Talk:Toshihide Maskawa
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Army1987 in topic Masukawa vs. Maskawa
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Japanese script
editMerge Toshihide Maskawa (physicist) into Toshihide Maskawa
editThe same person. --Ephraim33 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Masukawa vs. Maskawa
editApparently, two different transliterations exist for the name of this scientist in the literature. In these cases, Wikipedia uses the most common one. Before today, there might have been discussion as to which of the two versions is more commonly used. However, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Toshihide Maskawa this discussion has become obsolete. The Nobel committee has opted for this version, supposedly after thoughtful consideration. The Nobel Prize is the most notable achievement related to this scientist. The citation of today's event in the media will in any case render this version the most common one.
Therefore, I moved the article to Toshihide Maskawa. Tomeasy T C 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning, but to anyone with a minimal knowledge of Japanese this looks like a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not uncommon for people with non-Latin names to choose a nonstandard romanization of their own name. "Maskawa" is a reasonable choice since it more closely matches how the name is pronounced (the "u" is unvoiced). He's not the only one to drop unvoiced vowels from his name, though I'm blanking on other examples. -- BenRG (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maskawa's most notable achievement isn't winning the Nobel, it's the work on quark mixing that he won the Nobel for. I think that paper, which is one of the most highly cited in high-energy physics, is a better reason to use the spelling "Maskawa" than anything the Nobel committee might decide (not that it matters, since they agree). -- BenRG (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good they agree, so that this little dispute is merely academic. But... for Wikipedia the spelling applied by the Nobel committee would certainly be more important than the paper because is receives a much broader audience. You made your point that the achievement was the paper rather than the price, but in terms of recognition a highly cited paper in high-energy physics is still restricted to a fairly selected group of people. Not that it matters... Tomeasy T C 17:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the translitteration used by the person itself, even when it's ridiculous. -- Army1987 (t — c) 13:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)