This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) at 13:18, 22 February 2018 (→Friendly suggestion: Blanking section. This will go in the archive once I've archived all the older ones (after the GA reviews are done). The reason I don't do it now is cause I don't trust myself to put them in the archive in the right order.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:18, 22 February 2018 by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) (→Friendly suggestion: Blanking section. This will go in the archive once I've archived all the older ones (after the GA reviews are done). The reason I don't do it now is cause I don't trust myself to put them in the archive in the right order.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Archives |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
ARCA notice
I'm required by the arbitration clerk procedures to inform you that a motion has been proposed that relates to you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Catflap08_and_Hijiri88:_Motion. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
example
In cases where the community-imposed editing restriction is an interaction ban, the ban itself would have to be appealed to the community. Blocks in response to violations of the ban are imposed by the blocking administrator. isaacl (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88
- The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Catflap08 and Hijiri88
"Shōwa Emperor"
I've been doing some copyediting at Manchukuo (it's at "On this day..." today), and I keep running across "Shōwa Emperor". I seem to remember you talking about this stuff before—he wouldn't be the "Shōwa Emperor" until after he's dead. How should he be referred to in English, then? Obviously not 天皇陛下, but ... "Hirohito"? Not how it would be done in Japanese, but seems to be common in English writing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Curly Turkey: In that context, I would say "the mperor" is clear enough in most cases, except that Manchukuo also had an emperor. Since the title of our article is what it is, I would say calling him that is fine for other articles on en.wiki, and I'm pretty sure the majority of English-language RSes on the topic do the same anyway. Way back in he mid-2000s I think I recall being involved in an RM at the article on the emperor himself, which was never going to go anywhere worthwhile as he's probably the only figure in Japanese history to whom WP:COMMONNAME actually applies. Anyway, you're right that "the Shōwa Emperor" is silly in that context as the whole thing took place within the Shōwa era. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you're saying go with "Hirohito"? Or how about "the Japanese Emperor"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say go with "Hirohito". Most readers are familiar with the name, and while "the Japanese emperor" might be more 丁寧, (i) it's still kinda ambiguous to readers who do not know when he was crowned, (ii) it feels kinda like "othering" "the Japanese", even though they are fairly central to the topic of that article, and (iii) avoiding use of the emperor's name on English Misplaced Pages isn't really possible, so there's no point being euphemistic.
- On an unrelated note: when going to check if the article included any background information on Japanese colonial adventures in the Meiji and Taishō periods (for point (i) above), I noticed that the "Background" section is nearly all about etymology and usage of the name "Manchuria" (as opposed to "Manchukuo") and the first two paragraphs of "Origins" is really what most articles would call "Background". It's not really a copyediting issue, but I just thought it interesting.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I might be misremembering, but I thought there was some issue with calling him "Emperor Hirohito", and just calling him "Hirohito" perhaps doesn't put him in the proper context.
- There are lots of issues with the article (check out those
{{cn}}
s), but I don't have the background to fix them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)- Oh. Yeah, I guess that could be a concern. Maybe the first time he is mentioned in the article (assuming he was already emperor; I haven't checked) introduce him as "Emperor Hirohito" or "The Japanese emperor, Hirohito" or some such. I don't recall a specific instance in the past when this came up and you and I were involved; the closest I can remember is where our mutual "friend" kept insisting, even after the relevant passage in the article was already fixed, on passive-aggressively talking about how the Meiji era was named after it's emperor, Emperor Meiji, despite repeatedly being corrected, but that's really not the same problem at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really remember, but I don't think it came up in a dispute, but rather when you were bitching about the quality of an article (perhaps tangentially to a dispute?). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, I've introduced him as "Hirohito, the Japanese emperor", and then have him as "Hirohito" for the rest of the article. What would you recommend for (say) Meiji artcles? I don't think sources ever call him anything but Meiji. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- In the majority of cases, "the emperor" would be clear enough. I think English sources don't tend to refer to him by his given name, instead preferring to just treat "Meiji" as his name, even if it may be wrong, anachronistic or weird in places. (By contrast, no one uses simply "Shōwa" as though it were his name.) AFAIAC, writing "real history" as we are (and as, for example, Keene was when he wrote Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World) is different from writing historical fiction like The Last Samurai (which somewhat laughably has a character refer to "the divine emperor Meiji" while Meiji was still very much alive, and indeed sitting right there); in the latter case, characters should speak as they actually would have, but for us writing according to retrospective conventions probably shouldn't cause all that much hassle. The only real problems arise when editors insert anachronisms like "The Meiji era was named for Emperor Meiji and corresponds to Meiji's reign." into articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Heh. That one goes beyond even simple "anachronoism"—the era doesn't even correspond with his reign. What would you name him, though, if you had to name him in 1867? Boshin War#Coups d'état has "In late 1866, however, first shogun Iemochi and then Emperor Kōmei died, respectively succeeded by Yoshinobu and Emperor Meiji." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was gonna check what Keene did, but would need to finally get around to spring cleaning to locate my copy, and yesterday was ... tiring. I would say "Kōmei's son Prince Mutsuhito"; "who would later be known as Emperor Meiji" would work after that if you feel it right, and only link the latter as it's the title of our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Heh. That one goes beyond even simple "anachronoism"—the era doesn't even correspond with his reign. What would you name him, though, if you had to name him in 1867? Boshin War#Coups d'état has "In late 1866, however, first shogun Iemochi and then Emperor Kōmei died, respectively succeeded by Yoshinobu and Emperor Meiji." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- In the majority of cases, "the emperor" would be clear enough. I think English sources don't tend to refer to him by his given name, instead preferring to just treat "Meiji" as his name, even if it may be wrong, anachronistic or weird in places. (By contrast, no one uses simply "Shōwa" as though it were his name.) AFAIAC, writing "real history" as we are (and as, for example, Keene was when he wrote Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World) is different from writing historical fiction like The Last Samurai (which somewhat laughably has a character refer to "the divine emperor Meiji" while Meiji was still very much alive, and indeed sitting right there); in the latter case, characters should speak as they actually would have, but for us writing according to retrospective conventions probably shouldn't cause all that much hassle. The only real problems arise when editors insert anachronisms like "The Meiji era was named for Emperor Meiji and corresponds to Meiji's reign." into articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh. Yeah, I guess that could be a concern. Maybe the first time he is mentioned in the article (assuming he was already emperor; I haven't checked) introduce him as "Emperor Hirohito" or "The Japanese emperor, Hirohito" or some such. I don't recall a specific instance in the past when this came up and you and I were involved; the closest I can remember is where our mutual "friend" kept insisting, even after the relevant passage in the article was already fixed, on passive-aggressively talking about how the Meiji era was named after it's emperor, Emperor Meiji, despite repeatedly being corrected, but that's really not the same problem at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you're saying go with "Hirohito"? Or how about "the Japanese Emperor"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kakinomoto no Hitomaro
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kakinomoto no Hitomaro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Li He
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Li He you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Yu Wuling
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yu Wuling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Zhang Hu (poet)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zhang Hu (poet) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Zhou Bangyan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zhou Bangyan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Han Wo
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Han Wo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)