Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mediator needed

• Is there still a need for mediation of this dispute? AGK 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Um... As far as I understand it, the issue here involves a conflict between WP:VG and WP:MOSJA which has manifested itself in the internally inconsistent application of WP:VG/JP. This is further complicated by WP:ACCESS. Since none of the underlying policies/guidelines have been modified, I don't believe this issue is resolved by any means - it merely went dormant in response to the 2.5 month (and counting) bureaucratic delay at RfM. Although I am probably only tangentially involved in this matter, I'd be happy to hold out for an actual mediation in the interest of project-wide clarity. -Thibbs (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Basically as Thibbs mentions its dormant and will almost certainly flair up in the future. The issue has not really been resolved on any level.陣内_Jinnai 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• If the mediation request achieved one thing, it's the edit warring going down. At least I haven't experienced any bad blood over it lately. But this stupid banality is bound to come up again sometime in the future. I guess I'm not the only one who wondered about this not having entered mediation yet. Prime Blue (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, everybody. As of today, we are still awaiting a mediator becoming available, which is the reason for the delay until now; but a number of other mediation cases are in their final stages, so somebody will hopefully be available soon. I'm setting a deadline of 3 weeks from today for a mediator to become available, after which point the Committee will defer this dispute elsewhere for dispute resolution; this is longer than the usual 2 week final deadline because, from what I gather from the above comments, this dispute is not currently urgently in need of attention. Thank you for your patience until this point.

  For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I see that the case is now closed without any decision and without even a glance by any of the mediators (AGK excepted)... I'm quite disappointed that the case has become mired in bureaucracy so terminally up to this point, but in the 4 months since its filing I have thought rather hard about the underlying issues and I'm interested in sharing my opinion. I think this issue must be dealt with eventually and, frankly, the sooner the better. If this case gets re-filed at ArbCom by someone who knows its history better than I, could someone please give me a heads up? Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about bureaucracy. It's about there being no mediators available. AGK [•] 16:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this particular phase of it but rather the shuffling of the problem from RfC to ArbCom to RfM now back to ArbCom if that's indeed going to happen. This is an issue which at least 12 editors have agreed to formally discuss since July of 2010 but which has made little but lateral progress between different Wikipedia dispute resolution agencies despite the best efforts of all involved. To me that's the very definition of bureaucracy. Mind you I'm not saying that any individual or agency in the process is specifically to blame. It's the system which as a whole is imperfect. -Thibbs (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Imperfect" is putting it lightly. Seeing a case that created lots of bad blood between editors referred to the Mediation Committee by the Arbitration Committee, then closed after a period of four months with no further suggestions, is nothing short of absurd. Prime Blue (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It defiantly is and while there are no current edit wars going on, its really not been cleared up. On the other hand, the specific issue may become somwhat moot for outside reasons.陣内_Jinnai 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Arbitration request was declined because no attempts were made at resolving this content dispute through the ordinary methods. Formal mediation was requested, but is not available at this time. The next stage is to seek another method of content DR; it is not to go back to arbitration. I suggest informal mediation. AGK [•] 21:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We may have a mediator available after all

User:Anthony Appleyard, currently a candidate to join the MedCom. AGK [•] 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be ideal if it's possible. I get the sense that some editors have already put into this issue all of the case-filing efforts they had wished to. Thanks for bringing this up! It is truly appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Make it his entrance examination. Teh. In all honesty, this would be a more satisfying course of action. I hope he'll do it. Prime Blue (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be fantastic if he does it, I'm rather tired of moving about on this one. Nomader ^(Talk) 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. The issue does need to be resolved even if atm its not active.陣内_Jinnai 20:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Anthony is now mediating, so I'll leave this with him. AGK [•] 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Wikipedia articles?

The previous discussions on this point are archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/VGGL and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/VGGL2.

• This new discussion is an attempt to reach a decision on a point, which has run for over 6 months. The disputed point is: how to represent in English Wikipedia articles the Japanese names of Japanese-made videogames whose Japanese names, or parts of them, are English words whose pronunciation has been rendered in the Japanese syllabic writing system called katakana? Such rendering is usually inaccurate because of the limitations of the katakana spelling system, which was developed for Japanese phonetics. An example is "Final Fantasy", rendered in katakana as ファイナルファンタジー, which is literally "fainaru fantazī".

  The question seems to be: in the English Wikipedia page, should we display these "back from katakana to Roman" re-transcriptions of English words, or should we only display the original English spellings of those words?

  The current policy stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Romanization says "use the English spelling".

  One method used sometimes is to use the correct English spellings everywhere in the text, but to put the literal re-romanization in the arguments of the {{nihongo}} template after the first mention of the English name of the game/etc, e.g.:

  Final Fantasy VII (ファイナルファンタジーVII, Fainaru Fantajī Sebun)

  {{Nihongo|'''''Final Fantasy VII'''''|ファイナルファンタジーVII|Fainaru Fantajī Sebun}}

  This method allows access to the literal back-transcription for those who want to see it, without cluttering the text.

  (Note: "nihongo" is Japanese for "the Japanese language".)

  • Please keep discussion concise and on-topic and avoid repeating. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Anthony, the dispute was whether or not to include the Hepburn romanization in the third parameter of {{nihongo}} in the lead of the article if the Japanese title of the game was English language words rendered in katakana. This guideline currently suggests that the romanization should be included whereas the users of WP:VG believed that including the romanization of text that is inherently English was superfluous/redundant. This was mostly spawned by my repeated replacement of the "Fainaru Fantajī" text across several articles where they had been removed. It seems that for the most part the practice has been going with "Use romaji" considering the actions of users otherwise uninvolved. Most discussion as of late was "there's no one to mediate so let's just do whatever" as I haven't seen any other disputes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• The argument is not that it should never be done, but that it be required. The VG guideline says that this is optional and this guideline says it should always be there. That is the crux of the problem. The VG guidelines say to leave it up on a case-by-case basis in these circumstance. Since its not necessary to know how to pronounce a English word written in katakana (since it's suppose to represent the English word as best their script can) it shouldn't be forced. 陣内_Jinnai 01:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think Jinnai's nailed it. The only thing I'd add is that there seemed to be a move toward agreement that romaji could always be used provided that it be used as hovertext through the {{nihongotip}} template. This compromise was rejected for reasons of access, but I think this was a mistake as WP:ACCESS actually doesn't bar this at all. To interpret it thus is to corrupt its original intent. I argue that it's time to revisit this compromise proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• The "issues to be mediated" section still sums the problem up pretty well. The crux of the issue is that there is no strict site-wide guideline on including/excluding romanizations for katakana words of English (or rather non-Japanese) origin, along with the sentence "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles" from the video game guidelines. Either that has to be removed, or people have to abide by it, or there has to be a compromise. The problem was that some users from both sides were adamantly resisting on their point of view, which made it impossible to enforce either extreme – and compromises were made impossible by additional guidelines. Good luck with unraveling this situation as it's currently at an impasse. Worse even. I'd say it's located in Impasseville, Cul-de-Sac 13. Ahem. In any case, I think the involved users should be renotified as I don't think everyone followed the mediation talk page. With any luck, some might have even had a change of heart, making a true consensus easier. Prime Blue (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sometimes back-transcriptions from kana can look very different from the English original, for example Thunderbird → サンダーバード → Sandābādo. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • But sometimes they can look very similar - like Nintendo DS → ニンテンドーDS → Nintendō Dī Esu. I think this illustrates the fact that a certain amount of personal discretion is required by the editor to apply WP:VG's "Phonetic transcriptions" rule. Using a nihongotip template would resolve that issue. -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That is to be expected with this example: Nintendo is a Japanese word: 任天堂 in kanji = "responsibility/office, heaven/sky, hall". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Not according to WP:MOSJA... I don't see any romaji. That's the basic issue - whether inclusion of romaji should be mandatory or optional (i.e. only used if important to the context of the article). -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, including the romanization for an expression with kanji was never disputed – that has always been mandatory. Prime Blue (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought that the proposed nihongotip template was not allowable under WP:ACCESS. Tooltips are also fairly unprofessional looking. Just because you have "Nintendo" and "Nintendō" (neither of which are words of English origin) does not mean the latter should be obscured.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree that WP:ACCESS bars the use of nihongotip. Like the use of color in articles, the use of Romaji doesn't convey "important information" as the term is used in the guideline. As with color, Romaji can be used to enhance an article, but it still represents a mechanical transformation and so no unique information is being presented (i.e. it is not "important information"), only redundant information in a different form. The fact that hovertext is incompatible with (some) TTS programs shouldn't bar its use on articles unless it conveys "important information" as the term is used in WP:ACCESS. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • The method by which to read non-English text in a standard way would be "important information". Also this discussion is being entirely commented on by proponents of the WP:VG/GL treatment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Only when its clear that the text is not trying to convey an English word. As for Nintendo, while its not an English word, its a company name registered that way in English so that point is moot.陣内_Jinnai 03:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
          • The method by which romaji is derived from kana is not at issue here. That inclusion of romaji itself is the question. Since the method is a fully standardized method that can be performed mechanically by anyone - seeing or blind - it is redundant information and thus not "important information." As I said earlier it can enhance an article, but it shouldn't be used as a means to bar a very workable compromise. I think an old adage sums it up best: The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. -Thibbs (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
            Also for the record, I am not affiliated with WP:VG, and I am not a proponent of WP:VG's "Phonetic transcriptions" rule. I am using common sense and my opinion is that the compromise (which makes romaji-inclusion within a nihongotip template mandatory) is ideal. -Thibbs (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
            • It just seems that the application of the tooltip would not convey the information as clearly as the basic {{nihongo}} templates do. Every other language receives the "English (Not English, Romanization)" treatment. There's nothing about video game articles that it seems that they deserve separate treatment just because one group of editors feels the information is redundant when others do not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whether romaji is redundant or not isn't simply an opinion. It's a fact. An analogy can be drawn to the prime factorization of numbers. Just as romaji is derived from kana by an exact and mechanical method without any new information, each number can be broken down into its prime factors by an exact and mechanical method without any new information. Like romaji, prime factorization can be helpful or it can be unnecessary. Whereas we leave it to WP:WPMATH to determine when prime factoring is helpful in the context of the article, I take it you are arguing that WP:MOSJA supersedes WP:VG in this area. By way of a compromise, the use of the nihongotip template as a mandatory alternative to the nihongo template would mean that romaji would appear on every article just as mandated by WP:MOSJA. I see no downside. If you are still concerned that visually-impaired users may lack the competence to perform the standardized determination for romaji, and that it is important within the context of the article to know for example that Super Mario USA → スーパーマリオUSA → Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē, then I suggest we consult someone from WP:WPACCESS rather than speaking for them. -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • When I asked if it would pose a problem at an FA nomination, there were no strong opinions from the delegates. But asking members of a project that would actually be affected by it is a much better idea to determine if the tooltips could not be accepted at all. Prime Blue (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• By the way: I notified all the remaining users that seemed to be unaware of the mediation. Prime Blue (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• One thing affecting whether romaji is redundant or not, is that most people outside Japan cannot read kana, and most people outside Japan or Chinese communities cannot read kanji. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's always redundant insofar as it can always be created by any user using a standardized method. Although 「ブラブラブラ」 isn't a real word in Japanese (at least as far as I know since I just made it up), it can still be rendered in romaji (as "buraburabura") by using an unchanging standardized method that anyone can apply regardless of ACCESS-level. That's why the prime factorization analogy works. A non-sentient computer can generate a prime factorization of any number based on set rules that could be applied by anyone. All it needs is the number itself. The same is true for romaji which can be generated based on set rules by anyone given nothing more than the raw kana. It could potentially enhance an article, but in cases where this "enhancement" is as much an enhancement as the addition of color (eg. Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē), it seems obvious that it should be allowed to go into hovertext.
    It's also worth pointing out that there are no equivalent examples of this mandatory transliteration occurring in any other-language wikipedias as far as I can see. Thus for example the ja.wiki article on the American iPod product shows the name of the device rendered in katakana and in English letters, but there is no phonetic transliteration of the English apart from the kana itself (which is actually rendered as "aipoddo" in romaji). -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Referring to the last example, kana is the equivalent of romaji for all intents and purposes in Japanese as it shows how to pronounce the word in it's most basic form as long as the person has a basic grasp of Japanese pronunciation. I should note that I've already indicated in some other discussion somewhere that I'm fine with having the romaji be in tooltips as an option if that will make WPVG happy, even though I still disagree with their insistence that including the romaji is redundant and that it "clutters" the article unnecessarily. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes but romaji/kana isn't the equivalent of English. We're not talking about providing a phonetic transcription of English, but rather a transliteration of foreign characters for pronunciation purposes. My point is that the ja.wiki (and as far as I know all other-language wikipedias) doesn't share our requirement that a standardized transliteration should be provided for every article on a topic with an originally English-language name. For us the requirement seems to be "Our-language → Their-language → Transliteration" whereas for all other wikipedias the requirement is merely "Our-language → Their-language." As for romaji being redundant, I only make this point to illustrate that for ACCESS purposes it is similar to color. Although it can be useful, it is not "important information" as WP:ACCESS uses the term. -Thibbs (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood me. For the Japanese, kana is used to transliterate kanji pronunciation (as well as transcribe words and parts of words not written with kanji), and therefore serves the same purpose in Japanese as does romaji in English: it shows you how to pronounce the word in Japanese. Kanji does not do that, and unless people can read kana (and unless their system is also set up to display the kana), the kana won't do that either here on the English Wikipedia (what other language wikis do is mostly irrelevant to the English-language Wikipedia as every language has the right and ability to choose how to do whatever they want to do). Thus, the requirement for the transliteration/romaji, which provides that pronunciation information. As I stated above (and elsewhere), I'm fine with having the option to put the romaji into a mouseover/tooltip on video game articles since they (which is a weird thing to say since I also edit video game articles a little) seem so bent on completely ignoring MOS-JA on this point. The main two arguments I've seen put forward are that the romaji "takes up too much room" and that it is "redundant". The first argument is only valid in a few, scattered cases, so is mostly baseless. The second could be said about any pronunciation information, so they may as well be arguing to remove all IPA information, too. That's just absurd, though, so that argument is also baseless. I do think your proposal below is a good one, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
        • A few points: 1) I don't see anybody here arguing that MOSJA should be completely ignored and that romaji should be done away with on video game articles. The argument is that it should be allowed to be placed in a tooltip in some cases as an alternative based on editorial consensus. This would apply to all articles, not just video game articles. 2) The IPA phonetic notation is quite different from the standard romaji transliteration of kana. There are multiple ways to pronounce the English word "bow," for instance, and IPA phonetics cannot be applied systematically to this word in the same way that romaji can be to kana. The raw word "bow" itself cannot be the basis of a proper IPA rendering, so external information is required. This is in stark contrast to the regular and systematic way that the rules of romaji are applied to kana based on nothing more than the raw japanese characters. 3) My mention of what other language wikipedias were doing was meant to be persuasive, not controlling. Obviously we can do whatever we want with our own wikipedia, but considering that the entirety of the other wikipedias uses a system that is different than ours, it might give us pause to consider if what we are doing is actually as centrally necessary as we might consider it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• If the reader has access to that standardized method, which does not include people who cannot read kana. Luckily I wrote a Windows program that can transcribe various Unicode alphabets to Roman (so far, Indian alphabets and Armenian and kana). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think that the argument that WP:ACCESS bars the compromise reached earlier uses spurious reasoning. My ideal solution would be the following:
  

Proposal:

1 - WP:VG should drop its optional "Phonetic transcriptions" rule and accept WP:MOSJA's mandate that all articles on topics that have Japanese names should contain romaji as in general it is information that enhances articles.

2 - The default is to include romaji using the {{nihongo}} template.

3 - If editors agree by consensus that the transliterated form of the word is substantially identical to that of the English term (e.g. "Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē" compared to "Super Mario USA") then the {{nihongotip}} template may be used as an alternative.

Any thoughts on this? -Thibbs (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I simply feel that the 3rd aspect of the proposal would only be dealt with by the WP:VG crowd. However, I believe that we should copy the Japanese Wikipedia's practice of when there is identical hiragana or katakana in their transcription from kanji into hiragana on their various pages. So instead of "Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē", it would be "Sūpā - Yū Esu Ē" as "Mario" is going to be the same in both languages. Unless this makes things slightly more confusing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• It makes things more confusing. "Mario" should be in both versions, in the example that you give. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• No, the 3rd aspect would not be limited to WP:VG, but would of course be available across all projects. As we had brought up in prior discussions, for non-video-game terms like "elevator → エレベーター → erebētā", editors could decide by consensus to put the romaji into hovertext. (Note: Not the best example, I know, but the principle is the same) -Thibbs (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thibbs, would this mean that an article such as Nintendo DS would have to have the transcription "Nintendō Dī Esu", which is essentially a mangled Japanese attempt to say "Nintendo DS"? I really feel that these transcriptions are confusing to readers who aren't familiar with what they are, which is why I've been so opposed to them all along. It's fine when the name of the game or system is completely different, but it's silly to have when the Japanese are pretty much borrowing mangled English over to the names of their games. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that the term "Nintendo DS" would be required to be written in one of the following two ways:

1)Nintendo DS (ニンテンドーDS, Nintendō Dī Esu) - The default way unless editors object

or

2){{nihongo tip|'''Nintendo DS'''|ニンテンドーDS|Nintendō Dī Esu}} - The alternate way that would be available for editors based on consensus.

-Thibbs (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomader, it's not really a "mangled Japanese attempt" when "Nintendo" is their word to begin with. The "Dī Esu" bit is the only part that you have some sort of argument that it could be change to just "DS" in the romaji field.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Thibbs. I'd have absolutely no objection to the second version. Can we hear from WP:WPACCESS about this to see if it would work? As I recall, that was the problem with it last time. To clarify, Ryulong, I feel if both of the versions sound the same and mean the same thing, I'm not really sure if we need to list the Japanese romanization next to it, especially when the pronunciation of the Japanese version is an attempt to sound like the English version. And sorry if that came out a bit negative Ryulong, my bad. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But in the case of the DS it's the other way around. "Nintendo" is the English approximation of 任天堂. So even if the name is parsed in katakana, "Nintendo DS" is a poor example for this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think its necessary in every article, but I'd be okay with the hovered text compromise. Final Fantasy is a better example of when it becomes redundant imo. In this case it is clear both words are suppose to be English words written as closely as kana system allows.陣内_Jinnai 03:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Ryulong-- I wasn't aware of that, although other things such as Final Fantasy are better examples of what I have a problem with. I think the tooltip workaround would be the best route and I'd completely support it if it's usable. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

@Jinnai: Such a treatment I believe could work for the Final Fantasy articles, so long as at least one of them (primarily the main franchise article) retains the visible romaji. However, I feel that visible romaji would be useful on articles with otherwise ideosyncratic pronunciations compared to the English name (e.g. "UFO" being "Yūfō" and not "Yū Efu Ō", Final Fantasy Versus XIII having "Verusasu" rather than "B/Vāsasu") or having names that don't follow how English grammar would otherwise have it (Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days's "Three-Five-Eight Days Over 2" being an issue in my book even if the current title is ridiculously long).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Whenever there are idiosyncratic mismatches or otherwise notable differences then the Romaji should be visible. In all of the examples listed above I agree that visible romaji would be best. The {{nihongotip}} template should be reserved only as an alternative when the English and romaji are substantially identical. -Thibbs (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost don't want to say anything, but..
I'm fine with the tool tip. While I originally thought that some Romaji was redundant, it eventually became apparent to me that the Romaji could be confusing to those unfamiliar with it. So my main concern became the absence of proper clarification. Like some label indicating that the text seen was Japanese and a romanization (like {{Leonese}}, {{Hebrewterm}}, and {{Lang-ja}}), as well as a help page that explains the pronunciation. I think the Romaji can be confusing because it does not follow English language pronunciation, but will surely be read that way. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

I thought someone was suppose to update the help page to include romaji pronunciations, although (not to get off the subject) it isn't clear modified hepburn is the most common. Still whatever form of hepburn is used, even wapuro, they follow enough basic rules that we could come up with something.陣内_Jinnai 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Help:Japanese already exists, but I think some one took a stab at creating something else. I don't quite remember who or where though. Also, I think we should stick with the Hepburn described on this MoS page to keep things standardized. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Are you thinking about this one? User:Joren/Help:Japanese. I'd created that as a sketch of how the page could be made more user-friendly to those coming from the question-mark link on the nihongo templates; my concern was that the existing Help:Japanese presents them with a wall of text that doesn't really answer the questions that likely would bring them to that page. My hack 'n slash version is not really ready to be the help page yet (some people had pointed out that the information originally in Help:Japanese was wrong/out of date to begin with) but perhaps others could take a stab at modifying it and making something workable out of it. Feel free to edit my user page version of it if you have the energy...

-- Joren (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on Nihongotip Compromise at WP:ACCESS

I've requested commentary from the editors at WP:ACCESS who in my estimation are most likely to be attuned to any possible problems the the Nihongotip Compromise might pose. The request I made can be found here. Please add anything that you may feel I left out. -Thibbs (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The compromise which uses {{nihongotip}} in the example "{{nihongo tip|'''''[[Super Mario USA]]'''''|スーパーマリオUSA|Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē}}" does cause accessibility concerns.

It uses a tooltip, which indeed violate WP:ACCESS. WP:ACCESS prohibits the use of tooltips, except for the {{abbr}} template. The abbr template uses the HTML semantic tag <abbr>, which is used to provide the long form of an abbreviation or an acronym. The abbr template can be used solely for the purpose of explaining abbreviations. Any other uses - like in {{nihongotip}} - will produce unexpected and confusing results in screen readers, applications that reuse Wikipedia's content, etc. For example, screen readers will read: "スーパーマリオUSA", abbreviation: Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē". Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm... That's a pity. Out of curiosity, when you say "screen readers will read: 'スーパーマリオUSA', abbreviation: Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē" I would be interested to know how the screen reader would pronounce 「スーパーマリオUSA」. If screen-readers provide the proper pronunciation anyway then there might still be no need for the romaji in the same limited cases that nihongotip would have been used in. Of course if they just said "Japanese characters" or something similar then I think this compromise is effectively dead. -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends if the corresponding add-ons are installed in the screen reader. I've never tried myself, but I know that JAWS can support many unicode characters and languages if the corresponding modules are installed. Japanese is a popular language, so I suppose it can be supported by JAWS. I also know there is a screen reader made specifically for reading japanese. However, most screen readers will not be able to read japanese, but might be able to read the romaji (if the user wants it).

I am only providing explanations and details about WP:ACCESS, as requested. I do not have an opinion on whether we should keep or delete the romanji. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Dodoïste that the tooltip will cause an annoyance for those using screen readers, by announcing the tooltip as an abbreviation (which probably wouldn't make much sense to a blind reader), so Compromise part 2 is a non-starter.

As for your other point, JAWS is a popular screen reader globally, and can use many different optional language packs. Since the web designer can never be sure whether the screen reader will hear the Japanese text, we always have to make sure alternative text is available.

But looking at your Guideline 1, a non-Japanese speaker won't have the installed the language pack so will probably hear "Link Super Mario USA, USA, Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē, Link Help:Installing Japanese character sets" or something similar – perhaps '?' for each unicode character. Whereas anyone who has installed the Japanese language pack (presumably a Japanese speaker), will hear the Japanese characters (which I presume are a phonetic transliteration in these cases). Frankly, I'm not sure what audience Guideline 1 is aimed at. However that isn't an accessibility issue, so take my thoughts as you will. Purely from the viewpoint of anyone using a screen reader, Guideline 2 will impart the information to either non-Japanese speakers or Japanese speakers, with the least amount of repetition, so is a good choice. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 1

• I tried using {{nihongotip}}, using the test form {{nihongotip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}; it showed "{{nihongo tip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}"; "ccccc" appeared on a small hover window, but only if I put the mouse in exactly the right place within about 3 screen pixels vertically, and not at all on some attempts, and many readers likely may not work out how to make the hover window appear, or may not know that the dotted underline means "here is a hover window".

  Please avoid letting the discussion get wordy and repetitious; I suggest "let the standard be to let the editor choose between omitting the romaji and putting the romaji in the 3rd argument of {{nihongo}}". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  Hmm... I think consensus was forming around the idea of using nihongotip as a mandatory alternative (I count 5 of the 6 respondents in favor).
  Anthony, I think your suggestion runs against the current consensus at WP:MOSJA that romaji is helpful and should therefore be included on every page. Since WP:VG already mandates using it unless it is a phonetic transcription, I think a better compromise is to mandate its inclusion on every page but allow it to be placed in a tooltip as a mandatory alternative based on editorial consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  And we're slowly discovering that the tooltip doesn't work as well as it has been planned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please explain. -Thibbs (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Anthony seems to explain it well enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• We're talking about something that I believe is not "important information" per WP:ACCESS. The point is that it doesn't matter if some users have difficulties with tooltips. It's not important information and it can be derived simply and consistently by any editor regardless of ACCESS-level and without any additional information. It's the same as with the use of color to convey redundant information. Color and tooltips are both allowed. Just because WP:ACCESS mandates equal accessibility to colorblind users, this doesn't mean that color can never be used to convey information. What Anthony suggests is to make the use of romaji optional. This is completely contrary to your earlier position. Would you not agree that the use of tooltips to convey romaji in limited circumstances is closer to your vision than Anthony's suggestion? -Thibbs (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • But there's a difference between using colors and using a hovering text box which may not work as well as we previously thought.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Only on a semantic level. If the tooltip is used inappropriately, such hiding hepburn romanization of original Japanese words then that's another thing.陣内_Jinnai 02:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Deciding on a case-by-case basis should be the last resort as having no guideline on what to do would not solve the problem, but merely postpone it and spread it over to article talk pages. Either drop, include, or use the middle way. That said, {{Nihongo tip}} has to be used with Japanese text in the second field, not Roman letters. The other issues are legit concerns (albeit strange ones as I've never had any problems with tooltips on Wikipedia), but as said before, WP:ACCESS can provide a good opinion on if this template could be used at all or not. Prime Blue (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• OK, likely including the romaji should be either compulsory or strongly advised, unless the romaji is spelt exactly the same as the "English" form. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • What about a situation like "Super Mario USA → スーパーマリオUSA → Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē"? Technically the spelling is not "Exactly the same," but WP:VG views it as "not significantly different" because it is only a phonetic transcription of kana rendering English. In that case under your suggestion would the use of romaji be optional, strongly advised, or compulsory? -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• (Not quite the same. 'S' is "es" in English and "esu" in Japanese.) OK, strongly advised or compulsory always. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sometimes the same English word can be rendered in Japanese in more than one way. For example, "dollar" got into Japanese as "doru" from British English speakers and "dara" from USA English speakers. And "super" heard from a strongly rhotic English-speaker may on occasion be rendered in kana as "sūparu" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh we should definitely include kana always. I think everyone here agrees with that. But the topic of this discussion is romaji. We've been talking about the fact that the transliteration of kana into romaji follows a rigid standard where there are no idiosyncrasies or irregularities. That being that case, I think it's fair to say that romaji is redundant as long as the reader is presented with the kana. It's like using color as secondary means of conveying information. It can be helpful sometimes - like when it's important to the context of the article that the kana rendering reflects the intonation of a strongly rhotic English-speaker - but when it is not important to the context of the article then I think it is fair to give editors the option of putting it into a tooltip (my first preference) or to simply delete it (your original proposal and my second choice). -Thibbs (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• "romaji is redundant as long as the reader is presented with the kana": But most people outside Japan cannot read kana. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • And that's why the nihongotip alternative would only be available when the romaji was substantially identical to the English. Another solution that was brought up in a past discussion was to include a note linking the reader to the romaji article similar to the "^?" mark currently adorning words in the nihongo template. Do you think that would work better? -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• OK so I'm sorry to be so thick-headed here, but I have a question about your most recent proposal, "strongly advised or compulsory always."
  Doesn't "compulsory" preclude "strongly advised"? Do you mean that the rule should be 1) that the use of romaji is always strongly advised, or 2) that the use of romaji is always compulsory? -Thibbs (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• A small link (say from a '?') to the romaji article would be useful.

  This query arose in connection with videogames because videogame name Japanese is unusual in having a big content of English words written in katakana. In other fields where the names are all or mostly of Japanese origin, presence of a romaji transcription is currently variable: e.g. there is a romaji transcription in page Kawasaki, Kanagawa (about the city) but not in page Hirohito. As regards "compulsory" versus "strongly advised", the WP:IAR rule exists for when circumstances and cases arise which were not foreseen by those who made the rule. I put in the "strongly advised" alternative because I was unwilling to appear dictatorial by saying "compulsory". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I agree that IAR may apply to this case although my general impression of it is that realistically it tends to carry very little weight. It sounds to me then, that by using "strongly advised" under an IAR rationale to get around the mandatory inclusion of romaji you've described the original policy endorsed by WP:VG/GL in different words. As I've said earlier, I would agree to this but only if the Nihongotip Compromise fails. So far there seem to be no objections to it at WP:WPACCESS. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the difference between the usage of {{nihongo}} in Kawasaki, Kanagawa and Hirohito is because "Hirohito (裕仁, Hirohito)" would be redundant (the romanization is exactly the same as the English), whereas "Kawasaki (川崎市, Kawasaki-shi)" has the addition of the 市 in Japanese, so romanization needs to be included. This is different from romanization of katakana which represents English because the Japanese pronunciation of that katakana is almost always quite different than the English pronunciation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• My experiences with {{nihongotip}} are stated just below the "Breakpoint" section header. I have had similar bad behaviour with hover help mini-windows on controls on various Windows applications. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, your experience seems to be rare. 5 of 6 editors above have endorsed the tooltip compromise and nobody from WP:WPACCESS has taken issue with it yet. But secondly and more importantly, I still think it is consistent with WP:ACCESS. It doesn't matter if you can't see what the romaji transcription is provided that the romaji transcription is substantially identical to the English which I presume you can see. This compromise is not supposed to replace the {{nihongo}} template but only to provide an alternative to users who agree by consensus that the romaji is so similar to the English that it is not important to the context of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• But many readers do not know that dotted underline means "here is a hover window". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If tooltips are used, the situation will be explained at the new help page reached from the "?" after the Japanese text in the template. Users who do not know that they are confronted with a tooltip but wonder what the characters are will naturally hover the mouse over the text as it appears differently, or click on the question mark to see what it means. But it is useless to argue whether tooltips are viable or not if no one actually affected by them has given their opinion on the matter yet. We are going in circles. Prime Blue (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 2

• This discussion seems to be leading to:
  • If the usual English form is "aaaaa", and the Japanese form is "bbbbb", and the literal romaji form is "ccccc", use "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc)" usually, but "{{nihongotip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" "{{nihongo tip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" if "aaaaa" and "ccccc" are identical.

  Can that be assumed? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• From what the folks at WP:WPACCESS have said, the tooltips option is non-viable since screen-readers would read "{{nihongo tip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" as "aaaaa (bbbbb) abbreviation: ccccc". And this would confuse users because the fact of the matter is that the romaji (ccccc) is not an abbreviation.
  On the other hand, the WP:WPACCESS people said that the kana ("bbbbb") would be pronounced correctly by screenreader programs. Since the algorithm that would be used to read and pronounce the kana can be no worse than a romaji approximation, there's still room for WP:VG's argument in terms of its adherence to WP:ACCESS. In fact, there's even been some suggestion by WP:WPACCESS that the romaji would be confusingly duplicative for screenreader users in situations where the English was highly similar.
  So... I think we're really back to square one again. I'd love to hear some compromises suggested by the critics of the Nihongotip idea. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• {{Nihongo tip}} is not an option anymore due to the concerns of WikiProject Accessibility. Also, if the first and third fields ("a" and "c") are absolutely identical, the third field is not used at all (on any project) as it is truly redundant then. What I noticed in this discussion is that the WPVG participants seem to be a lot less insistent on the exclusion of the third field, so I'll just suggest to drop the sentence "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." from WP:VG/JP. A project style guideline that is not used consistently and that editors can violate without sanctions is irrelevant. Prime Blue (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to play devil's advocate a bit here, I think the rationale behind the less than absolute rule used by WPVG is that in some cases the Hepburn romanization of a game's title may simply not be relevant to the topic. Clearly MOSJA believes romaji to be relevant to every article about any product of Japanese origin, however I think there is a fair argument that WPVG would be the authorities on what is and isn't relevant to video game articles. So the question would then become one of whether the article was more a "Japanese product" article or more a "video game" article.
    If WPVG were to decide as a WikiProject to adopt MOSJA's stance that the Hepburn romanization of the titles of all video-game-related products of Japanese origin are always relevant then that's one thing, but I don't know if there could be any binding decision on the topic without project-wide consensus from WPVG. I'm unfamiliar with WPVG's methods, but is there some way that such a suggestion could be brought before WPVG as a whole? -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not that they think it's not relevant. They believe that if you have "Super Metroid", having "Sūpā Metoroido" is redundant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Well my argument (from above) was that unlike translations or phonetic renderings, the romanization of kana produces redundant information inasmuch as it is the exact same information in two different forms with direct 1:1 parity similar to "2+2" and "4". Simple deductive evidence is available in the fact that romaji never needs to be sourced at Wikipedia. Why is this? Because it is mechanically-derived and thus redundant information. It is not new information that an editor is introducing (which would have to be sourced), but redundant information (which doesn't require sourcing). But I don't think that's what WPVG is saying about romaji that is extremely similar to English anyway...
        No, I'd say they consider it to lack "significant difference." What makes something significant if not its relevance to the article? -Thibbs (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Bring it up on the main talk page, but I'll give fair warning that if you propose to simply submit to this guideline, it doesn't stand a good chance of flying because the comprise failed; indeed if you present the findings by WP:ACCESS that it can correctly pronounce them similar to what romaji is, i think there will be even less support for supporting this guideline which doesn't allow for such exceptions.陣内_Jinnai 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• But I and many do not have a screenreader and never learned to read kana. (I can decode kana because I wrote a Windows application that can translate kana (and Armenian and Indian) to the Roman alphabet.) We need the romaji to see how much it differs from the usual English spelling :: I thought that that was agreed on. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Only if there is a signifigant difference. If its the difference of lack of a macron or 1-2 sylables, it doesn't. I also would say that the help page could easily include a katakana/romaji chart based on the one from katakana and amount to the same thing.
  • No other place in the English Wikipedia is such a thing required without exception for other languages that use English loanwords and as such I'd argue against its adoption as required at WT:VG. I didn't really agree with the idea that its required, but rather was holding my piece to see how the ACESS issue played out.
  • The bottom line is you don't need to see how Final Fantasy's katakan, ファイナルファンタジー, is pronounced because its clear that its the Japanese writing system trying to get as close to the English one as possible similar to how we translate words from Russian, Greek, Chinese and yes, Japanese. If you think its really nessasary then soundlink like that in anime is far better.陣内_Jinnai 22:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Although I was more in favor of a compromise between WPVG and MOSJA's guidelines, this now seems to me to be impossible. If we are forced to go with one or the other guideline then I agree with Jinnai that MOSJA's absolutist rule seems less useful than WPVG's rule which allows for some exceptions. The payoff for following MOSJA's guideline is certainty/consistency and the payoff for WPVG's rule is pragmatism/adaptability. As Anthony pointed out above, this whole topic area seems prone to evocations of IAR if a "without exceptions" rule is in place, but if a limited exception is codified in both guidelines then I think we'd sacrifice a little bit of consistency for a more pragmatic set of guidelines and a lot fewer arguments. This trade-off is one I'd gladly take. -Thibbs (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "Absolutist" is a bit of an extreme adjective. I think that the romaji should be included on at least one page if it's a large franchise (e.g. Final Fantasy, SoulCalibur) without requiring romaji for sequels unless there's a new word introduced (e.g. Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles) or if the sequels aren't numbered (e.g. Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days [although this case could be dealt with a footnote explaining the intended reading instead of Surī Faibu Eito Deizu Ōbā Tsū).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • As I mentioned, it would be better if the concern about voicing would be to create a hepburn equivalent of {{IPA-ja}} and have the parameter able to use voice clips. If someone speaks how the katakana is suppose to sound then there is no need for romaji for those words. What's more, there's no confusion about r-/l- sounds and the like.陣内_Jinnai 00:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't see how getting a Japanese speaker to read the names of all of these video games is going to help. And Hepburn romanization serves the same purpose as pinyin on Chinese subjects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Indeed, but pinyin isn't used for titles that are taken solely from English words.陣内_Jinnai 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
              • I am fairly certain that we provide the pinyin for any Chinese, unless it's from a dialect that isn't Mandarin.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
                • I don't and nor do I see the like for Greek or Russian for words that come in English (indeed for some that orgininate in that language but have common translations/pronunciations in English we don't even include them such as Hercules.陣内_Jinnai 01:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Hercules is the Roman myth. Heracles is full of said information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • Fair enough for that example, but pinyin is not universally used. However, no one here was really arguing to eliminate them from native Japanese words, the few loanwords that may use kanji, those with mixed kana/kanji in the title or those that do not sound similar to the original english word. As such, using Chinese or any other east-asian language for comaprison is innaporiate as not many video games have been made nor titles in English; indeed very few asian languages use their language titles to create any title with English characters the way Japanese does.陣内_Jinnai 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese topics have infoboxes for that. And you are definitely right that Japanese is the only language that gets this treatment. However, the names are still inherently Japanese in origin. But as I said, the exclusion should only occur if the game is part of a series of games and the name doesn't really change other than numbers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced that WikiProjects like WPVG shouldn't be allowed to make the determination themselves for what material is relevant to the articles within their limited purview. If WPVG determines that some romaji in some cases (such as "Nintendō Dī Esu" in the "Nintendo DS" article) isn't relevant to some articles, why do we think MOSJA would be a better judge? What's the argument against modifying MOSJA's doctrinaire "zero exceptions" guideline to allow for a more flexible and pragmatic use throughout Wikipedia? Is it really just based on consistency? And isn't consistency mainly an aesthetic concern? -Thibbs (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 3

• The discussion (which has run for over 6 months) seems to be getting wordy again. Please, again state your suggestions about the rule:
  • If the usual English form is "aaaaa", and the Japanese form is "bbbbb", and the literal romaji form is "ccccc", use "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc)" usually, but "{{nihongotip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" "{{nihongo tip|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" if "aaaaa" and "ccccc" are identical.
  • Or what?

    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

    • {{Nihongotip}} isn't a viable option anymore according to the WP:ACCESS people.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• As mentioned, I think a vocal option would be a viable option, but I'd still not want that or the romanji as getting a Japanese speaker can be difficult. I'd put it as a 3rd option.陣内_Jinnai 05:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• In that case, the rule better be "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc) everywhere", or perhaps omit 'ccccc' if it is all native Japanese words and identical with 'aaaaa'. And, please keep discussion concise and avoid repeating. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not perhaps, the third field is omitted always when it is identical to the first field. This was never questioned and never the intended usage of {{Nihongo tip}}. Prime Blue (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue has always been what to do with romaji that is almost identical to English. The question is whether to A) leave the already-existing official alternative in the WPVG guideline or to B) mandate that WPVG change its guidelines to match MOSJA's or C) seek a compromise. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And the two positions are thus: WPVG wants to be able to omit some romaji derived from English-word-based-kana. WPVG's concerns are content-relevance and clutter/confusion. MOSJA wants to require the inclusion of this romaji. MOSJA's concerns are inter-article consistency (and perhaps rigidity of rule?) -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Inter-article consistency is the only main concern here. Content-relevance is also an issue as a Japanese game will necessarily have a Japanese title. The romaji is completely relevant in that case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
        • But isn't MOSJA a style guideline instead of a content guideline? -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Indeed all MOS are suppose to be style guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 22:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Try this?:- "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc) everywhere", but omit 'ccccc' if it is all native Japanese words (including old loanwords from Chinese) and identical with 'aaaaa' including presence/absence of macrons." Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That would give people the option of writing "Nintendo (任天堂)" instead of "Nintendo (任天堂, Nintendō)." But I think that what we've been talking about is not English loanwords from the original Japanese but rather Japanese loanwords from the original English (i.e. English gairaigo). -Thibbs (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• In "Nintendo (任天堂, Nintendō)" the "aaaaa" and the "ccccc" are not identical, because there is a macron different. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK then I don't understand your rule. Could you restate it in a more concise form? -Thibbs (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" (which displays as "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc)") everywhere, but omit 'ccccc' if it is all Japanese words and identical with 'aaaaa' including diacritics. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So this is an expansion of MOSJA's current rule to make it even more doctrinaire? Why? -Thibbs (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Japanese terms seems to say "use ccccc always", but I have seen examples in articles with the ccccc missing if it is identical with the aaaaa. What changes do you want making to the rule as I suggested it here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • :- Use "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" (which displays as "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc)") everywhere, but omit 'ccccc' if it is all Japanese words and identical with 'aaaaa' including diacritics.
    But WPVG conflicts with this and I think that they should come to this consensus themselves. -Thibbs (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• 'WPVG' is correctly WP:VG, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. What part of it or its daughter pages specifically mentions English words written in kana in names of Japanese videogames? I was starting to think that we had got this matter nearly settled at last after it has rhubarbed on for over 6 months. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:VG/GL#Non-English games.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• This discussion started as only about what to do with katakana transcriptions of English words. The difference between WP:VG/GL#Non-English games and here is where WP:VG/GL#Non-English games covers situations not covered here, including where the English form and the Japanese form are not translations or transcriptions of each other but have different meanings, e.g. the Japanese videogame name 悪魔城ドラキュラ (Akumajō Dracula (Akumajō Dorakyura)), which means "evil demon castle Dracula", is rendered into English as Castlevania. In those cases, WP:VG/GL#Non-English games adds a 4th argument: "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc|ddddd}}" = "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc, ddddd)", where 'ddddd' is for the literal English translation (rather than transcription) of the Japanese. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the contentious line: "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." -Thibbs (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• That rule was likely intended to apply to small differences in transcription of native Japanese words, e.g. whether to transcribe ジ (hiragana) / じ (katakana) as "zi" or as "ji", or っち / ッチ as "tchi" or as "cchi", not to big differences resulting from trying to spell English words in kana. It seems that also, we will have to decide which of these two sets of rules overrules the other. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it was intended such that "Fainaru Fantajii" or "Souru Kyaribaa" or "Suupaa Mario" or "Kingudamu Haatsu" are not to be put on video game pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the original intention was that. I don't know how its applied today with regard to Japanese words. There is an argument to be made that if the translation uses a form of Hepburn other than modified, we shouldn't try to "correct" it with a second pronucitation that would be just one character different, such as Nintendo.
    • I will note that there was also been an argument made when I PRed Hayao Miyazaki that we should be using IPA tag for pronunciation.陣内_Jinnai 07:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Which rule overrules the other? They both overrule each other. If you are asking which should be the controlling rule, I think we must look to the scope and purpose of the rules. MOSJA is a style guideline aimed at words of Japanese origin. WPVG is a style and content guideline aimed at video games. So is "Fainaru Fantajii" more like a game or is it more like a Japanese word? Obviously it's both, but which one is it more like? -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I also think that it's rather unhelpful to regard the problem as one of "whose rule can be imposed on the other." Rule by fiat has never been as effective as rule by consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think Ryūlóng's argument is WikiProject guidelines are by default subordinate to the guidelines like MOS similar to how this guideline is is subordinate to the main MOS guieline which is subordinate to policy.陣内_Jinnai 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the analogy. WikiProject VideoGames isn't a daughter project of the MOS. Anyway my understanding was that WikiProjects were designed to provide focal points of activity where local consensus could be achieved with regard to specific topics. WPVG's requirement to include a section on "Gameplay," for instance, would only apply to video game articles but it would be required for all video game articles as by the broad consensus of WPVG. I think that's one of the WikiProjects' greatest uses here at Wikipedia. If WPVG has come to a consensus that would indicate that romaji is not always helpful to an understanding of the topic then I respect their decision. I happen to disagree with their stance on this point, but rather than overruling a fairly sizeable local consensus with a style guideline on a topic that is arguably only tangentially related, I think we should work together to craft a carefully-worded and convincing argument that we could present to WPVG to make the case that inter-article consistency is more helpful overall than the avoidance of a little clutter, confusion, and redundancy. The idea would be to form a new consensus at WPVG. Perhaps it may even be a good idea to try to convince WPVG that its guidelines should be subsumed under MOS just as with film, music, anime, etc. Then we would have a legitimate argument based on guideline hierarchy. -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that WikiProject level style guides (e.g. WP:VG/GL) should be subordinate to general style guides (e.g. WP:MOS-JA) which are then subordinate to sitewide policy (WP:AT).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would prefer to force WPVG to adhere to a "superior doctrine" rather than to change its established consensus by persuading it that inter-article consistency (the basis underlying the "superior doctrine") is valuable? -Thibbs (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that specific topic area guidelines should not necessarily go against the general practice of the rest of the project and more general guidelines. So maybe I am saying that WP:VG should not make up its own rules concerning the treatment of other languages when the entirety of the project has their own little rules that WP:VG may or may not be ignoring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly it's already too late. This isn't a hypothetical new rule, but an already existing rule that WP:VG made up quite some time ago. From the current point where we find ourselves, and in deference to their presumptive expertise when it comes to guidelines concerning video games, I would be in favor of trying to persuade WP:VG to change their rules voluntarily through consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And why shouldn't the push for the consensus be with the more general guidelines and practices of non-video game articles?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you re-read my last few comments I think you'll find that we are arguing for the same thing. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is though really how one bases consensus. There are more articles that fall under the scope of WP:VG/GL than this article and based on the activity level at WT:VG there it is certainly one of the larger wikiprojects in terms of activity. In addition, the guideline could be seen as similar to WP:MOS-AM, but just in a different Wikipedia space.陣内_Jinnai 21:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

From MOSJA's perspective, though, considering how many other broad topics (anime, music, film, etc) have made their guidelines part of the MOS, perhaps WPVG should move toward this goal as well. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But the treatment of Japanese text should still defer to this guideline, rather than if there's going to be a WP:MOS-VG that has its own guideline for Japanese text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But this guideline should also give room for reasonable exceptions; even the policy does so.陣内_Jinnai 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What purpose is there to have an exception?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, these issues would be bound come up if WPVG's guideline were to be brought under the MOS. I think there are strong arguments in favor of making the style portions of the video game guideline agree with the Japanese language's style guideline. I'm not really certain that the content of video game articles should be dictated by a parallel language style guideline, but the arguments underlying the other MOS guidelines should obviously be taken into account by WPVG should they decide to go this route. My hope is that by consensus they would agree to adopt MOSJA's stance. -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree they would be brought up, but I don't they would be because of this guidelines no-exception rule. It's suppose to be a guideline, not a dictatorial document.陣内_Jinnai 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But the articles don't gain anything by omitting a Japanese text reading.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the argument is that it can sometimes cut down on clutter, confusion, and redundancy. There may be other reasons such as the degree of relevance. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 4

• This discussion (which started as only about what to do with katakana transcriptions of English words) has yet again got wordy and digressiony. Please help to get this matter resolved: it has dragged on since 2 July 2010, i,e. for over 7 months. OK, here I summarize:-
  • Suggested rule: :- Use "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc}}" (which displays as "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc)") everywhere, but omit 'ccccc' if it is identical with 'aaaaa' including any diacritics.
  • A new suggestion: insert in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names and product titles a new subsection "===Names of videogames=== For names of Japanese videogames see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles.".
  • OK, it is established that the text "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." in page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games#Non-English games contradicts the current suggestion. Please take that as known and not needing to be again re-stated. OK, if this query about English in katakana in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) is decided here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games#Non-English games may have to be edited to match, unless the new suggestion here is followed. I have put in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#How to display videogame names which have an English version and a Japanese version? a link to this discussion.
  • Again, please keep discussion concise and to the point and avoid repeating points. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• First of all, your current suggestion does not work as the ā, ē, ī, ō, and ū are necessary for proper romanization of Japanese, even though ā, ē, and ī only appear in loan words. And this case will never show up in video games because the use of foreign words transcribed into katakana will never be a 1:1 (ignoring diacritics) conversion due to the nature of the syllabary.
  • And I do not think that video games require their own section on a manual of style. The only reason music dominates the "Names of companies, products, and organizations" is because we don't really cover much else that would have such titles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• OK, "..., but omit 'ccccc' if it is identical with 'aaaaa', and if any diacritics in 'aaaaa' and 'ccccc' all match", or similar.
  • The section Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles has been there for some time, and I was merely suggesting putting a link to it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).
  • (Information: 'nihongo' can have 4th and 5th arguments: "{{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc|ddddd|eeeee}}" = "aaaaa (bbbbb, ccccc, ddddd) eeeee", where 'ddddd' seems to be for an English translation (not transcription) of 'bbbbb', if that translation is markedly different from 'aaaaa'.)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• I like Anthony's suggestion to try to have a section on video game titles in the MOS, but I'd put it here. Just as WP:ALBUMCAPS delegated decisions on capitalization, we should ask WP:VG if it would also be willing to delegate this issue to MOSJA. The handling of music titles is also completely inconsistent with MOSJA - the article for every single musical example listed at my earlier link omits romaji and usually even omits kana. -Thibbs (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Titles of media" regards article titles. Not the romanization of content within the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Having both sections Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Videogames and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles would cause content forking, unless one of them is merely a link pointing to the other. (I take it that "WP:VG", spoken of as a living agent, means "the people who have edited the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines" or similar.) As the matter about Japanese videogame names is already at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games and likely has been there for a long time, it may as well stay there, to avoid confusion, and this page would have a link pointing to it. The {{nihongo}} template call examples in section Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games all seem to use the romaji parameter already, so there seems to be less for us to argue about than may be thought, as this topic has already run for over 7 months. All that is needed seems to be for someone to put in here a pointer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles and to put in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles an extra short paragraph:-
  • In 'nihongo' template calls for videogame names, always insert the third parameter (the romaji parameter); except that it can optionally be omitted if it is identical with the first parameter including all diacritics matching.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That won't work as it doesn't allow for WP:COMMON SENSE to be used when things are similar and doubt it would fly if brought up at WT:VG.陣内_Jinnai 16:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it seems absolutely nothing has changed here in 7 months except that the new mediator is either missing the point or is very biased. Either way, this would only "settle" the issue to the extent that WP:VG editors accept being completely blown off. As I see it, these are the cases:

1. The Japanese title is a transliteration of the English, e.g. "Final Fantasy VII" → "Fainaru Fantajī Sebun".
2. The English title is a direct transliteration of the Japanese, possibly with minor differences in diacritics or specific letter choice, e.g. "Katamari Damashii" → "Katamari Damacy".
3. The Japanese title is a transliteration of some other English text, e.g. "Super Mario Bros. 2" → "Super Mario USA" → "Sūpā Mario Yū Esu Ē".
4. The English and Japanese titles are translations of each other, e.g. "The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass" ↔ "Zeruda no Densetsu Mugen no Sunadokei". (Although "Zelda" vs "Zeruda" could make this example case 7)
5. The English and Japanese titles are translations of something similar, e.g. "The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap" ↔ "Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Bōshi" ("The Mysterious Hat"). (Although "Zelda" vs "Zeruda" could make this example case 7)
6. The English and Japanese titles are something different, e.g. "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" ↔ "Zeruda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Toraifōsu" ("The Triforce of the Gods"). (Although "Zelda" vs "Zeruda" and "Triforce" vs "Toraifōsu" could make this example case 7)
   • Note that that particular article is even odder, as it includes both "Zelda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Triforce" and "Zeruda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Toraifōsu".
7. A mixture of the above, e.g. "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess" → "Zeruda no Densetsu Towairaito Purinsesu" (which could be "Zelda no Densetsu Twilight Princess").

The proposal here is to allow omitting the romaji in only a subset of case 2 where there are no differences, which is probably an infinitesimal fraction of games that have any common English name. The current WP:VG practice (AFAIK) is that the romaji is optional in cases 1 and 2, and for case 3 the plain English text may used instead. I don't think anyone is really objecting to romaji in cases 4, 5, or 6. Case 7 may go word by word as the previous cases. What exactly does it contribute to the article to tell English speakers that "Final Fantasy" spoken by a Japanese speaker comes out something like "Fainaru Fantajī", which the English speaker will probably read with the wrong vowels anyway? Anomie⚔ 16:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The argument is that a romanization or IPA phoneticism occurs on nearly every article the original spelling of whose topic uses non-roman letters. So it's essentially based solely on broadening inter-article consistency. I think that this argument isn't terrible and I think WPVG should seriously consider adopting it. I see no sense in rejecting it out of hand, but if the consensus opposes it then so be it. Perhaps MOSJA could then consider codifying an exception to their "mandatory romaji" rule. -Thibbs (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My main reason for excluding it is that it will confuse the layman rather than educate. If the nihongo template can display something like "aaaaa (Japanese: bbbbb, Romanization: ccccc)", then I'm willing to accept all romanization. The added terms should link to pages in the "Help" namespace that provide some guidelines for proper pronunciation. I believe the pages already exist, but I think it would be good idea to include IPA pronunciations on them for good measure.(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

Joren has already started work on an improved help page that would be linked from the "?" superscript like so: "^?" (Here I've linked Joren's help page). This help page fully covers how to pronounce the kana and it includes links for how to give it a Hepburn romanization. Maybe this problem is as simple as improving the "?" help menu. -Thibbs (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My issue with the link is that it too discreet. I understand that was probably the intent, but I think that it negatively impacts the role it's intend to fill. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)I'm glad that I wasn't the only one reading this and thinking that the mediator seemed biased. I've mostly been disengaging from this discussion because I probably forgot what the original argument was and I think that a visit to Japan may have changed my appreciation for Romaji since I don't know katakana. I'm reminded of an author in an English newsletter that I read who lamented the realization that you cannot just pronounce English words with a supposedly Japanese accept and expect it to be understood. The pronunciation of any translated text would be important when speaking to someone in Japanese about the title and the katakana is more useless for readers without it.

If a correctly recall, my main concern has been that the use of {{nihongo}} in prose after the lede tends to disturb the flow of reading, especially for long titles. While we are focussed on Japanese text, I venture to say that I would see this problem for any language that needs romanization. While I had felt the tooltip option was an appropriate way to convey the information without an extended parenthetical that many would ignore, I understand that speaking "abbreviation" before it would not be ideal. Unfortunately, I would also think that a screen reader would pronounce the romaji incorrectly (not knowing that it has specific pronunciation) or that the romaji would be irrelevant if the screen reader read kana. I like hearing the discussion about IPA because as this is an English encyclopedia that expects its reader to learn IPA, I don't like the idea of forcing readers to learn a new system; to this end, I agree that at least the IPA should be on the romaji explanation page (and the link to the romaji page should also be specified near the top of Help:Installing Japanese character sets so that readers could easily determine pronunciations). —Ost (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In Anthony's defense, I think it's not so much that he is trying to champion MOSJA's argument as it is that he just doesn't understand the central issues yet. I think we should assume he's neutral. But also I wanted to mention one thing that we neglected to look at in the tooltip discussions. Although screen-readers may insert the word "Abbreviation:", I'm not sure how bad that really is. Apparently tooltips are fine and dandy when it comes to the {{R-phrase}} template. This template uses hovertext but the hovering messages are not actually abbreviations for the underlying R-phrases. R1 means "Explosive when dry" but it's not an abbreviation for that expression; it's an abbreviation for "Risk #1". If R-Phrase hovertext is allowed under an argument by analogy to abbreviations then surely the same rationale would hold for kana conversions to romaji. While romaji isn't exactly an abbreviated version, it is an alternate version just as R1 is an alternative way of saying "Explosive when dry." -Thibbs (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

スーパーマリオUSA

And also, if the "Abbreviation:" problem is just a formatting issue, then what about an alternative formatting like the following:

This provides hovertext, but is it read as "Abbreviation:" by screen-readers? (Obviously it would have to be modified for inline use by someone who knew what they were doing.) -Thibbs (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification of Anthony's position and why it could be confused; I'd been keeping quiet to agf about it. I also like the clever approach to getting hovertext; it shows that there is another way to get the tooltip, although I personally don't know what part of table code produces them. —Ost (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the main issue with adding "Japanese:" and "Romanization:" is that it would bring ire to the people who feel that the {{nihongo}} template causes the lead to have too much in it. Also, we would have to impliment a new parameter into the existing template to remove links to the above pages. However, I think that this could be implimented in a new template along the lines of "nihongo lead" like we have {{nihongo title}} currently (which does bold and italics), making it bold and including links to the language pages as the various lang-XX templates do already, but that really has nothing to do with the issue at hand as to whether or not WP:VG should adopt a style for dealing with romaji that all other pages and projects do when it comes to non-Latin text.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

{edit conflict)From what he says its a bit more because its not clear to the layman what romanization is and seeing it out-of-context would confuse them while adding unnessasary detail. That's why he suggests romanization, although if we go that route, it should mirror the other templates and list the type of romanization ie,"aaaaa (Japanese: bbbbb, modified Hepburn: ccccc)" similar to Chinese. While we might only use 1 type of romanziation, the average person won't know what romanization is let alone which one we are using. I still think though requiring it on everything (rather than strongly advising it) is a direct violation of the policy WP:COMMON. If it was reworded to wording that was strongly advised rather than require I'd be more willing to let MOSJA handle it if it did so appropriately, ie allowed for reasonable exceptions and didn't use it as an excuse to have none.陣内_Jinnai 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why we can have one (new) template that says "AAAAA (Japanese: BBBBB, Hepburn: CCCCC^?)" and use it in the lede (or modify {{nihongo title}} and remove the italic forcing coding), and retain the original {{nihongo}} for uses in prose/lists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your take on it, Jinnai. And I think WPVG would be likely to accept this. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I think this is probably the biggest step we've made in reaching a resolution. To my knowledge, the issue with the VG guideline applied mainly with the lead. Inclusion of the some clarification would fix my concerns, and I assume other VG members. Modifying the title template is probably the best practice as it would quickly apply to current uses and minimize any work with the implementation. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

@Thibbs - if it goes along with a rewording of this guideline to have more flexability I could see them accepting it.

@Ryulóng - it should still say modified Hepburn, unless we are going to start allowing any form of hepburn; it wouldn't be clear to everyone what form we'd be using otherwise.陣内_Jinnai 19:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We use revised.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 5

• OK, the disputed topics seem to be:
  1. Japanese words which are English written as katakana :: include a literal romaji back-transcription?
  2. Native Japanese words: include a romaji transcription if that differs a bit from the usual English form?
  3. What proportion of readers want/need to see the romaji, anyway?
  • Other topics seem to be:
    • New template that expands e.g. "{{nihongo|[[Thunderbird]]|サンダーバード|Sandābādo}}" into not "Thunderbird (サンダーバード, Sandābādo)" but "Thunderbird (Japanese: サンダーバード, Hepburn: Sandābādo)" or similar. That looks useful.
    • Whether (to avoid content forking) to put the new rules in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles, linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Videogames.
    • Please append, concisely, any other undecided topics.
    • I am aware that there are persistent differences of opinion here; please help to get this matter settled at last. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There does not need to be a special heading here for video games because the only issue is that of whether or not to include a romanization. What can be said at WP:VG/GL is that "To be consistent with articles on other subjects, the romanization of the Japanese title of a video game should be included in the lead paragraph. For more information on how to romanize Japanese, see WP:MOS-JA" and then WP:VG/GL can have the various methods by which to deal with the names like they do now (even though I have modified Oracle of Ages to where their "JPN" formatting is now not necessary).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The primary problem I have with literal back-transcriptions is that, without any context, they look like vandalized pronunciation guides. They go where the IPA would, but often look nothing like how the word is said in English (which is the entire point of romanization in the first place). I think even adding some context to explain that it's the "Japanese" pronunciation would not make up for the confusion caused by having the romanization there in the first place. Nifboy (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Revised Hepburn romanization is an ISO romanization scheme. The ? should perhaps link to something more expository then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting hard to keep up with. One question, one comment:

1. omit 'ccccc' if it is identical with 'aaaaa' including any diacritics. Having trouble understanding the wording. Does this mean that o is considered identical to ō?

2. Express concern that suggestion of including "Japanese:" and "Hepburn:" labels ("Thunderbird (Japanese: サンダーバード, Hepburn: Sandābādo)") will worsen original complaint that Romaji takes up too much space. Acknowledge possible necessity in articles dealing with more than just Japanese and English... any way to abbreviate/omit? Perhaps Japanese flag icon for Japanese?

-- Joren (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Flags don't help things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• I meant: "1. omit 'ccccc' if it is identical with 'aaaaa', where 'identical' includes that all diacritics in 'aaaaa' and 'ccccc' match.".
  • "The primary problem I have ...": OK some people want to know the literal romaji and some do not. The same old sort of dispute, when, as often, one man's cruft is another man's important relevant matter.
  • "They go where the IPA would, but often look nothing like how the word is said in English": A moment's thought should show that they are how the word is pronounced in Japanese, as they immediately follow the kana/kanji spelling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think what Nifboy was alluding to with the IPA is that the romaji follows Japanese pronunciation rules, but our English readers would naturally apply English rules. They would essentially miss the actual pronunciation, which is a main reason for romaji's inclusion. The best example I can think of is "anime", which should be pronounced "ah-nee-may", but I often hear it as "an-ee-may".
      In regard to concerns about excessive length in the lead, I think that can be alleviated by omitting the Japanese from the lead and include it in a "Notes" section. See The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages for an example. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC))
      • Yes, footnotes are used for long foreign titles that would hinder readability of the lead section – per the manual of style for lead sections which specifically addresses this problem, always including the full Japanese title in the lead as part of a nihongo template, as suggested by Ryulong, is not viable and, as mentioned before, also makes no sense if the title is significantly different (not just phonetically different or having the same meaning in both languages) and its real origin remains not clarified – that only confuses readers in addition to cluttering everything up. Prime Blue (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The length in the lead (and inappropriateness of moving stuff to notations per WP:LEAD) and redundancy are still a big issue. The addition of the Japanese/hepburn connections makes the length worse and only really fixes the issue of the layperson not knowing what the romanji is suppose to be; it doesn't address the relevancy issue. Therefore its better in general for articles dealing with Japanese terms and media, but not really for this specific issue.
        • I am still of the point the best compromise is a vocalization be used if pronunciation is an issue like anime. I may be the only one who believes this though.陣内_Jinnai 18:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
          • We had this discussion before, Jinnai. WP:LEADCITE is talking about redundancy of citations, not about an alleged inappropriateness of descriptive footnotes. Prime Blue (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't remember asking them and getting a clear response. If they did, I'll cede that point.陣内_Jinnai 03:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would go for completeness and list all combinations (English/Katakana/Kanji/whatever) of phrases. SharkD  Talk  01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 6

• As 3 days have passed with no edits to this talk page, please, concisely, what is your opinion on the rules as listed here?:-
  1. When a name is introduced, list (using the {{nihongo}} template or similar if possible): English form, Japanese form, Literal romaji transciption of the Japanese.
  2. Option to omit the romaji if it is identical with the English, where 'identical' includes that all diacritics in the two forms match.
  3. Append as a 4th argument of {{nihongo}} an English translation of the Japanese, if it differs markedly from the English name.
  4. If the English name is very long, option to put this information in a <ref>-</ref> footnote instead of in line in the text.
  5. To avoid content forking, put these new rules in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles, linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Videogames.
  • Please, this matter has run for over 7 months: please help to get it quickly finalized. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take the plunge... I agree with most of this (there may be implications I'm missing).

#4: What info would be moved to the footnote? Romaji + lit. translation? I think a footnote could work if there were a way to set it apart from normal reference footnotes in a way that would tell the users it was about the title/pronunciation.

#5: I'm worried this would create a different sort of fork. What we decide here should be consistent for all Japan-related articles, not only games. e.g. if we decide to have #4, then all Japan-related articles should have the option, not only VG. Hence, would support putting whatever we decide into this manual of style with link/summary from WP:VG's guidelines.

-- Joren (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• [5]: Previous talk seems to have been about Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). But at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games there is already some rules about Japanese videogame names.

  [4]: Ordinary short examples like those listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, presumably go in the text. But, if (say) we had to describe a Japanese videogame (or anything else) called (say) "The life history of a very old tortoise and all the lettuce seedlings that it ate while wandering in people's gardens", the {{nihongo}} call describing it could go in a footnote.

  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • There are ways to set it apart through grouping, but I still feel that goes directly against WP:LEAD precisely because it would primarily be used in the lead. If it were used in the body, It would not be a major issue.陣内_Jinnai 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Jinnai, nothing in WP:LEADCITE implies that explanatory notes are forbidden in the lead section, and there are tons of featured articles that use them, such as Marian Rejewski, Night (book), Frank Zappa, SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, The Lucy poems, The Illuminatus! Trilogy and Gettysburg Address. These are just a few, and this is not including countless ones using regular references/citations in the lead. Prime Blue (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure anymore if the mediator is aware of what is under discussion here: Anthony, the new points (3 and 4) you raise are already included and explained in the project guidelines. Point 2, as has been mentioned before (and as it is described in the {{nihongo}} documentation), would be a useless guideline on either project as the template is not used this way (say, for example, "tennō (天皇, tennō)"). If both fields have the exact same content, the first one is omitted (like "tennō (天皇)") everywhere on Wikipedia. The only contentious point here is 1 because of the sentence "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles" in the video game guidelines. And there is only a select number of outcomes for this issue –

1. Keep the sentence and make users abide by it (which is useless as the rule is not employed on the majority of video game articles).
2. Omit the sentence (which might pose a problem with some people who still think it is redundant, but honestly, I think the project members are not nearly as adamant about this as before) and let people decide themselves on a case-by-case basis with video game articles.
3. Omit the sentence and create a site-wide guideline to include the Hepburn romanization for words of non-Japanese origin (which then would have to be followed on any project).
4. Find a suitable compromise that lies somewhere in between omitting and keeping and that does not cause accessibility problems (good luck with that).

There you have it. Can't be that hard, can it? As I do not see any progress on a compromise whatsoever, I suggest splitting the solution up into several steps. For the moment, I'd like to propose the following:

Omit the sentence "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." from WP:VG/JP.

If that one is removed, there is no more guideline on what to do with these romanizations on video game articles and, for a start, people could discuss for which articles they should be kept and omitted – which is no change as that's what currently being done anyway. This does not mean that either including or excluding the romanization is forbidden – just that there is no clear guideline either way. After that contentious sentence is removed, you can still discuss what to do next (strictly case-by-case / site-wide inclusion guideline / compromise).

So, are there any objections on moving forward with this step? Prime Blue (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the contentious "rule" at WP:VG would indeed solve this problem.

Also, I would like the JPN footnote thing revisited in another thread, because I came up with an alternative option at Oracle of Ages but you reverted it because it is the flagship for the footnote formatting, but I don't want to cause a massive tangent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict), replying to Anthony Appleyard

5. Yes. What I'm suggesting is that they can keep their summary (modifying it to adapt what we decide here, of course), but there needs to be a link to this manual of style and the new rules need to go here so that they apply to all Japan-related articles. That way there won't be confusion later over which guidelines apply to which articles.

4. I would hope for having the Japanese kana stay in the lede, given that Wikipedia:Lead_section#Alternative_names allows for it - it is a Japanese product so it is surely included by "significant names in other languages." However, footnoting the rest (Romaji, possible re-translation, extra notes) wouldn't be so bad, provided we could have a more informative label than ^JPN... not sure what to suggest though. English Title (Japanese: 日本語^Romaji)? Or English Title (日本語^{Japanese title})?

-- Joren (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Still opposed, as this changes absolutely nothing since last time. I also oppose Prime Blue's proposal, as it leaves things wide open for those who want romaji on every article no matter how redundant it may be to insist that it must be included "because MOS:JP says so". Here's a counter-proposal: Add a statement to MOS:JP that romaji is optional when the Japanese is a transliteration of English text or when the English text is identical to the romaji modulo diacritics or minor letter choice differences, and that editors should not add or remove optional romaji without discussion. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anomie on this one, I worry that removing the note from WP:VG/JP might just open the flood gates. I unfortunately oppose it as well, and I much prefer Anomie's point of view. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Anomie, your proposal is not any better. Romaji should not be optional in all cases. It should only be optional in some cases and those cases should be decided in discussions. And removing the note from WP:VG/JP would be best because it is the sole issue at hand. Video game articles should not be the only articles to omit a romanization just because a handful of editors decided that "Fainaru Fantajī" and "Sūpā Mario" are redundant. I still have not heard any feedback on my proposal:

• Romaji is mandatory on all articles featuring Japanese text.
• In the case of a franchise of some sort, if the titles follow a numerical naming pattern (Final Fantasy, FFII, FFIII', etc.; Kingdom Hearts, KHII; Super Mario Galaxy, SMG2), the romaji need only be on the article on the franchise as a whole and/or the first entry of the series.
• In cases of ideosyncratic subtitles, romaji is only required for the subtitle, and the main franchise's title need not be included (e.g. Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep, Final Fantasy Versus XIII)

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind your proposal, Ryulong, but your repeated insistence that WPVG wishes the looser MOSJA guidelines to only apply to videogames is quite obviously a straw man argument. Nobody is suggesting that and I don't think anybody ever has suggested that in the past. If video game guidelines allow for the occasional omission of romaji based on consensus then the same should apply to all topics covered by MOSJA (books, music, film, etc.). I think everyone seeking looser MOSJA guidelines agrees with that. -Thibbs (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The only poeple who have raised any sort of issue with the "tight" guidelines as you are putting it are the video game editors. People who write about Japanese cinema, literature, and other aspects of Japanese culture don't seem to have any sort of issue with the inclusion of the Hepburn romanization in the lead sentence so why should this guideline be modified for the purposes of a minority subject area?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

These video game editors are not suggesting that looser guidelines should only apply to video games, though. That much is quite clear. The suggestion that WPVG is asking for a special video-game-only exception demonstrates a total misunderstanding of WPVG's stance. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, the handling of music titles is also completely inconsistent with MOSJA - the article for every single musical example listed here omits romaji and usually even omits kana. -Thibbs (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that video game editors are the only ones who want them. People who write about anime, Japanese cinema, Japanese music, and other Japanese subject areas aren't having any issues with the current guidelines at MOS-JA. The fact that WP:VG/GL has a rule for excluding romaji in specific cases is the problem in itself. No other topic area is treated as such and no other language is treated as such.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How can you can say that no other groups want to have the option of omitting romaji? Didn't you see the music examples I've linked twice now? WPVG's phonetic transcription rule conflicts with MOSJA's mandatory inclusion rule. WPVG's rule is only the problem from MOSJA's perspective. From WPVG's perspective MOSJA's rule is the problem. How can you hope to come to a compromise if you decline to take the other side's argument seriously? I like the rule you've suggested, but you're crippling it rhetorically if you try to simply dismiss the consensus of the opposition. -Thibbs (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen the music examples. And I'm trying to make compromises, but the suggestions by the opposition keep changing and only help on their end. I've tried to put forth something that works on both sides: romaji is included, except in some specific cases. And now Anomie has an idea that is putting the problematic rule in place on all topics, and takes it and makes it apply more broadly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is problematic about it, besides that you don't like it? Anomie⚔ 02:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mesh with the rest of the practices of the project when it comes to languages other than Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to wikilink that to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anomie⚔ 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

First, that's a deletionist argument. Second, site wide consistency is more important than having a short lead sentence.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said romaji should be optional in all cases. "Romaji is mandatory on all articles featuring Japanese text" is worse than any proposal yet. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Anomie in that if the statement is removed from WP:VG/GL, then this guideline needs to be ammeded to make it clear that romaji is not required for all topics, even if they aren't part of a franchise and that more local consensus should decide that.陣内_Jinnai 23:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 7

• We seem to have now:
  1. To avoid content forking, in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) add a ===section=== "Videogame names" which contains merely a link "See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games."
  2. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games remove the text "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." and replace it by a statement that including the romaji is strongly advised, particularly if the romaji is markedly different from the English form.
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am against option 1 as I prefer a general case because I don't think that should be video games made a special case. That leaves option 2, but I have trouble understanding the intrinsic value of any romanization; I sympathize with the argument that other languages require romanization and that MOS-JP should be consistent, but I am also one that has found that the template can make prose cumbersome. —Ost (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • But it's only (generally) in the first sentence. How does that make the prose cumbersome? Also, I agree that video games (and in fact nothing) should be be made into a special case, especially when this is only an issue of the inclusion or exclusion of particular romanizations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I personally find the parentheticals for various translations and transliterations to be cumbersome and when reading I dislike having to search for the end of one to continue a sentence. I imagine it's worse for those that don't care to learn what romanization is. As you alluded to, I kept my answer brief because I didn't want to cloud this debate with a wider debate over requiring romanization for any language. —Ost (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Unless we adopt #1, "use romaji or not?" and such formatting instructions get split across two pages: see Wikipedia:Content forking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that only #2 needs to be applied and a better "Romaji is not necessary when..." thing instituted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• If we put it in VG's MOS alone, or under a video game section, then it will be understood as saying this solution only applies to VG. This has in fact already happened, as demonstrated by the above conversation. I think most of us (?) acknowledge that this isn't the case and should not be the case - whatever decision is reached here is meant to be available to all Japan-related articles. Therefore whatever we decide about how to deal with long English titles needs to go in this MOS under a general section, not under a specific subject type.
• That said, it might be good to have a section on video games to the effect of "please follow this MOS when it comes to Japanese text, but otherwise please consult WP:VG's article guidelines."

-- Joren (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no purpose in including a special section just for whether or not to include Hepburn for video game articles on this project page. WP:VG/GL can include its own guidelines concerning Japanese, but the current ones ("However, [Japanese titles] should only be given for games of Japanese origin whose official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name. Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles.") are not suitable. The reading of this is pretty odd now that I've seen it in full, again, tonight. I would argue that these two sentences need to be redone because as far as I am aware, this isn't even in practice. Japanese text (kanji, kana) are only excluded if the game is not of Japanese origin, unless by "Japanese text" they mean the Hepburn romanization. Either way, WP:VG/GL can keep its "Japanese games" section, but it should defer more to the general guidelines here, and have its own guidelines which determined by consensus for when it could be useful to exclude the Hepburn romanization in the lead paragraph.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Joren in that whatever we decide should apply to all articles. I think if there's decent flexibility with some basic guidance I doubt WP:VG would have an issue with leaving it to this guideline; in fact given recent conversations, I think they'd prefer that. However, there would need to be some flexibility to allow local consensus the ability to say, "no we don't need romaji here even though it suggests it" or "yes, it would help even though the guideline says we don't need it."陣内_Jinnai 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue only stands that the video game editors care about it. It does not need to apply project-wide when only a minority group of editors have an issue with how the guideline is currently designed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to list a couple points here that I've been thinking about:

• MOS:JA should really follow standard language conventions more. The main problem I have with the way Japanese is handled in video game articles I've edited is that there is no explanation for what is listed. A good example is Final Fantasy XIII, which simply slaps "(ファイナルファンタジーXIII, Fainaru Fantajī Sātīn)" after the English title. Compare this to Wikipedia's article on Beijing, which lists after the English title for Beijing, "({{pron-en|beɪˈdʒɪŋ}}, Chinese: 北京; pinyin: Běijīng, [peɪ˨˩ t͡ɕiŋ˥])". This gives the reader a clear indication of what exactly each of the symbols represent. Template:Nihongo does not.
• Per WP:ENGLISH, if the native name is different, then we should list them in the lead paragraph (see this section). That said, how different must it be? When we slap romanji when it means the exact same thing as the English language version and is pronounced the same, doesn't it just get confusing?

Funnily enough, WP:ENGLISH also recommends not to overdramaticize these sort of minor title disputes. Look like we did a good job of following that one. Anyways, I object to the current form of Nihongo to start. No matter what the outcome is, it should clearly list that it is listing "Japanese language" somehow. When I first came to Wikipedia I found the smatterings of Japanese confusing, and though I don't now, I think it's important that we make sure our articles are accessible to new readers. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's "romaji" or "romanization". Not "romanji".

  But those semantics aside appending "Japanese" onto the template is not going solve anything. And this isn't a titling dispute. It's a "we don't feel like including a romanization of a japonification of an English phrase" dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 8

• "It's a "we don't feel like including a romanization of a japonification of an English phrase" dispute": Thanks for at last getting this discussion back to topic. As I suggested at Breakpoint 6, a bit edited:
  1. When a Japanese name and its English equivalent are both introduced, list (using the {{nihongo}} template or similar if possible): English form, Japanese form, Literal Hepburn transciption of the Japanese.
  2. The Hepburn transciption may be omitted if it is identical with the English, where 'identical' includes that all diacritics in the two forms match.
  3. Append as a 4th argument of {{nihongo}} an English translation of the Japanese, if it differs markedly from the English name.
  4. If the English name is very long, option to put this information in a <ref>-</ref> footnote instead of in line in the text.
  • And, to avoid content forking, put these new rules in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles, linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Videogames. Please, this matter has run for over 7 months: please help to get it quickly finalized. Please.
    • I recommend first a decision on when to insert the romaji and when not. The other topic, namely "whether to alter the format to replace e.g. "(ファイナルファンタジーXIII, Fainaru Fantajī Sātīn)" by "(Japanese ファイナルファンタジーXIII, transcription Fainaru Fantajī Sātīn)"" can wait until later and be discussed separately. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "when to insert the romaji and when not" is the entire dispute. How specifically {{nihongo}} should look is a side issue. You've again repeated your #2 without change, to which I'll just reply "see my response above" which also hasn't changed. Anomie⚔ 12:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Concerning "when to insert romaji and when not," there seem to be several suggestions currently. Simplifying them greatly we have: 1)WPVG's "most of the time" rule (it's more complex, but I think we all understand it by now); 2)MOSJA's "always" rule; 3)Anthony's "unless it's identical" rule; 4)Ryulong's "unless it's identical or extremely redundant" rule. There may be more suggestions but I can't find them in skimming the mess above. I prefer a suggestion that shows the greatest compromise. Of those I just listed, I prefer Ryulong's idea. I think there may be room for improvement on his idea, but for now that's the one I prefer. Clarification of what the options are would help a lot. -Thibbs (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, this is like the third or fourth time you created new sub-section that just restates points that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (which has been pointed out to you multiple times before). As a mediator, you need to come into a discussion with a neutral point of view and should address all concerns of those involved, while at the same time trying to actually mediate between parties instead of exclusively making proposals, or trying to "rush" people to reach consensus. Prime Blue (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have noticed that other mediations usually start out with an exposition of the issues that are on the table for discussion and sections for the opening statements of all participants. I think that laying out these issues clearly and then allowing others to ask specific questions that go to the opening statements is usually a pretty good way for all parties (side 1, side 2, and the mediator) to get a good grasp of the issues and the differing positions on them. Discrete subsections are also often created for compromises and these compromises are explored fully with an eye toward compromising. I think that there are clear signs from the editors here of a willingness to compromise on some issues. It would be helpful to lay out the issues and the proposed compromises so that they can be scrutinized. This mediation is suffering from a near-total lack of organization. Certain individuals with minority viewpoints have been able to tie up negotiations completely. In the jumble of breakpoints above, what is in fact only the qualm of an individual editor may sometimes wrongly appear to be a mediation-wide point of contention. -Thibbs (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Another point is that by holding these discussions on the talk page of MOSJA, I feel like there's a degree of systemic bias. Normal mediations always take place on the mediation talk page. This helps to contain the dispute and it allows for much cleaner archiving and thus enhances transparency after the mediation is over. I assume good faith that this was probably just an oversight, but am I the only one that feels that the venue for this discussion is rather inappropriate? -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry about misspelling "romanji" in my previous comment, that was my mistake. I also have no problem in waiting until another discussion to bring up the issues with the Nihongo template. All that said, I agree with Prime Blue and Thibbs that it would be best if each editor could list out their position and allow other users to comment on it. I'm neutral to moving this conversation to a neutral site, although I can see Thibbs's point. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't have a concern over the neutrality of these discussions or the location of the discussion as it's a discussion of the applicability of this MOS guideline in a specific type of situation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree to the extent that that I think people here are behaving neutrally, but it's just an inappropriate thing to do. There's a reason that mediations always take place on their own talk pages. Can you imagine a formally mediated negotiation in real life taking place in the living room of one of the parties to the negotiation? If nothing else, it gives the appearance of impropriety and I think it would be easy for later editors reviewing the decision to suggest that the whole thing was inappropriately handled and that the compromise we will hopefully come to should be invalidated for this reason. -Thibbs (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And, to avoid content forking, put these new rules in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Japanese titles, linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Videogames.

Anthony, again - this approach will not work and will in fact serve to create not a content fork, but a rules fork, in which people will take this to mean one set of rules applies to VG alone, and would unintentionally limit this compromise. This is not an ideal solution, I don't think anybody wants this (this discussion is long and I can be easily mistaken, please speak up if you want the guidelines to be in VG with a link from this MOS, and why). My proposal is instead to:

On Japan-related video game articles, defer to Japan-related MOS when dealing with Japanese text, defer to VG/GL otherwise. Implications are:

1. This new compromise we are attempting to find needs needs to be authored in this MOS under a general section, not only video games. This will ensure it is understood that the compromise is available to all Japan-related articles, and will avoid the appearance of a rules fork.
2. This MOS can (and probably should) include a section on video games to the effect of: "For video-game related articles with Japanese text, please follow this MOS when dealing with Japanese text, otherwise please follow VG's article guidelines." with a link to VG/GL.
3. VG's guidelines should include a section explaining/summarizing how this MOS's guidelines applies to Japanese text in their project, along with a link to this MOS's relevant guidelines. The existing section can be adapting depending on the outcome of this discussion.

It is my belief this will prevent content forking and rules forking, because VG's section will be following the wider guideline spelled out here. It will allow the freedom to contextualize the guidelines to local projects, while ensuring they do not conflict with each other. Please acknowledge the issue, and respond with your own reasoning. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that WP:VG/GL can have its own rules and guidelines for including and excluding romanizations. I just do not think that the current one works, and having a separate section just concerning video games on this guideline is not going to help. So, Anthony, can we direct discussion towards coming to a compromise on a new wording of WP:VG/JP such that it meshes well with this manual of style and it provides a framework such that the Hepburn romanization is used, but also allows for leeway in omitting it in some occasions that simply aren't all cases when it's a katakana spelling of words of English origin?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The "separate section" would consist of a sentence or two guiding the reader to abide by this MOS but to consult VG/GL for other guidelines about video game articles.

Also, the idea is to have this MOS embody a compromise flexible enough to allow for editor discretion while avoiding balkanization.

-- Joren (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is one that only concerns video game editors. As I've been saying, video games are not a special case for anything. The only thing this manual of style should have is something along the lines of

It is generally helpful to include the Hepburn romanization of Japanese text on the English Wikipedia. However, some WikiProjects may have more specific guidelines concerning the usage of the romanization on articles in their subject area. Please defer to those guidelines when composing articles in that subject area.

and then we modify WP:VG/JP so that it works for both sides, such that it is not "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully support that. -Thibbs (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)\

video games are not a special case for anything - that indeed motivates my entire post, and is why I want to make sure whatever resolution we achieve here is available for all Japan-related articles. Not sure why you believe this is an issue only applicable to video game editors, are there really no other articles about products that have long titles?

It looks like we can at least agree that the problem sentence in VG/GL needs to go.

-- Joren (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that because it is constantly being suggested that WP:MOS-JA get a special "video games" section when it is wholly unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Likely videogames specifically got involved here because videogame names are a big proportion of the Japanese product names that contain English words and names spelt in kana. I realize that videogame names are not a special case. Try: "Including a Hepburn romanization translation is recommended." or similar; this will allow room for discretion in individual cases. I agree with User:Joren at 18:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC) above. And, please get this finished, it has run for over 7 months. (Please note that I am in England and my current clock time is Greenwich Mean Time and thus several hours ahead of USA clocks.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I also agree that for the sake of a special section, video games are not any more special than a novel, manga, anime, song, etc. It is just that because of the number of titles, this became an issue with the VG guideline. That's why I think it best to have the main summarization here and places like WP:VG/GL simply give a bit more guidance while deferring mostly to this guideline. Something like:

In general, it is helpful to include the revised Hepburn romanization of Japanese text on the English Wikipedia. However, there are some cases where this usage can—and should in some cases—be left off.

• For words or phrases which are already displayed in their revised Hepburn form do not repeat the romanization as it is completely redudant information.
• For English words or phrases rendered in katakana the romanization can be removed, especially in the lead sections of articles.
• (insert other items here if they're decided in the future. The only one I see as even remotely likely would be words that use other forms of Hepburn romanization though.)

陣内_Jinnai 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, neither of those two bullet points reflect anything that has been discussed here. For one thing, once the Japanese text is included one time, it is generally not included again within the same article and neither would the romanization. And also, it has been decided that the wording of WP:VG/JP is not within consensus, so there is no reason to omit the romaji of English phrases in katakana. This is why I have been trying to promote the following (for use at WP:VG/JP only, once my earlier blockquote is applied here):

If a video game of Japanese origin is part of a franchise and subsequent games are numerically ordered, include the Hepburn romanization for the first entry in the series and/or the title of the franchise, but it can be excluded on subsequent entries in the series. Example: Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī), Final Fantasy VII (ファイナルファンタジーVII). If subsequent games include idiosyncratic subtitles, replace the romanization of the original title with an n-dash (–) and include only the romanization of the subtitle. Example: Kingdom Hearts (キングダム ハーツ, Kingudamu Hātsu), Kingdom Hearts coded (キングダム ハーツ コーデッド, – Kōdeddo). If English text is used in these subtitles in the original Japanese release, it is not necessary to include the romanization for the explicitly English text. Example: Super Mario RPG (スーパーマリオRPG). If the English text is read in a unique way, the proper reading should be included in the fourth parameter of {{nihongo}}. Example: Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days (キングダム ハーツ 358/2 Days, read "Three Five Eight Days Over Two").

.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would still have to disagree with the Kingdom Hearts Coded example. There's no reason that one needs romanji just because there is 1 word difference. That really goes against "reasonable exceptions". I could see putting it on the main page, if reasonable exceptions like KHC were also allowed. It's not something I'd prefer as I don't think it would be nessasary anywhere, but for the sake of finding a compromise, I'd be fine with that and allow exceptions for cases like KHC otherwise there are too many titles that would make this just an extention of the current policy without any serious attempt at giving reasonable exceptions. Very few sequels are just numbered.

The other problem I have is when its on the child pages already because of subtitles in hiragana or title change, such as Dragon Quest, it should not be required then on the main page.陣内_Jinnai 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It needs romaji because you have the word "coded" parsed in katakana and "coded" is the only word that is being featured in the romaji. The lead of the article would only have Kingdom Hearts coded (キングダム ハーツ コーデッド, – Kōdeddo) in it. In the case of say one of the Dragon Quest games, you would use

Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen (ドラゴンクエストIV 導かれし者たち, – Michibikareshi Monotachi, lit. "The Guided Ones")

because IV is generally understood to be "Four". I would, however, think that this should only be used in fairly long titles. Applying it for Persona 3 (ペルソナ3, Perusona Surī) wouldn't be very helpful, even if you made "Surī" into "3".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you miss my point. Your idea was to have it only required on the main page if the child ones had only numerical differences (which your last example undermines and brings us back to the "no exceptions allowed" rule which violates WP:IAR. My problem is a lot series use subtitles and the main series then should if that's the case not need the romanji if you want to go that way because pretty much every child article will. Again, your proposal is too stringent because it doesn't allow for WP:COMMONSENSE to be used.陣内_Jinnai 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am entirely missing your point and I don't see how my proposal doesn't allow for common sense. I guess my example using Persona would not be useful, so fuck it. And I have no idea what you mean by "the main series then should". How are any of the following points hard to understand and apply?

• Include the Hepburn romanization (hereby after referred to as romaji) for all video games of Japanese origin if they are stand-alone titles, or if the main titles are composed of kanji or a mix of kanji and kana and non-Japanese text. If the name is commonly parsed entirely in English text in Japan, the {{nihongo}} template is overall unnecessary and romaji would not be included anyway (the original stylization of the title, if possible, would only be necessary instead).
• For video game franchises, include the romaji only on the article on the franchise and the first game in the franchise. If there are subseries within the franchise (e.g. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Dynasty Warriors: Gundam, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona), treat it as its own franchise. For subsequent titles in the franchise, the following apply.
• If subsequent titles in the franchise are only subtitled numerically, the romaji for the full title is not required.
  • Example: Final Fantasy VII (ファイナルファンタジーVII) instead of Final Fantasy VII (ファイナルファンタジーVII, Fainaru Fantajī Sebun)
• If subsequent titles in the franchise have idiosyncratic subtitles (with or without a numbering system), the romaji for the original game is not required, but the romaji for the subtitle is required (precede the romaji with an en dash –).
  • Example: Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen (ドラゴンクエストIV 導かれし者たち, – Michibikareshi Monotachi, lit. "The Guided Ones") instead of Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen (ドラゴンクエストIV 導かれし者たち, Doragon Kuesuto Fō Michibikareshi Monotachi, lit. "The Guided Ones")
• If subsequent titles in the franchise utilize English text in the subtitle, and the English text is read (not pronounced) identically as it would be in English, the romaji for this subtitle is not required.
  • Example: Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne (真・女神転生III-NOCTURNE) instead of Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne (真・女神転生III-NOCTURNE, Shin Megami Tensei Surī Nokutān)
  • W (Daburu Yū, Daburyū, or possibly Double Daburu) and Z (Zetto) could be unique cases if necessary.
• If English text is used in a subtitle and it is read in a way that does not match how it would be read in English at first site (e.g. Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days), romaji is not required but include the intended reading in the fourth parameter of {{nihongo}} or {{nihongo title}}. If it is being used to stand in for a Japanese word (non VG example but My-Otome), romaji is required.
  • Example: Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days (キングダム ハーツ 358/2 Days, read as "Three Five Eight Days Over Two") instead of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days (キングダム ハーツ 358/2 Days, Kingudamu Hātsu Surī Faibu Eito Deizu Ōbā Tsū, subtitle read as "Three Five Eight Days Over Two")

Are there any problems with either of these points? Is there anything that I need to add or expand upon?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the problem is that it doesn't allow for the COMMONSENSE use of the reverse. I'll take Dragon Quest as its a good example. EVERY one of its individual titles will require romanji under your proposal. However, because that proposal is extremely strict, it also forces the main franchise title to also have the romanji. In most cases, subtitles for games are used. Final Fantasy games are the exception. That's why I say I have a problem with it because only a few pages will be unaffected here. It's not a reasonable exception. If anything I'd say the franchise title is more important that it should be allowed to use a common sense exception because it'll often be the one that most closely applies to WP:VG.

I'd also say that for stand-alone titles that is extremely restrictive as many games never have enough to qualify under the VG guidelines for a series article.陣内_Jinnai 21:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, why the hell can't you understand that any game with a subtitle will be subject to this rule? Kingdom Hearts coded will only have "kōdeddo" in the lead. Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn will only have "Akatsuki no Megami" in the lead. Dragon Quest VI: Realms of Revelation will only have "Maboroshi no Daichi" in the lead. None of those act as exceptions to any of the proposals I have put forth.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am getting it and that's why I have a problem as it also will apply to Dragon Quest requiring the redundant and generally unhelpful romanji because its child articles, the indivisual games, all have subtitles and thus would have to have the romanji. Your proposal would not allow me and those working on the article to make the common sense judgement that since the child articles all have romanji, the parent article doesn't need it.陣内_Jinnai 22:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you're not getting it because otherwise you would understand that the romaji is not redundant when the words "Dragon Quest" will not have romaji or to make it even more clear "Doragon Kuesuto" will not be on any page other than Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior. I thought I made that clear to begin with as I have Dragon Quest IV as an example in my restated proposal. The only problem is that "Doragon Kuesuto" was absent on Dragon Quest until I checked and all of the sequel games' ledes need reformatting.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No you're not getting it. I'm saying EVERY SINGLE DRAGON QUEST GAME HAS HIRAGANA SUBTITLES EXCEPT THE FIRST WHICH WAS RELEASED UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME. I don't like shouting, but you don't seem to be getting why I have a problem. It is because of that I think your proposal doesn't fly since I'd also have to put the redundant romanji on Dragon Quest, because every one of the child game articles will have it because they are a mix of hirana and katana and we've already agreed that when that's the case, displaying the entire title is best so people aren't confused. That makes it seem even more pointless to make the main article have it too.陣内_Jinnai 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Main articles Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior are the only ones that get "Doragon Kuesto". Any child articles can omit that text and just have the romaji for the subtitle. What the fuck is the problem with that? Why the fuck does that not make sense to you?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No they won't. You are not getting it. They will all have to have romanji because they all have subtitles and/or were released under different translations. We've already agreed that Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies (ドラゴンクエストIX 星空の守り人, Nain Hoshizora no Mamoribito) isn't acceptable. My point is your wording does not allow local consensus to say "well since every one of the Dragon Quest games has the romanji, having it on the main article is redundant since they'll all have Doragon Kuesuto as part of their name." - that is applying a common sense exception and that's specifically what your proposal doesn't allow. It's too rigid.陣内_Jinnai 19:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not an exception to my proposal. It's an inherent fucking example. You are the one who is making this unnecessarily difficult by saying "if 10 related articles have the romaji, the parent article doesn't need it". Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies would only have "– Hoshizora no Mamoribito" in the third parameter. The "Nain" isn't necessary and neither is the "Doragon Kuesuto" because under my proposal, the "Doragon Kuesuto" part should only be at Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seeing the issue here. WP:VG's current "use English name and then romanization of Japanese name if literal translation is different" formatting is why you think my proposal is utter shit. On Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King, if you already have "Dragon Quest VIII Sora to Umi to Daichi to Norowareshi Himegimi", would be of course unnecessary to have the romaji again, so the formatting there is already in line with my proposal, or I should add another tenet for the translation issue so it works.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a storm of WP:CIV brewing here. I'd suggest both sides take an agreed upon break (24 hours?) re-read the discussion and return with cool heads. Denaar (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just realized why Jinnai believes that my proposal will not work and have responded to it in my second signed comment above, so this has come a bit too late.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Denaar, even though we're discussing this issue on the general MOSJA talkpage, this is actually a mediation process so Ryulong's words are privileged in order to allow him (and the rest of us) to express himself freely. Why we're holding the mediation here instead of on a mediation case page is a good question, but I think we're into it too far at this point to change locations. Whether or not Ryulong's arguments would be more effective in this mediation if he exercised more civility is something Ryulong will have to decide for himself. -Thibbs (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Ryulong - yea that basically sums it up. My issue with removing the DQ from the other articles and leaving just the subtitles is that it may confuse the reader even more. If they don't know much about Japanese to begin with having romanji for just part of the translation is likely to confuse them moreso than having no romanji.陣内_Jinnai 16:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Except if you read, we'd only be removing "Doragon Kuesuto" from articles if they were there, not "Dragon Quest". As it stands, most of the Dragon Quest pages already meet my proposal standards.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 9

• That looks good; but an en dash so used, immediately follows kana and thus people who can read kana may misread it as the "lengthen the previous vowel" kana symbol.
  • What happens to the "how to handle Japanese" matter currently in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear visual difference between ー and –, as well as the space and (hidden) comma between the Japanese text and the en dash. My proposition would be placed on WP:VG/GL to supplant its current guideline (the "However, they should only be given ... do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." part). It has nothing to do with modifying this page. That is what my original proposal ("It is generally helpful...") is for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• OK, let it be done; but a link to it from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) would be useful. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we still discussing the idea of footnoting Romaji titles/alternative translations if they seem too long?

-- Joren (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about putting the romanized Japanese name in the lead (e.g. Zelda no Densetsu: Kamigami no Triforce) and the full nihongo template in a footnote, but if foreign language words are included in prose, they have to be translated there as well, I think. Prime Blue (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to use the footnote, don't leave part of the Japanese title in the lead. Either go all the way but don't use it at all. And Joren, footnoting long titles is still OK in my proposal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have  Done a trial version of the edits: see these differences:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)&action=historysubmit&diff=415105594&oldid=414654376
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Video_games%2FArticle_guidelines&action=historysubmit&diff=415106119&oldid=414107450

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you did with that is prove that you are not suitable as a mediator. You neglected several objections to dropping the sentence "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." and went forward without consensus. This is not how you mediate between parties. Just to be clear: Personally, I have nothing against dropping this sentence, but the way you are leading this mediation is highly questionable. And I think I am not the only one who thinks that way. Prime Blue (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The concensus in the very long discussions above seems to recently be heading towards "include the romaji". Someone had to take a lead. These discussions and their predecessors linked to above, have run since 2 July 2010, i.e. over 7½ months. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

An overlong discussion with no clear outcome in sight is not a reason to simply move forward when there were objections to this recent proposal mere days ago. If no consensus can be reached, then it cannot be reached. Doesn't mean that one has to be enforced. Prime Blue (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do you want me to revert Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines back past both of my recent edits? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Again: Personally, I endorse the removal of the problematic sentence. But for your integrity as mediator, I'd strongly recommend reverting it. Prime Blue (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I have reverted Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines to as before my 2 recent edits. This leads to discussion (concise, please) as to whether, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, to replace this text:

  "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles. Otherwise, one of the following formats is to be used:"

  by this text:

  "Hepburn romanization type phonetic transcriptions should be included, in the third argument of {{nihongo}} or similar templates; this argument is shown as 'romaji' in some examples listed below. This is because Japanese videogame names often contain English words spelt in katakana and as a result on back-transcription often looking very different from their English original, for example Thunderbird → サンダーバード → Sandābādo. One of the following formats is to be used:"

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think it's necessary for guidelines to contain explanations or redundancies. If the rule is that romaji should always be used (which I don't think is the current consensus) then there's no need to include the "This is because Japanese videogame names..." portion. If the rule is that romaji can be omitted only if it's identical to English (which is perhaps closer to the current consensus) then there's no need to explain redundantly that "identical means the same including diacritics." I think the rule should be simple and to the point. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well I don't think there would be enough to agree if the diacritics were left off because that is also considered a form of Hepburn romanization and a valid argument that it is more widely used today without those diacritic marks than with. Sure the Library of Congress uses them, but a majority of sources today don't and even historically used them inconsistently.

  I'm also not sure how things would go with the phonetic transcription over at VPVG, honestly unless there was some level of wiggle-room to allow for local consensus to add or remove it in some cases. So far no proposal that seems universally acceptable allows for a level of wiggle-room on an article-by-article basis.陣内_Jinnai 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is our goal here?

We all agree that there is a problem. Two guidelines conflict and they need to be changed in such a way that they do not conflict.
I have been assuming that the outcome of this mediation would be a compromise version of what the new guidelines should look like that we (a small group of editors) endorses. After the mediation (or at the very end of it), this compromise would then be used to draft a proposal together that would be submitted to both WikiProjects to gain broad consensus.
I am aware that we are supposed to act BOLDly at Wikipedia, but when it comes to obvious controversies like this I think it's better if we proceeded with great care. From the recent edits to both guidelines it now appears to me that the goal of the mediation for some has been to achieve a quick local consensus which will be imposed on both projects. I don't think that this is an appropriate goal for the mediation. To quote from the MedCom Policy, "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. ... Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building."
Can we agree that our ultimate goal is a well-crafted compromise to be proposed to both WikiProjects and publicly endorsed by as many of us as possible? -Thibbs (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There has not been edit warring and there is no deadline, so I both agree on the goal of a compromise suitable across the project and on the approach of not rushing in to a decision just because it has taken time. —Ost (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been attempting to build up a proposal to modify both this page (allowing for WikiProject-level leeway) and WP:VG/GL (removing the "Phonetic transcriptions..." sentence and providing a new set of standards for when to include and when to omit what may be deemed redundant romaji) throughout this. Should I put it on a subpage somewhere to allow for better ease of reading so it can be decided upon in a larger consensus?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal can be found here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is, at User:Ryulong/JAVG. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Nihongo title}} should be updated first. I'm not sure how this'll fair really. I still think it would be viewed fairly negatively requiring it for every stand-alone title. Possibly if it were reworded to make it sound like the examples are merely suggestions to follow.

Also, because of an unrelated issue, I don't think Ryulong would be the most ideal person from this page to try and propose convince others to adopt this at WT:VG atm. I think if that were done some people may just vote it down on principle that he supported and helped draft it.陣内_Jinnai 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight suggested word change to suggestion

• The new form in User:Ryulong/JAVG says:
  • The inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context. The Manual of Style for Japan-related articles proscribes methods by which to properly format Japanese text for use on the English Wikipedia, including the use of the revised Hepburn romanization system for transliterating Japanese text into a form using the English alphabet. On articles concerning video games, there are some cases when omitting this romanization may benefit the article.

  Is this correct? "proscribe" = "forbid"; see wiktionary:proscribe and wiktionary:prescribe. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Anthony. It should be "prescribe." As long as we're discussing little things like this, I think the term "Akumajō Dracula: Harmony of Despair" should also be bolded for consistency in one of the examples. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake yo. I've been using that word wrong all along it seems. Also bolded the other title. Diff here. Also, I've expanded my proposal to beyond video games with katakana versions of English words to basically any series (it could be used for Castlevania and Legend of Zelda as much as it can for Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On that proposal: Foreign names are not in boldface per WP:BOLDTITLE. Do not support removal of the phrase "However, they should only be given for games of Japanese origin". Not sold on dropping part of the romanization and supplementing with an en dash either (not without any indication that the romanization is incomplete, at least). And seeing how complicated the guidelines now get with all these cases (it's not like even the current version is particularly easy to understand for editors), I am not sure they are supportable – half of the video game guidelines concerned only with the formats to use for Japanese titles? Prime Blue (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On the boldtitle issue, I can change the {{nihongo title}} to {{nihongo}} (most video game articles are formatted this way already anyway with the Japanese name bolded and it's easier to see). I removed the "They should only be given for games of Japanese origin" sentence because it was too weasely and seemed to tie in with the suggested omission of the Hepburn romanization that we're trying to fix. And coming up with very exact guidelines for this thing is going to be the only thing that will work well. Having many rules is fully written out better than having one ambiguous rule.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Prime Blue, I feel the wording should still include "However, they should only be given for games of Japanese origin". I understand what you mean, but I'm afraid that afterwards that it could be interpreted that games such as Halo 3 should include their Japanese translations in the title. It's a necessary point, for better or worse. Other than a couple of the quibbles mentioned above which I'm sure will be worked out, I largely otherwise support Ryulong's proposal. Nice work. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added this to compensate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove the region thing. There are games created in India with English and in other non-English regions in English. Palistinian/Isreali games are good examples. Just change it to state "originally released in English".

"For stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereby after referred to as "romaji") should be used." - I don't think this will go over well without a wording like "...should generally be used." I say this because in particular I think people will think its too much because WP:VG has very strict guidelines for when a series can/can't be created and there are tons of stand-alone games that use only katakana.陣内_Jinnai 22:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll reword it to say "originally titled in English".

The whole crux of this dispute is the "Don't use romaji if the game is titled in katakana-rendered English" concept. Omitting it entirely is what got us here in the first place. My proposal allows for leeway when the romaji will indeed be redundant, i.e., when it's already featured on other pages in the project. If you only have one game in a series, there's nothing that needs to be made different about this. The romaji used on that article will be used nowhere else and is therefore not redundant to anything, regardless of how it is a katakana rendering of an English language word. The game was not titled in English. It was titled in Japanese. If there's no article on the franchise as a whole, then just use the romaji on the first game in the series. That's not that difficult.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, without a kind of flexibility that can be allowed on a case-by-case basis, its not going to work; the guideline can be worded to strongly encourage it, but forcing it to be one way without exception won't work.陣内_Jinnai 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What video game titles could there possibly be that you want a flexibility to have an omission of romaji that I have not already covered in the rigid guidelines I'm proposing? Again, what you are proposing is the core dispute at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This change would have to be accepted not just by me and the few members who come here, but by the membership as a whole at WP:VG. Given the way things go there, I think any proposal that does not allow some level of flexibility is dead on arrival. The whole project is, as a whole, anti-"no exceptions allowed" when it comes to guidelines (there a bit more willing when its policy). As neither this page nor the VGGL is policy, i think that in order to make certain it does pass it would need to be written in such a way as to strongly encourage to follow the guideline (and thus put the onus on those who want an exception). Even if there is no article out there currently that would be an exception, it would be tantamount to crystal balling to say there won't ever be.陣内_Jinnai 03:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting in a flexibility for something that isn't an issue now seems a bit excessive. The use of the simple past tense should be enough at this point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that phrasing it as "...should generally be used" brings us very close to the crux of the original dispute. First of all this would already be a major compromise on the part of VGGL whose language currently states "as a rule, do not warrant inclusion." Secondly, to the average non-combative editor, "...should generally be used" is tantamount to saying "use Romaji." If we were to use "...should generally be used," then the people arguing that this is an exceptional case which falls outside the general case would have to gain consensus. Given IAR, this is would allow Wikipedia to function as it generally should without having to cite a policy which in my view many editors have little if any respect for. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole issue of this dispute is that WP:VG/JP says "Don't use romaji at all for video game articles that we don't want it on". My proposal gives a rigid framework for when and when not to have romaji instead of just omitting it entirely for an set of articles because the title was written a specific way in Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know, and others are suggesting that your rigid framework is too rigid. By making it a matter of a general recommendation instead of a no-exceptions mandate, WP:VG/JP's rule will still go 95% of the way toward MOSJA's. Do you think MOSJA's could be made a bit more flexible such as by recommending rather than mandating this practice? This would be a compromise of course, but we're aiming at compromise so that should be a good thing, right? -Thibbs (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In my proposal, MOSJA will be getting couple of lines saying "other projects can have rules concerning the usage of {{nihongo}}". The bulk of User:Ryulong/JAVG is a proposed addition to WP:VG/JP that better defines when and when not to include romaji over the "...phonetic transcriptions..." line which is the source of this dispute. This is already enough of a compromise, I would think.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but apparently we'd be wrong to assume that. See the "dead on arrival" discussion below. -Thibbs (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 10

• The change suggestion in User:Ryulong/JAVG now says:
  • Change the following

    Japanese titles

    The inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context. However, they should only be given for games of Japanese origin whose official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name. Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles.

    to

    The inclusion of foreign language titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context. These foreign language titles should only be included if the game was originally released with that title; if a game had an English-language title, no other language text is necessary regarding the game's title.

    For Japanese video games, the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles describes methods by which to properly format Japanese text for use on the English Wikipedia, including the use of the revised Hepburn romanization system for transliterating Japanese text into a form using the English alphabet. On articles concerning video games, there are some cases when omitting this romanization may benefit the article.

  • The remaining dispute seems to be on whether to replace "On articles concerning video games, there are some cases when omitting this romanization may benefit the article" by "Always include this romanization". Are any other points disputed? Please keep discussion concise and avoid repeating, and get this matter settled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • For that particular section, no. There is some debate about the phrasing for the rest.陣内_Jinnai 16:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, the dispute lies in the fact that my proposed framework for when and when not to omit the romaji does not have flexibility in it because Jinnai, at least, still wants to be able to decide "This article on a game with no sequels doesn't need romaji because it's an English word written in katakana", which is the whole reason why this dispute started.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I will point out its not just me. In addition, I highly doubt any proposal at WP:VG that does not have at least some level of flexibility is dead on arrival. The wording I changed would still make the Ryulong's proposal the default and give it an uphill battle for someone who wants an exception, but the room there for an exception I believe is a key concern. It is the crux of the matter.陣内_Jinnai 20:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What flexibility is necessary? There's already a compromise made here: all video game articles on Japanese games do not require romaji, but certain ones should still feature it in less quantity. Also, slight rewording.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The compromise still doesn't allow for some level of flexibility; that is a core argument by myself and others from WP:VG. IAR exists to allow them and a guideline should not dictiate a non-exceptions allowed rule; its aguideline after all.陣内_Jinnai 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What flexibility is necessary? The degree of flexibility required to make this compromise viable. If, as Jinnai suggests, a "mandatory" rule is DOA, then what's the harm in a "recommended by default" rule? After 7+ months in this deadlock, we have to be realistic. -Thibbs (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The nature of a guideline means it is not 100% mandatory. Or that's how it should be in spirit. The compromise that closes this should be that MOS-JA has a line that explicitly states that other WikiProjects are able to come up with their own guidelines for dealing with romaji but VG/GL no longer says "no romaji for all pages that meet these criteria".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The wording should reflect that its a guideline and not assume so by the nature of it being a guideline. Guidelines are written in a way to make them say stuff like "generally", "rarely" "usually" etc. to make it clear. Go check out any of the major guidelines. Very rarely will a guideline say "never" or "always".陣内_Jinnai 21:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So it's an issue of semantics.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong's right. Semantic details are important to keep in mind when we are talking about policy and guidelines. If most guidelines use language like "generally", "rarely" "usually" etc. then let's go with that. From what Jinnai has said this may be the only way to achieve consensus at VG/GL anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is just wanted so these rigid guidelines I put together can be ignored entirely, thereby circumventing the compromise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested that these rigid guidelines will not be acceptable to WP:VG. You have to allow for exceptions or else the compromise will fail. It's very simple. Exceptions will always exist. You said so yourself in both the "wu" topic below and the "wave dash" topic above. In fact in both cases you made fun of other users (Jpatokal and Mujaki) by suggesting that they didn't understand the concept of exceptions. I know you understand that exceptions can and should be made. This is one of those cases. We should use language like "generally", "rarely" "usually" etc. just like in all of the other guidelines. Romaji inclusion isn't a special case. -Thibbs (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My issue is that the exception in this case goes against the intended purpose of the compromise. I came up with a set of guidelines that worked for both sides of the dispute: romaji is not necessary in all cases, but should be used in most cases. Why should there be room to make further exceptions when those intended exceptions exacerbate this dispute? I've addressed everyone else's issues so far (Nomader's and Prime Blue's problems above), but Jinnai's request still goes against the spirit of the compromise at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just assuming too much good faith in Jinnai, but from what he's saying it looks like he's just being realistic about the situation and asking us to be pragmatic. The compromise you offer changes WPVG's 0% Romaji-use (when it's English-based-kana) to 100% Romaji-use (with a slightly expanded definition of redundancy). Jinnai's asking for a 99% Romaji-use rule. It's quite obvious that this doesn't go against the intended spirit or purpose of the compromise and I can easily see why such a rule would be perhaps 1% more palatable to WP:VG. On the other hand, I can't see any sense in holding out for a 100% solution which is destined for failure. -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WPVG has ~50% use right now. According to MOSJA at the moment, it should be 100%. I'm proposing 75% with strict guidelines defining that 75%.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this mediation is English-word-based-kana titles. "Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles" means 0% Romaji for English-word-based-kana titles, not 50%. Your proposal requires Romaji for 100% of non-redundant titles. That is unlikely to be acceptable to WPVG. There's no sense in scuttling the compromise just so that this Romaji-inclusion issue can be treated as a special case different from all other guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal defines what is redundant by not including the romaji for English-word-based-kana titles if there are more than one game with those words in the title and further expands it for kanji/kana mixed titles, thereby eliminating romaji from the pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And in treating redundancy as the only issue worth compromising in favor of, you've come up with a version of the rule that is unlikely to pass muster at WPVG. The reason guidelines say things like "generally", "rarely" "usually" etc. and not "never" or "always" is because exceptions sometimes come up. Can you explain why you think that the Romaji-inclusion guideline is a special case (different from all other guidelines) where it should say "always" instead of "generally" or "usually?" -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it is essentially an extension of WP:UE.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That specifically deals with article titles and even that is not without exceptions (and note that even here this guideline has improperly contradicted WP:TITLE with its insistance on macron usage). Also that is for company's and orangizations; there is a naming convention guideline for video games. If anything from naming conventions, it should be based on that.陣内_Jinnai 19:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This manual of style has never been in contradiction with WP:TITLE because of the use of the revised Hepburn system's Ō's and Ū's.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)UE also defers to MOSJA for transliteration conventions. If MOSJA is to defer to WPVG on specific guidelines concerning the usage of the romanization then it'll ultimately be WPVG's prerogative anyway. I don't see why it's such a big deal to change "never use Romaji" to "usually use Romaji" if that's normal practice for guidelines and if "always use Romaji" is a dead-on-arrival proposal. Do you not agree that "usually use Romaji" is an improvement on what we currently have? -Thibbs (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's "always use romaji in the following circumstances, and romaji is not necessary in these other circumstances". Why is that a problem? And either way, it's universal practice on this project to include a transliteration of the foreign language content, regardless of original language (e.g. Moscow has "Moskva" on it).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a big problem mainly because WPVG is unlikely to accept that version. Do you recognize that "usually use Romaji" is an improvement over what we currently have? -Thibbs (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue that exists is that the restriction that Jinnai claims will make this proposal dead in the water for the WP:VG crowd is still the crux of this dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The version Jinnai is talking about would require WPVG to change from "never" using Romaji (in the case that is the topic of discussion here) to "usually" or "generally" using Romaji. To me that represents progress. You've said that the central issue is the Phonetic Transcription rule. Jinnai's suggestion is far from returning to the original "never use Romaji" rule. I believe that "usually use Romaji" is an improvement. It's not ideal, but that's why it's a compromise. It's a realistic approach to solving this problem that has gone on for over 7 months. I think it may be time for us to think pragmatically. -Thibbs (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This "gone on for over 7 months" thing is an exaggeration considering the radio silence in September, October, November, and December while we waited for a mediator member. And the consistent arguing over the word choice is getting really annoying. It doesn't have to say "generally" or "usually" in order to be agreed upon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried that to achieve valid community-wide consensus the proposal will have to use the same language as all other guidelines (i.e. "generally" or "usually") and so I agree with Jinnai that we shouldn't damage our likelihood of eventual success by making this into a special case. -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 11

• Please list here all the alternatives for replacements for the paragraph "The inclusion of Japanese titles ... do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles." in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games, and say simply and briefly who supports each alternative. It is time that we came to a decision. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Would you stop making new section headers every time you want to bring up a new point?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  It was not because of the new point, it was because again the previous section was getting long. PLEASE try to get this matter brought to a decision and concensus. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Ryulong: It is a primary role of the mediator to help steer discussion. If Anthony's experience is that breaking the discussion up regularly is conducive to that goal, then I would very firmly suggest that you run with it. Respectfully, AGK [•] 13:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since I was called in to try to get this long-running dispute to a concensus, 166 kilobytes of arguing (measured as 8-bit characters) has accumulated here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to give a concise replacement for only that line at this point because most recently we've been discussing ways in which to rewrite whole sections of both guidelines. I think we're close to an agreement on this. As I see it there are 4 options. I've listed them below and I've voted on them. If anyone wants to add their names and votes below the options please feel free to. And please add any other options to the 4 I have if you wish. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

• 1 - Stay with the same two conflictory guidelines that we currently have
• 2 - Adopt the changes recommended in User:Ryulong/JAVG.
• 3 - Adopt all of the changes in User:Ryulong/JAVG but make the following change to the line: "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereby after referred to as "romaji") should generally be used."
  (boldface here indicates an added word and boldface would not be used like this in the guideline of course.)
• 4 - Start developing a new idea.

---

I reject #1 as it means that neither guideline is effective and it will just lead to edit wars. I accept #3 as my understanding is that this will give the rule a fighting chance at WPVG and it's a fair compromise. Failing #3, I accept #2, but I would prefer to add "generally" to give it a better chance of gaining consensus at WP:VG. Finally, I would only accept #4 if neither #3 nor #2 is viable. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My preference is #3. However, if that's not the case, I'd go with #4. #2 is DOA and #1 will likely lead to edit wars which could drag in arbcom, something I don't think anyone here really wants if it can be avoided.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, you are the only one who has expressed the opinion that User:Ryulong/JAVG as it stands would not be accepted by the greater community of WP:VG. If we presented it at WT:VG (or WT:VG/GL) now and if no one made any comments as to the fact that the word "generally" is not included, I believe that it would gain consensus. The nitpicking is the only thing that is barring it because of a single person's opinions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting it at WP:VG/GL would likely be seen as a backdoor way of getting this through as the talk page isn't covered quite well. I believe it wouldn't and I would argue against it and my reasoning why.陣内_Jinnai 03:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, aside from you and your detractions, no one has raised any issues. The only reason Thibbs is not agreeing right now is because you have been so vehemently against the current wording.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's because there's been no attempt to address the key problem WP:VG members have with this; there is not any room within there for some level of exceptions and the wording is such that it can - and given the history with MOS-HA, i beleive will, be used to shoot down every exception to that rule on the basis that it isn't uniform with the guideline, irreguardless of the article's circumstances.陣内_Jinnai 09:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But you are the only one who is claiming that it is a key problem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Right here, right now, yes. However, it is the key problem that has brought up this dispute in the past between members here and other members at WP:VG.陣内_Jinnai 10:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

• I understand Jinnai's point that he is unwilling to support a compromise that is either designed to avoid broad consensus or that is destined to fail to achieve broad consensus when presented to WP:VG. I think it makes sense. Otherwise we've wasted all this effort for nothing.
• I understand Ryulong's point that using Jinnai's preferred version would make the guideline more flexible and less mandatory. Since inter-article consistency is the only stated goal of those on the MOSJA side of the discussion, flexibility may introduce inconsistencies. If this is common then stylistic problems might develop which would make these articles an eyesore.

I just don't understand why the guideline must be completely inflexible considering that most guidelines are flexible to the degree Jinnai prefers. Achieving a high degree of inter-article consistency is a laudable goal, but even with Jinnai's preferred version the rule is overwhelmingly geared toward consistency. Ryulong, do you refuse to accept a new guideline with any degree of flexibility in it? If so, are you saying that a compromise altering WPVG's rule from "never include Romaji" to "generally include Romaji" is equally as unacceptable as leaving it "never include Romaji?" -Thibbs (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please quickly come to a concensus. Nobody wants this discussion to run for another 166 kilobytes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 12

• Opinion seems to be settling down to #3:

  - Adopt all of the changes in User:Ryulong/JAVG but replace this line:

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises (if applicable), and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereby after referred to as "romaji") should be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  by

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereinafter referred to as "romaji") should generally be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  Can I take it that, if there are no objections in the next week, that I or someone can go ahead and edit WP:MOS-JA and WP:VG/JP accordingly? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything outlined in Ryulong's subpage, but will accept them so long as the changes to {{nihongo}} described earlier are implemented. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

I do not think that we need to impliment a semantic loophole just to get the proposed changes accepted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony's suggestion since it would bring the very rigid language of Ryulong's suggestion into conformity with all other guidelines. However I don't think that we should be changing the rules ourselves without gaining the broad consensus of the community. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building, so I think it's only proper to treat this mediation as a means to the formation of a fair and realistic proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong- whether any of us like it or not, guidelines are only suggestions to editors. I think it makes sense to address this aspect by explicitly stating that in one form or another. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

• Currently the {{nihongo}} template call "{{nihongo|English|Japanese|romaji|note1|note2}}" translates to "English (Japanese, romaji, note1) note2". Please, concisely, what are the desired changes to that format? Some time I or someone will have go ahead and make the text changes listed at the start of this section. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was that {{nihongo|aaaaa|bbbbb|ccccc|ddddd|eeeee}} should display the following

aaaaa (Japanese: bbbbb Hepburn: ccccc^?, ddddd) eeeee

I may have gotten the desired romanization wording wrong though. Someone please correct me if I did. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

I think there was a mention on the template's talk page of moving the question mark so it would display (with the proposed changes) as "aaaaa (Japanese: bbbbb^? Hepburn: ccccc, ddddd) eeee" because the ? involved installing Japanese fonts only, not anything to do with Hepburn romanization.陣内_Jinnai 03:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC))

• "for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building": This discussion has run on and off for over 7 months and has run up here and elsewhere the best part of a quarter of a megabyte of arguing: I thought that this WAS the big discussion to decide policy, and here seems to be plan to merely refer it or its findings to another committee. We seem to have at last decided the alterations to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles); can this alteration go ahead while this new separate discussion on the text of Template:Nihongo is proceeding? This job needs to be finished, not any more exercises in things. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that this should be the final discussion for the issue. Editors all across the community have been given several chances to comment. The fact that they didn't implies that they are fine to let those still with the discuss hash it out. I think a last call for comments on our conclusions would be prudent. But I don't think anything past that is necessary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC))
  • I have no complaints with Anthony's suggested version at the top of Breakpoint 12. It sounds fair to me and I'd certainly have supported it in discussions at WT:WPVG. I also agree with decoupling this issue from that of the nihongo template since the two problems are similar but not linked. However... I do have reservations which I've included below in small text.
    I think that the large debate on this issue isn't generally known in some places. The vast bulk of these discussions have taken place neither on a WPVG talk page nor in a neutral 3rd party location. While anyone who has the MOSJA page on their watchlist has been given repeated (often daily) alerts that this issue is under discussion, the Wikiproject that will be most affected, WPVG, has only had some 2 or 3 notices posted separated by several months. Our current compromise swings WPVG's guideline almost completely over to the guideline favored by MOSJA, but of the 22 of us who agreed to mediation, only 5 are members of WPVG and of those 5, only 3 have actually posted in this discussion. Any way you look at it, it seems very much like the consensus of a "small number of parties." Treating WPJA members or MOSJA-watchers' silences as approval is one thing but if we're to treat WPVG's silence as approval then I think we've seriously compromised transparency on the issue and this seems much more like a backdoor way to achieve a prejudged goal. At the very least I think we must use Guyinblack25's suggestion of a "last call for comments."
    In a word: Although I have qualms about the process, I do support Anthony's solution. I guess maybe IAR could be invoked to disregard the issue of broad consensus... -Thibbs (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    My proposal for the modification for this page is only being discussed here due to the fact that the more knowledged editors in ths dispute have been able to contribute to it. My plans were that once enough discussion had taken place, I would post my proposd changes to whichever WP:VG talk page would be appropriate and then it could be applied by the WP:VG community. However, the one change that is consistently being pushed is a semantic one which is just opening up a loophole that is still the primary problem with the wording of WP:VG/JP as it stands. Jinnai has been shooting down the proposed changes because he is still vehemently opposed to having romaji a requirement in the lead for certain pages. Why should a loophole be put in place for the removal of the romaji in some cases when the proposed change provides enough of a rigid framework such that romaji will not be on every page as is currently suggested by this manual of style?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Guidelines were never meant to be rigid. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." Wikipedia allows for flexibility in our practices, and this guideline should reflect that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

    What the fuck is the problem with not having the word "should" in the proposed writing? And why should there not be a clearly defined framework on what is to be done in the cases defined? This bullshit on how guidelines should be written is clearly only getting in the way of resolving this dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Please calm down.

    There's nothing wrong with clear guidelines to follow, but Wikipedia wants us to also apply them "using reason and common sense". As a result, some flexibility must be allowed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

    But why does that flexibility need to explicitly be in writing?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Things were being applied quite rigidly beforehand. I think it would be best to be up front about the flexibility. Omitting it at this point can be seen as being more rigid than it actually is. I'm sure that is a concern shared by those that are in favor adding "should" or "generally". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

    I understand that. But from my point of view, it simply appears to be an attempt to subvert the whole compromise by inserting the loophole that allows for WP:VG/JP to not change at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Despite the image of WP:VG being a group of TFA hungry video game nerds, we're quite adept Wikipedians. We've been successful at writing high quality article because we properly interpret and apply the applicable policies and guidelines. I'm sure there will be those that try to use the wording as a loop hole. But most of the project's top contributors will follow guidelines as well as encourage and mentor others to do so. We may question the guideline later, but we'll do so through the proper channels and procedures.

    To sum up, I don't think you need to be too concerned. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

    So why does it need to be explicitly written as such?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Because history with these guidelines, as well as more generally, has shown that without the wording people do tend to e-lawyer things to have no exceptions inspite WP:IAR.陣内_Jinnai 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Ryulong- please don't play such games. This discussion has gone on long enough. Quite frankly, I think it deserves a place on WP:LAME.

    Your concern of a "loop hole" would still be valid whether or not the wording is there because guidelines are only suggestions to editors. They are still welcome to ignore whatever version we put up there. I believe that being upfront with this is the best idea to deal with the editors involved.

    Like it or not, you're just going to have to trust the other editors on here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

    Fair enough. I just had my reservations because everyone appeared to be fine with the proposal until Jinnai made mention of the wording.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 13

• Please discuss changes to WP:MOS-JA and WP:VG/JP in this section, and changes to Template:Nihongo in the next section. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please create sub page for WP:VG/GL mediation section. This talk page is too large due to this section.--Mujaki (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

By this point I'm indifferent to moving this mediation or to keeping it here, but if it needs to be moved, please let's move it here instead of to a subpage of MOSJA. There is absolutely no sense in moving it to another location within WT:MOSJA. -Thibbs (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

where the first "here" means "in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Um..I requested creating a sub page such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Districts and municipalities task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. An archieve in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) is also a kind of of sub pages.--Mujaki (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Again, as again opinion seems to be settling down to this:-

  - Adopt all of the changes in User:Ryulong/JAVG but replace this line:

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises (if applicable), and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereby after referred to as "romaji") should be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  by

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereinafter referred to as "romaji") should generally be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  can I take it then that, if there are no objections in what is left of March 2011, that when April 2011 comes I can go ahead and edit WP:MOS-JA and WP:VG/JP accordingly? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  Fine with me so long as the {{nihongo}} changes below are implemented around the same time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk)

• The discussion (in the next section) about {{nihongo}} looks like it is going to run for a long time. I would prefer to get WP:MOS-JA and WP:VG/JP finally settled at last and not have to wait yet longer for the Template:Nihongo discussion to finish. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If everyone else is on board with the changes, I don't think my voice could dent that consensus. Also, the discussion below looks to be going well enough. I imagine that the changes should be implemented soon enough. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
    • Was there a "last call" put out at WT:VG? If so, then that's fine; if not it should be done.陣内_Jinnai 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ditto. And I'd recommend that the "last call" be made by either a member of WPVG or by our moderator. It might be best received from a WPVG member. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I have put a link message in a box at the top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I put it in a section at the bottom; I would guess that I'm not the only editor that goes to the page and reads from the bottom up—or the TOC—to see new subjects when I've been away for a few days. Commenting on the guideline, I don't like that it specifically calls out WikiProjects and video games, but I am happy to see it be more flexible. Also, I think that using an en dash to omit idiosyncratic titles is unclear to most readers, though I admittedly hadn't noticed that rule till now and so it may have a reasonable derivation. —Ost (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm still not seeing how Ryulong's proposals make much sense. The only overarching guideline I see as applicable is WP:ENGLISH. Ryulong has been making the assertion that MOS:JP is part of the WP:MOS and therefor supercedes a WikiProject's own style guides independent of the MoS, yet I see no evidence of that in the history; rather, MOS:JP appears to be a wikiproject style guide by another name. (There's no evidence of formal adoption as such that I've found in the page history, if it exists please let me know; meanwhile a recent query on the page didn't really prove a ringing endorsement of it either.) I consider Ryulong's assertion false, and I see no reason for WP VG to change any of its guidelines, or make them more baroque as would be the case here—disregarding the mediation, there has been several instances where Ryulong's interpretation has clashed with uninvolved editors on gaming topics (Pokemon Black and White being a recent example.) With all due respect to the work done by Appleyard, this appears to be an issue with select editors rather than a failure or misapplication of guidelines or policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that Ryulong's theory that MOSJA simply supersedes WPVG is quite fringe, but I think a much better argument was made by the other members of WPJA that endorsed this change in WPVG's guidelines. Although it is not stated in MOS:CONSISTENCY, I'll assert that broad inter-article consistency is generally a good goal. The fact that the vast majority of other language projects include pronunciations (usually in IPA) with words of foreign origin does indicate to me that the same should apply in this case too. With that said, I have repeatedly suggested that this is an issue that should be decided by WPVG and I've treated this mediation almost from the start as a laboratory for the development of a workable proposal that would then be considered by WPVG. Putting Ryulong's disruptive editorial style out of mind, the issue has been wrangled over by a large number of editors for some 8 months now and I think the proposal we've come up with is as fair and as useful as we're going to get. The positive impact of broad inter-article style consistency must now be balanced against the negative impact of confusion/clutter/etc by WPVG as a project. The more voices from WPVG that can weigh in the better. If the Project rejects the proposal then so be it. -Thibbs (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:ENGLISH regards article titles. This proposal regards what to include in the first sentence of the article. Also that "recent query" you bring up David is just one of Pmanderson's attempts to take over a style guide.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding if a game had title written in the English alphabet in its original release, no other language text is necessary regarding the game's title. Do we actually mean "English alphabet" or Latin alphabet? I would guess that there is just as little reason to print the kana for Herzog Zwei as any English title. Also worth asking, though much rarer, what about non-Japanese alphabets in general, e.g. Korean, or Chinese that is not represented in Japanese kanji? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. It should be changed to "Latin alphabet" (...though I think you meant "romaji" instead of "kana", right?) -Thibbs (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Again regarding if a game had title written in the English alphabet in its original release, no other language text is necessary regarding the game's title. Is this intended to override the other guidance on including Hepburn? It would seem so, but this is not explicit in the current text and seems to contradict the later clauses on Hepburn. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I've been without internet for the past two days. That sentence regards video games whose titles are written entirely in English, rather than English parsed through Japanese (a la the Final Fantasy). Sometimes on this project the katakana rendition of the English text is included, despite the games' title not being originally written in katakana (as in this case). I'm sorry if that part was written unclearly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 14

• These recent answers cover matter largely discussed before, hereinabove, and previously at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/VGGL and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/VGGL2, where this discussion has run from 2 July 2010, that is, for over 8 months. Please be concise and help to bring this matter quickly to a decision. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Anthony, at this point the notices are requesting input and throwing people at the top of the page. If you are interested in getting more uninvolved feedback I'd strongly suggest creating a new subpage clearly outlining the changes and summarizing the discussions above as appropriate. As is no one is going to try and wade through the wall of text and try and find someplace to put their input in the many dozens of section breaks and threads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have put a link in a box at #Should the romaji version of Japanese videogame names be included in Wikipedia articles?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

---

This discussion is about, in Wikipedia pages about Japanese-origin videogames, including an English literal transcription of the Japanese name.

• Opinion seems to be settling down to this:-

  - Adopt all of the changes in User:Ryulong/JAVG but replace this line:

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises (if applicable), and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereby after referred to as "romaji") should be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  by

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (hereinafter referred to as "romaji") should generally be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  Can I take it that, if there are no objections in the next week, that I or someone can go ahead and edit WP:MOS-JA and WP:VG/JP accordingly? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  I think it would be best to avoid words such as "hereinafter" as many people may not know what it means (thought it may be obvious to some of us). How about:

  "For stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises, the full set of English title, Japanese title, and Hepburn romanization (or "romaji") should generally be used. To format them, follow the above example."

  It makes it easier to understand, IMHO. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 15

• I have  Done the job (see this diff and this diff). Is this what was intended? (I have not edited Template:Nihongo.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In WP:MOS-JA I would change "some WikiProjects" to "some guidelines" incase the WP:VG/GL does become a MOS guideline it would no longer be a WikiProject specific guideline.陣内_Jinnai 01:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I do not agree with this change at all. We do not need to be presumptuous to state that the video game WikiProject's guidelines are going to be ay sort of manual of style in the future. And the sentence already has "guideline" in it. We should not say "some guidelines may have more specific guidelines" at all. WP:VG is just one of several WikiProjects that deal with Japanese language text. Just because it has an extensive set of guidelines does not mean that it will become its own manual of style.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Let's not get too ahead of ourselves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Please settle this new dispute quickly and concisely. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "WikiProjects" should be left in because WP:VG/GL as it stands is merely a WikiProject-level guideline. If it becomes its own manual of style, then anything regarding Japanese text should default back to the Japanese manual of style.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If WPVG just changes its name to MOSVG then it will still be a guideline just like MOSJA. As far as I can see, neither has been transcluded in WP:MOS so they are still both just guidelines. A better reason that the wording should remain as "WikiProjects" instead of "guidelines" is because "guidelines" is redundant and because it's unnecessary to spell out the fact that actual MOS-transclusions overrule guidelines like MOSJA. -Thibbs (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • • Your comment makes no sense as WP:MOS is just a guideline, too. It's certainly not policy. All of the MOS pages are guidelines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Why isn't MOSJA included amongst the other manuals of style? It certainly covers enough ground that it should be. The only reason I can assume it isn't included is because of the nonsense Pmanderson started months ago over the insistence that the subject of an article be counted upon for how the page should be titled.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Because it was never formally adopted? Unless it has gathered widespread input it is no more authoritative than any other project guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
          • • There have been multiple RFCs covering various aspects of the MOS-JA throughout its history, but since it only covers a narrow subsection of articles on Wikipedia, it has never gained as much input as some of the more general MOS guidelines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
          • How come it has never been formally adopted? The page has existed in some form since 2003. And don't get started on any of the bullshit that Pmanderson did where he assumed the page was only an essay because of my constant attempts to keep him from bulldozing it into how he feels the project should be run.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
            • And was the page ever run by multiple venues to see if there was project-wide consensus that it should be adopted as part of the MoS? You don't get to be part by default, because most editors will never come across it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
              • • It's a regional MOS guideline, and it is part of the overall MOS. If you don't want regional/topical MOSes to be part of the overall MOS, I suggest you start an RFC to remove them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • Which still means absolutely nothing beyond "a wikiproject thought this up." There is no more power or authority vested in a local consensus in one location than another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
                    • The MOS-JA was around for over 1.5yrs before WP:JA was even founded, so that argument holds little strength. No one is arguing that one regional MOS has any more "power and authority" than any other, so I don't see where you are getting that argument from other than an apparent disdain for anything any WikiProject does or "thinks up". A little WP:AGF on the part of those who have worked long and hard to make MOS-JA as broadly-applicable as possible would go along way in this discussion, rather than just dismissing the whole thing because it was "thought up" by a WikiProject (which isn't completely accurate, anyway). The MOS-JA has been regularly vetted, updated, improved, and brought into line when needed; it's a constant process. There have been multiple RFCs about various parts of it, and several people here have done a lot of work to make sure it is in line with the non-regional MOS pages where applicable. As for most editors never coming across the MOS-JA, so what? Most editors don't work on Japan-related articles, and the only time this MOS is applicable is in Japan-related articles, so that argument makes no sense, either. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
              • I don't know. It just seems that the fact that it has been in some form for over 7 years now seems to me that it should have been part of the manual of style for some time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 16

• I see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines have been edited again by various people without those alterations being proposed and discussed here to a concensus. Please propose here first any more alterations. Please be concise. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• In Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#When to include or exclude the Hepburn romanization, these rules look fiddly. It would be easier and would not use much extra Wikipedia text space to put full romaji in all articles about Japanese videogames including about sequels and components and suchlike. It would be easier than forcing the reader to ferret back to the game series's master page to find the romaji of the kana name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be easier, but that's what started this whole discussion: WPVG didn't want to include it in most entries, but MOS-JA said to include it the first time in any article that used Japanese. If we're going to go back to where we started, then this whole discussion was a waste as it's very unlikely WPVG will ever agree to that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The whole purpose of my proposal was to set up a rigid set of guidelines for when and when not to include romaji. I decided that if the romaji was already on one page in the series, it didn't need to be on all the pages in the series, and I expanded this to include games that have kanji and hiragana in their titles that get used over and over throughout a franchise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Nihonjoe. As much as I would love to continue arguing and re-arguing and forming a more and more thorough consensus about the same thing, it looks to me like a workable compromise was achieved and the actual mediation portion of this mediation drew to a close about a month ago. (See also: Pandora's box.) -Thibbs (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• And force the reader to ferret back to the game series's master page to find the romaji of the kana in the name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the consensus is far from perfect, but I think it is a step in the right direction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Proposed changes to Template:Nihongo

• I completely oppose the inclusion of "Japanese:" and "Hepburn:" into {{nihongo}} as it radically changes the formatting and appearance of the template and will course serious disruptions to character lists, chapter lists and such where the template is used repeatedly. It would also cause WP:OVERLINKing, which must be avoided. —Farix (t | c) 12:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the template display Japanese: Hepburn: etc on the first use only?

BTW, not in a position to really participate in these discussions at the moment, but will pop in when I can.

-- Joren (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It could potentially be done with two templates such as {{nihongolede}} for the lede and {{nihongo}} for the body. "Nihongolede" doesn't exist right now, but it could be created to include "Japanese:" and "Hepburn:" in just the first use if people would prefer that. -Thibbs (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, as I think once the format has been introduced the reader can assume that it would carry through the rest of the article. Though I worry about articles that include multiple Asian languages because the layman probably doesn't know the difference between Chinese, Japanese, etc. scripts. Not sure how many articles there are, but something to keep in mind. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

{{nihongo title}} can be modified with perhaps an "italics" parameter added such that it only automatically bolds the item in the first parameter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a field |lede=yes/no to the templates and if yes put it and no don't?陣内_Jinnai 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that should be possible, and we wouldn't even need to have a "no" parameter. If lede=yes, produce text, otherwise no. That, at least, is within the realm of my limited templating experience. I was just wondering if it was possible to throw a "flag" on the template's first use where, if the flag has been thrown already, don't display the text again. I'm guessing not... but lede=yes should be very doable.

-- Joren (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me this solution allows the editor to choose when and when not to display this text (e.g., this doesn't have to only be used for the lede, maybe there are other situations (multi-language articles) where it becomes necessary. So, perhaps labels=yes? verbose=yes?

-- Joren (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Labels" sounds good. Should this be on by default, and the parameter must be set to "no" to turn it off? I think given that it provides context to the layman, that it would be useful overall. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Having these modifications on all the time in {{nihongo}} is not going to work. It would be a hell of a lot easier just to modify {{nihongo title}} with an "italics=on" option where it will always have "Japanese:" and "Hepburn:", but italics would be turned on or off.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would work fine for the lead, but not for other instances in the article body.

How about the changes be added permanently to Nihongo title with a parameter for italics, and add an optional parameter to the main Nihongo template to turn on when needed? That should provide the flexibility for different uses. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

The use of Japanese: and Hepburn: in the article body would be wholly unnecessary if the title template is in the lede. {{Nihongo}} does not need to be changed but {{nihongo title}} can take these proposed changes as it is not used as often.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement. However, my concern is that some articles mix Asian scripts (something generalized like Asian literature, which the layman probably can't distinguish. Just in case, I think the option would be beneficial in the main Nihongo template. In that template, it should be off by default, but still available to provide the appropriate context when needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

I'd argue in certain cases in the body it would be useful, particularly for articles which are not really related to Japanese culture, but may use something that does require the {{nihongo}} template. I cannot give a specific example offhand, but I could see this in a genre article like Role-playing video game if a specific example of a Japanese RPG needs to be mentioned that doesn't have an article.陣内_Jinnai 20:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a really rare case as something with an article would be wholly preferred over one that doesn't.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite rare indeed. But it could happen depending on what the sources we use say.

With the exceptions we've mentioned, I'd say there's cause to include the option in {{nihongo}}. I don't think it'll see much use, but the limited use will be helpful nonetheless. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree that having this as an option in the nihongo template seems useful; it should be off by default, since most use cases would have the labels at the beginning of the article and not afterwards (abstractly similar to our policy with overlinking). In articles with multiple languages, the editor can decide whether or not it needs to be used more than once... a bit of a tangent, but it is my recollection that lang-ja gets used sometimes in Jinnai's use case given above. I'm wondering if it would be helpful to update {{lang-ja}} to have it call nihongo with labels=yes?

-- Joren (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

{{lang-ja}} is an odd template because it doesn't allow for romaji. And there's some other template that I believe is ja-latn that improperly formats the English text by encoding it as such.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Case closed

By direction of the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard, this mediation case has been closed. I hope that the parties have been satisfied with the Committee's efforts in relation to this dispute. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)