| Revision as of 07:12, 19 February 2014 editPC-XT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,401 edits →Request for a third opinion: more thoughts← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:38, 19 February 2014 edit undo182.249.53.159 (talk) →Request for a third opinion: Ryulong, I'm leaning toward a procedural support of Nanshu's proposal solely because you have not provided any reason for opposing other than "I own this page".Next edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| ::::::The consensus is that no one except for Nanshu and Jpatokal have raised any problems with this. And most of his argument is railing against me. And how is one time "regularly"? | ::::::The consensus is that no one except for Nanshu and Jpatokal have raised any problems with this. And most of his argument is railing against me. And how is one time "regularly"? | ||
| ::::::The section's intent is simple: don't use ] for the ] or the ] because Hepburn is only for standard Japanese. The only reason it's being argued against is because it says "don't use macrons for for long vowels in Okinawan et al because there's no standardized use, instead double vowels or use ou". Why is this so problematic that Nanshu felt the need to remove the entire section? What is so wrong with me reverting his bold move?—] (]) 09:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | ::::::The section's intent is simple: don't use ] for the ] or the ] because Hepburn is only for standard Japanese. The only reason it's being argued against is because it says "don't use macrons for for long vowels in Okinawan et al because there's no standardized use, instead double vowels or use ou". Why is this so problematic that Nanshu felt the need to remove the entire section? What is so wrong with me reverting his bold move?—] (]) 09:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Pointing out on the talk page of a guideline that one user has inappropriately claimed ownership of said guideline is not "railing against you". It's basically the same as pointing out the same problem on an article talk page and . Also, you missed the part where I said "or the like": I consider your consistent aggressive tone (as seen when you accused me, in the middle of a peaceful discussion, of using fighting words, and, without even reading the discussion, accused me of being at the root of the problem ]) to be a hindrance to constructive debate. And again, like in the Darling Foreigner example, you have admitted above to not bothering to read Nanshu 's reasoning; it's possible that you have since got around to reading it, but the fact you keep insisting that "most of his argument is railing against you" indicates that you actually have not. I see three mentions of you in his post: the first is speculating that you don't understand the issue (I don't know your qualifications either way, but by relying exclusively on ad hominem arguments you're not helping my perception of you); the second is him giving a quotation from you that (1) shows you dropping an F-bomb and (2) implies that, yes, you don't know what you're talking about; the third is an accusation that you are trying to OWN this page, something that is objectively true and fully verifiable (reinstating a non-consensus-backed clause that has been removed, and claiming that "consensus is needed" to ''remove'' such a clause is clear OWN; removing a consensus-backed clause that was supported by everyone ''except'' you is as well). Being generous, these three (made against a user who not long ago called the attacker an "asshole") account for around 250 words. They are followed by a 1,400-word argument based on linguistic reasoning, in which you are not mentioned once. How can you continue to claim that "most of Nanshu's argument is railing against you"? Clearly you have not actually bothered to read the argument and are making assumptions. You now say the section's intent is not to use Hepburn when romanizing Ainu or Okinawan languages, but Nanshu's argument is that it enforces a ]. Looking at the wording of the guideline itself, rather than your representation of it, it certainly seems that way. ] (]) 08:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's evident to all that Nanshu has a far deeper understanding of this issue than the rest of us combined, and I obviously continue to support removing the "direct kana to romaji transcription" bit of the MOS and following ] instead. | ::I think it's evident to all that Nanshu has a far deeper understanding of this issue than the rest of us combined, and I obviously continue to support removing the "direct kana to romaji transcription" bit of the MOS and following ] instead. | ||
Revision as of 08:38, 19 February 2014
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WP:VG/GL#Non-English games
Archives of this discussion can be found at /VGGL and /VGGL2WP:VG/GL mediation
 | This discussion is now at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Misplaced Pages articles? |
No standards, only deliberate differentiation
I removed the following subsection because it is utter nonsense only supported by the original proposer Ryulong (talk · contribs).
- ===Other languages that use the Japanese writing systems=== Several other languages, such as ] and ], use one or more of the Japanese writing systems (usually ]) to transcribe the language. When writing about subjects in these languages, use the accepted standard transliteration for the language if one exists. If no standard transliteration method exists, use a direct kana to rōmaji transcription (use the standard modified Hepburn romanization scheme except when it comes to {{nihongo3||オウ|ou}}, {{nihongo3||オオ|oo}}, and {{nihongo3||ウウ|uu}}, rather than {{nihongo3||オウ|ō}}, {{nihongo3||オオ|ō}}, and {{nihongo3||ウウ|ū}}) and doubling vowels extended by {{nihongo2|ー}} instead of using a macron over the vowel. ;Examples *{{lang|ain|アィヌ・モシ<small>リ</small>}} is the name for the island of ] in Ainu. As described at ], a standard transliteration method exists, showing that the transliterated name should be ''Aynu Mosir'' and not ''Ainu Moshiri''. *{{lang|ryu|ウチナー}} is the name for ] in the Ryukyuan languages. No standard transliteration method exists for the Ryukyuan languages, so the name would be parsed as ''Uchinaa'' and not ''Uchinā''.
One might ask two questions. Why doesn't this make sense? And why has such a nonsense survived for a long time?
The answer to the first question is twofold:
- The Ainu language has two separate (not mixed) writing systems: Katakana and the Latin alphabet. We should not transliterate Katakana into another romanization system. Perhaps, the sole exception would be an article that explains the Katakana writing system itself. This subsection was written by the guy who was incapable of understanding what transliteration was even though he was given a short lecture about it.
- The second part reads: "Even though I admit there are no standards, I want to deliberately differentiate the Ryukyuan languages from Standard Japanese by enforcing a strange exception regarding long vowels." The amateurish-sounding direct kana to rōmaji transcription does not make sense. The original proposer does not justify the exception. So its sole purpose must be his personal desire. "Why the fuck should we use a Japanese romanization system to romanize it?"
The answer to the second question is, again, twofold:
- This subsection has simply been ignored because the topics concerned rarely receive attention.
- This section has been owned by one guy. No sound logic. No proper process of consensus building. He just edits Misplaced Pages far more often than anyone else here (see also the revision history). Because this subsection sounds silly to anyone who has taken Linguistics 101, it has encountered clear opposition at least once. Take a look at the archive (2). You would be surprised at how unproductive the discussion was. Anyone possessing a minimum knowledge of linguistics would agree with Jpatokal. He has already pointed out why this subsection does not make sense. Also, he kindly explained what transliteration was. However, Ryulong repeated the same thing like a parrot and the nonsense remains the same today. Unfortunately this has proven to be an effective strategy here in Misplaced Pages. Although I am reluctant to repeat the old unconstructive discussion, I believe that for the future of English Misplaced Pages, we need to change the situation.
--Nanshu (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
No standards outside Misplaced Pages, no standards in Misplaced Pages
Because the current subsection is utter nonsense that failed to gain consensus, it would be more productive to restart from scratch. To keep the discussion constructive, I would like to require participants to know what transliteration is. I'm sorry if you feel insulted. This sounds obvious as we are talking about romanization! But unfortunately, this is not the case here.
For the Ainu language, the solution is trivial. Just follow the Latin orthography and put Katakana separately. Do not transliterate Katakana. Because this is obvious to anyone who know what transliteration is, I see no need in mentioning it in MoS.
For the Ryukyuan languages (plural), my proposal is to leave things unstandardized. We need to get back to basics. If there are no standards outside Misplaced Pages, why should we force a standardization through MoS? It's getting more like original research.
In the following, I give a brief sketch of the linguistic situation outside Misplaced Pages because I think the past discussion was out of touch with the reality. We should base our decision on facts, not on someone's personal desire.
The most important fact to keep in mind is that Ryukyuan is an umbrella term (confusingly, it also refers to a language spoken in Shuri). Each traditional community or shima has its own spoken language. There are literally hundreds of languages. They would be clustered into 5, 6 or more groups with the inherently vague criterion of mutual intelligibility. But this does not mean there are 5 or 6 standard languages. There are no serious attempts of standardization, not to mention the creation of written languages. There is no lingua franca other than Standard Japanese. Speakers of these languages use Written Japanese in writing.
With that said, I find it convenient to separate articles into linguistic and non-linguistic topics.
And as far as I know, linguistic descriptions (e.g., phonology and example sentences) are out of scope of MoS. Anyway, it is technically impossible to specify a standard way of transcription that can be applied to all languages concerned. External sources use their own ways of transcription with varying degrees of accuracy. The choice of transcription greatly depends on purposes: phonology or morphology/syntax, descriptive or comparative, or synchronic or diachronic. Fully descriptive approaches have been taken only recently (e.g., Shimoji Michinori's 2008 work on the Irabu language). There are some locally compiled dictionaries but they often present inaccurate and/or inconsistent data. Considerable difficulty would be experienced in integrating different sources. Also, for the reasons I explained above, reporting the informant's home community is a must.
For non-linguistic topics, most sources are written (1) by non-linguists and (2) in Written Japanese. English sources are scarce and some of them (e.g., George H. Kerr's "Okinawa: the History of an Island People" (1958)) are seriously outdated. In most cases, we end up consulting Kazari Eikichi (Amami Ōshima), Inamura Kenpu (Miyako) and Kishaba Eijun (Yaeyama), just to name a few.
This leads to two things. One is that data provided are linguistically inaccurate. The writer may not have fully understand the phonology of the language he spoke, and he had considerable difficulty choosing a proper sequence of Kana characters. The other is that the distinction between Standard Japanese and the writer's own language often blurs. What we read is Written Japanese borrowing some terms from local languages. The correspondence between the two is often regular and transparent.
If a word or phrase is written in the logograph Kanji, it means that its pronunciation is left to readers. In that case, we would choose a "standardized" form for Misplaced Pages. The Futori family would write its name as 太 while it is pronounced something like "huθori" in Yamatohama, Amami Ōshima. In fact, such a conversion is done throughout Japan. "ɸɯɡɯsɯma" (this may not be so accurate) is what we know as Fukushima (福島).
When Katakana is chosen, it is a sign of attempting to transcribe a local language. Here I use カムィヤキ (Kamuiyaki) for a case study. Kamuiyaki was named after a pond in Isen Town, Tokunoshima of the Amami Islands. It is interesting to note that we cannot technically apply the (modified) Hepburn to カムィヤキ. The sequence "ui" represents not a diphthong but a central vowel. I think the name may be better transcribed as Kamïyaki. However, since this is about archaeology, no one in the field dare to choose such a complicated form. As far as I know, all archaeological reports transcribe カムィヤキ as Kamuiyaki. For your information, Okinawa-based archaeologist Asato Susumu refused to accept the name of カムィヤキ and used 亀焼 instead although no one follows him. If we adopted his proposal, the article title would have been Kameyaki.
If you want to cover a broad region, it complicates things even further. Ryukyu in a broad sense is an aggregate of numerous, traditionally isolated communities. It is by no means a monolithic entity. What you have to do is a comparative study. 童名 (lit. childhood name) is a good example. In my opinion, it deserves comparative studies because it is the only name component shared across various subregions. The problem is the linguistic diversity. The term in question reads "warabena" in Standard Japanese, "warabïnaː" in the language of Yamatohama, Amami Ōshima, "warabinaː" in the language of Shuri, Okinawa Island, and "yarabinaː" in both the languages of Shika, Ishigaki Island (Yaeyama) and Hirara, Miyako Island (this is a rare coincidence). Given the fact that no local language has a status of lingua franca, I think Standard Japanese is a reasonable choice.
Incorporating historical documents would be a nightmare. Again, Kanji leaves its pronunciation to readers. The problem is that Okinawa has some documents and inscriptions written predominantly in Hiragana. The language used in these resources are considerably different from the modern languages. It is partly because the set of sound changes that characterize the modern Okinawan languages happened relatively recently. But it is presumably different from the language spoken at that time too. No one attempted to faithfully transcribe a spoken language. After all, the written language was in Japanese literary tradition. Take おもろさうし for example. I am not sure if vowel raising (o > u) completed at the time of the compilation of the book, but おもろ (omoro) certainly corresponds to modern "umuru." さうし (saushi) is a obsolete spelling of そうし. And we name its article Omoro Sōshi.
To sum up, we need to realize the complicated situation before we try to create some kind of standardization. I think inconsistencies are inevitable but better than an unreasonable standardization. --Nanshu (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Another case study. Angama is a cultural practice of many communities of the Yaeyama Islands. Fortunately, it has an English source, Ouwehand's Hateruma (1985). As the title suggests, however, he limited his scope to Hateruma Island. What is worse, the performance associated with angama in Ishigaki Island is known as mushāma in Hateruma. So, for the most part of the article, I had to rely on Kishaba Eijun's articles written in Japanese. I am still unsure if I successfully merged the totally different sources.
Ouwehand was a cultural anthropologist. While he used the modified Hepburn system for Standard Japanese, he added several rules to it to transcribe Hateruma speech in a not so accurate but easily readable way. Examples include mushāma, angama, tĒku (taiko in Standard Japanese), and uguru p'sïn (okuru hi). Corresponding terms found in Kishaba's Japanese text are ムシャーマ, アンガマ, 太鼓 and 精霊送. The first two are in Katakana, presumably reflecting Ishigaki speech. And yes, the macron indicates a long vowel as in Hepburn. The third one (drum) is written in Kanji and we are expected to read it taiko as in Standard Japanese. The correspondence between Hateruma Ē () and Standard Japanese ai is regular and transparent. Kishaba did not consider drum as a technical term requiring special treatment. The last pair represents the same concept but different wording was employed.
As I said above, the distinction between Standard Japanese and the writer's own language blurs. And since the latter has no written standard, each author had to invent his/her own method of transcription. No standards outside Misplaced Pages. --Nanshu (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Break
- Don't unilaterally change the MOS without consensus. I've reverted your edits to the page for this reason.
- That said, there is an existing consensus to use the established method for romanization of the Ainu language and just not using the Hepburn romanization for the Ryukyuan languages as it is common practice (as far as I have seen) to use romanization styles such as "uchinaaguchi" and "saataa andaagii" if at least for Okinawan. In your massive essay I see no compelling reason to change either of these practices on the project, considering the use of the languages on this project are limited. Also, no one in their right mind is going to read your treatise (I certainly haven't done so in full), so please summarize your main points and maybe then users such as myself can be swayed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, don't write up two sections when they're about the same damn thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- And I find your ad hominem attack against me extremely unprofessional. My activity on this project should not in any way be a reason to dismiss my opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for a third opinion
I would like to seek a third opinion. We have two things to discuss, the dark past and a bright future. I want to keep them separate. Otherwise the latter will become unconstructive too. For the latter, see the subsection above. In this subsection, I focus on the former.
- The assertion that Ryulong's version is a consensus is plainly wrong. It's clear if you take a look at the archive (2). He simply devastated the discussion to the point that no one was willing to continue. As a result, he effectively owns this page.
- Ryulong's version still explains "transliteration for the language." This is evidence for his ownership. He was taught that transliteration is the process of changing from one script to another (and thus one cannot transliterate a language). But it's still here.
- This also demonstrates the unconstructiveness of the discussion with Ryulong. If a discussion does not make things better at all, it's just a waste of time. That's the very reason why a third opinion is needed.
- This time Ryulong declared refusal to join the constructive, fact-based discussion by blatantly labeling my proposal as "treatise." This is a very important point to note. With this situation, how can we make things better?
--Nanshu (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- You posted a page and a half worth of text. No one should be expected to read all of that. And consensus still exists. Simply because you currently do not agree with it and Jpatokal did not agree with it does not change anything. And stop making these claims and ad hominem attacks against me. And the "Other languages that use the Japanese writing systems, last call" thread established the consensus that you claim does not exist. And oh my god if your problem is the use of the word "transliteration" just fix the terminology to "romanization". This is the same semantic garbage you pulled at Talk:Hokkaido, Talk:Ryukyu Islands, and Talk:New Ishigaki Airport.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, I support the english wikipedia using whatever form is most widespread in english-language sources (however few) for the particular topic. (Isn't there already a guideline to that effect?) The problem with standardised transliteration rules is that we then end up with some editors self-proclaiming that all the verifiable sources about a series of subjects are "wrong" (IMO using wikipedia as a vehicle for their personal agenda of language prescriptivism) and changing article titles to a string which isn't used in any reliable sources (written in either language by subject experts). I don't see who that benefits; it creates a disconnect between wikipedia and all the other literature that the readers will be moving between. (Aside, anyone read WP:DRNC?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hijiri88's phone here. Cesiumfrog, who never edits Japan/Okinawa/Ainu-related articles, is here referring to two incidents on Talk:Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū. He there made the samebaseless strawman argument he does above, that I was claiming one romanization system to be "right" and the others to be wrong. He seems to believe that any and all English sources, including self-published ones, are superior to romanization of Japanese sources. IMO, for articles on Yamato-language topics (perhaps excluding Ainu and Okinawa topics), Japanese sources should obviously be used when there are few or no English (reliable) sources. As for the issue at hand, I am neutral because (like, presumably, Cesiumfrog) I don't know squat about Okinawan or Ainu. I think it's unlikely that the only reliable sources on a topic will be in katakana-fied Ainu, though Nanshu's comments, as far as I can see, are the most sensible. 182.249.48.171 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- That said, Nanshu, to be fair, the one who wrote the section was not ] but Nihonjoe. I personally can't stand Ryulong's unilaterally declaring him/herself the "owner" of this guideline page even though he/she hardly ever edits the majority of articles that are affected by it (probably 90+% of Ryulong's article edits are to topics not even covered under WikiProject Japan). But we should be fair: Ryulong would have probably reverted Nanshu whether he/she agreed with the proposal or not. "Consensus" isn't necessary to overrule a guideline that was not implemented according to consensus in the first place, however, and Ryulong is clearly in the wrong here. This appears to be a recurring habit, as it was last summer when Ryulong reverted my inclusion of a proviso that just so happens to have in fact been supported by a broad, multilateral consensus. ~ 182.249.48.171 (talk)
- How is reverting undiscussed changes a violation of WP:OWN? And last I checked, my preferred editing area deals with this MOS, which does not just deal with WP:JAPAN (that's why it's called "Japan-related articles" and not the MOS for WP:JAPAN). I may not have to deal with non-Yamato languages fairly often but it does happen. And please, that text was never agreed upon which is why I corrected my initial revert and started this thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Ryulong, but can you point me to where the current text was upheld by consensus at any point in the last seven years? Or the guideline that says removal of not-backed-by-consensus guideline content should be reverted? Otherwise, WP:PGBOLD supports Nanshu's right to remove this text, and also supports your initial reversion of it. However, since then Nanshu has provided a well-reasoned and thought-out argument in favour of the removal, and all you have done is said WP:TLDR and continued to oppose the removal without providing a reason. That kind of comment may be valid on ANI, but if you are going to participate in the construction of style guides, you need to be willing to consider complex proposals. An average of 80 edits/day over the last eight years implies you "don't have time" for such things, but then you should probably reconsider whether guideline talk pages are the right place for you. (I'm currently getting flashbacks to my first interaction with you...) Also, your regularly referring to Nanshu as an "asshole" or the like, combined with your failure to present any reasoning for your opposition, implies to me you may not have the most honourable of intentions in opposing this proposal. 182.249.46.16 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The consensus is that no one except for Nanshu and Jpatokal have raised any problems with this. And most of his argument is railing against me. And how is one time "regularly"?
- The section's intent is simple: don't use Hepburn romanization for the Ainu language or the Ryukyuan languages because Hepburn is only for standard Japanese. The only reason it's being argued against is because it says "don't use macrons for for long vowels in Okinawan et al because there's no standardized use, instead double vowels or use ou". Why is this so problematic that Nanshu felt the need to remove the entire section? What is so wrong with me reverting his bold move?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pointing out on the talk page of a guideline that one user has inappropriately claimed ownership of said guideline is not "railing against you". It's basically the same as pointing out the same problem on an article talk page and there seems to be no shortage of people doing t hat. Also, you missed the part where I said "or the like": I consider your consistent aggressive tone (as seen when you accused me, in the middle of a peaceful discussion, of using fighting words, and, without even reading the discussion, accused me of being at the root of the problem here) to be a hindrance to constructive debate. And again, like in the Darling Foreigner example, you have admitted above to not bothering to read Nanshu 's reasoning; it's possible that you have since got around to reading it, but the fact you keep insisting that "most of his argument is railing against you" indicates that you actually have not. I see three mentions of you in his post: the first is speculating that you don't understand the issue (I don't know your qualifications either way, but by relying exclusively on ad hominem arguments you're not helping my perception of you); the second is him giving a quotation from you that (1) shows you dropping an F-bomb and (2) implies that, yes, you don't know what you're talking about; the third is an accusation that you are trying to OWN this page, something that is objectively true and fully verifiable (reinstating a non-consensus-backed clause that has been removed, and claiming that "consensus is needed" to remove such a clause is clear OWN; removing a consensus-backed clause that was supported by everyone except you is as well). Being generous, these three "extremely unprofessional ad hominem attacks" (made against a user who not long ago called the attacker an "asshole") account for around 250 words. They are followed by a 1,400-word argument based on linguistic reasoning, in which you are not mentioned once. How can you continue to claim that "most of Nanshu's argument is railing against you"? Clearly you have not actually bothered to read the argument and are making assumptions. You now say the section's intent is not to use Hepburn when romanizing Ainu or Okinawan languages, but Nanshu's argument is that it enforces a completely arbitrary original romanization system created by Wikipedians. Looking at the wording of the guideline itself, rather than your representation of it, it certainly seems that way. 182.249.53.159 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Ryulong, but can you point me to where the current text was upheld by consensus at any point in the last seven years? Or the guideline that says removal of not-backed-by-consensus guideline content should be reverted? Otherwise, WP:PGBOLD supports Nanshu's right to remove this text, and also supports your initial reversion of it. However, since then Nanshu has provided a well-reasoned and thought-out argument in favour of the removal, and all you have done is said WP:TLDR and continued to oppose the removal without providing a reason. That kind of comment may be valid on ANI, but if you are going to participate in the construction of style guides, you need to be willing to consider complex proposals. An average of 80 edits/day over the last eight years implies you "don't have time" for such things, but then you should probably reconsider whether guideline talk pages are the right place for you. (I'm currently getting flashbacks to my first interaction with you...) Also, your regularly referring to Nanshu as an "asshole" or the like, combined with your failure to present any reasoning for your opposition, implies to me you may not have the most honourable of intentions in opposing this proposal. 182.249.46.16 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- How is reverting undiscussed changes a violation of WP:OWN? And last I checked, my preferred editing area deals with this MOS, which does not just deal with WP:JAPAN (that's why it's called "Japan-related articles" and not the MOS for WP:JAPAN). I may not have to deal with non-Yamato languages fairly often but it does happen. And please, that text was never agreed upon which is why I corrected my initial revert and started this thread.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, I support the english wikipedia using whatever form is most widespread in english-language sources (however few) for the particular topic. (Isn't there already a guideline to that effect?) The problem with standardised transliteration rules is that we then end up with some editors self-proclaiming that all the verifiable sources about a series of subjects are "wrong" (IMO using wikipedia as a vehicle for their personal agenda of language prescriptivism) and changing article titles to a string which isn't used in any reliable sources (written in either language by subject experts). I don't see who that benefits; it creates a disconnect between wikipedia and all the other literature that the readers will be moving between. (Aside, anyone read WP:DRNC?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's evident to all that Nanshu has a far deeper understanding of this issue than the rest of us combined, and I obviously continue to support removing the "direct kana to romaji transcription" bit of the MOS and following WP:COMMONNAME instead.
- I would also like to gently if probably futilely plead that we resist the temptation to make this personal, and instead focus on the actual issue. Jpatokal (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME is going to be hard to find considering that there is no standard usage between "Uchinaaguchi", "Uchinaguchi", or "Uchināguchi". Going with wāpuro is the best option as there is no standardized romanization scheme (and most of Nanshu's opposition is because I used "transliteration" instead of "romanization"). And Nanshu's driveby nature of debate does not demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. If so, he would have provided an alternative other than simply removing it completely and spending 10k worth of text talking down to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know these languages enough to give a very intelligent comment, but I'll give a general opinion. It may seem strange to have different rominization methods for different languages or regions, but it is sometimes done that way. I would support using the one most English reliable sources use, even on a case-by-case basis. Though standardization is preferable, I don't know that we should try to enforce standards where a language has none. Just my thoughts. —PC-XT+ 11:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The repeat-a-lie-often-enough strategy does not work here. There was no consensus and Ryulong's version does not deserve special status. If someone wants to keep the nonsense, he/she is required to make a convincing argument for it.
- The transliteration stuff was used as an example that demonstrated the unconstructiveness of the discussion with Ryulong. A lengthy discussion brought no improvement. The reason why Ryulong's version does not make sense was explained elsewhere. I don't see why he is unable to understand such a simple logic.
- Signs of devastation here. Ryulong will probably repeat the same thing like a parrot unless everyone else gets sick and tired of it. For a bright future of Misplaced Pages, we must not make it work.
- It's not my version. Nihonjoe wrote it up originally. I made it clearer. Stop blaming me for this. Stop saying you don't think I'm intelligent. Stop blaming me for everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- And why can't we come up with our own standard form of romanizing these languages in the rare instances that they show up? That's what the manual of style is for. What exactly is wrong with saying "for Ainu and the Ryukyuan languages don't use Hepburn"? You do nothing but demand that the section be removed because you claim that I have some lack of knowledge in this area when I am not the one who created it in the first place. You suggest no alternative text. You simply demand its removal because it apparently stands in opposition to the handful of articles you've created on topics in this area, like Kamuiyaki and Angama (dance) (moved from "Angama (Yaeyama)" because that's not really the best title). You spend half of these articles delving into the etymology rather than the subject, as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Blaming others doesn't make any progress. There are just different points of view, and standards are hard to find in positions like this. As I said, standards would be preferable. I am leaning towards keeping the standard, because it is a direction, even though, as far as I can tell, it may be somewhat arbitrary. I still question whether standards should really be enforced, but don't want to just throw what we have away, if it can be helped. —PC-XT+ 07:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The new consensus straw poll
| See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:POLL—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Let's see how much actual consensus we have here. The crux of Nanshu's proposal boils down to removing this sentence from the MOS: If no standard romanization method exists, use a direct kana to rōmaji transcription (use the standard modified Hepburn romanization scheme except when it comes to ou (オウ?), oo (オオ?), and uu (ウウ?), rather than ō (オウ?), ō (オオ?), and ū (ウウ?)) and doubling vowels extended by ー instead of using a macron over the vowel. So sign below if you want to remove it (support), or want to keep it (oppose). (And yes, I realize Nanshu actually proposes removing the whole "Other languages that use the Japanese writing systems" section, which I also support, but we'd need to work out some new wording first.)
|