corporation. But at least they really exist. [2]. As for the flag on their page, I don't know what to say. Oda Mari (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

in response,

first, i say thank you for the members spending time for the source. and although i haven't seen the image yet, i appreciate the person who brought the book from shogakukan; i say we should look into it.

now, a couple of things,

as oda-san refered the website with the image, i appreciate your argument and reference. but the page does not provide any reference, same as the flag shop. the argument here is now about the reference, so any un-referenced pictures through website don't take us anywhere.

[by the way, don't tell anyone; i did a call to the flag shop asking for the reference before writing this (international call! i need a bail out also). the man i talked over the phone couldn't give me the reference at the time, but they expect me to wait for a reply for the reference. and i am waiting...]

and the other question,

is the star with seven branches gets me confused with the current hokkaido flag.

and my thought,

the current hokkaido flag says, they have taken the image form "Hokkaido Kaitakushi" (emigrated labours [ie; reserved army]), which they don't speak about ezo republic. if they don't give any credit to the seven branches, how do we know that the ezo flag with the seven branches is the original?

in my argument,

if we are going to continue this agenda, here are things we need to find out:

a) i want to know whoever created the image on the page should explain where he/she got the image.

b) i want to know if there was any foreign recognition of the flag as the ezo republic.

c) if the flag was indeed established as ezo republic, i want to know why there wasn't in open public (and still now)

if the creator of the image failed to respond with the standard of wikipedia, the image (unfortunately) has to be removed from the template.

but we should count on anyone other than the creator, makes an effort to keep the image on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.191.54 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think there are enough external sources showing a flag that is either the same or really close to the same that there's no point arguing about it any longer. Unless someone can come up with something disproving it, I'd say the issue has been properly addressed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe-san, i appreciate your comment but strongly disagree with your idea, because the issue here (as well as the whole reason why i raised as question), is all about the reference.

explaining, i feel very concerned that an un-referenced image is presented as historical figure. let's not forget that any of the sources mentioned so far couldn't give any reference (,which i could say in bold that "they just put the image without any idea"). so if Nihonjoe-san thinks that a bunch of images on the web makes it convinced, that's not the case. besides, we are at the point to identify if the image came with any reference or not. and any of the sources wasn't able to explain where it came from (even the creator of the image, which i did a question a while ago).

as a proper manner, i believe any editor makes a contribution should keep the quality standard with wikipedia. i strongly disagree to keep an image on the page based on the reason, "anyone saw it somewhere". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.191.54 (talk • contribs)

I added the reference tag in the article to the published magazine I mentioned the last time. Yutaka Sozoryoku (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's a print reference, that's plenty sufficient - we don't require online referencing at all, though it is good to have. Based on the conversation so far, I don't think the IP will accept any amount of referencing, but policywise, the references are sufficient at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

gavia-san, i believe you're missing a point. my question and folloing argument started where the image was created by the editor. and at this point, he is not able bring the source. besides, those images currently available online are not printed images.

also (about the reference what yutaka-san mentioned), another reason keeps me in question is; the current prefectural flag of hokkaido. it is designed, "White fringed red 7 points star on blue field. Blue represents sea and sky of Hokkaido, red stands for people's energy and white for light and snow" (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/jp-01.html#descr).

and the story behind the flag is explained at public site of hokkaido prefectural office (http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/overview/symbol.html#DOSYO).

it says;

"道旗は、開拓使が使用した北辰旗と、当時着想されていた七稜星のイメージを現代的に表現したもので、地色の濃紺は北の海や空を意味し、星を囲む白は光輝と風雪を表し、七光星の赤は道民の不屈のエネルギーを、またその光芒は未来への発展を象徴したものです。"

my understanding with the description above is that the design of the flag is based on "kaitakushi", what is the development agency established by the meiji government.

i'm confused if the claimed flag as ezo republic is really designed for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.191.54 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: i believe yutaka-san got a point in terms of the reference. all we need to know is if the publisher got an original drawing or photo (like other antique photos during late edo period), and that will do it.

You seem to mix up the 北辰旗 with the flag of Ezo Republic. Please see these pages. [3], [4], and [5]. The 北辰旗/hokushinki (a red 5 points star on white field) used by 開拓使/the Development Commission was based on the Hokkaido ship flag which is a red 5 points star on blue field. Hokushin means the polestar. And the 七稜星 flag is a red seven pointed star on blue field. The star represents the Big Dipper. Though it is not mentioned on the official Hokkaido pref. page, IMHO, the designer of the current pref. flag must have been seen and used the motif of the flag of Ezo republic too. Oda Mari (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oda-san, thank you for the correction. I did not see that. Then we must see the motif to find out if Ezo republic used as offical.

Last week, I had a chance to see two books if I can find out the source. The titles are; "Zusetsu Bakumatsu Boshin Seinan Senso", and "Boshin Senso -Senso no Nihonshi 18". None of the books had a mention for the flag with that star. Also I have a book from Shogakukan, "Nihon no Rekishi -24 Meiji Ishin", but it didn't have any mention either.

Lately, we had a post by Yutaka-san, giving a reference about the flag from a magazine by Shogakukan. And it came to my question: the same publication (although they are not the author, I understand) makes something missing (or created)? Meaning, I do have a book from Shogakukan, which is the publication in 1976. And the other publication (unfortunately I am not able to see yet) came out a couple of months ago.

What happened to the flag during the time? If it is the new finding, it is good news that we found one. And it should be revised accordingly. However, the argument made here so far doesn't come to the point. I appreciate all those spent their time to give a touch and hint, including myself. But the bottom line here is; the creator of the flag is not able to show the source (or even got me a reply, saying he had seen somewhere). And the second, I have checked photos for the festival in Hakodate regards to the Boshin War, but I have never seen any picture or image with the flag discussed. Is the image or the picture with that star is forbidden someway (because of the war)? Seriously. I am no preference either the Hakodate people or the Meiji government people. But the argument that I see so far is quite strange (meaning, not convincing the flag as official). And not to forget, when the Hakodate government made a boarding attack on Kotetsu, they raised the Nisshouki (the Sun flag, which is current Japanese flag). For me, this is just enough to end this question.

(Now, I checked the English article for the Naval Battle of Miyako Bay, which tells the flag of "Ezo Republic", which I believe it is "a lead" to convince a distinctive one. But the picuture shown for kaiten, the flag ship for Ezo Republic is raising the Sun Flag.)

If I may go few more lines to close up my idea: here is an another reason why the flag does not convince me so much.

If the Hakodate government intended as local independent administration within the Meiji Japan (sort of dominion they might pursue), why did they create the flag with the star ON the chrysanthemum crest (ie, the imperial crest: It may sound difficult for those who aren't familiar with Japanese culture, but it is "such a thing" to put something if understanding the Meiji emperor became an absolute figure through the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.191.209 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of our Japan-related dab pages are collecting lots of links. Kochi, Fukuoka, Kokugikan, and Tengen all have over 150 ambiguous links at the moment. Any time you can take to help fix a few links would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 13:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Kochi is done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fukuoka is done, though I'm of the opinion that the city should be at Fukuoka rather than Fukuoka, Fukuoka. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, the city is designated, and after going through all the pages linking to the disambiguation page to point them correctly, I can attest the city is the most common destination for those links and the most likely article being sought by anyone looking for "Fukuoka". I just moved the city to Fukuoka and moved the disambiguation page to Fukuoka (disambiguation). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I still feel like that should happen with Sakai, too (also designated). I clean up the links so it would be difficult to tell from that, but all of the names on the dab page don't even technically belong there, and it is by far the most prominent of the remaining links. Dekimasuよ! 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, going by the number of links there are to each of the municipalities in question, I would agree. I've listed them in order:

• Sakai, Osaka (348)
• Sakai, Fukui (51)
• Sakai, Gunma (7)
• Sakai, Nagano (7)
• Sakai, Ibaraki (6)
• Sakai, Fukui (town) (3)

Given that the next closest one has several times fewer links, is there anyone who objects to including Sakai in the exception list? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to cities, yeah, Osaka-ken Sakai-shi is I'm sure the most well-known, the most searched for and linked to. But what about people who type in "Sakai" in order to search for information about the last name, or about a particular person with that name? I realize that the last name doesn't have an article, nor will it be often linked to by itself, but just to play devil's advocate, I feel I must point out that it's still the most commonly associated meaning, I'm sure, among English-speakers and probably among Japanese too. Type in Sakai to Google, and you'll get tons more hits for a myriad of people by that surname than you will for the city. LordAmeth (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Osaka-fu! Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. duh. LordAmeth (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not what we're supposed to do with dabs, though, per WP:MOS-DAB#Given names or surnames--the names shouldn't even really be on the page, since none of those people are referred to as simply "Sakai". One option would be to move them to Sakai (name) or Sakai (surname) and put a hatnote on the city. There are lots of people named Washington, at Washington (name), but they aren't linked prominently or even at all from the plain title or primary dab page. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Link was well enough hidden on the dab page that I missed it. Dekimasuよ! 06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I already did that here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, yielding to names in that way would imply that Kobe should be a redirect to a basketball player. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed Kokugikan into a short article. That leaves Tengen. Dekimasuよ! 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tengen is done. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! That must have been a lot of work to do them all in less than two days. Dekimasuよ! 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just quick with copy and paste. :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Kokugikan was reverted back to a disambiguation page, but the incoming links are from a template and can't be fixed if it's a dab. See Talk:Kokugikan and the talk page of WikiProject Sumo for more. Hoping for extra input. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've noticed the links related to books in the left column of Wikipedia pages, you may have been tempted to try out the new feature. I did, adding pages in Category:Prefectures of Japan to a book, which I named Places in Japan: Prefectures and Provinces. You can load the book, create a PDF, and order a printed copy at User:Fg2/Books/Places in Japan. (It took some minutes to create the PDF, and some more minutes to download it.) The PDF is in full color, although a printed volume would be in black ink on white paper. I'd guess the book has something like fifty articles; the PDF checks in at 441 pages. Help:Books/Frequently Asked Questions tells me this would cost $20.90 (if I understand it correctly).

Generally, things looked all right. The information boxes didn't come out very attractive. You might want to try a book and see what they look like. Selecting fewer articles should speed up the process. Some lists came out with unequal spacing.

These results might be helpful in fine-tuning the layout of the articles.

Any other observations? Fg2 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have one. The question mark in the Nihongo template gets printed. Can we find a way to use one of the "nonprinting" templates to make this not appear? Fg2 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Help:Books/for experts, it can be hidden by using {{Hide in print}}. I tried applying it to {{nihongo}} in my sandbox and seems working. --Kusunose 06:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried it too and it worked. The template is protected, so I can't edit it, but it a temporary version works. If an administrator would replace the question mark with {{Hide in print|?}} it won't show up in the PDF. Fg2 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made {{editprotected}} request to the template at Template talk:Nihongo#Hiding question mark in PDF. --Kusunose 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That should make it print better. Fg2 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we hide {{Contains Japanese text}} from printing? Or can anyone think of a reason to make it print (when you click Print in your browser, or when you create a PDF or paper book)? Fg2 (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be hidden. There's really no reason to include it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, please watch this one, it's been barraged the last couple days. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I found something else that had been scrubbed over the last few days. If it continues, you might want to ask to have the page protected. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking, seeing as how pixiv is rapidly growing, would it be notable enough to create an article for it? The Japanese Wikipedia already has a lengthy article on it too.--十八 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most certainly. The Japanese Wikipedia article you mention has several published, notable third-party references which comfortably establishes its notability and importance. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I started the article; still needs some work.--十八 08:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just (nearly) completed a total overhaul of Wikipedia's translation system. Previously, there was a very complicated method of posting translation requests. Now there are simply tags, such as {{Expand Japanese}}, that can be placed on stub articles (or longer articles if appropriate). I have tried to review all previous translation requests. Many translation requests were very old and no longer seemed needed, because the English Wikipedia article had developed in the meantime. Other translation requests were fixed by adding tags to existing English-language articles. However, a good number of requests remain that were redlinked. With other languages, I generally could create stubs myself that I could add the tags to. But Japanese machine translation is awful, and I figured I should play it safe and not even attempt to do this. So I am leaving the list of articles here for members of this wikiproject to evaluate. Hopefully people here can create stubs as needed, and tag them with {{Expand Japanese}}, so that translation can take place later. If you are interested in checking out other articles in need of translation (the ones that are properly tagged already), see Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliopejen1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did one of them and struck it from the list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been cleaning up Extreme points of Japan and was looking for a map for the lead image. I was looking specifically for a map of Japan that includes Okinawa in its correct position so I could accurately show where the points lie in relation to each other. I wasn't able to find one on the wiki, however. Does anyone know of one that I can use? Thanks --Torsodog^Talk 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What about this one? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in answer to my own question, it looks like the satellite map to the right doesn't show the locations of Minami Torishima (map doesn't go far enough east by about 800-900 miles) or Okinotorishima (doesn't go far enough south by about 100 miles). Other than that, you should be able to easily label the other points. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. I wasn't paying attention. It looks like the location of Minami Torishima is barely on the map, really close to the eastern edge. So, only missing one of them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Or this one? Oda Mari (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The only problems I see with this one are the inclusion of Iturup and other Kuril Islands, and Liancourt Rocks, none of which are under the control of Japan. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This one seems to me like a derivative work of this map [6] posted of the website of Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department, Japan Coast Guard[7]. Isn't there a copyright problem here?--Dwy (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It does look like someone took the map you mention and removed the text. You can even see remnants of the arrows. After looking things over, I've nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyvio. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI. This is their copyright policy page. Oda Mari (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The page says it's OK to use it with the specification of the source. I called them and asked for confirmation and now am waiting for the reply. Maybe I'll call them again tomorrow. Please wait for a while. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do get permission from them, or get them to change the license of the images, feel free to have them email their authorization to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They would have to specifically state it's available under one of the licenses listed here (日本語). Otherwise the images can not be used on Commons. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. Sorry for my lack of knowledge on copyright laws. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. If you do get a reply, I recommend asking them to send their permission to the address above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I first thought the map was their English map. But it turned out to be not theirs. As Dwy pointed out, it must be a derivative work. So it was good to delete the map. Thank you 日本穣. Oda Mari (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I ended up going with the first image to create the map. --Torsodog^Talk 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep putting articles up here, I just keep finding ones that need significant attention. Please have a look. Thanks. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a cleanup taskforce so articles needing work can be listed there as things to do? We sort-of have something like it on the main page, but it's not managed very well. It may work better as a separate page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some archived discussions have search capabilities. See e.g. Help:Books/Feedback. Does anyone have enough experience with this to know if it's useful for this WikiProject Japan talk page and the Manual of Style talk page? Fg2 (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As there are more than 30 archived discussion pagesfor WP:JA, I think it would be useful to have search capability. I searched a bit and found that the feature in {{archive box}} is implemented with MediaWiki's Inputbox extention, using MediaWiki's fulltext search with prefix: parameter. Here is a search box for WP:JA talk page archives. --Kusunose 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the template at the top, though it may take a short while to see it. Try clearing your cache files if it doesn't appear right away. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to the WT:MOS-JA page, the WT:ANIME page, and the WT:MOS-ANIME pages, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added an Assessment page (replacing the former one which never really went anywhere). It has a lot of useful information on it and allows people to list articles they want assessed. Please watch that page if you wish to help people with article assessment.

I've also added a Peer review page to allow the project to more easily review articles brought up by people. Please post article review requests there rather than here. Please watch that page if you wish to help review Japan-related articles. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know why there are two articles on this, same name, same info? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No ideas as to why, but Japanese Street Fashion was created 13 March 2008, while Japanese street fashion was created 16 November 2005. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Maybe someone doesn't know about redirects? Merge and redirect sounds like a good course of action. Fg2 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across one of these articles as I was going through the unrated articles in the project and noticed that there is a whole slew of them that do not seem notable at all. From the looks of it, it seems as though many only appear in one or two episodes. These could easily be compiled into lists with all of the individual articles merged on the grounds of WP:notability. Many of these lists already exist, as seen in the top portion of the template. Thoughts? I have also started this discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu. --Torsodog^Talk 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that many could (and probably should) be merged into the lists due to notability issues. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

When I noticed that another author had had the temerity [emoticon] to stick a "notability" template on an article that was in part my own, I retaliated improved the article by shoveling in a cartload of notability. The result as it stands is still a short, boring and uninformative article, but more to the point it's another painful reminder that en:WP doesn't pay art galleries and the like anywhere near as much attention as it does suburban commuting stations, voice actors, pokemon, gurabia aidoru, and so forth. Look at all those red links!

But then, look at Category:Museums in Japan. That's a mess too. Over the last couple of days I've been creating the occasional Category:Museums in XYZ Prefecture, but even before I started there were Category:Museums in Gifu Prefecture and some others. However, there's no Category:Museums in Saitama Prefecture or Category:Museums in Hiroshima Prefecture, whereas there are Category:Museums in Saitama, Saitama and Category:Museums in Hiroshima (i.e. the city).

How about this suggestion:

1. Create Category:Museums in XYZ Prefecture (avoiding the word "Prefecture" where appropriate) for every prefecture in which there's at least one museum on which we have an article.
2. Recommend (via the appropriate process) the deletion of Category:Museums in placename for every placename that isn't a prefecture, if that category has fewer than five museums.
3. Discourage the creation of any new Category:Museums in placename-other-than-prefecture, until that category would have at least ten museums.
4. Aim to keep Category:Museums in Japan empty of articles, and use it solely for categories.

Japan doesn't have so very many prefectures, so an intermediate Category:Museums in Japan by prefecture (or similar) strikes me as an unnecessary complication.

(Incidentally, I commend the article on The Gallery Saatchi & Saatchi to any connoisseur of the horrible.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(Regarding The Gallery Saatchi & Saatchi, I made some changes that took out a lot of the fiction and spam, leaving a much blander article. The version before my changes was more interesting. Fg2 (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the proposal on categories of museums, I think we discussed this before, but my memory grows dim. I agree that all museums, being in prefectures, should be neatly tucked away in categories like "Museums in Yamanashi Prefecture" and the main category of museums in Japan should not have individual entries for museums. I think a category will display up to 200 subcategories, and that would accommodate all categories for prefectures without requiring an intermediate category for museums by prefecture while still allowing room for other subcategories and appearing on a single page. So it seems ok to remove Category:Museums in Japan by prefecture, even if in the distant future it becomes worthwhile to create it again. Fg2 (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, you and I seem to be muddling away at cross purposes (our main agreement perhaps being that together we have succeeded in degrading The Gallery Saatchi & Saatchi from an amusing congeries of bollocks to a workmanlike but boring stub):

• Category:Museums in Japan by prefecture doesn't exist.
• I did suggest that Category:Museums in Japan by prefecture shouldn't be created. However, I now find myself mildly disagreeing with myself: While it's true that there aren't so terribly many prefectures, I'm afraid that a small number of Category: [genre] museums in Japan might get lost among them.
• But I do recommend zapping such things as Category:Museums in Saitama, Saitama (now containing two items).

I'm most grateful to DAJF for having created Usui Pass Railway Heritage Park, a most welcome third member of Category:Museums in Gunma Prefecture. Yes, a splendid category structure would be welcome, but what I think are needed more acutely are more articles on museums, however categorized. -- Hoary (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this "museums"-thread, I wonder if the categorization created by the Japanese government doesn't seem a little like like apples and oranges?

• Independent Administrative Institution?
• List of Independent Administrative Institutions (Japan)?
  • National Museum of Nature and Science?
  • National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Tokyo National Museum (TNM)?
    • formerly Tokyo National Museum of the Independent Administrative Institution National Museum?
  • National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Kyoto National Museum, (KNM)?
    • formerly Kyoto National Museum of the Independent Administrative Institution National Museum?
  • National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Nara National Museum (NNM)?
    • formerly Nara National Museum of the Independent Administrative Institution National Museum?
  • National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Kyushu National Museum?
    • formerly Kyushu National Museum of the Independent Administrative Institution National Museum?
  • National Research Institute for Cultural Heritage, Tokyo?
    • formerly National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo?
  • National Research Institute for Cultural Heritage, Nara?
    • formerly National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara?
  • National Museum of Art, Tokyo National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo (MOMAT)?
    • Tokyo National Museum of Modern Art?
    • National Film Center (NFC)?
  • National Museum of Art, Tokyo National Museum of Western Art (NMWA)?
  • National Museum of Art, Tokyo National Museum of Modern Art, Kyoto?
  • National Museum of Art, Tokyo National Museum of Art, Osaka?

It is entirely reasonable to construe Japanese museums as an array which intuitively suggests location as a logical parsing parameter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the best or only way to proceed.

While corollary categories like Category:Museums in the United States and Category:Museums in Austria are now parsed geographically, why not consider working towards a more complex, nuanced approach as suggested by Category:Museums in France or Category:Museums in Australia?

Hoary's suggestion is not in any sense wrong; and perhaps consensus will determine that it is best for now. I just wonder if it's the only way to go? --Tenmei (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I confess to finding myself rather baffled as to the point you're making about the categorization used by the Japanese government. But whether or not it's "apples and oranges", en:WP may or may not choose to follow it. However, following it of course would not preclude other categorization systems. Thus Osaka Contemporary Art Center (a humble stub that I created last night) is now (in addition to Japan-irrelevant categories):

• Category:Prefectural museums
• Category:Museums in Osaka
• Category:Art museums and galleries in Japan

Or respectively:

• museum by funding
• museum by place
• museum by genre

which seems unobjectionable, though not necessarily optimal.

As for the details, they do raise questions:

• The easy assumption that "Prefectural museums" are Japanese clashes with Prefectures in France, etc.
• Museums in [the city of] Osaka seems to have preempted Category:Museums in Osaka Prefecture, unless perhaps all the museum in the prefecture are in the city (which I doubt).
• I don't think I've ever encountered anything I'd term an "art museum", although I can easily imagine such a thing. In my own head, I separate (a) museums and (b) galleries (although I do recognize that the latter term is ambiguous, 美術館 vs 画廊). If "Art museums" is supposed to emphasize 美術館 and exclude 画廊, then surely 画廊 come in as "galleries". Still, this just parrots "Category:Art museums and galleries" (where it goes unexplained).

Hoary (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support -- The most important point should have been simply "yes." Yes, I support the suggestions Hoary makes. Yes, this appears to be a constructive step in a plausible direction.

The open-ended nature of the discussion at the top of this thread suggested that this could have been an appropriate moment to mention a parallel categorization tree which evolved apart from our wiki-consensus context. It was not.

Regrettably, my tangential contribution to this thread was premature; but perhaps in future, this may become relevant in terms of another thread. --14:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)--Tenmei (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you . . . er, whoever you may be.　And may I recommend 全国美術館ガイド (ISBN 4-568-43066-6), a handbook to eighteen hundred art galleries (of the kind that Wikipedia oddly terms "art museums"). Though in fact I can only half recommend it, as it doesn't even have a thematic index. Still, something about any of 1800 galleries for just 1円56銭 a pop can't be a bad deal. -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated {{WikiProject Japan}} to take advantage of some new things. Please review the documentation found there for information on how to take advantage of all the new features. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice... pictures. Has the usage of "tf= xxx" etc been updated by bot to support the new format?

There should be an image-needed option (and it should automatically also add the photo task force)

If the update task force supports any Japan article needing updating, then a update-needed option should be added, using the {{update}} clock image, and automatically adding the update task force. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever you are. If you don't like the images used, feel free to suggest others. I changed it to use the image you suggested. The photo task force can be added to it by adding |phototf=yes, and then removed once the photos have been handled. I'll look into whether there is an "image needed" parameter which can be added. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a needs-photo on the example at WPBannerMeta... 76.66.193.90 (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That one doesn't work the same as the current {{reqphotoinjapan}}. I'll see if there's anything I can do, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan Music - perhaps a traditional instrument would be better? say Image:Japanese Koto.jpg or Image:KitagawaUtamaro FlowersOfEdo.jpg ? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I used the koto. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't WP:ANIME be listed as well? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they have their own banner and this banner is generally not on any of their articles. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The various taskforce listings should be accompanied by any extant portals as well... such as task force Tokyo should have it's line on the infobox also indicate Portal:Tokyo (unfortunately, this functionality is not currently part of WPBannerMeta. I made a request for it to be added, but not much interest from what's been happening to the conversation) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Until that support is added, I don't know if that can be included. I'll see if there is a workaround. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a bot work request in to change all the old |tf=, |tf2=, and |tf3= to the new method of listing taskforces. I'll post here once that's done. I'm also having all uses of {{WP Shinto}}, {{Shinto}}, {{Jmyth}}, {{Gaijin tarento}}, and {{Project Owarai}} replaced with {{WikiProject Japan}} with the appropriate task force parameter. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot request is in final approval stages before it begins doing all the work. You can read the bot work request if you wish to see what it's going to be doing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm excited to get this thing going. --Torsodog^Talk 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: The bot is beginning to go through and make all the replacements. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of the newish A-class assessment that has been gaining popularity lately, I took the liberty to create an A-class review process for the Project. Currently there are a few article that use the A-class rating and I'm not sure if they underwent a process or not, but feel free to nominate them. Most importantly, everyone in the project should FEEL FREE to comment on any of the forthcoming nominations. Keep an eye on the page, and A-class candidates will also be listed on the To Do list at the top of this page docked in the banner. We'll see how this all works out. I hope there is enough interest and it goes ok! --Torsodog^Talk 02:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The last time I checked WP:BIO, there was an article nominated in their A-class review forum that had been sitting there for six months without anyone commenting on it. I suggest that whenever an article is nominated, that an announcement is posted here to encourage participation in the review process. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I will post an announcement here. They will also be listed in the To Do section of the project's banner. --Torsodog^Talk 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm hoping someone here could help me. For a long time this article has carried the unreferenced statement that the Japanese version of the 2.0 L Honda S2000 produced 247 hp (184 kW) at 8,600 rpm, which is more than the power quoted in other markets due to a difference in compression ratio. I'm hoping someone can verify this fact either from Honda's Japan website or from an owner's manual. Please note that the 2.0 L model was discontinued in Japan in 2003 and replaced with a 2.2 L model, thus information on the old model might be hard to find on the internet. If you do come across a reference can you please post it at Talk:Honda S2000? Thanks for the help! Zunaid 08:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article Haragei has been on the English Wikipedia for over three years. It has almost escaped the attention of WikiProject Japan (although not completely). The Japanese Wikipedia does not have an article with the title 腹芸. Any opinions, improvements, suggestions? Fg2 (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the formatting a bit and removed the huge and unnecessary "every possible way of writing "haragei" box. The references need to be moved inline and the tone of the article needs to be changed to be more encyclopedic. It's currently written like it's a persuasive tract of some sort. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is strange and improper from the native Japanese point of view. More precisely, laughable. I've never heard of martial arts related haragei. It seems to me the word was misunderstood and added an extra interpretation by non-Japanese speakers. See these definitions and translations. [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I personally think the article should be deleted. Oda Mari (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the article title is totally wrong. I found the contents of the article is equivalent to Dantian. Haragei article should be merged into Dantian. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree to Oda Mari that the article looks odd. Part of the article, for example reference to this book - "The Unspoken Way -- Haragei: Silence in Japanese Business and Society" by Michihiro Matsumoto, published by Kodansha. (ISBN 0-87011-889-7) - is perhaps more often discussed in the context of business (from Google books search: [13]), in relation to nemawashi, too. --Mantokun (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is possible that some Westerner latched onto the idea and began using it only as it might be applied to martial arts. That has happened numerous times in the past. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I created my first ever entry at Wiktionary: 腹芸. -- Mantokun (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought haragei included those street comedians that you sometimes see standing outside the train stations in Japan using a face painted on their exposed belly as part of their performance. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Oda Mari: I find no mention of the term haragei in my martial arts reference books ( Draeger, McCarthy, Bishop, etc). I also agree that Dantian represents this concept quite well. The book sounds like a pop culture book. jmcw (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is referred to in the deletion discussion for the article. Fg2 (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. Fg2 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be re-created as something that more accurately corresponds to the 5 article-space links to that article. Raul654 (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Or the articles should be changed to link to something else, e.g. Nonverbal communication, or whatever is appropriate in each individual article. Fg2 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for all the articles, but for Surrender of Japan it should link specifically to Haragei and there should be a specific corresponding Haragei article. Raul654 (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Should it? If an author refers to "nonverbal communication" by its Japanese name, should Wikipedia have an article with the Japanese title? Or would a redirect be better? or a disambiguation page, since people seem to want haragei to mean many different things in English? Fg2 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As J.C. Butow describes, apologists for the Suzuki government referred to their actions by citing "Haragei". Butow specifically defines Haragei as the "the art of hidden and invisible technique", i.e. getting something done in an indirection fashion. I don't think a link to non-verbal communication is appropriate. Raul654 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a link to the Wiktionary article 腹芸 Mantokun created? His definition #2 supports this nicely. Fg2 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That works, I suppose. Raul654 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, there's [still more articles that need fixing. Raul654 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:17, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone please add sources to En no Gyōja?

It seems like the Japanese article has sources, but i don't know Japanese and i can't translate them.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference and two external links, all in English. Anyone with an English-language dictionary of Japanese history could add a citation. Fg2 (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Submitted for your approval (or not). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese Bibliography is a defunct project kept for historical reasons. However, what they did would be a useful addition as a task force to this project, I believe. I think it would be good to make it a Publications task force, with a scope of magazines, newspapers, and books (those not covered by WP:ANIME). Anyone have any thoughts on this? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Would anyone help out on the task force? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better merged into WP:LIT/WP:BOOKS ? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The task force doesn't even exist yet, so there's nothing to merge. Besides, it would be a task force of this project, not of another project. Thanks for the suggestion, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What a strange project that was. It announced: This WikiProject seeks to develop a comprehensive group of articles describing Japanese bibliographical resources, including reference works, libraries, and research institutions. So it was less bibliographical than metabibliographical (bibliography of bibliographies and the like). In that spirit, one member embarked on an article about Waseda University Library that I happened to encounter recently, when it read like a PR puff piece. But the project also included dictionaries, popular encyclopedias, museums, and all sorts of things, all rather macron- and source-challenged.

I don't know. I like plenty of Japanese books myself and possess tens, probably hundreds of kilograms of them to prove it. And I wish there were more articles about Japanese books of the kinds that are worth having articles about. But it's a vast subject: conceivably, there are more of these books than there are Japanese AV starlets, suburban stations, or even voice actors.

How about museums and art galleries? They were one part of that project, they're numbered in the thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands, and many of them have next to nothing written about them other than in Japanese yet would be of at least some interest to people who can't read Japanese. Plus writing up an article on a museum or gallery is a good excuse to go there.

Another thing is that projects tend to attract people who (unlike me!) are devoted adders of "infoboxes", which are particularly silly for most books but tend to go unusually well with museums and galleries. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having a task force that would handle museums, galleries, and similar cultural attractions. We would need to have a good definition of what it included, and come up with a good name for it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You could do worse than "Japanese museums". It would be understood that "museums" would cover galleries. As for similar cultural attractions, I don't know. Japanese gardens, say, are very clearly man-made cultural attractions, and they're clearly related via 茶室 and ceramics to museums. Still, I wouldn't attempt to add them; after all, they'd still find a home here.

Sorry to be a bit lukewarm about this. I'd be delighted if other people would do it. As for me, however, I expect to become very busy in "RL" very soon and don't want to commit myself to anything big here. Anybody else up to it? (For art galleries, there's enough within the single, reasonably priced book ISBN 4-568-43066-6 to keep a large team busy for months if not years. Yes, material on 1800 places!) -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I am against the idea; rather, I fully agree to the notion but it's more or less the same reason as Hoary, plus the fact that I'm only a not-good -enough non-native alienating myself from standing up say I'd be a member of a of a TF. In the last few days I've even been looking for WP:RS's that'll better back up the reliablity of often-cited sources (for articles related to Japan) such as "All About" in vain, and it appears that it's the same for many publications. If you'd still pick me up with this kind of attitude, why not. --Mantokun (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But to return to the matter of publications, I'd agree that a look at Category:Japanese books is profoundly depressing. However, it's not immediately obvious that there's anything Japan-specific about the awfulness, though the short set on display here does seem a lot feebler than does for example Category:German books. Manga collections aside, I suppose the likeliest additions would be descriptions of miscellaneous opuscules of xenophobia and the other grotesqueries (bollocks about blood groups, etc) that are occasionally noted in the English-language press. Still, we do Japanese magazines rather better than we do books. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just leave books to LibraryThing? -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm preparing the article posting system for FAC sometime soon, but one of my problems is the Japanese translation of the term "posting system". The article on the Japanese wiki has it as "ポスティング制度". "ポスティング" is not a problem, as it is just the katakana of "posting", but "制度" presents me with a problem. As far as I know, the reading of this is "seido", but the Japanese wiki has "shisutemu". Is there something I am missing here? Does anyone know the correct reading of 制度 when used in the term ポスティング制度?

P.S. Once the correct reading has been determined, I would like a sound file of the terms pronunciation for use in the article. If anyone that is more confident in their Japanese pronunciation than me would like to tackle this, I would be grateful. Thanks! --Torsodog^Talk 02:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is normally read "seido", but since that means "system", my guess is they just changed the reading to "shisutemu" to be cool. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they do that sometimes. I first saw this on movie posters for Contact. There was a two-kanji word (I suspect it was 接触, but I can't be sure, my Japanese really wasn't up to par back then), and on top of the kanji was ofurigana reading コンタクト. Looking at the ja.wiki page for that movie, the oficial name seems to be just plain old コンタクト, and there is no picture of the movie poster, though... TomorrowTime (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the Japanese (Region 2) DVD of that movie, and コンタクト is the official name. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reading of 制度 is "seido", altough regardless of how the ja wikipedia puts it, both the terms "ポスティングシステム" and "ポスティング制度" are actually used almost equally often in the press. That's probably because the only "official" name in relation to the subject is the name of the agreement between the MLB and NPB which is "United States - Japanese Player Contract Agreement" and its supposedly official translation (while the english original overrides in any case of dispute) is 日米間選手契約に関する協定. -- Mantokun (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great sources and interesting info on the name of the agreement. I think what I am going to have to do is include a note in the lead that can redirect readers to a Note section where I can further explain the agreement's name, official and unofficial, engish and japanese. I'm also going to have to read through the entire agreement and see if there is any new information I need to incorporate. --Torsodog^Talk 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

内博貴初単独ライブ「おかえり」声援に号泣…飲酒、謹慎から３年半. Thanks also is it okay for me to post translation requests here or should I just ask a user that knows Japanese? ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 03:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Something along these lines: Hiroki Uchi weeping at the "Welcome back" shouts of support at his first solo live [performance] ... After three and a half years in exile following the [underage] drinking [incident]

See 内博貴, 略歴, 2005

It's a terse headline so there's lots not written. Certainly, someone could write a better headline than mine. Fg2 (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, wow. Please watchlist this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The section "Criticism of Iris Chang's book" is oddly situated. It doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the article, and indeed is already thoroughly covered in the article on the book. --C S (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The list article List of sovereign states in 1866, part of a series, includes the line "Japan – Tokugawa shogunate" with a Tokugawa crest. The article doesn't explain how the name of the sovereign state relates to the name (Tokugawa) that follows it. There are similar lists for some years, and Japan is absent from some (632, 820, 1400, 1496, 1528) whereas in List of sovereign states in 1494 there's an entry "Japan – Empire of Japan, divided into small warring states" with an Imperial crest. List of sovereign states in 1000 has "Japan – Empire of Japan" (not "Fujiwara Regency"), and List of sovereign states in 661 has simply "Japan." Japan is absent from List of sovereign states in 1. In 1945, Japan loses the name "Empire," becoming simply "Japan."

Thoughts? Fg2 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a mess.

• I think it's perfectly appropriate that it not be included in the list as far back as the year 1, but at what date should it be added? Should Wa or Yamato or Yamatai be added as of some date? I don't know much about the chronology of that period.
• It makes sense to me that "Empire of Japan" be used for Meiji, Taisho, and the rest of the pre-war and WWII period. As of 1945, Japan is, as far as I know, in all official respects, simply "Japan", not "Republic of Japan" or anything of the sort, so that's fine I think.
• I also think that including the shogunate is a fine idea, as it's an important political historical distinction, roughly equivalent to noting the dynasty in China. Beyond that, however, I think it's a bit fuzzy. Fujiwara regency? I for one don't normally think of that as a distinctive political period in the way that the shogunates are distinctive political historical periods. We don't name the regencies in England, or other countries, do we?
• Finally, while "Empire of Japan" may be technically correct in all periods - Japan never ceased having an Emperor during the shogunates - I think it has a strong connotation of being associated with the period of 1867-1945, and I would opt for using the term only in that period. Plain old "Japan" is fine in my mind for the rest of the time.

Thus is my two cents. LordAmeth (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As for 1945, I think it was Empire of Japan until Aug. 14 (or Sept. 2 ?) then Occupied (Empire of) Japan. Empire of Japan ended on May 2, 1947 and Japan began with the Constitution of Japan which came into force on May 3, 1947. But the occupation lasted until the conclusion of Treaty of San Francisco. Oda Mari (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a clear definition or specification of what and how the list wants to list up, it can be real messy.

As long as the list articles only provide links to each history period pages, I personally think it is okay just to put simply and innocently "Japan" everywhere, without any crest, any flag or any name of shogunate -- except for year 1, where Japan can be just absent.

"Empire of Japan" may be used for Meiji to early Showa periods, but that also mean having to ask "from when?", as well as "until when." Generally the english translation of "Empire of Japan" is applied after 大日本帝国憲法 was put into effect in 1890.

From a users eyes, for example, if somebody sees the article "List of sovereign states in 1890" for whatever reason, and wanted truely to know more about a particular state listed there, he or she only has to follow the link provided.

Same thing for the year 1494, when Japan was in 戦国時代. In order to mention something else than "Japan" for that year involves questions like "which state? a han? a powerful lord?" or even "was there a sovereign state?".

We may safely assume there was at least some sovereign state in years like 632, 661, 1000 and I think in 1494 too, but going beyond than just listing "Japan" will always trigger questions like "why with a chrysanthemum crest in that year?"

--- answers to all those questions, can be found by following the links to detailed articles, only if a user is really in need or wanting to know that. Mantokun (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)corrected typo-- Mantokun (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a short bio of the Jpop producer that currently is up for GA. The article reviewer put it on hold, and suggested that I post here for another set of eyes. If anyone knowledgeable about the subject has time, could you pop over and take a look? The review is here. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A contributor has marked Moe Kare!! for AFD due to a lack of reliable sources.

Will a Japanese speaker please help find reliable sources for this article? If this series is popular, surely a newspaper somewhere would have written an article about this series. The AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moe Kare!! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted, as evidenced by the redlink in the header. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I happen to step on and find many Japan related articles that had not been identified as WPJ these days; do we want to mark all those existing articles with WPJ banner and list them at the manually maintained list? Please advise. Thank you --- Mantokun (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes to tagging them (feel free to assess them, too while tagging them), not necessarily to the manually maintained list. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will tag any I detect as related to Japan and try assess them. Most undetected in the past seem to be of stub quality and of relatively lower importance, so from now on I will only pick up some occasionally to be added to the manual list whenever I feel it is useful to do so. -- Mantokun (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that there is no need to add articles to the "Newest Articles List" unless they are indeed new or at least recent. The Ryuichi Sakamoto article dates from 2001! --DAJF (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I wouldn't have listed Sakamoto if it was him alone, but it was rather for the others with less attention, and without WPJ. But nevertheless, if you prefer not to have any, for say maybe older than for example 30/60 days or otherwise you can tell me what you'd generally regard as "recent", and I'd just refrain from adding those that does not meet your criteria. It's not my intention to be noisy but just useful. Thanks. --Mantokun (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused when it comes to video games, films or anime/manga. Should all articles concerning Japanese produced materials that fall into these areas be tagged with the WPJ banner, or should they simply be tagged with the respective media banner with the corresponding taskforce? I've seen it go both ways many times. --Torsodog^Talk 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Anime/manga articles should be tagged with {{anime}} instead of {{WPJ}} (though there are a few rare cases where both are used, but they are very rare). Some video games are tagged with {{WPJ}}, but that's less common. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

University of Tokushima and Tokushima University are two poor single line articles for the same University. An editor has suggested a merge half a year ago here without any response till now. I think it should be merged to University of Tokushima as quick as possible to give the article a chance to grow, before it is del..... -- Mantokun (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, do it. Taku started both, right? So I don't think he'd object to a merger. The U. goes by "U of" so that sounds like the title to use. Fg2 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. But it raised another point; see below. -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[Warning: somewhat ranty.]

The wretched little stub for University of Tokushima (see section immediately above) said:

Please expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia.

I thought "Hmm, it's a rare ja:WP article on a university that merits translation; let's take a look."

Well, the article turned out to be just another congeries of chronology and lists, entirely typical of ja:WP's articles on Japanese universities. There is one (1) footnote, pointing to the university's own website. There's a grand total of zero (0) other sources given. Well, there wouldn't need to be -- all of this stuff could have been lifted directly from the university's website (perhaps even by some low-level employee of its 広報部). (Don't believe me? Take a look.)

ja:WP has some fine articles. However, I very rarely come across them. (This could be a matter of subject area: perhaps the energetic editors over there write on matters that I don't look for in ja:WP, or that don't interest me at all.) I'm puzzled by the desire to add translations from ja:WP other than from exceptionally good articles; particularly as WP is, famously, not a RS.

By all means let's use Japanese sources to improve articles here. But let's make them good Japanese sources. -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There's MEXT at 国立大学法人 徳島大学 and 1259 other Google hits. Not exactly independent, but not under the university's control. METI here is a step further removed. Fg2 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. My German is better than my Japanese. I have on occaision translated articles from the de:WP to English, only to have them marked as lacking citations. If ja:WP is anything like de:WP many of these articles, even featured articles lack this kind of citation or reference citations that are not available over the Internet. I cannot honestly copy these references into the English article either because they are missing or I have not actually looked at these references myself. I cannot verify them. Nor does referencing the foreign-language article qualify as an independent reliable resource. That would be the honest answer. For these reasons I think simply translating articles does not return much in the way of benefits.imars (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[Wow. I am scaaaarrred]

Well, Hoary, no those elements cannot have been copied by a low-level PR person of the University. Why? Cause the payroll of those people working for a national organization is not going to be affected just because there was one more or hundred less new inrolls the next year --- they won't care. Hehe --- just joking --- while it may be still true. Don't know what's the area you frequent on the ja:WP, but I generally look at it as only, and exactly unreliable. I have little interest in anime --- and I got to be aware I'd lash already a huge bunch of people who wants to know about Japan away from me by just saying so --- so I have not even the smallest idea of how good or bad those kind of articles are. The rest are either enormous amount of listings and/or database as you point out, if not a pile of PR leaflets. If one shall find some useful biblio out of an article, you are lucky enough. At the end, the ja:WP is a very good source if only one knows what you are looking at --- a limitless pool of WP:POVs and WP:ORs that are brand new to you, which may drive you to a serious "orginal" research of your own.

I am going to let you guys down to tell you it wasn't my temptation for a translation work that I pointed out that Univ. of Tokushima case; it was simply because I thought there might be someone who wanted to work on it if there were not that merger tag. I thought we'd better eliminate the namespace authenticity question to facilitate a potential editor join - that's basically it. Nevertheless, even if I am not going to beef-up the piece thick, I may pick up some fallen down bones to make it look like a skelly, than just a scull, and that 'will' include the boring chrono's and, facts and data. Even so, there wouldn't be anything "translated" from the ja:WP, as such are also available from the official site, aren't they.

At any rate, it's a pity for a school where someone like Nakamura has graduated from, to have a mere single line article. Let the time decide where it goes, and in the meantime, we can also discuss whether or not to translate some stuff for an article like this over a pint. -- Mantokun (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your view of ja:WP is even bleaker than mine. Wondering "Can it all be junk?" I've just taken a look at today's featured article: 陪審制. While I confess that I can't be bothered to read it, it is substantial and well sourced. Funny thing, though: the most commonly cited source appears to be "LaFave (2004)", a source that's nowhere elaborated. Something I could refer to as "LaFave, Israel and King (2004)" or "LaFave et al. (2004)" is listed and surely this is what's meant. (But again I'm unfamiliar with legal citation etiquette; perhaps it's normal in a footnote to skip all but the first author.) However, this is mere niggling. It's probable that ja:WP does have good articles. This doesn't mean that they're good source material though.

Indeed, that Japanese article on U Tokushima would have been disastrous as source material even if entirely trustworthy on its own terms: writers were expected to translate the Japanese names of 学部 and the like into English rather than to look at the university's own English-language web pages and see what the English names actually are. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I'm possibly too pessimistic; the quality really varies on an article-by-article basis, and WP is certainly a useful tool if one clearly understands what it is as a whole. It just makes me sick when I find those all unsourced "the right ABC is DEF, bla, bla, bla" type of articles to "XYZ is said to be good for your health" types are cut'n'pasted out of WP to their own sites, blogs, everywhere, and apparently they're multiplying. Ouch... my stomache. --Mantokun (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm preparing an article about Japanese neuroanatomist Usabro Tsuchida (1867-?) and I have a problem with his name. Do you know how to write his name in kanji? I have the same problem with the name of Ko Hirasawa (1900-1989). Filip em (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Usaburo Tsuchida might be 土田 卯三郎. He was a physician to the Emperor Taisho and the author of Anminjyutsu (安眠術) and Seishunjidai no danjo (青春時代の男女). Oda Mari (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much :-) Filip em (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you help me with romanization and also a bit improving article Chichi koishi, please? I hope that article subject covers the Wikipedia:Notability. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any awards won by this film. It doesn't appear to be notable in any way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I beefed it up a little bit, but there is very little information about this film in english. The Variety source I provided has a bit of production history and plot, but I don't have the time to dive into translating it. If someone wants to tackle it, go right ahead! --Torsodog^Talk 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably its notability would be that of vehicle for its very popular starlet. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there was plenty in the newspapers and magazines of the period, but seeing as that was over 50 years ago, it's unlikely we'll be able to find any online references with information. Japan is very far behind in putting up archives of material from years ago. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of books about Misora Hibari, and the title of ISBN 4-7648-1611-3 is particularly promising. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What a heavy task you are taking on guys. Here's one example Hibari Misora and the film is referred to together (p224). The film is very much worth mentioning in the context of Misora's career; for example, the main theme song of this film was watashi wa machi no ko (also mentioned in her own article), that had much to do with her reaching stardom along with two other songs, echigo shishi no uta and ano oka koete. However, if you want to establish firm notability of the film stand-alone and further improve it, you will have to visit large libraries and look for reviews in magazines like [Kinejun and Heibonsha of that time. In Japan, the movie scene in the 50s was quite crowded, as a huge reaction to the preceding decade. I'm sure one can find sources, but only with serious efforts. Like Nihonjoe says, we're pretty much late in digitizing past documents - not even 17-19 century books have scanned yet, so there's another 100 year to go. --Mantokun (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I bumped into the article: Kushindo; just by chance. Honestly, I am totally confused: "Over time, Koshindo became confused with similar terms". This is what the articles says.

Indeed the article does appear to collect everything that sounds similar, and stir them up: Aikidō 合気道, Karate 空手, apparently some schools of Karate named Kūshin 空心, Kūshinkai 空心会 or the alike, plus Ko'shintō 古神道, Kōshin 庚申, or maybe 空手道 read in Korean "Konsudō" (before it was named Taekwondo, more or less.), etc. There are as much as 16 references cited, but none of them acutally does not appear to me to support the logic other than a line by line, phrase by phrase statement. Of course, even if I am not from Okinawa, I do love 古酒, pronounced Kūsū (rather than Koshu in the mainland), but that doesn't help me at all what this article is about.

So that's why I am bringing this up here to ask you give it a glance and give us your thoughts. --Mantokun (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is to see if people can check the references she uses. She (Jennylen) appears to have written a set of articles related to this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not able to find reliable sources on the web. Neither the official site of Okinawan karate nor The Society for the Preservation and Promotion of Ancient Martial Arts of the Ryukyu Islands doesn't mention about Kushindo. The article says the tradition was mentioned in Kojiki (717) but it is dubious. According to ja:沖縄の歴史, the first appearance of Okinawa/阿児奈波 in Japanese books was in Jianzhen's biography, 唐大和上東征伝 in 779. The article looks like an elaborate hoax or an original research and should be deleted. Oda Mari (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

These two articles created by the same user, user:Jennylen are dubious too. Ijun and Takayasu Ryūsen. Ijun is the Okinawan pronunciation of izumu/泉. See this page. Ijun article says the movement joined the Shinshūren but I could not find the name on the Shinshūren page. They should be deleted too. Oda Mari (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged Kushindo, Ko-shinto (Jomon), and Ijun as likely {{synthesis}} and/or {{original research}}. Takayasu Ryūsen may very well be a real person. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As for ijun/龍泉, I found this page at last. It's a cult and the believers are 1000. Thinking about the notability, I still think Ijun and Takayasu Ryūsen should be deleted. Oda Mari (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking back into how this article has developed:

it seems this article was first created one day in 2007 intended for a mostly unknown school of Aikido, called "KuShinDo (also KoShinDo)". The next day, another editor questions its notability. A theory was then brought in that, because the school has its background in Ryūkyū (a statement which was not sourced), and Ko is pronounced Ku in Ryūkyū, "accordingly" the name of its school shows some tie to Shintoism and "therefore" notablity is established. The article further develped to include terms that are pronounced similary, for example the Kōshin belief (庚申).

I have checked today that neither Nihon Kokugo Daijiten Second editon nor Ryūyūgo jiten has an entry under such name. A google search will also not produce any meaningful result other than machine translations or outbound plagiarism of the article in question. The only exception maybe is, just one personal website of someone who seems to have been with a school of Aikido called Ku Shin Do. There is apparently no "official" site of such school found by a search. I am afraid people got too much confused until the article has only grown into a neologism and/or original research. --Mantokun (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any help I can get on expanding Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters (which should hit the main page DYK in the next few days). I've gone about as far as I can with english sources. There's a fairly lengthy Japanese article on the subject. Raul654 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has been defective since Q4 2007, because an image it relied on for the JGSDF rankings was deleted due to licensing specifications not being specified. Currently, the other two rank charts (for the ASDF and MSDF) have licensing specifcation problems as well. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is on an official web site of the US government and so might be in the public domain. It's linked from Japan : Country Studies - Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. The link text is "Uniforms, Ranks, and Insignia." From there, click the link to Figure 14. Fg2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at [14] and see if the source is reliable and if the article content accurately and appropriately reflects what the source says? It is being removed by a fan who wants the information to wait until the artist "officially announces", but if the material is already published in a reliable source, removing it is vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sponichi is reliable and it does say that Miyavi and melody. got married and are expecting their first child together. The article also says he's going to tell his fans on the fifth of next month himself. ^~Moon~月と暁^~Sunrise~ 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)