Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/February 2023
 |
| Talk & archives for WP Japan |
|---|
|
Project talk
|
|
Task force talk/archives |
| Search the archives: |
| V·T·E |
Good article reassessment for Japan Airlines
[edit]Japan Airlines has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
[edit]See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Technical terminology regarding Korea under Japanese rule
[edit]Hello all! Here I have a bit of a semantic discussion, feel free to read on if this interests you. On the request of CurryTime7-24 I am opening a discussion on this topic here. A previous consensus on this topic was reached here in a long discussion, which was had again here. While this issue seems resolved in WikiProject Korea, it was recommended to bring this to WikiProject Japan as well.
The basic gist of the discussion is concerning the usage of technical terminology on the English name of Korea under Japanese rule. For a long time, the country in the period 1910-1945 was referred to as "Japanese Korea", "Korea", or "Korea under Japanese rule" on Wikipedia. This user, CurryTime7-24, single-handedly promulgated a total sweeping change to change all of these references to "Chōsen", the Hepburn romanization of the Japanese name 朝鮮, without consensus beforehand (for context, the preceding 12th to 19th century empire in Korea is referred to as Joseon in English). I opposed this change. Research appeared to show that the nation was alternatively referred to as "Korea", "Corea", and "Chōsen" in English-language sources contemporary to the time. The sources used justifying the usage of the name "Chōsen" as the primary term were a couple of news reports all from the year 1910 and a terminology book from 1911; pretty much all other contemporary sources during 1910-1945 stated that either "Korea" or "Corea" or "Chosen" were fine. Concerning modern usage, pretty much all sources after 1945 appear to use the name "Korea"; for instance, all pages returned from a Google search using the keywords "Japanese annexation 1910" or "Japanese occupation 1910" state that the territory was "Korea". Importantly, due to the continued deeply sensitive nature between the two nations regarding the usage of the Japanese name during occupation (Korean sources 123, Japanese sources 45) I found no reason to go through with the change.
I am not by any means opposed to stating that a name used for the territory was "Chōsen", such as in the intro to the page Korea under Japanese rule. But I am opposed to this change that makes it the main name to represent the land, when "Korea under Japanese rule" or "Korea" seemed fine. On pages such as Heian'nan-dō, I think it is a better idea to revert the pages back to the usage of "Korea under Japanese rule" and "Korea" before the changes by CurryTime7-24. Again, the reasons for this is to be in line with modern English-language scholarship and to be sensitive to the issues surrounding certain terminology.
Please, I am eager to hear any discussion regarding this topic! Holidayruin (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever term is used should match what is the most consistently used in English-language scholarship (unless there's a good reason not to) - from what I can see, "Korea under Japanese Rule" and "Colonial Korea" are both very common options. I'd not recommend Chōsen for a few reasons (it'll upset a lot of people, also it's very confusing for speakers who might read it as the English word "chosen", and honestly I can't see much of a practice of referring to the peninsula as Chōsen in contemporary English sources from the early 20th C). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- RfC: Request for more comments from Wikipedians? Holidayruin (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would not use Chōsen in English. Dekimasuよ! 05:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been roughly 1.5 months, we can probably consider this RfC closed and decided against using "Chōsen". Holidayruin (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I truly don't care one way or another how this RfC ultimately concludes. But whether Chōsen is preferred or not, you can neither assess nor close your own RfC. You can withdraw it by removing the RfC tag, but this leaves the matter undecided with the status quo in place. Another uninvolved editor would have to assess and close it. Anyway, it would be best to restart this RfC as this one is invalid per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Good luck! — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- The opinions of these editors should not be discounted due to a technical mishap. But let's reopen this for a while and get this closed by a neutral third party then. In the meanwhile, your wholesale removal of the talk section on this appears to be in bad faith. Holidayruin (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have officially turned this discussion into a second RfC per your request. This is after an initial RfC had already concluded that "Korea" should be used over "Chōsen". Holidayruin (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm... the template seems to have been deleted by a bot. Oh well. Nothing in Wikipedia:Requests for comment states that another, second RfC is needed in another WikiProject just because the article belongs to two WikiProjects. This issue was already resolved in a completed and mediated RfC. I was entertaining your concerns to be nice, but there is no reason why we needed another one in the first place. And the members of WikiProject Japan that commented here appear to agree with the position of using "Korea" nonetheless. Holidayruin (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Gehōbako notable?
[edit]I have a draft Draft:Gehōbako and is it on a topic that is notable? It was a red link on Japanese wikipedia but not a deleted article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Toyotomi Tsuramatsu
[edit]Would someone with the necessary knowledge and skills help with Draft:Toyotomi Tsuramatsu which I have attempted to translate from ja:豊臣鶴松? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Debate over the translation of 章
[edit]Hello there, you are invited to join the debate over the translation of the term 章. Everyone is welcome. Please make your own conclusions. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
How should I do the bibliography? I can't find anything in english on this and I REALLY REALLY do not want to romanize that many titles. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Wanna add some stuff on this guy
[edit]Japanese version: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A8%8E%E6%89%80%E7%AF%A4
english version: draft:Saisho Atsushi This guy's got a lot of history and could make for an interesting article. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Fukushima (city)#Requested move 23 February 2023
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fukushima (city)#Requested move 23 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)