Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 17 August 2009

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: 06:23, January 4, 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.

Defaultsort for names (and pseudonyms) of historical figures

For Matsuo Bashō I edited to {{DEFAULTSORT:Basho, Matsuo}} so that the poet's name should appear in categories under B for Basho, his pseudonym, rather than his family name, but my edit has replaced with {{DEFAULTSORT:Matsuo, Basho}}. Bashō (or Basho) is the name primarily used in academic journals and texts, and indeed the name by which the poet is generally known in literature at all levels, alongside the less-used alternative of familyname+pseudonym as in the article title. The same of course applies to Kobayashi Issa, Yosa Buson etc. etc.

I can't find anything in MOS:JP to address this issue directly, but it seems counter-intuitive to make Basho appear under M in any category. Opinions, clarification welcome. Thanks --Yumegusa (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yumegusa, and thanks for bringing this up. I made the edit to list the poet under Matsuo in categories, since we normally list under surname. However, there's no reason we have to do that, and I think we do different things for sumo wrestlers, kabuki actors and perhaps some others. This may be one of the cases we want to decide separately from the general principle of surname, given name. What do other editors think? Fg2 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many historical figures - Edo period artists in particular come to mind - who are far more well-known by their given name or art-name than their surname... I would want to see Hokusai and Harunobu under "H", not under K for Katsushika and S for Suzuki respectively. But then there comes the issue of lineages (schools of art) in which artists are more well-known by their given names, but where listing them by their surname, and thus, together, might be better. For example, even though Kuniyoshi, Kunisada, and Toyokuni are best known by those names, they are all of the Utagawa school, and it might be good to have them all listed together with one another, under "U". So, it's a bit vague.. I'm not quite sure what to do with these artists.

When it comes to Kabuki actors, however, I think that in just about every case the surname should be the sorting method. Lineages are very important in Kabuki - Ichikawa, Nakamura, Onoe, Bando, etc - and I don't think any kabuki actor is really known better by their given name; most anyone who knows who Danjuro and Tamasaburo are knows their family names. LordAmeth (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there could be a case made for listing by pseudonym in some cases. It would need to be limited to a name appearing in the title of the article, though, so people wouldn't be too confused. ···日本穣 03:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How much are Chōonpu's used in Hiragana?

"All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii." doesn't make sense to me, as usually Chōonpu's aren't used in Hiragana, so why is this statement here? Usually "Ō" is written as "おう", but not usually "おー". わwaらraうu Smile! 03:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Sorry, meant Chōonpu, not Sokuon! わwaらraうu Smile! 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase it. ···日本穣 06:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with chōonpu; rather, it has to do with the way that words are constructed. おう and　うう are extremely common sounds in the on-yomi of kanji - しょう、しゅう、ちゅう、こう、ちょう may be among the most common of all on readings; ああ、ええ、いい are not. So, while there is a need to distinguish, for example, Shimo|usa (下総；しも・うさ) from Shimō|sa (しもう・さ), there is no such need with something like 黄色い；　き・いろ・い or 紀伊国屋；　き・い・（の）・くに・や, where it is understood that there is no character that is ever read as kii| and so it must be ki|i; since it's understood, we leave it out.

This has nothing to do with macrons, either, which is why Nihonjoe rightfully says your question makes no sense. But it does attempt to address the reasons we use apostrophes or dashes where we do, and why we don't put macrons on aa, ii, or ee. I hope it helps answer your question. LordAmeth (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, if it was written completely in Hiragana, how would you know how to romanize something like "いい". Would it be "i-i" or "ī"? わwaらraうu Smile! 07:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is correct?

I had moved Kumi Koda's BUT/Aishō to But/Aishō, and as the reason for the move I listed WP:CAPS as the reason. But someone reverted it tell me to look at WP:ALBUMCAPS. Now after read the MoS, I was just wondering which one is the correct policy for deal with titles with capitalization, MOS:JAPAN or WP:ALBUMCAPS? (Moon) and (Sunrise) 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was having a similar dispute over at Kara no Kyōkai on some of the song titles, but eventually got tired of the other editor and left the article. There really needs to be clarification on this.--十八 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone should act as an ambassador to WP:ALBUMS and try to come up with a solution. I personally could care less which way we use plus I'm busy, so I'm out. But I'm sure one of us cares enough about resolving this issue to actually deal with it. --Eruhildo (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Albumcaps says "the capitalization utilized by that language" -- does that mean the style guide for the language? Fg2 (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this is annoying. They both contradict each other. I've seen it mostly un-capitalized, and I believe Mos-JP has more power over Album-caps. It was probably some fan who wanted it to remain the way it was. Album-caps should be re-written to state that it should follow the capitalization standards of MoS-X, X being the country name, or something like that. わwaらraうu Smile! 07:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JA trumps the recommendations of WikiProject Albums. The "But/Aishō" formatting is correct. ···日本穣 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Glossary sections

The topic of adding glossary sections to articles using foreign terms has been raised at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Glossary needed with articles with non-English word usage?. Although the particular article being discussed is not Japan-related, the topic of glossaries for foreign terms is. Fg2 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest and greatest: template for example text

A new template, {{Xt}}, has been developed for formatting example text. Its documentation suggests, "Use this template to format style examples (for example, on the Manual of Style and its subpages), especially when using quotation marks or italics could be confusing." Fg2 (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

℃-ute vs. Cute?

Shouldn't the title of the band "℃-ute" be "Cute"? moocowsrule 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Or at least "C-ute"? Rules for using symbols probably apply for every possible article on Misplaced Pages. So ask on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style talk page. --staka (T) 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a Japanese band, so I thought I'd bring it up on the Japan related Manual of Style, rather than the other one. moocowsrule 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryokū vs. Ryokuu

Basically romanization of KANJIs should be done one by one.

Saitō Ryokū (斎藤緑雨)　should be moved to Saitō Ryokuu. ”緑雨” is not "Ryokū" but "RYoku u": "uu" in his name is not a long vowell "ū" but two short vowells "u+u".　See Talk:Saitō Ryokū.--miya (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to that principle—vowels that span multiple kanji are not indicated by macrons— but I can't see it in the MoS. Was it formerly there? Fg2 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was agreed on, but no one ever added anything. Also I note that it's more general than just spanning kanji: 湖 mizuumi should probably not have a macron either, unless I'm mispronouncing it. (I mentioned the term "morpheme boundary" last time, but that would admit okāsan and onēsan; judging strictly on aesthetic grounds, I have no problems with the former, but the latter still seems weird — and I doubt anyone would be happy with onīsan.)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

湖 should be "Mizūmi". The "okaasan" "oniisan" "oneesan" is covered in the Manual of Style. moocowsrule 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It would surprise me if 湖 were mizūmi. I would have guessed that the word came from mizu + umi, and that it was in Japanese before the arrival of the kanji. So I'd treat it as two words, despite being represented by a single character. Would that be incorrect? Fg2 (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fg2 is right. it's mizuumi. It is definitely a combination of mizu and umi. Maybe the original meaning is where there is a lot of fresh water like sea. Oda Mari (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not a long vowel. Saitō Ryokuu is correct. This is リョクウ rather than *リョクー. While the kanji may be a hint and it is sufficient in this case, there are exceptional cases. Romanization is based on the actual pronunciation. Some dictionaries such as 日本国語大辞典 and 新明解日本語アクセント辞典 list the pronunciation in addition to the spelling. Both of which contain entries for this case as well for verification if needed. Bendono (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "uu" is correct. I hadn't noticed that before. ···日本穣 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, "uu". ¶ My agreement aside, is it this subtlety that Quasirandom misinterprets here (the consensus about macrons in romanji article names seems to be in flux) or is he referring to something else? (In the same discussion, also note Move to Yuko Ito if kept; we don't need untypeable diacriticals in the English Misplaced Pages by one Smerdis of Tlön .) -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Body text rule apply for titles

All rules in the body text section applies for titles as well, correct? By titles I mean, "Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)" and such.. I don't think it states here. --staka (T) 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yes. ···日本穣 05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Differencing "おお" from "おう"

The manual never really describes the difference between "おお" from "おう" (oo and ou). How are they to be romanized? Are they both to be romanized as "ō"? moocowsrule 00:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are both romanized as "ō" unless the two parts are different kanji, which is rare. ···日本穣 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Designated city naming

Back in 2006, there was a long discussion which resulted in most designated cities shedding their ", Prefecture" tails. Recently, the newest designated city was moved back to Hamamatsu, Shizuoka from its shortened name, which led me to search the MOS for our rules; but, either they were never added, or, they were deleted sometime in the last 2.5 years. So, should the "place names" section be updated to match the old consensus (and, Hamamatsu moved back?) or, is there a new consensus?? Neier (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Hamamatsu in the list of exceptions to the standard rule. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be added, though. ···日本穣 06:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamamatsu became "designated" in 2007, after our discussion. Okayama, Okayama will gain that status this year; but, since the city and prefecture are the same name, there is no need to do the move. Neier (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese counters

How do you romanize Japanese words with counters (i.e. 三人, 10年)? Do you use a dash between the word and the counter, or just romanize it as one word? Or does the romanization depend on the counter you are using (if it's a common counter or not)? I really think MOS:JP should address this to solve any problems of articles with counters on their name (i.e. Morning Musume Tanjō 10 Nen Kinentai). Eugh jei ♥ Kaorin 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, they are one word. Or I take them as one word in a native speaker's sense. , , and . Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fruit

Any opinions on what the title of Shekwasha should be, perhaps after a glance at ja:シークヮーサー#表記? It seems to me that we're not at the ideal title now, but I don't really have a grasp on how we treat that type of thing. I remember a similar question about goya a long time ago, but all of that appears to have been excised from the Bitter melon article. Dekimasuよ! 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a topic that I am too familiar with, so I do not have any strong opinions either way. However, in academic papers and technical translations I have often used scientific names as they are most precise and also neutral. Also, WP:NC(flora) makes the same recommendation. Even if Shkwasha or some variation of that is somehow the common name, the recommendation is to redirect it to the scientific name. Thus I'd suggest Citrus depressa Hayata. I suggest taking it up at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants for a better response. Bendono (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The naming convention is good enough for me, so I've gone ahead and moved the page to Citrus depressa. I'll create a redirect from the longer title you mentioned. Dekimasuよ! 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Casing in romanization

What part of WP:MOS-JA supports this edit: ? It is a romanization, nothing more, and capitalizing certain words as if they are proper nouns makes little sense. Bendono (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Asuka is a proper noun, though, and should be capitalized. When it comes to other things, like capitalizing Kabuki or Karate by way of emphasizing it or denoting it as a foreign word, I am for the most part opposed to it, and have in fact spent some time lately decapitalizing instances of "Karate" all over Misplaced Pages. But I don't think special rules need apply within the romanization brackets that don't apply elsewhere; proper nouns should be capitalized, and Asuka is a proper noun. LordAmeth (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Asuka is a proper noun. And it is appropriately capitalized in the English text. However, that is not what I am referring to. I am asking about the romanization given in the {{Nihongo}} template. It makes little sense to apply any special grammatical or style guidelines such as casing there. If you do, then while 飛鳥 is a proper noun, then what about 飛鳥時代? Similar logic could be applied to capitalizing jidai as well. There are a number of other cases (no pun intended) as well. Rather than waste time on such issues, I would opt to always make it lower case and simply be done with it. Bendono (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"to always make it lower case and simply be done with it" may be a little too unsubtle. While I agree that when romanisation is used as a purely technical device it is inappropriate to apply style/grammar guidelines, consider the situation where the romanised text is the primary focus e.g. Bashō's bibliography. There may be other comparable scenarios that need separate consideration.--Yumegusa (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

None of those are in the Nihongo template and do not act merely as a romanization but as real titles. So really outside the scope of this topic. Bendono (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel that any special rules need to apply to things specifically within that template vs outside of it. Even in that particular spot, it serves not solely as a pronunciation guide, not solely as romanization, serving a purely linguistic purpose, but also serves to provide an alternate title or name for the subject of the article, and thus should reflect a standard of capitalization. Whether we write Asukajidai, Asuka jidai, Asuka Jidai etc is of course a matter of debate; there can be no single definitive answer about whether or not jidai ought to be capitalized. But, again, for proper nouns such as Asuka, Tōkyō, etc, I see no reason to make them lowercase, ever, no matter what template they're in, no matter what context. That's my two cents. LordAmeth (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As LordAmeth wrote, that edit (and all the others I made in that series) were because the romanization should follow the same capitalization rules as for the English words. WP:MOS-JA talks about it in the Capitalization section. ···日本穣 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Searching the archives

I've added a search field in the archive box to allow searching of just the archives of this page. Enjoy! ···日本穣 20:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks x 2! This and the one at WikiProject:Japan will save a lot of work searching. Fg2 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking dates

Misplaced Pages:Linking#Chronological items has just been updated with the results of a major poll on whether or not to link dates. Fg2 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Need some help on the Rampo Edogawa article.

Rampo Edogawa has been changed to Edogawa Rampo near the end of last month. I don't know why it keeps getting changed back and forth between either one of these names, but I have now changed the name back to "Rampo Edogawa", with a note about its romanization. Is this change acceptable? Thank you in advance. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The change is correct. Oda Mari (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article names for mountains

There's a near-consensus discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#Mount O on how to name Japanese mountains -- please chip in! Jpatokal (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the discussion there and not here, where is belongs? Bendono (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you go read the discussion, you'll see it initially was just a quick question of how to name a specific article. As more people frequent that talk page, it only makes sense that someone would ask a question there first. ···日本穣 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from WT:JA

Moved here for convenience.

A new article describes Mount O (御岳 O-take). In contrast, we already had Mount Ontake (御嶽山 Ontake-san), rather than Mount On. Is "Mount O" the best name for the article on 御岳? Is "Mount Ontake" the best name for the article on 御嶽山? Fg2 (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When I search "御岳山", I get Mitakesan... And the article says it's in Kagoshima, but also says it's a Hokkaido stub... there's something very wrong with this article. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on which 御岳, 御嶽, or 御岳山 it is. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is how to deal with the tautological mountain names of xxx岳/嶽 with 山 and the names with xxx岳/嶽 without 山, isn't it?　BTW, the precise name of the volcano in Sakurajima peninsula is Ontake/御岳 too, even Japanese usually call it Sakurajima. There are many mountains of these kinds. See the ja links above. The matter makes me headache. I'm not sure...but both of the names might be best. Oda Mari (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Although ja:御岳 calls it On-take, it seems from short search that 御岳 on Nakanoshima (Kagoshima) is called in three ways in Japanese: O-take, O-dake and On-take. --Sushiya (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This local site says it's Otake. Oda Mari (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And this page by Kagoshima prefecture calles it おんたけ (Ontake). The name of the article should be, as long as the style is concerned, in the same way as the other Ontake, like "Mount XXXXtake (Kagoshima)". "On", "O" or "Mi" is an honorific prefix added to take, so the name really means "The Mountain". There are alikes in Japan, for example 江の川, whose name is "The River - River". --Mantokun (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

国土地理院 also says it's Ontake. (Click Kagoshima in the map.) Then the volcano name of Nakanoshima is Ontake? Oda Mari (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Incredible... Each island in the Tokara islands has its own peak named 御岳 and they're all called differently.... At any rate, the article name for the one in question be named "Ontake" after GSI preference on WP, I suppose. --Mantokun (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should build a WP:SETINDEX/{{SIA}} and WP:CJKV dab page for it then. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If Japanese name is Ontake, article title should be "Mount On" in accordance with the naming convention inferred from the examples of Mount Tsurugi (Toyama) (Tsurugi-dake), Mount Yake (Yake-dake), Mount Yari (Yari-ga-take), etc. --Sushiya (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And what is wrong with Otake or Ontake? If we consider -take, -dake as part of the proper noun which forms the name, the controvery and confusion can be reduced. As with Ōshima, we do not have "Ō Island". For Shimbashi, we do not have "Shin Bridge". For Yamashiro Province, we do not have "Mount Shiro Province". In naming of mountain articles in German (Matterhorn, not "Matter Peak") and French (Mont Blanc), not "Mount Blanc" or "Blanc Mountain"), we have many similar examples. Given the variety of methods by which the Japanese name is transliterated depending on English-language source, would it not be better to stay with the original name as the article title? --MChew (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course exceptions are allowed if you have some ground to break the de facto (or documented? I'm not sure) naming convention. We already have exceptional forms like Asahidake, Kurumayama, Daisen (mountain) and Pinneshiri. --Sushiya (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, we have had this discussion repeatedly. MChew has always taken the stance that we should not translate these parts of the proper nouns. I have over time taken the opposite end of the argument. For example, we translate Kaikyō in Tsushima Strait. So with Otake I made it Mount O. The past discussions have run along the line that we translate these nominal parts. There different people have created different exceptions, like the well-known English name is not translated, or if the name ends up being too short, with no clear-cut definition of what too short is. I choose a methodology that leaves as few exceptions as possible, just so I do not have to think too much. Do I apply it universally? No, otherwise I would have made Nakanoshima into Naka Island. Sometimes it is hard with names like Furanonishidake. See past discussions here and here.

As for the reading, I based the reading on the Quarternary Volcanoes of Japan article for GSI. There they give it the reading 'O'.imars (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are looking for a method with the least exception, the only way I can think of is to stick strictly to local names. However, let's put that aside a moment because there's a reasonably stated guideline here: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names).

Although some changes were made to the guideline over time since 2008, the basics as to how to treat non-english names have not changed largely, with its essence excerpted as follows:

• The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. (August 2008 - further elaborated but, in essence, still the same today)
• If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. (April 2008 -)

I may have overlooked a J-specific rule in which case I would like to be pointed to it, but otherwise, the above seems to be where we should fall back upon as reference.

Then, 御岳 is "Ontake" or "Otake", unless there's a clear explanation provided as to why it should be named otherwise. (Note: How the name is called locally is yet another issue and has to be treated apart from whether the article should be named with an English name or not.) A reason why people tend not to be too irritated by kaikyō being translated into English as "straits" is likely because such is a relatively newer notion, or term, that have only become prominent in modern times, or earliest in pre-modern times beyond the 17th century. In other words, it is a term too new for people to look at the term as an inseparable, integral part of a name; names of moutains and rivers, are often much older to be allowed to de-composed. I have already stated in my previous post that "御" in the case of "御岳" is a prefix. Regardless of how it is pronounced, its meaning is "THE mountain". There was not a mountain called "O" or "On"; if there was not THE mountain there was nothing, thus calling it "Mount O" is just nonsense. Nevertheless, if there is a proof that it became to be called "Mount O" or "Mount On" in English, then let's just take it.

Examples as Mount Tsurugi, Mount Yake or Mount Yari are some of those whose naming is yet subject to review than being referred to as any sort of "standard" naming examples.

I have included a list of search results here related to this matter on my User page (just because it is so lengthy but I am ready to copy it over here if a portal admin so requests). --Mantokun (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I conceede that Mantokun has raised some good points. I am rethinking my position. One question though, how do we interpret widely accepted in English in the guideline? imars (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsushima Straits is quite okay under Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names), as it is an internationally recognized name of an international waterway. Likewise Mount Fuji is the commonly used name for that mountain. However, very few Japanese geographic names are not widely known outside of Japan. --MChew (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Mount O" sounds bizarre and is not the most commonly used form. I would suggest the same compromise that we have for shrines and temples: translate -san into "Mount", but keep -yama, -dake as is. Jpatokal (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. ···日本穣 07:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese Misplaced Pages has one article on Oyama (小山), one on Oyama (雄山) (with the disambiguation page listing one more), and two articles on Ōyama. There's a disambiguation page for two mountains named 御山, which might be Oyama or Miyama. So there could be lots of Oyamas and Ōyamas. But that's a matter for disambiguation (e.g. Ōyama (X Prefecture)) and not naming the mountain. I prefer Oyama to Mount O. Fg2 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good to me too. Dekimasuよ! 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Jpatokal's proposal, the -dake part sounds reasonable, but I don't agree to the -yama part, assuming titles like Mount Asama, Mount Kumotori etc. Unlike -dake, -yama is merely an alternative reading of the kanji 山 so that distinctive treatment based on Japanese readings would cause confusion. --Sushiya (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Do we need to qualify by syllable count instead then? Monosyllabic names (excluding suffix) retain the Japanese form (Oyama, Ondake, Gassan), longer ones are English (Mount Fuji, Mount Asama, Mount Haguro)...? Jpatokal (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A modified version of Jpatokal's original proposal sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, (although I understand Sushiya's concerns) and it would still leave us with "Mount Ga" instead of Gassan. On the other hand, going purely by syllable count would leave us with "Mount Yatsu", or even worse, "Mount Yatsuga", instead of Yatsugatake. Perhaps keeping -yama, -dake, -san and monosyllabic -yama names "as is", and changing multisyllabic -yama to "Mount" would work? I would not object as much to "Mount Asama" as I would to a "Mount Ga". I believe that Sushiya's point is that the final kanji 山 could be read as either -san, or -yama, depending on the mountain. Perhaps those cases could be addressed case-by-case depending on the prevalent local name?--MChew (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think MChew's version is the best yet. Draft for MOS-J: Jpatokal (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Use the Japanese name for all mountains suffixed with -dake/take (岳), and monosyllabic names suffixed with -san or -yama (山). For longer -san/yama names, use the form "Mount X" without the Japanese suffix. If there are multiple mountains with the same name, disambiguate by prefecture.

Examples: Ondake, Yatsugatake, Gassan, Oyama but Mount Fuji, Mount Asama, Mount Tsurugi (Tokushima)

I strongly disagree that there is any consensus on this issue. Yatsugatake is a redirect, Gassan does not even refer to the mountain, Oyama is a disambiguation page. Why is -yama translated and -dake not? What is the reasoning for that? Either translate both or neither? imars (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is only a proposal — I'm not claiming that there is consensus nor that current names match this. (FWIW, you'll find 月山 at Mount Gassan.)

And there's a good reason to treat -dake/take separately: unlike -san/yama, it often takes the particle ga, and unlike -san/yama, it's also used to mean "peak" as well as "mountain". This is impossible to smoothly translate into English, and makes shoehorning such names into "Mount X" format awkward at best: for example, 八ヶ岳 is actually "Eight Peaks", as opposed to a single "Mount Yatsu" (or, worse yet, "Mount Yatsuga"). Jpatokal (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yatsugatake is perhaps a bad example, as it does not really represent a single mountain, but rather a mountain range. You see the same thing repeated again and again: 八甲田山 should not be Mount Hakkōda, but Hakkōda Mountains. Nor should 大雪山 be Mount Daisetsu, but Daisetsuzan Volcanic Group. I see nothing wrong with 松田岳 Mount Matsuda, 比布岳 Mount Pippu, or 石狩岳 Mount Ishikari so long as Mount Asama, Mount Fuji, and Mount Kumotori are acceptable. imars (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. So, what do you propose instead? Treat -dake/take just like -san/yama, and add a specific exception for the case where -san/dake/take represents multiple mountains? Jpatokal (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Mount Warusawa is not actually a mountain as implied by the article title, but simply is one of three named protuberances on ja:荒川岳. imars illustates the danger of simply translating -san/-yama as Mount, as it could be a single mountain, or an entire range. Likewise -dake/-take can be a mountain, or it could be a single peak on a mountain. Which brings me back to my original position that -dake/-take, -sam/-yama should be considered intregal parts of a proper name, and not divided out. If it helps drive a compromise, I do not see a problem with the redundant Mount XXXdake or Mount XXXsan, if imars is adamant that the use of the word "Mount" is essential to the understanding of non-Japanese speaking readers. I would prefer a redundant "Mount Ontake", which preserves the native form proper name over a truncated version. --MChew (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to weaken my position on forcing Mount. I clearly see the error in Mount O. If we continue down the path of adding Mount, then it should be consistent no matter if it is -yama, -san, -zan, -dake, -take, -mine, -hō or whatever. Mantokun raised the point that we have a general standard to use the widely-accepted English name. Mount Fuji is clear. If none exists then use the local name. I am writing a lot of articles about relatively obscure mountains as far as the English-speaking world goes. Let's take an example: 幌尻岳 Mount Poroshiri, the tallest mountain in the Hidaka range of Hokkaido. Literally this is Big Mountain Mountain. Poroshiri is big mountain in Ainu. Dake we already know. A quick Google search gives Mount Poroshiri 201, Mount Poroshiridake 0, Mt. Poroshiridake 4, Poroshiridake -Mt. -Mount 126, 幌尻岳 36,900. Is this enough of a sampling to determine if there is a widely accepted English name? If it is, Mount Poroshiri seems to come out slightly ahead of Poroshiridake, but this is hardly a scientific count. By excluding Mt. and Mount from the Poroshiridake search I may have influenced the result. imars (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose redundant "Mounts", we don't do this for any other articles and we don't need to start doing it now. So either "Mount X" or "X-san", but not "Mount X-san". Jpatokal (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly true: Mount Kabutoyama, Mount Nakayama, Mount Nishigatake, Mount Miyama, Mount Bunagatake, and Mount Hinokizuka Okumine. OK, I could only find 5 out of a few hundred. ;-) imars (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to correct my wording: we don't need to start enshrining such naming in policy. And, interestingly enough, none of the examples you note have -san as an ending. (I'll add one for you though: Mount Gassan.) Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to my question, Encyclopedia Britannica writes Mount Poroshiri. So it looks to me like they tend to translate these endings. Additionally all the river articles in List of rivers of Japan translate -k/gawa 川, X River, with the exception of Kinokawa River and Mukogawa River, which choose the redundant X-gawa River. Lakes are also mostly translated. imars (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should mostly follow suit, but there are some names for which this would be absurd ("Mount On", "Mount Mi", "Mount Gas"), so the question remains where to draw the line. Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Mount Gas" is absurd, as it doesn't represent the Japanese name (although it is what you get by separating "san" from "Gassan," it invites interpreting the name as gasu). And short names like "Mount On" and "Mount Mi," especially those with name components that seem to modify "Mount" rather than to be independent names followed by san, are the sort of thing that prompted me to ask this question in the first place. But it's not necessarily shortness; I can see the thinking behind Mount Tate (which looks like the one-syllable English name Tate) even if it was alarming the first time I encountered the article. Still, I think this is getting close to a good solution. Fg2 (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the "romanization" section of the manual?

This isn't the first time I bring some of this up, but I hope I'll get a bit more feedback this time around...

(and I hope you'll forgive my poor English skills, too)

Like the title says, I'm not too sure about some aspects of the "romanization" section of the manual...

For one thing, it starts off by saying that "revised Hepburn romanization (described below) should be used in all cases". But the "description below" obviously is a very summarized one, and even the article this sentence links to doesn't appear to offer (or link to) any exhaustive description of this "revised Hepburn romanization". I'm still fairly new to Misplaced Pages, but... wouldn't a source be nice, here?

Especially considering the same manual also advises the use of "modified Hepburn" in several instances. There's apparently some general confusion regarding those two variants, as amusingly noted in the Hepburn romanization article (emphasis mine):

1. The second is revised Hepburn, a revised version of traditional Hepburn, in which the rendering of syllabic n as m before certain consonants is no longer used. This is used by the Library of Congress. (Revised Hepburn may be referred to as modified Hepburn.)
2. The third is modified Hepburn, which builds on revised Hepburn to further modify traditional Hepburn. This version is consistent in its treatment of long vowels (always doubling the vowel) and syllabic n (always n-bar). It has been adopted by some major dictionaries (e.g. the Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary published by Oxford University Press), but is still mainly the preserve of linguists. (The term modified Hepburn may also be used to refer to revised Hepburn.)

... Well, that's obviously very convenient.

So what is it we're supposed to be using anyway? Revised? Modified? Where do you go when the short description provided by the manual doesn't suffice?

The article says at one point that "in 1972, a revised version of Hepburn was codified as ANSI standard Z39.11-1972". So I looked around and found this. It's only a summary, apparently, but it's a lot more detailed than the one provided by the manual, so I guess that's always something.

According to the Hepburn romanization article, in "modified Hepburn", long vowels are always indicated by doubling the vowel. ANSI Z39.11-1972 disagrees and says macrons are the future of mankind, so it would appear it really is "revised Hepburn" indeed, not a mislabeled modified Hepburn.

Now, the manual also advocates the usage of macrons, which, at first glance, seems to indicate that it's really referring to revised Hepburn / ANSI Z39.11-1972 when it comes to romanization. But it says that only long "u" and "o" sounds should be written with macrons, and "all other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee." That actually goes against ANSI Z39.11-1972, which states that long "a" and "e" sounds should also be written with macrons. So this is getting confusing already. Why does the manual say that "aa" and "ee" should be used? Based on what? Is there another (apparently slightly different) revised Hepburn out there? And if so... source?

When I brought this up a while ago, I was told that maybe the manual says to write "aa" because more often than not, "ああ" won't really be a long "a" sound, but rather two juxtaposed "あ" (and I'm guessing the same could be said about "ee"). Now, long "a" sounds certainly aren't common, and I guess there indeed is a good chance most "ああ" you'll find will simply be two juxtaposed "あ"... but that's still a rather unfortunate way to put things, for a manual, don't you think? After all, we are talking about long vowels, here, no matter how rare some of them may be.

Then, there is the matter of those two points:

1. For transliterations from kanji and kana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can click on the special characters below the Misplaced Pages edit box, or see Help:Macrons for instructions on setting up your computer to input them directly from the keyboard. You can also enter the HTML entity ō for ō, and ū for ū. All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii.
2. For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo). If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists, use it (i.e., Homard (ja:オマール Omāru) rather than Omāru, and Zha cai (ja:ザーサイ Zāsai) rather than Zāsai). Otherwise, macrons should be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".

Right now, the manual makes a distinction between "transliterations from kanji and kana" and "transliterations from katakana". Naturally, katakana are kana, so this is some unfortunate wording right here. From what I can tell, the intent was actually to distinguish words of Japanese origin and words of foreign (well, "non-Japanese") origin. If that is indeed the intent, and considering words of Japanese origin can be written in katakana (... and words of foreign origin are sometimes written in hiragana... there are some jokers out there), I think it would make a lot more sense to... well, explicitely have the first point be about "transliterations of words of Japanese origin" (a case could be made for "transliterations of words of Japanese or Chinese origin", but that would only concern on'yomi and thus might muddle the issue quite a bit), and the second one be about "transliterations of words of foreign origin".

Finally, am I the only one a bit perplexed by the way the second point is worded? "If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists "? Yes, if we're talking about a word of non-Japanese origin that is not (amazingly enough!) of English origin either, it's a pretty safe bet that it won't have an English spelling and we'll have to try and look elsewhere... I'm thinking a slightly less anglocentric take would probably be more logical in this context (and perhaps even be shorter in the end).

Soooo... what do you think? Is it just me, or is there some room for improvement here? Erigu (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the English language Misplaced Pages, so of course it's going to be more anglocentric. However, I fail to see how the MOS-JA telling you to use the spelling from another language is "anglocentric". There are plenty of words not of English origin which have English spellings, and some which may even be different than the original language spelling (Brazil/Brasil springs to mind, and I'm sure there are plenty of others). As this is the English language WIkipedia, English language spellings are preferred if they exist; otherwise, use the spelling of the language of origin. In cases, such as with Japanese, where the language of origin does not use Latin letters, then the appropriate romanization scheme should be used. ···日本穣 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the English language Misplaced Pages, so of course it's going to be more anglocentric.

In this particular context, anglocentrism makes no sense. Words of foreign (non-Japanese) origin may be of any origin, and it makes no sense to make a distinction between those of English origin and those of other origins if, in the end, the exact same principle should be applied anyway: you're supposed to use the spelling of the original language.

There are plenty of words not of English origin which have English spellings, and some which may even be different than the original language spelling (Brazil/Brasil springs to mind, and I'm sure there are plenty of others).

I wouldn't say "Brazil" is the English spelling of "Brasil". "Brasil" is the Portuguese name, and "Brazil" is the English one. They just happen to be very similar. Or would you say "Londres" is the French spelling of "London", by the same logic?

And I believe Japanese dictionaries specify the origin of gairaigo (which would tell us which spelling to use). My dictionary, for example, says that "burajiru" comes from the English "Brazil". So "Brazil" it would be.

In cases, such as with Japanese, where the language of origin does not use Latin letters, then the appropriate romanization scheme should be used.

And that's a precision that should probably be added to the manual, actually. While it does provide an example from Chinese, it doesn't explain why the alphabet spelling "Zha cai" is used. Erigu (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Romanization of "ou" in words of foreign origin

I've recently been arguing with others about the romanization of "ソウル" (from the English word "soul").

My opponents argue (well, argued, as somebody decided the discussion was over) that "ソウル" should be romanized as "sōru". I'd personally use "souru".

Are you referring to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#Katakana question? There was no such "decision", it was agreed that the correct spelling depends on the pronunciation. Jpatokal (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to this. But I guess I should have expected the announcement of this new Pocket Monsters game would generate similar discussions. Erigu (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My opponents' argument seems to be (feel free to barge in if I get something wrong) that we should simply follow policy, i.e. check the manual of style. And the manual of style says this:

1. For transliterations from kanji and kana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively. If you have difficulty typing these characters with your IME, you can click on the special characters below the Misplaced Pages edit box, or see Help:Macrons for instructions on setting up your computer to input them directly from the keyboard. You can also enter the HTML entity ō for ō, and ū for ū. All other long vowels are written without macrons: ああ → aa, いい → ii, and ええ → ee. Apostrophes and hyphens are not needed to distinguish i)(i from ii.
2. For transliterations from katakana, use the English spelling if available (i.e., Thunderbird (サンダーバード Sandābādo) instead of Sandābādo). If an English spelling is not available, but a spelling from another language of origin exists, use it (i.e., Homard (ja:オマール Omāru) rather than Omāru, and Zha cai (ja:ザーサイ Zāsai) rather than Zāsai). Otherwise, macrons should be used for all long vowels indicated with ー, including "a", "e", and "i".

According to the first point, long "o" sounds should be written with macrons, and the second point (about "words in katakana", but like I explained in that other section I created just above, I suspect it's really about "words of foreign origin") doesn't say anything about that one way or the other. And this would mean we should just apply what's said in the first point, as there is (apparently) no reason for an exception to be made.

I disagree (obviously enough) and here's my reasoning:

Are we even dealing with a long "o" sound, here? Maybe most Japanese people would pronounce it like a long "o" sound, but then again the same would probably pronounce "ヴァ" like "ba", and both kana and revised Hepburn romaji make the distinction, here...

So should "so / u" in a word of foreign origin really be considered a ("true") long "so" sound (and romanized as such)?

To me, the "u" being used to indicate a long "o" sound is something that's only relevant to the actual Japanese language, by which I mean "words of Japanese origin" (on'yomi included, naturally).

Not only that, but "ou" isn't necessarily a long "o" sound either, in words of Japanese origin. There are quite a few examples of words or names that contain "ou" that are really juxtaposed "o / u". In fact, I'd argue that "ou" standing for a long "o" sound or "ei" standing for a long "e" sound are actually irregularities, not "the rule". Extremely common irregularities (born from centuries of evolving pronunciations and kana orthographies), obviously, but irregularities all the same. Normally, "u" stands for "u" and "i" stands for "i".

So when I'm told that there is no apparent reason to make an "exception" for "ソウル" (a word that isn't even of Japanese origin in the first place), that doesn't make sense to me.

I think that, when dealing with words of foreign origin, juxtaposition should be assumed (after all, for the long vowels, we have the chōonpu... that's pretty much the whole purpose of the thing). I see very little reason to bring up irregularities that are intimately tied to the long evolution of (the actual) Japanese language, here. And even less to see those irregularities as "the rule".

"Ball" is generally rendered as "ボール" in kana, whereas "bowl" ends up as "ボウル". Why? If it's all the same anyway, why the (extremely) common distinction? I think there's information, here, and very little reason (if at all) to lose it by transliterating both words as "bōru".

But I was told I wasn't making any sense... What do you think?

(obviously, the whole matter could be resolved pretty quickly if somebody knew of an exhaustive description of the revised Hepburn romanization that would address this particular matter, but...?) Erigu (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I only briefly skimmed your rather long comment, but the word ソウル, meaning "soul", is transliterated as souru, not *sōru. The reason being because the /o/ here is short, not long. While vowel + u is often realized as a long vowel, that is not the case here, which is two short vowels /o/ and /u/. Although Japanese spelling is often quite rational and transparent, there are a few rough spots that need special care. This is a fairly common word, but in difficult or uncertain situations, there are dictionaries (such as 日本国語大辞典) that, in addition to the spelling, will also give the pronunciation as well. Regards, Bendono (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply (and sorry about the length of my initial comment).

So it would appear we agree about "ソウル" being transliterated as "souru". Right now, several articles (Soul Edge, Soulcalibur, The SoulTaker, Bleach (manga), Soul Eater (manga), Persona: Trinity Soul, Dragon Soul and possibly more) transliterate that word as "sōru", and my attempts to change the spelling to "souru" were reverted by an admin who pointed me to the manual of style, and explained the spelling "sōru" was dictated by Misplaced Pages policy and there was nothing I could do to change that. Nihonjoe joined the discussion and agreed with him.

I don't know. Erigu (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whack 'em with a trout and point them to this discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused by the information Oda Mari provided at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#Katakana question. She mentioned that Rubber Soul is ソウル whereas rubber sole is ソール. I have no reason to doubt this. Do Japanese people pronounce them differently? If they do, it makes it easier to believe that pronunciation causes the difference. But if they pronounce them the same (as I do, being a native speaker of English), I still wonder about the cause of this difference. Not that we need an explanation to make a rule; I simply wonder. Fg2 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How to convert English into kana is one question, but this is about the reverse: how to convert to kana into romaji. I think it's pretty self-evident that ソウル is meant to be pronounced "souru", because if not, it would be ソール. Jpatokal (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At least I pronounce them differently. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I pronounce them the same in English and differently in Japanese. That seems to be consistent with my experience as well as dictionary references. Bendono (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "ソウル" and "ソール" would be pronounced differently at all in Japanese, when the words they represent (generally) in English ("soul" and "sole") are homophones. Just because the two words have been written differently does not mean that they are pronounced differently. The word "Soul" in Japanese has for the longest time been written as "ソウル" for whatever reason, and even if you separate the "so" and the "u" you are still producing a long o sound.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "ソウル" and "ソール" would be pronounced differently at all in Japanese, when the words they represent (generally) in English ("soul" and "sole") are homophones.

Then again, "コンピュータ" and "コンピューター" represent the same English word ("computer"), and it seems obvious to me that you would pronounce them differently in Japanese.

As for "ソウル" and "ソール", one might wonder what came first: the kana spelling or the Japanese pronunciation? Maybe (that's really just a theory formulated on the spot) the two words were spelled differently in kana (to avoid any confusion?), and the pronunciation difference (in Japanese) mentioned by other users above was actually caused by that spelling difference.

Just because the two words have been written differently does not mean that they are pronounced differently.

But I could also argue that just because two words are written differently in kana and pronounced the same in Japanese, that doesn't necessarily mean they're to be transliterated the same according to revised Hepburn. Just above, I mentioned "ヴァ" being pronounced by most like "ba" but transliterated as "va". Erigu (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The vu kana is completely different. For many many years, there was no way to transliterate the foreign V sound in Japanese. The B kana were used for a long time until someone decided to make "ヴ" which is transliterated as "vu". Not everyone uses this and it's still difficult in the Japanese phonemic system to add a new sound after several thousand years without that sound existing which is why "ヴァ" is transliterated as "va" but consistently pronounced as "ba". Again, you are not convincing me of anything. "ソウル" and "ソール" are homophonous. You have yet to convince me otherwise. And I do not want to see my response picked apart as you usually do. I want a straight linear response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And the same goes for "ボール" and "ボウル" in Japanese, even though the same does not hold true for English. And the only difference between "コンピュータ" and "コンピューター" is that you pronounce the end of the latter with a long a. The choice between the two is just a stylistic choice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For your first point, I could argue back that, just like it's difficult for Japanese people to adapt to a new sound, it might not be that surprising to see them pronounce "ou" as a long "o" sound simply by habit... But I could also point out that we have a bunch of examples, in words of Japanese origin, of "ei" that are pronounced by some exactly like "ē". Different kana spelling, same pronunciation, different revised Hepburn romanization.

My point being that I don't think you can argue there's a rule of thumb that says that, regardless of the Japanese spelling, "if it's pronounced the same, it should be transliterated the same in romaji".

As for your second point, yes, the only difference between "コンピュータ" and "コンピューター" is that you pronounce the end of the latter with a long "a". So? My point was that there was a pronunciation difference despite both words being based on the exact same English word (and I'm glad to see we do agree about that). So your arguing that "ソウル" and "ソール" should logically be pronounced the same simply because they're based on English homophones... Well, it's doesn't quite add up.

(I "pick apart" your responses in order to address each point individually, and I'm not sure what's so wrong with that. Unless you're implying I'm twisting your words, in which case I'd really like you to explain when/where/how exactly.) Erigu (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the two words should be pronounced the same just because the words are homophonous in English. I'm saying the two words should be pronounced the same because they are homophonous in the modern Japanese phonetic system. I don't know why the Hepburn system choses to use "ei" and "ee" instead of "ē" but "oo" and "ou" become "ō" and "uu" becomes "ū", but the homophonous nature of "ou" and "oo" and "o-" to be "ō" is pretty much set into the Japanese phonemic system. And I cannot find one instance other than the anecdotal instances here, where "ソウル" and "ソール" are pronounced differently. I am currently trying to find a native speaker to get his or her opinion on the matter, rather than those of us who have learned it in an English speaking culture.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the two words should be pronounced the same just because the words are homophonous in English. I'm saying the two words should be pronounced the same because they are homophonous in the modern Japanese phonetic system.

If your point was just that the two words should be pronounced the same in Japanese because they're homophonous in Japanese (tautology alert! ^^;), why bring up the fact they're homophones in English at all?

And you've been saying that they're homophonous in Japanese from the beginning, but I'm still not sure about that. Apparently, some outright disagree.

And again, the thing about "ou" standing for a long "o" sound is (often) true in words of Japanese origin, but you have yet to prove it's (always?) true for words of foreign origin. I explained above why I don't think it makes sense to bring up "ou" -> long "o" sound in this particular context. Erigu (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the words be homophonous if they're not Japanese in origin? If the phoneme is the same in native words, why do you believe the phoneme wouldn't be the same in gairaigo? Just because of the difference in how the word is written? I have other studiers of Japanese and native speakers who are telling me that the words are homophonous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If the phoneme is the same in native words, why do you believe the phoneme wouldn't be the same in gairaigo?

I explained all that in my initial post. Erigu (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Give me the Cliff's Notes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it's not that long... And considering we've been debating this for a while, I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to actually read my reasoning eventually... Erigu (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)コンピュータ vs コンピューター is a different kind of matter. it's a matter of notation, not of pronunciation. It is said that コンピュータ is started to be used by scientists especially when they type the word, using word processor/computer just because it's too much of a bother. So please put the matter aside. "ソウル" and "ソール" are not homophones in Japanese. As a native speaker, I totally agree with User:Erigu. Oda Mari (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's strange because I've spoken with other native speakers who pronounce the two the same way so they are homophones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

コンピュータ vs コンピューター is a different kind of matter. it's a matter of notation, not of pronunciation.

I'd say it's both... Those two spellings aren't pronounced the same, right?

But if your point is that the "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" difference (and the reason behind that difference) has nothing to do with the "ソウル"/"ソール" difference... Sure, I agree. I only brought the "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" thing up in response to Ryulong's argument that "ソウル" and "ソール" had to be homophones in Japanese because "soul" and "sole" are homophones in English. It wasn't my intention to claim that both cases were extremely similar or anything like that. Erigu (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To Ryulong. Ask the native speaker how does s/he pronounce Seoul/ソウル. Thank you.
To Erigu. As for "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" , the pronunciation is the same. Oda Mari (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?? 0_o;

Well, I guess you learn something new every day... Erigu (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was looking around for more about this "コンピュータ"/"コンピューター" thing (I'm still flabbergasted, sorry), and I happened to stumble upon this.

This part seems quite relevant to the debate at hand:

長音は，原則として長音符号「ー」を用いて書く。

〔例〕エネルギー　オーバーコート　グループ　ゲーム　ショー　テーブル　パーティー　ウェールズ（地） ポーランド（地） ローマ（地） ゲーテ（人）　ニュートン（人）

注１　長音符号の代わりに母音字を添えて書く慣用もある。

〔例〕バレエ（舞踊） ミイラ

注２　「エー」「オー」と書かず，「エイ」「オウ」と書くような慣用のある場合は，それによる。

〔例〕エイト　ペイント　レイアウト　スペイン（地） ケインズ（人） サラダボウル　ボウリング（球技）

注３　英語の語末の-er，-or，-arなどに当たるものは，原則としてア列の長音とし長音符号「一」を用いて書き表す。ただし，慣用に応じて「一」を省くことができる。

〔例〕エレベーター　ギター　コンピューター　マフラー　エレベータ　コンピュータ　スリッパ

(I have to admit I hadn't thought of "バレエ" and "ミイラ"...)

So according to the second note, it is a long "e" sound, in "スペイン"? I'm... surprised (but I'm thinking I won't be alone in this). "ボウル" is listed, too.

While it doesn't say that "エイ" and "オウ" necessarily stand for long "e" and "o" sounds in words of foreign origins, it does call them long vowels in at least some cases... Huh. Erigu (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean kana aren't perfect for rendering foreign words and that there's some confusion about how to pronounce them? Who woulda thunk it?

I think we can make this real easy-like: for words in katakana, always follow the spelling. If the katakana spelling オウ is used, we render it ou. If the katakana spelling オー is used, we render it as ō. End of story. Jpatokal (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely what I'd go for, personally. Erigu (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But this is not what the revised Hepburn (or whatever the MOS uses) says should be used for "オウ". The current Hepburn says it should be "ō" just like "オー" would be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're just being dense, here...

According to revised Hepburn, long "o" sounds should be written as "ō". But is that really supposed to be a long "o" sound in "ソウル"? Erigu (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is another exception above. See #7 Ryokū vs. Ryokuu. And please compare the pronunciation and the pitch accent of soul Seoul and insole. Soul→0:54 and 1:09. Seoul→0:02 and 1:33. Insole→0:24. Oda Mari (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No exceptions. For words in katakana, always follow the spelling. Very, very easy.

Seriously, it's not our job to start examining pronunciations and pitch accents and trying to determine if something is a long vowel or two vowels. That's subjective WP:OR, varies between speakers, and will just lead to endless pointless debates. The kana, on the other hand, are clear and unambiguous.　Jpatokal (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say "for words of foreign origin" rather than just "for words in katakana".

But yeah, simply following the spelling sounds like the most sensible option to me. Macrons would only be used when there's no ambiguity (basically, when there are chōonpu). Erigu (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

"Ou" in nearly every single other instance (except for very very VERY few exceptions like "Inoue") is a long "o". That is what gives us the long o when it is kanji such as "王" and in the given name "一郎". This isn't me being dense. This is me being consistent with what is definitely known in all Japanese speakers. Just because the word isn't Japanese in origin does not mean that it is not pronounced as if it is. "Souru" is going to be read as "Sōru", even if it was written with a chōonpu or if it written in katakana to be "so-o-ru" instead of "so-u-ru" or "so-(chōonpu)-ru". I've honestly never run across this problem with anyone else in any Japanese setting. I've asked multiple other native speakers and non-native speakers, and they are all telling me things that you all here are not. If these were written in hiragana, I assume there wouldn't even be an argument. I'd be willing to bring this up to discussion with WP:JAPAN rather than here, because this is merely a manual of style and not at all indicative of full knowledge of Japan and its culture. From what I know and can read from current guidelines as well as the Hepburn dictionary's forward (where they use katakana) "ソウ sō". You three (Erigu, Jpatokal, Oda Mari) are the only ones I have ever seen argue anything along these lines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If these were written in hiragana, I assume there wouldn't even be an argument.

Katakana or hiragana, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we're talking about a word of foreign origin. With words of Japanese origin, you can tell fairly easily the difference between "ou" and "ō", between "o / u" and an actual long "o" sound. With words of foreign origin? Not so much.

From what I know and can read from current guidelines as well as the Hepburn dictionary's forward (where they use katakana) "ソウ sō".

Yes, they use katakana. But they're not talking about words of foreign origin (hell, they even explain stuff like "a-fu becomes au or ō").

(besides, that's not revised Hepburn)

This has been going on for a while, and you apparently still don't really know what we're talking about... And when I suggest you try and read the initial post, all I get from you is "Give me the Cliff's Notes"...

If you're not interested in this debate, why take part in it? If you are, please take the time to read what the others have to say... Erigu (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I spurred this debate and have been reading what has been going on. I still fail to see how just because a word is of foregin origin, it means that it does not follow the normal phonemic and phonetic rules of the language it is now in. So far, the arguments have not been convincing to me. And in words of Japanese origin, what normally happens with words with an "o" kana (ko, mo, so, do, ro, etc.) followed by the "u" kana, that it is parsed as a long O, resulting in the romanization to the ō. I am sure that if you see other words such as "藻類" or "走塁", you'd romanize them as "sōrui". Being written in katakana or being from a different language does not prevent it from being pronounced a different way. This is why everything pronounced in that way is listed on the Japanese Misplaced Pages under ソール. Apparently, the Japanese pronounce Sol, Sól, soul, sole, and Seoul the same way (and I know I do the same in English). And all of those ways involve the long O, which is parsed in the revised Hepburn of Misplaced Pages as ō.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, with one of the main dictionaries I utilize, WWWJDIC which has audio recordings of some words, the only difference between "ソール" and "ソウル" are the accent, but there is still a long O being spoken.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But there is another example for ou in Japanese word. 格子/lattice and 子牛/calf are both こうし in hiragana, but the pronunciation is different. 格子 is kōshi, 子牛 is koushi. Oda Mari (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's different because the kanji separate the o sound from the u sound in 子牛. The website I listed above pronounces the two differently. However, they still pronounce ソール and ソウル identically.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that if you see other words such as "藻類" or "走塁", you'd romanize them as "sōrui".

Because there's no ambiguity, there. Sometimes, there is. We've seen "緑雨" (りょくう) above, Oda Mari just produced a couple of other examples, and how would you romanize/pronounce stuff like "桃生" (ものう) or "黒河内岳" (くろごうちだけ)? At least, here, we have the kanji to try and understand what's going on and whether or not those are supposed to be long "o" sounds.

But how do you do that with words of foreign origin? Erigu (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Those words are in the same family as "子牛" in that kanji exists to separate the pronunciation. But with ソール and ソウル, the pronunciation is identical. I haven't found one source that says that the latter is pronounced differently from the former. I know that you are insinuating that there is no way to discern this for words of foreign origin, but all you do is look at the word in the original language, and in this case, the two are pronounced identically.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And in the dictionary I linked, "ボウル" and "ボール" are pronounced identically, as well. I can't discern "bouru" from "booru", and neither should Hepburn romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Those words are in the same family as "子牛" in that kanji exists to separate the pronunciation.

And yet, I believe that was actually a long "o" sound, in "黒河内岳"...

But yeah, the kanji do help. That was my point, even.

with ソール and ソウル, the pronunciation is identical.

Well, clearly, some disagree...

I know that you are insinuating that there is no way to discern this for words of foreign origin, but all you do is look at the word in the original language

The thing I quoted above said that it was really a long "e" sound, in "スペイン". Would you agree? Same thing for "エイト" or "ペイント"? Would you say it could just as well have been a chōonpu instead, and they only used "イ" because that's one way to indicate long "e" sounds in Japanese? No particular reason for that "イ" to be there, beyond that? Erigu (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the "ou" in 黒河内岳 (Kurogouchidake) is not a long "o". That's why it would be written "Kurogouchidake" on Misplaced Pages. The kanji in the name are Kuro-go-uchi-dake. It is not a long "o" any more than the "ou" in the name of Narumi Kakinouchi. As for スペイン, it is not a long "e" sound. "ペイ" (not the long "e" sound) and "ペエ" (which would be the long "e" sound") are absolutely not pronounced the same, though they are very similar and someone who doesn't know how to discern the difference would have a hard time on first listen. The "エイ" is pronounced similar' to the "ay" in "hay", and the second is pronounced similar to the "e" in "met", only held for slightly longer. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to the long "o" sound. ···日本穣 06:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the "ou" in 黒河内岳 (Kurogouchidake) is not a long "o". That's why it would be written "Kurogouchidake" on Misplaced Pages. The kanji in the name are Kuro-go-uchi-dake.

And since when is "河" pronounced "go", exactly?

I may be wrong about this, but I believe this is just another case of "au" ending up being pronounced "ō" and the kana orthography eventually catching up with that pronunciation shift (a bit like "ikamu" eventually became "ikō", or "o hayaku" became "o hayō"): "Kurogawauchi" became "Kurogōchi" over time. And that would be why "河内" is written "Kōchi" on Misplaced Pages.

As for the "ei" thing... So you do pronounce the "i" in "sensei", and the guys over at the Japanese Misplaced Pages are just plain wrong? Hmm.

(and I do think it has much to do with the "ou" situation, actually) Erigu (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently since it's the name for a mountain. We aren't here to argue why they are using a particular kanji and pronouncing it in an uncommon way. They pronounce it that way, and that's that. And it's not "Kurogawauchi", as the 内 is said "uchi". You can't break up the kanji pronunciation the way you are trying to do here. The same goes for "Inoue": "ue" is the pronunciation of the final kanji in that name, so you can't go attaching half its pronunciation to something else. I've fixed Kouchi, Hiroshima to be correct per WP:MOS-JA. As for the pronunciation of "ei", please drop it as that's not part of this issue. It has nothing to do with anything we're talking about here. ···日本穣 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

it's not "Kurogawauchi"

I was simply emphasizing which part of the name got its pronunciation altered over time. If you break it up according to the kanji, it's obviously "Kuro - gawa - uchi - dake", originally.

I've fixed Kouchi, Hiroshima to be correct per WP:MOS-JA.

Well, thanks for that: the article is now inaccurate... 'Guess I'll have to go and fix it back...

It is "Kōchi", it is a long "o" sound. It was originally "Kawauchi" ("Kawa - uchi"), but the pronunciation shifted to "Kōchi", and the kana spelling simply reflects that. See this and this, for example...

Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about, here... Erigu (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep civil here. There is no reason to start making personal attacks, and your attitude (at least to me) appears to be one of "you are all wrong, and I'm the only one who is right". That is not a productive angle from which to approach discussions, especially since you obviously haven't been here since the beginning of discussions which resulted in WP:MOS-JA. The romanization is not necessarily a reflection of the pronunciation (though in most cases it is). It was determined quite a while ago that any romanization across kanji boundaries was not a long "o" sound; therefore it should be "Kouchi", not "Kōchi", because the first kanji is pronounced "Ko". Do not revert changes such as that without discussion again. ···日本穣 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep civil here. There is no reason to start making personal attacks, and your attitude (at least to me) appears to be one of "you are all wrong, and I'm the only one who is right".

That sounds a lot like your own attitude so far. You're obviously working under the assumption that you're right and I'm wrong, and you apparently haven't been paying much attention to the explanations I've been giving you, here or in the initial discussion (the one you unilaterally closed and archived).

It was determined quite a while ago that any romanization across kanji boundaries was not a long "o" sound; therefore it should be "Kouchi", not "Kōchi", because the first kanji is pronounced "Ko".

Here, it is a long "o" sound, like I explained (twice). The first kanji isn't pronounced "ko".

Do not revert changes such as that without discussion again.

Please take the time to actually check your facts before editing articles like you just did. Erigu (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about レインボー? Sometimes it's レインボウ but never レーンボー nor レーンボウ. Sea lane is always シー・レーン. The pronunciations are distinctive. Oda Mari (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, Erigu. A long "e" is not the same as "ei", ever. The long "e" is said similar to the "e" in "met", but held slightly longer, and the "ei" is said similar to the "ay" in "hay". Not even close to the same sound. However, a long "o" (either "oo" or "ou" is always pronounced the same (please note that the "ou" in words such as "Inoue" is not a long "o", so that's not an issue here). ···日本穣 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A long "e" is not the same as "ei", ever. The long "e" is said similar to the "e" in "met", but held slightly longer, and the "ei" is said similar to the "ay" in "hay". Not even close to the same sound.

What was the thing I just quoted above even talking about, then?

And what about this:

/e/の長母音のうち「エ段+イ」でカナ表記されるものは、カナ表記どおり「ei」で表す。

Or this:

かせいで（稼）、へい（塀）などは、「カセイデ」「ヘイ」と発音する者と「カセーデ」「ヘー」と発音する者があるが、どちらの発音をするかに関わらず、え列の音節に「い」を添えて表記する。

Things don't seem nearly as clear-cut as you're saying... Or do you actually pronounce the "i" in "sensei"?

please note that the "ou" in words such as "Inoue" is not a long "o", so that's not an issue here

That's just the crux of this debate ("ou" or long "o" sound?), but if you say "that's not an issue", OK, then. ^^; Erigu (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. Why does the pronunciation matter? Especially in the case of artifically created words like "Soulcalibur", which you can't find in a dictionary, it's literally impossible for us to say how the creators intended it to be pronounced. The only solution possible without WP:OR is to transcribe the kana, one for one, into romaji. Ryulong, do you have a problem with this, and if yes, what is it? Jpatokal (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem with that, because that would introduce a whole level of non-uniformity into the manual of style.

Quite the opposite: the rule "romanize as it is written" is extremely uniform and has no exceptions at all(*). Follow the katakana: オー is ō, オウ is ou. Jpatokal (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(*) Well, almost. In the rare cases where katakana is used to write words normally written in hiragana/kanji, such as the scientific names of plants, the spelling rules of hiragana/kanji should be used instead. Eg. イチョウ (銀杏) is still ichō and not ichou.

Which is why I think it's important to have the distinction be between "words of Japanese origin" (that would include on'yomi, such as "イチョウ") and "words of foreign origin", rather than between "words in kanji and kana" and "words in katakana", like it is right now in the manual of style (as I mentioned already in another section above). Erigu (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is clear that any long O sound, such as that in ソウル or 格子 or ボール is written in romaji as "ō", which is the current practice anyway. The exceptions that have been brought up where an o kana followed by u such as 子牛 or 井上 which clearly are not long O sounds are simply exceptions and should not be expected everywhere you get オ, コ, ゴ, ソ, ゾ, ト, ド, ホ, ボ, ポ, モ, ヨ, or ロ followed by an ウ. There are exceptions, and I understand that, but we should not change the MoS to favor those exceptions where they might not exist. From what we already know, "ソウル" is a transliteration of the English word "soul". The only other place I have seen the proposed "souru" is where the Hepburn system isn't used and that's over at Wiktionary (I'll have to see their Manual of Style, but that spelling has been there for a while). This Manual of Style currently does not treat it the way Wiktionary does. And I know that if it was changed, there'd be a hell of a lot of work to do on our end.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

any long O sound, such as that in ソウル

Source? Erigu (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How the heck do you pronounce the word "Soul"? "So ul" or like "Sole"? There's no source for that. It's common sense. I've even been speaking with a native speaker who says that in order for "ソウル" to have the O and U separated, that it'd have to have its roots in a word that would normally be pronounced as "so uru", and none exists. As I have been saying, you are practically the only person to suggest that the word is pronounced any differently between languages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are laboring under the mistaken assumption that Japanese spelling or pronunciation systematically correlate to English spelling or pronunciation. Tell me, how would you pronounce or romanize ミシン, which is the Japanese rendering of "(sewing) machine"? Jpatokal (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's "mishin". But that still does not mean anything.

But we should be romanizing it according to its English roots as "masheen", no? Or are you saying that mishin is a Japanese word and not necessarily correlated to its English roots anymore? Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Souru" still has a long O in it. And everyone else with knowledge of the Japanese language is telling me that it does, unlike you all here. ソウル should be romanized as sōru, because that is how it is pronounced in Japanese. There's no separation of ソ from ウ as Oda Mari and Erigu suggest exists. It is simply a long O that does not use a chōonpu.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your imaginary friends do not count as sources. Compare WWWJDIC's pronunciations of ソール and ソウル; they're quite clearly different. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no different pronunciation. One just has a different accent, but they still say "sōru". And I have users of the Japanese language Misplaced Pages saying that they are pronounced identically. Not "imaginary friends" as you are calling them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Err, it's the same person reading both. Pay attention to the vowel: in ソー it's steady and long, in ソウ you can hear the transition from "o" to "u". (This would be quite obvious if you graphed them, but ripping out the waveforms from that Flash app appears to be nontrivial.) Jpatokal (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is correct: the pronunciation is the same, but the accent is different. He wasn't talking about an accent like a Southern accent, but rather how the emphasis is put on words. This is the same as 橋 (hashi = bridge) and 箸 (hashi = chopsticks). They are pronounced the same, but have slightly different accents placed on the syllables. ···日本穣 06:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Romanizing it as written tells nothing about the pronunciation of the word, but is instead a transliteration, and will only affect the extremely small instances of "oo", "ou", and "uu" in katakana, which if they were kanji or hiragana, they would be "ō" or "ū" without any exceptions. There should be no special rule just because "ソウル" was pointed out to be "sōru" instead of "souru" for Oda Mari and Erigu.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Romanizing it as written tells nothing about the pronunciation of the word, but is instead a transliteration" ← yes, that would be exactly what I've been trying to say here. No special rules needed: transliterate the kana and let the reader worry about pronunciation. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't serve any purpose then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it serves the purpose of providing the romanization for people who can't read kana or kanji. Jpatokal (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jpatokal. And I want to be bold and ignore Hepburn romanization and MoS ja with this matter. Oda Mari (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering Hepburn romanization only tells us to write long "o" sounds with macrons and we're actually questioning whether or not this is a long "o" sound, we wouldn't even be ignoring it, just working around a loophole. Erigu (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

if they were kanji or hiragana, they would be "ō" or "ū" without any exceptions.

You and I both know there are "exceptions". Erigu (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alas, Mr.Hepburn didn't think so. But there are plenty of exceptions in any language. Languages are not that systematic. Oda Mari (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree, and I would like to see someone other than the five of us (Erigu, Oda Mari, Jpatokal, Nihonjoe, and myself) add something. We all know our opinions by now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There would also be Bendono, who was the first to reply. Erigu (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion still needs new blood.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for comment/opinion at WP Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Break #2

I saw Jpatokal made two changes to the article that Nihonjoe and I have removed. Only you three (Jpatokal, Erigu, Oda Mari) seem to believe that ソウル is not pronounced with a long O, whether it represents the word "Soul" or the name of the city "Seoul". As far as I can tell, you three are still in the minority, but are a vocal minority in this idea about the pronunciation of these three katakana in succession. Everything else I have been finding says that ou is a long O. The instances where "ou" are not a long O are rare and have been described in detail throughout this argument. Before any changes are made to the MOS, I would like input from other active members of WP:JAPAN.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that at the moment you are in a minority of one (1), since Erigu and Oda Mari have both endorse the above proposal, and you're the only one who has explicitly opposed it.

More importantly, though, you are misrepresenting my view. I'm saying that the only sensible, non-WP:OR way out of this mess is to follow the katakana and romanize it as it is spelled. To illustrate why your approach is hopeless, let me repeat my earlier extremely basic question for you: how are we supposed to find out the correct pronunciation for a made-up word like "Soulcalibur", which is missing from all dictionaries and other reliable sources? Jpatokal (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's "SoulCalibur" which comes from "Soul" and "(Ex)Calibur" which are "ソウル" and "キャリバー". Both words exist in dictionaries. And from what I can tell from the dictionaries is that the words should be written in Hepburn romanization rules as "sōru" and "kyaribā". I have not seen any good argument to say that "ソウル" is not pronounced the same as "ソール", because that's what basic Japanese studying has told me. In the attack of my argument with the audio recording of the two words on the dictionary I put forward, the only difference was how the word was accented, and both recordings said "soh'ru". I've yet to see some definitive evidence that the word is pronounced "so-u-ru" because as far as I can tell, when you pronounce them anyway, the ウ still lengthens the pronunciation of the ソ part, which is why the phoneme produces the long O anyway, and why you have to type any of those O kana followed by a u to produce those sounds in an IME editor. I'm sure if you input "こうし" into one of those, it will bring up the word for "crystal" before the word for "baby cow" as was argued by Oda Mari. As far as I'm concerned, and from what I can tell from Nihonjoe's replies on this page, there is no consensus to change the MOS and there is certainly no consensus that "ソウル" should not be "sōru" and should be "souru".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be fair to assume the "soul" part would be pronounced like the word "ソウル" by itself... But the problem remains: while any of us can tell how we would be pronouncing that word, or how people around us are pronouncing that word, we've seen that there is disagreement on this particular matter. So the question shouldn't be "how is "ソウル" pronounced?", but "how should "ソウル" be pronounced?"

Now, if you can think of a way to answer that particular question beyond the shadow of a doubt, I'd be glad to hear it, but short of getting ahold of whoever decided the English word "soul" should be spelled as "ソウル" rather than simply as "ソール", and asking them why they did that and whether or not that implies a different pronunciation (maybe Ryulong and Nihonjoe would argue that the decision to use "オウ" over "オー" in some words of foreign origins is a purely random one, but based on my experience, I'd personally say there's a pattern, here), I'm not sure how you would want to do that.

... And of course, there would also be the matter of all the other words of foreign origin that would present that same ambiguity...

So, yes, I think simply "following the kana" is the sensible option when dealing with words of foreign origin, like Jpatokal suggests. And while I guess it may result in some intended long "o" sounds being transliterated as "ou", I don't think many of us have had a problem with revised Hepburn using "n" even when it's really pronounced more like "m", or keeping the spelling "ei" in all cases, even when a lot of Japanese people would pronounce that kana string as a long "e" sound... Erigu (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Nihonjoe also opposes that proposal. But to be even fairer, Bendono apparently agreed with it, so... Erigu (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been very clear as to how "ソウル" should be pronounced. I have a hell of a lot of evidence that shows that it is pronounced identically to "ソール" just as it would if it were written as "ソオル" (but there's no word like that that I can find). I think that the spelling in katakana was an attempt to emulate the original English spelling. "Soul" became "Souru" and "Bowl" became "Bouru". How "ball" became "booru" was because there's no way to emulate the English pronunciation of that word, because the phoneme does not exist in Japanese. "Sole" became "Sooru" with the chōonpu because there was no other way to emulate the original English spelling. All of these words rhyme or are homophones. I know the choice between the use of the chōonpu and simply using an "ou" combination is at times random. I remember trying to romanize the title of Engine Sentai Go-onger before actual spellings in Latin letters came about. Some chose "Gouonger" from one of its base words 轟音 which is romanized outside of Hepburn as gouon, while I knew that it was using a chōonpu and tried to avoid using "Gooonger" because that would be how I would romanize it outside of Misplaced Pages. This means that it is pretty clear to some that "オウ" is homophonous to "オー" in almost every single instance of it being used. I can understand that there are instances where it isn't, but in "ソウル", it is not an exception and the spelling choice is simply one to emulate the source language.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been very clear as to how "ソウル" should be pronounced.

You've been very confident as to how "ソウル" should be pronounced.

I think that the spelling in katakana was an attempt to emulate the original English spelling.

So you and I both agree that wasn't an entirely random choice, then? Well, that's something. ^_^;

I know the choice between the use of the chōonpu and simply using an "ou" combination is at times random.

Well, I certainly wouldn't say I'm floored with the consistency of the whole thing, far from it... But I think there's a pattern, a tendency, at least. From what I've seen, when you see a word of English origin with "エイ", chances are you'll find a "i" or a "y" there in the original word. And when it's "オウ", you'll generally find a "ou" or a "ow" in the original English word.

Now, as you've said, the reason might simply be that they were trying to emulate the original English spelling. And maybe it really is just that, and that oddity doesn't mean anything as far as the pronunciation is concerned. But it sure would be nice to have a confirmation of that.

I remember trying to romanize the title of Engine Sentai Go-onger before actual spellings in Latin letters came about. Some chose "Gouonger" from one of its base words 轟音 which is romanized outside of Hepburn as gouon, while I knew that it was using a chōonpu and tried to avoid using "Gooonger" because that would be how I would romanize it outside of Misplaced Pages. This means that it is pretty clear to some that "オウ" is homophonous to "オー" in almost every single instance of it being used.

Keyword being "almost"? ^^;

And like you said, these people were only theorizing the "Gouon" spelling based on the (non-Hepburn) romanization of the Japanese word "轟音"... and there's no doubt we're dealing with a long "o" sound, in "轟音" (and no question "ou" is often used to indicate long "o" sounds in words of Japanese origin). Erigu (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I've been clear when it isn't homophonous, like where you have the words of Japanese origin. However, in these words of English origin, even when the u is used instead of the chōonpu, it's still clear that it's a long O. Why else would the Japanese Misplaced Pages have both choices on their disambiguation page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

in these words of English origin, even when the u is used instead of the chōonpu, it's still clear that it's a long O.

Not to me. And you simply stating it's clear doesn't make it any clearer, sorry. ^^;

Why else would the Japanese Misplaced Pages have both choices on their disambiguation page?

For the same reason the same page gives us two possible kana spellings for "Sól": "ソール" and "ソル"? There's an alternate kana spelling (and in the case of "ソール" for the English word "soul", a fairly uncommon one). That doesn't imply both kana spellings are pronounced the same. "ソール" and "ソル" most certainly aren't... Erigu (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell on that page, "ソール" and "ソル" are only alternate spellings (and pronunciations) of Sol and Sól, and not for the other words on that page. Again, you're just finding flaws that don't really exist in my arguments. For "soul（ソウル/ソール）" and "sole（ソール/ソウル）" they appear to use the same spellings for both words, but one is just more prevalent than the other. The fact that these are coupled together (ignoring everything else on the page) shows that they're homophones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell on that page, "ソール" and "ソル" are only alternate spellings (and pronunciations) of Sol and Sól, and not for the other words on that page.

I never said otherwise.

I was just saying that "ソウル" and "ソール" may very well both be listed next to "soul" for the same reason "ソール" and "ソル" are listed next to "Sól", i.e. they're alternate spellings. You're apparently arguing that, by listing "ソウル" and "ソール" next to "soul", the page is implying those two kana spellings are pronounced the same... but by the same logic, that would mean "ソール" and "ソル", the two kana spellings listed for "Sól" are homophonous, and I believe we can agree that's not the case. Therefore, your argument is flawed, and your assumption that the page implies that "ソウル" and "ソール" are homophones is a baseless one.

The fact that these are coupled together (ignoring everything else on the page) shows that they're homophones.

"Conveniently ignoring everything else on the page", you mean? ^^; Erigu (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop twisting what I've been saying. "ソウル" and "ソール" are both alternate spellings of "Soul" and "Sole". One is just used more than the other for each word. This means that they are homophones of each other in both languages. I am not saying anything for how they have different spellings and pronunciations for the other words listed on that disambiguation page, because they obviously are pronounced differently because one uses a chōonpu and the other does not. But that has no merit on the difference between "ソウル" and "ソール". Sol and Sól are from Latin and Norse. The pronunciations are very likely to be different in pronounced in the original language and the subsequent Japanese or English. I know that the first word "Sol" I'd pronounce differently if it were in Sol Invictus or Sol as in the sun. I'm not sure how to pronounce Old Norse, but I'm sure that both of the pronunciations they have make sense. After all, it's a disambiguation page for that particular combination of katakana.

What is definitely clear about that disambiguation page their inclusion of "Soul" and "Sole" (and "Seoul") on the page. That means that they're homophonous with the title of the disambiguation page which is "ソール" and they only give the alternate readings of "ソウル" for those words.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Break #3

I have been away for a few days and find this wonderful mess. I can not hope to respond to it all, but here are a few general comments:

1. The MOS:JP is a manual of style, not a guide on romanization.
2. The MOS:JP is consistent on the relevant issues. Specifically, macron for long vowels, nothing for short vowels.
3. This is a content dispute. Does ソウル have a short or long o? There has been much discussion but no resolution. Again, please refer to points #1 and #2 again.
4. Why does it even matter? In the relevant article (Soulcalibur), just list the kana without any romanization. The English Soulcalibur, along with the JA interwiki link is sufficient. While it may often be helpful to romanize Japanese text for topics that sufficiently differ from the English terms, there are no obligations or requirements to always list it. I do not think that it is very useful or beneficial in this case. Especially considering that there is conflict, omission is neutral for all.
5. I hope that I do not see this nominated one day for WP:LAME.

Regards, Bendono (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that this is a content dispute that started here, and was deferred here. Nihonjoe and I both argued that the manual of style dictated that the romanization of the katakana ソウル would be sōru, and it evolved into this. I'm not totally sure if omission is the best idea, regardless of conflict.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find points 1 and 2 very helpful. This is the discussion page for MOS:JP, and I think we can all agree that we have found a (minor) problem in the current rules: namely, the MOS:JP provides no guidance for determining whether certain character sequences are long vowels or not. The guidelines should be amended in some way to resolve this issue, the debate is over how that should be done.

I do agree that, for the specific case of Soulcalibur, re-romanizing the kana of an English word is fairly pointless, and it might be worth debating if the MOS:JP should be amended to recommend against such romanizations. But that's a separate issue, really, and unfortunately this problem is not limited to that one word alone. Jpatokal (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem in determining whether certain character sequences are long vowels are not. "ソウル" is most definitely "sōru" from all of the evidence I've put forward in the previous sections, which includes linguistic analysis and a dictionary that has the pronunciations which are identical except for the inflection on the word.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If there was no problem, we would not be having this debate. But come, tell me: can you suggest a reliable, sourced, non-OR method for determining whether オウ is or is not a long vowel in any given word? Jpatokal (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem in determining whether certain character sequences are long vowels are not.

No, no problem at all, as we've seen above with "Kōchi"... Erigu (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The only instances where it is not is when the o and u are separated across two kanji (or a kanji and a kana). It is always a long vowel when the word is solely hiragana or katakana. I have yet to see one of these cases be brought up. That is why the Hepburn romanization system calls for the categorical lumping of "ou", "oo", and "o-" as "ō". Words like "だろう", "そう", "インチョウ", and "ソウル" all have the "ou" in them and are pronounced with long Os. Words like "王", "象", "狼", and "大" have "ou" or "oo" and are pronounced with a long O. Words like "追う", "負う", and "仔牛" have "ou" but these are separated very clearly and have been beaten like a dead horse in this discussion not to have long Os despite having the "ou". The argument that "ソウル" falls under this last set of words is itself one of "OR" as you have been referring to it. I've provided audio recordings of the word alongside a recording of "ソール". In my ears and in the ears of nearly everyone else except the group on this page (who still has not changed), the only difference in the recordings is the inflection on the word, and there is no discernable syllabic shift where the "ウ" is emphasized as being separate, as it is in words like "追う", "負う", and "仔牛" and the surname "井上". I cannot understand why you three/four cannot grasp this part of my argument and instead continue to say that I am wrong and there has to be another conclusion. Most of the instances where katakana is used over hiragana and kanji (anyway) are for the popular culture articles (musical performances, television programs, films, video games), and when they make up words that utilize katakana, there is at least a clear pronunciation in the source material. For the source of this dispute, the Japanese video game uses an American voice actor to read the title of the game in most instances (however, I recall that SCII has the characters read the name of the game, and switching the language settings on US game version might be able to shed some light).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, seriously, could you please stop ranting and give focused responses? I asked you if you can suggest an "reliable, sourced, non-OR method" for determining vowel length, not "please repeat everything you've said earlier". Jpatokal (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've given online dictionaries and the Hepburn dictionary. Both of those deem how the words are pronounced, in addition to what I've been saying and expounding based on what these dictionaries say. The only way to determine whether or not something is a long vowel is based on how the Japanese pronounce it, which exists in the source material for popular culture terms, which is also which I brought up as these discrepancies will only appear in katakana.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An example is this video where I cannot discern any difference between the pronunciation of the long vowels in ゴールド and ソウル (at the 1 minute mark).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

...and I have trouble distinguishing between some tones in Cantonese, but that doesn't mean they're not there. User:Bendono earlier noted that dictionaries like 日本国語大辞典 and 新明解日本語アクセント辞典 include transcriptions of the pronunciation, presumably as IPA or equivalent, which would be great -- alas, neither appears to be available online. Jpatokal (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the manual should explain how to determine whether certain kana sequences are long vowels or not... As we've seen, there's a bunch of "odd" cases, so a summary will be incomplete anyway (and possibly misleading), and an exhaustive explanation would turn the whole thing into a Japanese lesson... Well, in my opinion, anyway.

I think the manual should assume the reader is knowledgeable enough to tell the difference by himself/herself and simply specify which romanization system is to be used on Misplaced Pages (again, a link to an exhaustive explanation of revised Hepburn would probably be a good idea) and how long vowels should be rendered (macron? double vowel? other?). ... Which is pretty much what it does in its current form, in fact.

(not that I don't have issues with that section of the manual, but once again, I didn't get much feedback...) Erigu (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Section Break #4

So, I raised this question on sci.lang.japan, and got an answer from none other than Jim "WWWJDIC" Breen himself. Here's what he has to say:

ソウル and ソール are written differently because the writers are reflecting different pronunciations. To romanize them the same way is plain wrong.

And "Sean" chimes in:

If the disputants are native English speakers, perhaps the source of their confusion is the tendency in English (at least the Englishes I am familiar with) to diphthongalize /o/, so that many English speakers would end up pronouncing ソール as if it had been written ソウル. So, in your flame war, taunt the people who say that ソウル and ソール are the same thusly,"You idiots are speaking with a Canadian accent!"

I rest my case. Jpatokal (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I consulted someone else and they also said that ソウル and ソール aren't pronounced identically. However, this is also a question about Romanization. So you are using that in your argument when native words such as 藻類 and 走塁 which are written as そうるい, which in Hepburn would both be sōrui which is pronounced like "ソウル" (as far as I can tell) but with the i at the end. Why don't you ask Mr. (Dr.?) Breen how he believes the word "ソウル" would be parsed in the Hepburn romanization system.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see below (and on s.l.j), we now have Jim's answer. You might also want to read what the s.l.j thread above has to say about super-duper experts... Jpatokal (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are using that in your argument when native words such as 藻類 and 走塁 which are written as そうるい, which in Hepburn would both be sōrui which is pronounced like "ソウル" (as far as I can tell) but with the i at the end.

Those are obviously long "o" sounds... Erigu (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And they're written in the same way as ソウル(イ). Why wouldn't ソウル have a long O like 藻類 and 走塁 have?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

... Just in case you aren't kidding with this, "オウ" isn't always a long "o" sound, and can be "o / u" instead. So just because you have two words with "ソウ", that doesn't necessarily mean the "ソウ" will be pronounced the same way. Erigu (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me a word in Japanese where "そう" is "so)(u" and not "sou"? I can't think of any that aren't verbs like 添う or 沿う.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, "細腕". Erigu (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's separated across kanji. However, in the pronunciation of that word, the "so)(u" is clearly annunciated. I don't hear it in the pronunciation of "ソウル". And now I hear the difference in the pronunciation of "ソール".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How about 木曽馬? The pronunciation of U is not as clear as 細腕 and as vague as soul. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My dictionaries are telling me that 木曽馬 is two words. "Kiso Uma".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though the origin of the word is two words, unlike Shetland pony, it is more like thoroughbred and considered and pronounced as one word. Do you think 民主主義, 脳外科, 白米, 弁当箱, etc. are also two words? Out of curiosity, Ryulong, exactly how did you ask your native Japanese friends about the pronunciation of ソウル and ソール? Oda Mari (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For romanization, (compound) words such as 木曽馬 do not contain a long "o" as the "ou" is across kanji boundaries. "木曽" is "kiso" and "馬" is "uma". I don't know that it was ever specifically codified in the MOS-JA, but I know there was discussion in the past regarding this and it was unanimously (or very nearly so) decided that a long "o" is never across kanji boundaries for the purpose of romanization here. So, whether it's considered one word or two is irrelevant as it would be romanized "kisouma" or "kiso uma". ···日本穣 19:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For romanization, (compound) words such as 木曽馬 do not contain a long "o" as the "ou" is across kanji boundaries.

Er...

1) I don't believe anybody was arguing that there was a long "o" sound in "木曽馬"... ^^;

2) You say "for romanization" as if there were other contexts where this could be considered a long "o" sound?

3) The long "o" sound in "河内" still mocks your "kanji boundaries"! Seriously, it's not a long "o" sound in "木曽馬" because it's "kiso - uma" and that's it... Erigu (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me while I wipe all the sarcasm you're dripping everywhere...seriously, could you try to show at least a little respect toward others in this discussion? Your attitude throughout the entire discussion has been one of "I can't believe how stupid you all are." You've regularly mock the opinions of and information presented by others. Please stop.

As for 河内, there will ALWAYS be some exceptions due to local unusual pronunciations (and MOS-JA specifically allows for exceptions). You can see this page I, LordAmeth, and Fg2 translated a while ago for hundreds of examples. I only brought up 木曽馬 because people were discussing it for some reason. ···日本穣 20:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude throughout the entire discussion has been one of "I can't believe how stupid you all are."

If you say so...

for 河内, there will ALWAYS be some exceptions

It's the same kind of "exception" that gave us "arigatō", so it's not all that uncommon either...

I only brought up 木曽馬 because people were discussing it for some reason.

The reason is right there: Ryulong asked for examples of Japanese words with the kana string "ソウ" not pronounced with a long "o" sound, and Oda Mari offered "木曽馬" as an example. So when you then commented that it wasn't a long "o" sound, all I could think was "well... yeah, that's the point?" And when you explain that it's not a long "o" sound "for the purpose of romanization" (for what purpose would it be a long "o" sound?) and that this kind of thing is decided based on "kanji boundaries", that sounds like some weird logic to me.

But apparently, pointing that out is horribly rude and sarcastic. Erigu (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked them if they were pronounced the same. They agreed, although some said there were some different inflections. Also, the first and last of the kanji sequences you gave are showing up in my dictionary as two words (minshu shugi, nōgeka, hakumai, and bentō bako).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Native Japanese think the words above as one word. It seems to me the concept of it is different between English and Japanese. And what dictionary are you using? Oda Mari (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I use WWWJDIC and the J-Talk Kanji converter usually. The latter shows those as two words. The former didn't have the word for that horse breed. But this is tangential. From what I can tell, ソウル should still be sōru.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd romanize ソウル as "souru" and ソール as "sōru" in Hepburn. (And my name is Jim.) JimBreen (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now checked this with two native speakers of Japanese (both teachers of Japanese as a foreign language) and a Japanese-speaking Korean. All agree that ソウル and ソール are not pronounced the same way, and that to romanize ソウル as "sōru" is an error as it obliterates that difference in pronunciation. JimBreen (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't base this on original research. Do you have a textbook or something similar which indicates this? None of the "I checked with a native speaker" information given by anyone here can be used for this. ···日本穣 02:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing two things here. The pronunciation is debatable, and that why I keep saying we don't really need to get into this mess. What is clear is that according to Hepburn rules, ソウル should by default be romanized "souru": look up ソ, ウ, ル in any kana conversion table and that's what you'll get. Do you agree? Now, maybe there's an exception for this particular word... but that claim, that this word does not follow the normal Hepburn rules, is the one that requires proof. Jpatokal (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is written about 十パーセント. The pronunciation is jyū and ji and both are accepted. But when writing, it should be じっ. Some pronounce ソウル and ソール differently and some don't. But as the notation in Japanese is different, romanization should be different too, as Japatokal and Erigu wrote above. Oda Mari (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Romanization on Wiki

Interesting discussion. I'm not sure how, but this ended up on my watchlist some time ago, and lo and behold it's been going crazy lately! Nice work guys :) One thing that occurs to me though... even supposing the pronounciation IS the same, between ソウル and ソール, would that still mean they should be written the same? I saw the following comments above:

• Romanizing it as written tells nothing about the pronunciation of the word, but is instead a transliteration
• The only solution possible without WP:OR is to transcribe the kana, one for one, into romaji

So it sounds like there is an unresolved question wanting to be asked here, which is: What is the purpose of the Romanization system here? Is it to help English speakers pronounce Japanese words like Japanese people do in real life? Or is it to help English speakers know the original syllables with which the Japanese word is written? Which is more important here? Joren (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say the first item noted in your short list (which corresponds to the second one noted in your last paragraph). If you don't know Japanese, romanization isn't going to help you pronounce the word anyway as there is some small amount of training which is required to learn pronunciation and such. ···日本穣 04:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of schizophrenia at work, here... If the article is to be believed (and again, more sources wouldn't hurt), traditional Hepburn had the "n" turn into "m" to reflect the pronunciation shift in some cases, but that was dropped by revised Hepburn... and on the other hand, revised Hepburn kept "ei" in all cases, whereas modified Hepburn only kept it when both "e" and "i" could be heard individually.

So I don't think there's a clear answer to that question. Sometimes, Hepburn romanization focuses on actual pronunciation to make it easier for foreigners ("fu" instead of "hu"), but at other times, it goes "ah, well! that's not really how it would be pronounced, but let's be consistent with the Japanese spelling, here"... Well, maybe the former was the original intent of traditional Hepburn, but... Erigu (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The primary purpose of Misplaced Pages's romanization system, I think, is to minimize the number of revert wars concerning variant romanizations. By that metric, I'd say it's doing a very good job: sure, once or twice a year we have — as Bendono so delightfully puts it — a "wonderful mess" like this one, but it's almost entirely confined to the WP:MOS-JA talk page, not scattered incoherently across ten thousand discrete pages.  — Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewed

I just saw Erigu perform the change from "Sōru" to "Souru" on the Soulcalibur pages and I've undone it because we never really came to any sort of sufficient conclusion here. I understand that the pronunciation of ソウル and ソール are not identical, but we never finalized how the two words (or simply kana combinations for any o kana followed by a u kana or any o kana followed by the choonpu) should be written in the Hepburn romanization system. There's been nothing to prove that the ソ and ウ are pronounced separately such as when it is in the unconjugated verb form like in 添う or mildly dipthong...ized as the sound exists in words such as 想 and 僧. I am unconvinced that the former case is what is happening with the words, and the choice of spelling in katakana is (or was) a stylistic one and should not be treated any differently just because the word exists in Japanese solely as a loan word in katakana.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake...

"Nothing was ever sufficiently determined about this"? Doesn't that go both ways? Besides, we've discussed this extensively, and only Nihonjoe and you were in disagreement... Erigu (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. That means there is still no consensus to do either thing. I've also moved your comment down in the discussion for chronological stuff.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been nothing to prove that the ソ and ウ are pronounced separately

And there's been nothing to prove that they're supposed to be pronounced "sō". In fact, you said just above "I understand that the pronunciation of ソウル and ソール are not identical". Erigu (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sō" is not a pronunciation. It's a romanization. And while it is not a romanization, it is still dependent on pronunciation. That fact is evident as to how there are words that should be romanized a particular way because of the pronunciation and etymology. In this case, I'm arguing that 想 is homophonous with the ソウ in ソウル. Both use the same moras. And I'd like someone to say something else before you continue to reply to me as you have.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sō" is not a pronunciation. It's a romanization.

It's the revised Hepburn romanization of the long "so" sound. So what I meant by "pronounced "sō"" should be quite obvious, really. Erigu (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. Still, there's been no finalized consensus here on what to do with the word "Soul".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'Guess they're all tired of discussing this (and I can't blame them).

So we have no consensus, but we need a romaji spelling. And since we apparently all agreed "souru" was the sensible solution except for Nihonjoe and you... Erigu (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Nihonjoe and I feel that it is wrong. I've yet to see something to convince me otherwise. The "Sou" in "Souru" is the same as the "Sou" in various Japanese words, both of which should be "sō" in the Hepburn system that this Misplaced Pages uses.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Nihonjoe and I feel that it is wrong.

Thanks for clarifying that you disagree because you don't agree. The fact remains that you're clearly the minority, so, like I said above...

The "Sou" in "Souru" is the same as the "Sou" in various Japanese words, both of which should be "sō" in the Hepburn system that this Misplaced Pages uses.

Why, it's always a pleasure to go back to square one.

Didn't you say just above "I understand that the pronunciation of ソウル and ソール are not identical"?

Do you agree that the chōonpu in "ソール" indicates a long sound?

Do you know that the macrons used in revised Hepburn romanization indicate long sounds ("From Greek μακρόv (makrón) meaning "long"")?

So, if "ソウル" isn't pronounced with a long sound... why should we use a macron? Erigu (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has proven that last point of yours. We've only had someone say that ソウル and ソール are not identical, which I agree with now. However, that does not mean that ソウル is not pronounced the same as words that are written with the moras of "そうら", "そうり", "そうる", "そうれ", or "そうろ". Being that "ソウ" and "そう" are pronounced identically, and the latter would always be written as "sō" in Hepburn. The fact that the item is a loan word from another language and is written in katakana in a particular way does not mean it is parsed in Hepburn any differently.

There is no emphasis on the U in "Souru". I've shown an instance of this earlier in the thread in a video link (somewhere). Therefore, it does not follow the rules that various words in Japanese that do have one of the O-voweled kana followed by a U kana pronounced separately, solely due to the fact that the word is comprised of two kanji where the O is at the end of one and the U at the beginning of the other. It instead follows the rules where the two kana are in the same kanji, such as 総理, 壮麗, 草案, 創意, 相応, 騒音, 草花, 総轄, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has proven that last point of yours. We've only had someone say that ソウル and ソール are not identical, which I agree with now.

---> Do you agree that the chōonpu in "ソール" indicates a long sound? <---

If so (and I sure hope so), and if you also agree that "ソウル" and "ソール" aren't pronounced the same... I mean, come on. Work with me, here.

Being that "ソウ" and "そう" are pronounced identically

...

The pronunciation of "ソウ"/"そう" "kinda" depends on the context. And that's something you should really, really, really know at this point of the discussion. Erigu (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, fer chrissake. We've had a professor of Japanese at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, a member of the board of the Japanese Studies Centre and the guy who compiled WWWJDIC, unequivocally state that ソウル should be romanized "souru"... and you're telling us we should ignore him and trust your ja-1 original research instead?

And I'll repeat my last comment, because you never replied to it:

What is clear is that according to Hepburn rules, ソウル should by default be romanized "souru": look up ソ, ウ, ル in any kana conversion table and that's what you'll get. Do you agree? Now, maybe there's an exception for this particular word... but that claim, that this word does not follow the normal Hepburn rules, is the one that requires proof. Jpatokal (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the word freaking pronounced. It's not "so-u-ru". And the "exception" would be that "ソウル" is to be romanized as "souru". The current rules state "For transliterations from kanji and kana, long o and u are written with macrons as ō and ū respectively." No one has succinctly proved that the word does not contain a long o simply because it is written as "ソウ" and not "ソー" or "そう".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And this bullshit over my "ja-1" thing is getting tiresome. I only keep it at that because I do not know the verb rules. I can identify kanji, I can identify other words, I just don't know how to chain them into a full sentence.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And this bullshit over my "ja-1" thing is getting tiresome. I only keep it at that because I do not know the verb rules.

Well, that's... Er... Are you sure you're really qualified to keep this discussion going? Erigu (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know how to conjugate Japanese verbs. That does not mean I don't know how to read (apart from understand) the language. And that has no bearing on how I know how a word is pronounced, particularly when it is in one of the simplest writing systems of the language.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suspected you didn't know all that much about the language based on some of your comments so far, but... Anyway, that explains a lot (not your strange confidence though).

(and you just changed your "ja-1" to "ja-2"? seriously?) Erigu (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are telling us that we should ignore the professor of Japanese and trust your ja-1 original research instead?

And for the umpteenth time, this is the discussion page for the MOS-JA, and I'm proposing that the wording be clarified to note that the kana sequence ソウ is romanized "ou", whether or not it's a long vowel. Even you have now admitted that ソウル and ソール are not pronounced the same -- why do you want to erase this distinction in the romanization? Jpatokal (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing that the wording be clarified to note that the kana sequence ソウ is romanized "ou"

I realize I'm repeating myself (then again, at this point... heh) but I really think the distinction should be made between words of Japanese origin (on'yomi included) and words of foreign origin, rather than between words in hiragana and words in katakana. Or we'd have stuff like チョウゲンボウ romanized as "chougenbou". Erigu (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to make any headway in this. I give up. Modify the manual of style to say that katakana readings of foreign words are romanized as a direct transliteration of the katakana, which apparently only applies to "souru" and "bouru" (if there are any pages about bowling in Japan on the English Misplaced Pages). I'll perform the changes on the articles I'm aware of once the MoS is changed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Modify the manual of style to say that katakana readings of foreign words are romanized as a direct transliteration of the katakana

I don't think there's any reason to mention katakana specifically. "Kana" will do. Erigu (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How often would hiragana ever be used to write out words of foreign origin?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It happens. That's reason enough. Erigu (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As in?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Magical Tarurūto-kun. Erigu (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a rarity. But it's not really affected by this change. It even has a chōonpu in the made-up word portion of the title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a rarity.

So?

it's not really affected by this change.

I didn't say it was. You asked for an example of a foreign word written in hiragana.

It even has a chōonpu in the made-up word portion of the title.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with anything, really... Erigu (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why must you always do that to comments?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I twist your words? Erigu (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I have to agree with Ryulong here. We can see what's written right above your comments, so you really don't have to quote parts of them every time you reply. It's kind of distracting. Dekimasuよ! 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's... pretty much the opposite of what I'm going for. Sorry? Erigu (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

たばこ (sometimes katakana, sometimes kanji)、てんぷら (or 天ぷら)、ramen or かすてら (usually katakana, but not always)... there are varying degrees. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here. Dekimasuよ! 09:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Those seem to be rarities. Tempura is a word that is entirely in kanji most of the time, and ramen is always in katakana and written with the chōonpu.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know I was supposed to be avoiding rarities. But it's actually less common to see tempura in kanji than in hiragana (or 天+hiragana), regardless of the level of restaurant. And like I said, not always when it comes to things like ramen. Lots of people do it, although it is probably a stylistic choice. Dekimasuよ! 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox City Japan vs. Infobox Settlement

I thought I would inject a different debate. I was adding a few infoboxes to Japanese cities, when I noticed some problems with the presentation (in IE 6.0 to be specific). So I looked at the talk page of the template to find an answer. While there, someone raised the question why we need the infobox for Japanese cities. Why don't we use the generic Infobox Settlement?

Advantages:

• Standarization (no need to maintain a separate temple)
• Solves the display issues
• Support for multiple symbols. (In this case the emblem and the flag.) And there are a number of other features that this infobox supports

Disadvantages:

• We lose the address for the govenment office. One could argue whether we really need that in the infobox, but it is a nice feature.
• The settlement infobox is a rather large template. It is more complex to use.

As a means of comparrison, I used the infobox settlement on my sandbox page. Compare that with the infobox at Bihoro, Hokkaidō.

imars (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We could use the "blank_name_sec1", etc., to enter the address and anything else missing. Looks like there can be two additional sections, and the template could always be modified to add more. ···日本穣 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nihongo2 (for marking up Japanese script)

I've moved the following from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan; it seems better placed here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a nasty surprise today while attempting to remove gratuitous links to Help:Japanese from Tankōbon (an article that's less about tankōbon than about manga). Converting from Nihongo to Nihongo2 did nothing.

Template:Nihongo2 has recently been -- to put my opinion as politely as possible -- dehanced. Yes, a little question-mark link to Help:Japanese has been added to it. The effect on a lot of articles I've edited is grotesque. Unfortunately it wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't notice the change, and the lack of discussion at Template talk:Nihongo2 suggests to me that it wasn't on the watchlist of more than a handful of other people either.

I haven't dared look at the other Nihongo templates. Perhaps they too have been similarly ... dehanced. Perhaps the only way to prevent Japanese text from being dehanced is to leave it untemplated (as here), but this defeats the original purpose of Nihongo2: to add <span class="t_nihongo_kanji"><span lang="ja" xml:lang="ja"> for the benefit of any software that may use it.

I'm inclined just to revert, but in WP one should never go for a simple fix when a laborious argument can be started instead, so here goes. Your comments either here or there, please. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall strenuously opposing that hideous little question mark some time ago during what I believe was a vote on the matter, but I can't remember when and where and, as you can see, I failed to convince enough other editors. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hazily remember that. Perhaps the proposal was that WP's readers (presumed to be dimwitted, incurious, inobservant, or some combination thereof) needed more help; why a discreet little question mark when a bloody obvious "Help" or similar could appear instead? ¶ I'm not so happy about the question mark but I raise no objection to a single, even conspicuous appearance in a given article. Bad:

Natsume Kinnosuke (夏目金之助), better known by his pen name Natsume Sōseki (夏目 漱石, February 9, 1867 – December 9, 1916)

Better: One link to Help:Japanese, thanks to judicious use of a Nihongo2 template that does not link to it. Which is impossible now that Nihongo2 has been pimped with a link. -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussions: here, here, here, and here (chronological order). If anyone would like to move this new discussion to talk:MoS (ja), please feel free to do so. Wherever the new discussion is, it's surely better in one place (and it's already in two). -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created {{nihongo4}} as a temporary fix for an article. Unfortunately, as the template uses {{nihongo2}}, the intended effect of suppressing the question mark doesn't work any more. I think these templates should all be consolidated into one template, with the default behaviour, i.e. without any parameters specified (except for the displayed text), showing just the Japanese text, without any question marks etc.  Cs32en  03:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be a good idea for the medium or long term. But even if it's welcomed and implemented, nihongo2 is going to survive by the thousand for the short and even medium term. I suggest that we limit this discussion to nihongo2. As soon as it's settled one way or another, do please bring up the notion of a single supertemplate. -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments welcome; please add them below. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed Template:Nihongo2 back to how it's supposed to be (without the question mark) and I deleted Template:Nihongo4 as a duplicate. ···日本穣 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Joe, and most appropriately signed! -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to get rid of all the question marks. Don't all major operating systems have Japanese fonts by default these days? --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that both Windows and OS X install Japanese fonts by default. So does Ubuntu 8.04 (and I presume so do its successors). So that's most people catered for. But I'd be surprised if WinCE (or whatever it's called these days), Symbian and so forth do this. Anyway, I think one link to a help file can be, well, helpful; and the question mark doesn't seem a bad way of doing this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But Help:Japanese is about more than font support - it's also about pronunciation and other things. Though I would welcome a workable alternative to the question mark. Unfortunately, the last discussion on the subject died right when it looked like changes were going to be made. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to create a new help page specifically about font support. ···日本穣 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if some other kind person were to do this: I shan't have time to be of much help. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it here, but I created Help:Installing Japanese character sets based on the content that was formerly at Help:Japanese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft template Nihongo core

I've created a draft template {{Nihongo core}} that might be useful to consolidate the existing nihongo templates (i.e. they would be short-cuts to specific styles of {{Nihongo core}} after consolidation). The version for long titles is not yet worked into the template. Please let me know what you think about it.  Cs32en  03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

→ The discussion on {{Nihongo core}} has been moved to the Talk page of the template.

Trouble brewing at Hiragana

Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Hiragana#Table and wording. An anon IP and a new editor are fighting over the presentation of information in the article. Thanks!

Preserving original formatting of Roman characters in titles of Japanese media

Regarding the section on "Titles of books and other media", I understand that the policy is to follow conventional English formatting guidelines when displaying titles, even if the original title uses Roman characters in an unconventional way (for example, using all caps or all lowercase). While this is sensible, I am concerned that by not displaying the original formatting at all, we are losing information about the works in question, and the specific formatting used may be relevant to understanding the author's intention behind writing the title in a given way. As such, I think it makes sense to treat titles that use unconventional formatting of Roman characters as though they were titles originally in Japanese. One would then not omit the original formatting altogether, but only use it once to indicate the original formatting, in the same way one would write the original title if it were in Japanese. The {{Nihongo}} tag could suit this purpose, though the '?' help link seems a bit out of place. An example of this would be the title of Buono!'s seventh single, originally written "MY BOY". One could display it as

• "My Boy" (MY BOY)

in places where displaying the original Japanese spelling of a title would be appropriate (the header of an article or a track listing, for example), and write "My Boy" elsewhere. I have seen this used in a few places, but for most cases in which Roman characters are used unconventionally, the original formatting has been omitted (sometimes after editing to conform to capitalization guidelines), which makes for a slightly less informative article. We preserve the original formatting of Japanese titles with regard to whether they use kanji or hiragana or katakana when we display them in Japanese, so why not preserve the original use of Roman characters as well? Kirarin☆Snow ☃ 02:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because typographical gimmickry (or, if you prefer, results of idiosyncratic views of the significance of capitalization) such as this are endemic in Japan and common elsewhere too. We distinguish between hiragana and katakana because neither SCREAMS for attention over the other, and where appropriate we also distinguish between traditionally complex and recently simplified hanzi/kanji, because such distinctions don't give anyone a typographic megaphone, because they help in database searches and so forth, and because they don't give a green light to people outside Japan wanting more attention for themselves. If "My Boy" had been written in red, would you want {{Nihongo|"My Boy"|<span style="color:#ff0000">My Boy</span>}}? Shall we distinguish between hankaku and zenkaku lettering? How about double underlines, smiley marks and the like? But all that's a bit hypothetical; rather, let's stick to the actual example: What might the full capitalization of "MY BOY" tell anyone about the song? -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that idiosyncratic uses of capitalization are generally consistent throughout a work (e.g. front of CD disc, album cover, spine, etc.), while things such as color or typeface aren't. I was also under the impression that differences in capitalization were preserved in databases, but a quick search through the JASRAC database suggests that all Roman character titles are shown in all caps, regardless of the original capitalization, so I'm not so sure anymore. Still, the representation in a database doesn't necessarily reflect the author's intentions. As for the "MY BOY" example, to me the choice of all caps lends the title a more emphatic but serious flavor (without the mildly comic effect of, say, an exclamation point: "My Boy!"), which is appropriate to the tone of the song. And supposing the title were "My Boy!", should we omit the exclamation point? What about "My! Boy"? I've seen titles with unconventional placement of exclamation points, so it's not clear what differentiates idiosyncratic punctuation from idiosyncratic capitalization with regard to this policy (if indeed there is a difference).

To go with another example, Buono!'s sixth single is originally written "co・no・mi・chi". What is the proper way to represent this title in Misplaced Pages? "Cono Michi"? And should we not even mention the original punctuation and spelling altogether? In this case, the unusual spelling of a Japanese title suggests that there could be some purpose other than typographical decoration (I'm not saying there is one, but I don't think that's a question for Misplaced Pages editors to decide).

You do raise a good point with the hankaku/zenkaku question. Leaving aside the question of half-width and full-width forms of Roman letters (they seem, at least from my limited experience, to some extent interchangeable in official representations of titles, so perhaps this would be along the lines of color or typeface), how should we treat typographical flourishes in kana? A title could distinguish between hankaku and zenkaku forms, or use small versions of kana when regular-size versions are conventional (for example, S/mileage's single "ぁまのじゃく", which has a small 'ぁ' instead of the conventional full-size 'あ'). Do we leave the title the way it was originally written, or display it in a more conventional form (as "あまのじゃく")? And if we do we leave it as "ぁまのじゃく", what makes this different from capitalization of Roman characters? Kirarin☆Snow ☃ (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to use the formatting (other than colors, as mentioned by Hoary) used in the original when the title is first mentioned at the beginning of the opening paragraph. The article title, infobox, and any subsequent uses should be using standard capitalization and formatting. As for your question about punctuation, if the title has an exclamation point, question mark, or other punctuation, it's fine to use that in the title wherever it appears. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Preserve special characters in album title?

Singer Ayumi Hamasaki has an album properly titled A Song for ××. It's (commonly) mistakenly written A Song for XX, and currently, Hamasaki's article writes it the latter way. Without getting too much into the meaning of the title, the x-like characters, batsu, can mean "fill in the blank", and this is the meaning the singer intended (they're not supposed to be x's.) (In fact, the title is pronounced "a song for", not "a song for ex ex" or "a song for batsu batsu".) The MoS-Ja advocates the standardization of titles according to proper English formatting, but I'm not sure if this title falls under its guidelines. So: A Song for ×× or A Song for XX? Ink Runner (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering we have this article, I guess using "×" should be OK? Besides, that's not the "X" letter... Erigu (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Only if the appropriate redirects are created. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet we have the article at XxxHolic for a manga titled ×××HOLiC. Akata (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page back too a A Song for XX. Per, MOS:TM: Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced. I guess in the article it can be mentioned that the album title is pronounced as A Song for. MS (Talk|Contributions) 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are album titles considered trademarks, though? (This may be a stupid question, but law has never been my forte.) Ink Runner (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Naka Castle?

I have proposed that the article Naka Castle be moved to either Nakagusuku Castle, Nakagusuku (castle) or something else that preserves the placename Nakagusuku. I invite your comments at Talk:Naka_Castle#Requested move. LordAmeth (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Shrines in Japan come in a Myriad of formalities that distinguish one from another. The current policy states to use "shrine" in place of -jinja -jingu and -myojin. However the suffix title does differentiate between several types of shrines and their status accordingly. Many of the imperial shrines are -jingu shrines as an example. The suffix is needed to make the subtle distinction and is part of a formal name. I have used this example before but it it like calling "The Vatican" the vatican church, or St Anthonys Cathedral the Anthony church. We need to change the policy and use formal names that a shrine wishes to be called and not shorten it. Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As all of the suffixes are generally translated as "Shrine" (or "Grand Shrine" in the case of -taisha), I don't think I agree; Misplaced Pages is not written for a specialist audience, and "Shrine" is a much clearer way (in common English usage) to state the title of many of these than "Jingu", etc. As for the argument that these are official names, the English Misplaced Pages relies on the common names for article titles. "Heian Shrine" appears to be more common than "Heian Jingu" according to Google (I personally use the second); "Ise Shrine" outnumbers "Ise Jingu"; "Sumiyoshi Shrine" outnumbers "Sumiyoshi Taisha"; "Hachiman Shrine" outnumbers "Hachiman Gu". All of these show equal numbers whether the suffix is capitalized or attached to the name. On the other hand, "Izumo Taisha" appears to outnumber "Izumo Shrine". Cf. ja:Category:大聖堂 and ja:大聖堂; none appear to be called "cathedrals" on the Japanese Wiki, nor does ja:ウェストミンスター大聖堂 call it anything other than a "church" or the Japanese word for cathedral in the text as far as I can see. Dekimasuよ! 19:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with everything Dekimasu states. Also, the specific Japanese names are found in the lead in the nihongo template for any readers that want to know. --Torsodog 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

However, the convention would not hold up to a specific Shrine like Ise Jingu as it is called just Jingu. That is a formal name and not a suffix. The name is correct as a formal title. Also there is a distinct difference as the formal name is a trademark by most Shrines for one, and the preferred name by the Shrine. Separating Tiasha only proves the point. There is no specialist reader needed to understand the need to allow for self naming conventions among formal titles. They are not all just shrines, they belong to different subsets of shrines and that is relevant to religious self determination inside Shinto belief. It is similar to saying that the naming conventions between Catholic and Protestant clergy is irrelevant because they are all Christian (lets just call them all priest). Also I fail to see the relevance of using Google as a determinant method for naming conventions. Eg: Tao vs Dao. All of the conventions to date show that Tao is more commomly used due to age of mistranslation, however Dao is the Library of Congress method of modern convention. Pin Yin is more accurate. I go with the modern convention. It is the same in this case. Google can be manipulated and popularity does not make correct convention. Plus the internet is notoriously bad at getting information academically correct and book sources would be needed to support that supposition for these naming conventions. I am going to make contact with one of the experts that I resource about Japanese language conventions, especially for this purpose.

It deserves the formal title and I completely disagree that naming conventions can simply be thrown out because it is more convenient for the western reader. Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Dekimasu. As Torsodog states the specific translation appears directly after the name in the nihongo template. Not only that but you are free to create Ise Jingu as a redirect to the article. The point is that the English reader can find the article about the topic. That is our target audience, the English reader. For the non-English reader there are other Wikis. imars (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Dekimasu. I jumped on my local university website and looked up one of the academic databases used for research and did a search for both Ise Shrine and Ise Jingu. Ise Shrine came up with 4 times as many hits. Also, having lived in Ise for 4 years, the most common translation into English I saw there for the shrine was "Ise Grand Shrine" (on road signs and such). To me, this argument is about what is 'more correct' based on the official Japanese name (Jingu) as opposed to the more accepted name in standard English use (Shrine). It would be nice to use the proper Japanese name 'Jingu', but this is English wikipedia and we should use the English name here. Ka-ru (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did the same thing as Ka-ru and also checked within the article to see if Jingu was being used as the common name. Ise Shrine is the academic standard, so as a publication based on consensus of sources Misplaced Pages must employ this naming convention. Shii (tock) 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do remember that there is an exception in the WP convention on temple and shrine naming that allows for a formal name when distinguishing between shrines. This change is based on that convention. Ise Jingu is different than every other Ise branch shrine and ther are about 2000 of them. The head shrine is meant to be named formally where every other branch shrine can be called Ise Shrine. The convention then states to make a disambiguation page to clear up the matter. Ths looks appropriate to me. If everyone would be happier calling it Ise Grand Shrine that is fine as well, but it as all other head shrines need to be diffferentiated. Takashi Ueki (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Takashi Ueki. Abandoning the distinction between the various types of shrine to put them all in one category doesn't make sense to me. Why junk useful information? If those names are used and are seen as having a meaning in Japanese, should we not use them in English too? A cathedral and a chapel are both churches, but that doesn't mean the distinction between the two can/should be lost. Saying that Misplaced Pages is not for specialists, so we shouldn't use words that are too technical is paternalistic: it assumes people are not capable of and uninterested in learning. In any case if Misplaced Pages is not for specialists, it's supposed to be at least correct and teach something. Rather than using redirects from jingu, -gu, -sha and so forth to shrine, how about doing the opposite? About common names: it surely makes sense to use "Marilyn Monroe" rather than "Norma Jean Baker". That's the name she was known under. But surely this rule wasn't meant to actually validate and perpetuate errors. Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Because "Jinja", "Jingu", "Myojin" etc have no meaning in English, and because the best possible English translation for each is "Shrine". No information is being lost, those Misplaced Pages readers who understand Japanese can see the Japanese name right at the beginning of the article.

However, this discussion belongs on Talk:Ise Jingu, not here. Jpatokal (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it would be good to use the official name the shrine calls itself. http://www.isejingu.or.jp/english/ Shii (tock) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time, The Love Boat visited Tokyo. One of the attractions they mentioned was the Meiji Jing Shrine. This illustrates the difficulty of relying on what's known in English, since that show was viewed by an audience of millions (and has, no doubt, been rerun ad nauseum). It sounds absurd, but after all, since gū means "shrine," it's a valid translation. ("Jing" is my transcription from memory. The script might have had "Jin.") A difficulty in using the names shrines (or other establishments or people) call themselves is that they follow a variety of romanization conventions. The purpose of a style manual is to provide a standard for this publication. So unless something is extremely widely known in English, I'd advocate using Misplaced Pages style. I remain open-minded about the possibility of distinguishing the different kinds of shrines if the community feels it's best. Although I'm happy with the status quo. Fg2 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on this issue

Talk:RKKY_interaction -- Shocklord (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Should 芳田奎 be romanized as Yoshida Kei or Yosida Kei ?

Place names

There is a section Place names in this article, however there is no description about what kind of romanized name should be used. I am discussing this issue at Talk:Daikanyama#Requested move, but I came to a decision to bring it to this page. I would like to discuss a general criteria not only a solution of this specific name.

In above mentioned article, the name of the place in Tokyo is disputed, 代官山 "Daikanyama" or "Daikan'yama". Please read above link for detailed discussion.

Basically my proposal is as follows;

1. The romanized name used by published map in Japan should be used for Wilipedia. (for example Google Map) In this case, apostrophe is probably never used.
2. If the government(either state, prefectural or municipal) indicates the romanaized name in their official document or web site, it should be used for Misplaced Pages.
3. If the romanized name of a place is widely used within Japan, it should be used for Misplaced Pages, even if it is not widely known around world.

If there is any conflict between above, another reasonable criteria should be employed.

Please let me know your opinion. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I vote for either Daikanyama or Daikan-yama. While I am normally a proponent of a standard system of romanization, I don't think apostrophes are as big of a deal as macrons or the "correct" romanization of shi and chi as not being si and ti. I don't have any specific sources on me, but I don't believe I have ever seen "Daikan'yama" before, with the apostrophe. When it comes to commonly known placenames - and Daikanyama is certainly commonly known to anyone who's ridden the trains around Tokyo enough - I think it's just fine to go with a common version. LordAmeth (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Daikanyama#Requested move, so discussion relating specifically to and about the name "Daikanyama" should occur there. Note that I've moved one comment specifically about "Daikanyama" to the Talk:Daikanyama#Requested move page. Phoenix7777 is (or, at least, should be) discussing the overall romanization guidance which is currently offered in this guideline. He feels that it shoudl be changed to a system which he is apparrently more comfortable with.
— Ω (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored a post by User:LordAmeth. Please continue a discussion of a specific name of Daikanyama as well as general rule. It is not permitted to move/delete other person's descriptions on talk page without permission of author.

Yes, certainly this discussion began at page Daikanyama. However its audience is very small, so I brought the discussion here where there are many persons with knowledge of this topic. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To make this discussion a bit more general, I'd suggest that the syllable にゃ nya is so rare in Japanese -- as far as I can see from WWWJDIC, the only kanji with that reading is 若, which in turn is only used in the compound 般若 hannya -- that apostrophes for it are unnecessary, at least in article titles. But for avoidance of doubt, the apostrophe can still be indicated as as separate romanization, like this: "Daikanyama (代官山, Daikan'yama) is..." Jpatokal (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Train and Subway stations

There is a section Train and Subway stations in this article, however there is no description about what kind of romanized name should be used.

My proposal is "Station name should be the romanized name Railway companies publish".

Please let me know your opinion. ― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think it a very dangerous precedent to set to go by what railway companies publish. I don't know of any specific examples right now immediately offhand, but I would not put it past railroad companies in Japan to make basically every "mistake" in the book, from ignoring macrons to writing shi and chi as si and ti, to mis-romanizing words that are English anyway.

There are a great many rail companies in Japan; they don't all agree on a single standard system, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are even inconsistencies within any given rail company as to romanization. In short, I don't think they can be trusted to get it right.

I would absolutely support the idea of using the name officially used by rail companies when it comes to naming and translation issues - e.g. Naha-kūkō Station, as is clearly printed on the giant sign at the station itself, rather than "Naha Airport Station", or Ōsakajōkōen Station and not "Osaka Castle Park Station" even though we have an article at Osaka Castle Park - but I cannot support that notion as it applies to correct romanization. The name given a station is a very purposeful and intentional thing, and so the official name of a station should be honored. However, I firmly believe that the romanization of that name is not nearly as purposeful and intentional, and represents a haphazard application of poorly understood standards and logic. Where a rail company leaves off a macron, this is not with purposeful intent to misrepresent the Japanese name, it is merely a slip-up, where someone doesn't know better or doesn't care, and we should not honor that as if it were an official, purposeful, creative choice. LordAmeth (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LordAmeth. Another thing I noticed: what is the policy in hyphenation ? I notice there is Kita-Senri Station, Kita Kurihama Station and Kitahiroshima Station. The pages without hyphen are redirected to pages with hyphen. Just some examples. Shocklord (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with LordAmeth. The guideline for hyphens is that they should be avoided. However, in the case of train station names, they are often used as we use the official name of the station used by the company which operates it. I agree that the romanization following the kanji should be standardized, and there should also be redirects for other likely romanizations or spellings. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• First I would like to point out that si and ti are based on the Japanese standard. See Romanization of Japanese#Chart of romanizations. Although this Romanization is not accepted today even in Japan. Yes, it is certainly beautiful if those names were KitaSenri Station, KitaKurihama Station and KitaHiroshima Station. However, it is not productive to complain about current condition. We should not be arrogant to change the existent name, only because it does not conform to the Wiki standard or it is not beautiful. The only choice we can take is to use the current romanization used officially by railway company without adding and reducing any apostrophe or macron. And use of such a name is in reality de facto standard in en:Wiki now. So I propose again the following description be added to WP:MOS-JP#Train and Subway stations, similar wording as in "Names of companies, products, and organizations".

"Honor the current romanization used officially by Railway companies." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is my counterproposal:

"Use transliteration of official Japanese name in revised Hepburn, unless it is apparent that the railway company prefers different name or spelling."

Reasons: Firstly, Japanese railway stations hardly have "official" romanized name that have to be followed under the MOS. Romanized names are mere transliteration of the official names that are made by railway companies as a guide for foreigners or just for decoration of webpages, with no intention to establish official names.

Secondly, even if the spellings by railway companies should be considered as "official," we would face difficulties to determine which spelling is the official because of companies' indecisive attitude to the "official" names. For example JR West uses macronned form on the station signages (example: Ōtsu Station) but does not on the official website (example: Otsu Station). Such a situation would easily cause a serious confusion in naming if we declare that the "official" romanization is absolute. --Sushiya (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My position is even in your first case, a name written in station sign should be used for a name for en:Wiki. Could you show me some examples of this case? I may be convinced to agree your opinion.

As for the second case, it shows that it is not so easy to find the fact. Please see this page by JR West or Google Map. This is because macron is often omitted in website. This can be solved by adding a caution like "the station name in website may sometimes be written without macron(s)".

My concern for your counter proposal is that it often becomes a dispute as to whether "it is apparent that the railway company prefers different name or spelling" ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My first point is that railway companies do not consider the romanized names so important as the official names of the stations. One evidence of this is that even station signages at one station have different names in romaji. For example Hanamaki Airport, Hanamaki-Kūkō and Hanamaki-Kuko. See also the inconsistency in macron usage already mentioned above. --Sushiya (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in cases like that we should go with the standard name which would be correct under the general WP:MOS-JA guidelines. As Phoenix7777 indicates, you are listing an extreme case which is unlikely to occur all that often (I never once saw signage that diverse in romanization in one station in my many years living in Japan). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It often occurs when a company changes its romanization method but leaves old signages unchanged. I've seen some in stations of Tokyo Metro, which recently cease to use macrons. cf. ja:神保町駅#歴史. --Sushiya (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however you are talking about an extreme case. So I support User:Nihonjo's clarification as a confirmation of current de facto naming method. And in your extreme case, editor should follow the description written in lede of WP:MOS-JP#Names "If you are unsure of how to write a name after reading the information below, please post your question on the Talk page." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the nature of the romanized names inferred from the cases, not the naming procedures under your proposed rule. --Sushiya (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just making things confusing. This isn't someplace to academically discuss romanization inconsistencies just for the heck of it. All we care about is what we are going to do here, on enwiki. We aren't here to infer anything. Your questions have been answered already (unless you've come up with new ones). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking I don't believe the naming based on station signages would cause so many problems. However, as a part of Misplaced Pages, I am unconfortable to declare that the station signage must be the basis for the article naming because signages are not a kind of reliable sourses and to check it for naming is a kind of original research. --Sushiya (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no more original research than looking on the official sites of the train companies. The signs are officially approved and produced, and they are there where everyone can see them. If I had to choose one over the others, I would probably pick the sign above the entrance to the station. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sushiya. Signage cannot be taken as a reliable source, because the train companies themselves do not follow any consistent style or logic in their romanizations, and because, as Sushiya writes, Japanese railway stations hardly have "official" romanized name ... Romanized names are mere transliteration of the official names that are made by railway companies ... with no intention to establish official names. I'm sorry to repeat what's already written here, but I think this is completely the core of the point. Our station naming on en:wiki should reflect a certain degree of consistency and logic in the use of macrons and in spelling, even when that trumps "official" names (e.g. Ōtsu Station instead of Otsu Station; shi & chi instead of si and ti). LordAmeth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If the Revised Hepburn Romanization take precedence over station sign, then Daikan'yama, Shin'ōsaka and Nishishinjuku must be used instead of Daikan-yama, Shin-Ōsaka and Nishi-shinjuku which are on the station sign. Because usage of hyphen instead of apostrophe is not defined in Revised Hepburn. Furthermore there is no description "after a word shin or nishi, hyphen should be used" in WP:MOS-JP. Someone would never compromise on apostrophe usage, strictly following Revised Hepburn Romanization. See Talk:Junichiro Koizumi#Article title. As for the usage of the name on station sign, correction of apparent misuse of romanization will not be precluded, unless it is not a change from hyphen to apostrophe.

Anyway I came to realized that there is no merit to clarify the guideline, because the naming of the station is properly made by following the first line of WP:MOS-JP "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." I withdraw my proposal. Thank you all for participating this discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead, please participate in Talk:Daikanyama. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Names of fictional characters: Hepburn or "intended" romanization?

The discussion that lead to this one can be found here: Talk:List of One Piece episodes (season 10)#Margaret//Marguerite//Māgaretto

There has been a bit of edit warring at List of One Piece episodes (season 10) about a character that first appears in that season. Her name is written in kana as マーガレット. One side wishes to romanize her name as "Margaret", like the common first name. The other side wants to use "Marguerite", as she and several related characters are apparently named after flowers. My question is: Is going with the "intended" romanization without an official source to back it up acceptable at all? Goodraise 21:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I now support Marguerite rather than Margaret, as according to the Japanese wikipedia, the spelling for the Marguerite flower is indeed マーガレット. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's clearly established that ALL of the names are flowers (perhaps in an interview with the author or something similar), then that would make sense. I don't see a need to modify the MOS-JA, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if it's not "clearly established that ALL of the names are flowers" (as is the case here), you'd use Hepburn? (I assume that with "something similar" you mean a non-primary source.) Goodraise 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the popularity of the series, it's likely that someone, somewhere, in some article about the series, commented on all those names being flower names. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't share your optimism, but that is beside the point. What do we do until such a source has been found? -- I'm not asking this because of a single character. I've been wondering about this question for quite a while. This incident only provided the incentive I needed to ask. Goodraise 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the old talk page of Talk:Burdock (Dragon Ball). Dekimasuよ! 08:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the case is a lot different here. Burdock has several official English spellings, as opposed to none. There is no writing system trickery involved here: As Geg pointed out above, the kana is the same for the flower and the character. Also, a decision does not seem to have been made there, so even if the cases were compatible, I'd be left as clueless as I am now. Goodraise 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It maybe original research, or it may simply fall into common sense. I have no idea in what character is that, but if someone can suggest a set of characters are all named after flowers( and no other exception could be found in such set), and all of them sound uncommon, I would say that using the flower name is much better than using the normal common English name. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 07:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Use Marguerite with a notation about the original spelling. Alternative, you could ask Funimation what they intend to use as her name citing the problem.陣内_Jinnai 20:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ウォー

ウォー, is it Wō or Uō? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wō. Uō needs a large ォ, as in　ウオー. Jpatokal (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. As I thought, but I wasn't sure. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Romanization of foreign words rendered in Japanese katakana

As per this discussion I am being point here. I find it very redundant and unnecessary, since the Japanese katakana is actually only telling what the word in front would be pronounced by the Japanese. Of course it may be useful some of the times, like when the pronunciation is very different from the origin or the displayed words. However, there are times when it is only stating the obvious joke in the eyes of westerners about how poorly Japanese render those words and sometimes even more misleading since katakana pronunciation separate each word as oppose to English where people try to link each of them. For example, Aerith in English would be something like Arith (2 distinct vowels), but the katakana is E A Li Su (4 distinct vowels) and the romanzation would be Earisu, where it would be 4 vowels but people will tend to pronounce the first part more like Ear, an i sound instead of the eh sound. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "Li" sound in Japanese, so your example is incorrect. That said, the Japanese only needs to be presented once, so I'm not seeing what the big deal is here. If it's a Japanese game where the characters were originally named in katakana, having that where people can easily see how the Japanese pronounced it is important information. It's made even easier by sing the {{nihongo}} template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I heard, the Japanese romanization have no li, but most Japanese do not pronounce ri as in English as well. Also, what does it add to the article for people who do not read Japanese, cannot read Japanese, and do not bother to learn Japanese? Wouldn't including the IPA of the term much more efficient than romanizing the katakana? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 19:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It adds nothing for those people, but the same can be said for any Japanese anywhere on enwiki. The point of having it is to be complete and provide the information for those who do read Japanese and for those interested in it whether or not they can read it. Since it's a Japanese topic, using the Japanese is entirely appropriate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mention anything about removing the katakana, if people see the katakana, and is interested in the Japanese pronunciation, they will check it for themselves, if they do not, the romanization do not add anything to it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 14:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that providing Romanization for Japanese script is redundant only when the romanization is essentially a copy of the English phrase. The example in the VGProj discussion had to do with Kingdom Hearts, which at one point was introduced as: Kingdom Hearts (キングダムハーツ, Kingudamu Hātsu) . The point of contention was that the romanization was redundant, and to most readers just looks like a guide on how to say an English title with a Japanese accent. However, where the romanization IS interesting and important would be in cases where the Japanese title is significantly different from the English - for example, Tetris Attack, released in Japan as Yoshi no Panepon (ヨッシーのパネポン) .

I think the issue is that this MOS seems to say that we have to provide romanization for every instance of Japanese script so that people can see how to pronounce it. I agree with others from the VGProj, though, that it makes article leads unnecessarily long and doesn't add anything of significant value when it basically looks like an English title, Japanese script, and then the English title again. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It does add value, even if it's not significant, which no one ever claimed it was. Every last word doesn't have to add significant value, however, and including the rōmaji for the Japanese will not significantly increase the article lead size unless the article lead is significantly smaller than it should be. Rōmaji is not English, even if it looks similar due to using Roman letters. Due to being written in a completely different character set, having the rōmaji allows those who don't read Japanese to have some idea of how it's actually said in the original language in which it was released (which could be considered significant). It also helps to keep the site from being Euro-centric. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. I am elaborating the discussion concerning the titles to other parts, like characters that appear in video games. like Vincent romanization as Vinsento is quite redundent in the English wiki(but it is not redundant in the French wiki as the pronunciation of Vincent is different in French). —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 06:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is the consensus was removing romanization of Japanese game titles; but it was too general in a sense: there was talk of using footnotes if the article lead was unnecessarily long which was not elaborated further, and somehow the removal included character names and plot terms - which wasn't in the reached consensus. Also, I think most who were for removing the romanization didn't see it from the point of view of or didn't take into account those who'd be interested to know how the kana was pronounced (such as moi). I agree with Nihonjoe's view that romaji isn't English - it's the pronunciation of the kana using latin letters - and is thus not redundant. — Blue。 08:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If they are interested, it would be very simple to look up the kana and see how they are pronounced. If they do not bother to do that, I do not see why we need to compensate for their laziness and force feed it to them. Japanese is not a totally out of hand language like the tokien elvish, it is rather simple to find web sites to at least have the kana's pronunciation displayed. Saying it is not redundant because someone might be interested sounds like saying someone in the street might be hungry, so you place lunch boxes in every corner thinking hungry people might not want to walk the length of the street to go to a dinning place. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you completely missed the point; it's not redundant because romaji isn't English. Plus, your comparisons could also be placed on Misplaced Pages as a whole; "readers can look up the nearest library and find out about Homunculi, we don't need to "force feed" them by writing an encyclopedic article about it." So, yeah.

I'm for a) restoring the romaji back into articles that have been using kana, and b) should the article intro be rendered needlessly long because of the Japanese titles, then placing them in footnotes should be adequate, but not wholesale removal. — Blue。 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction should be applied for the description about apostrophe

I was reading bits and pieces of the Daikanyama vs. Daikan'yama debate, and noticed that it was pointed out that this MOS contains the text:

Use of apostrophes should be avoided except in the case of the syllabic "n" followed by a vowel (see "Body text", below).

This sounds like nothing but an error. Those who know the correct way to apply the apostrophe in revised Hepburn romaji should already know that apostrophe is used between syllabic N and a proceeding vowel or semivowel. It is also unnecessary as it already states "Revised Hepburn romanization (described below) should be used in all cases, excepting..." While the inclusion of additional description about the usage of apostrophe was supposed to help reiterate what's already known about revised Hepburn, in turn it's just adding confusion because it sounds like it might be one of the exceptions that are supposed to exist.

The sentence should first distinguish itself either as a new rule or as a clarification of an already stated rule. In the case of the latter, it could be removed entirely as it is redundant and also adds only confusion rather than clarification. The need for the additional emphasis on the usage of apostrophe is not apparent. We have already already stated that we're using Revised Hepburn at this point in the text. —Tokek (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Project-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles