Category talk:Lake Chokai

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Category talk:Lake Chōkai)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move request[edit]

Following this move request by @Yasu, @隐世高人 reverted it with a demand for a "real consensus". Given that the mountain request was also reverted without any explanation beyond what looks like a "I don't agree", please explain the rationale to ignore the official Japanese government naming of mountain and thus the lake. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have commented on administrators' noticeboard, there is an article “Mount Chōkai” in English wikipedia, the title of which is being spelled in traditional/modified Hepburn romanization since the creation of the article in 2005. And since Chōkai with the Hepburn romanization makes easier for the readers to know that it is the romanization of ちょうかい, I think it is better to keep the category as Lake Chōkai. So I vote  Oppose for re-renaming it to Category:Lake Chokai. Nota bene: There are already Chōkai (train), JS Chōkai (DDG-176), Chōkai (ship, 1932), all of which are derived from the mountain name. --トトト (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jmabel puts it, commonly recognisable name is preferred over “theoretically correct” one in naming a category. There may be some people who feel comfortable with Chōkai, but we can’t be sure how many such people are out there. I therefore think those who are against reinstating Chokai may need to show actual usage of Chōkai in the real world (i.e. outside the Wikimedia projects) at least, as no references/sources have been presented by 隐世高人 so far and the ships’ categories were created by トトト themselves. Note that Chokai is used by the U.S. Naval Institute, the U.S. Navy and even the Japanese Self Defence Fleet, among others, for the ships’ names. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an US navy site which uses the spelling Chōkai (“Mikawa broke his flag in heavy cruiser Chōkai and led light cruisers Tenryū and Yūbari and destroyer Yūnagi out of Rabaul.” [1]). Britannica also uses Chōkai (Yamagata: “Chōkai Quasi-national Park is crowned by Chōkai-zan...”). Those who wrote goverment websites may have bothered to type ō with their keyboards. We should not forget that commons is to expected to complement wikipedia, and there are already articles “Chōkai”, “Mount Chōkai”, “Japanese cruiser Chōkai” etc. Why deny enlighting users with knowledge, in this case a spelling which is easier to imagine the original Japanese word, for the sake of some government websites written by nerds? --トトト (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, so now we have “real” examples of Chōkai (finally). My question is, however, how can you tell Chokai is “written by nerds”, even if found in the US Navy website? And is there any compelling reason to favour such “enlighting users with knowledge” over others? Yasu (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: The paper "The Romanization of Japanese" in volume 3 issue 1-6 of the journal STUF - Language Typology and Universals by Akademie Verlag in 1949 described the Hepburn romanization ''attained great popularity, and came to be widely used not merely by English and other foreign people as an aid to learning the spoken language, but also by the Japanese themselves for various purposes''. Besides that, through the report (in Japanese) based on the public opinion survey related to the Japanese language conducted by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, a special institution belonging to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, in early 2022 for Japanese citizens over 16 years old, which was publicly released on the agency's website on 30 September 2022, more than 80% of the respondents prefer to use words of the Hepburn romanization when they use Japanese romanization in most situations. All of the above clearly shows and confirms that Hepburn romanization is the most widely used one among all Japanese romanizations, whether in Japan or anywhere else. 隐世高人 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both references merely imply that the Hepburn romanisation attains more popularity than the conventional system (Kunrei-shiki) does; they do not necessarily assure that Chōkai has more usage than Chokai. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: Are you sure you read the paper and the report above carefully? In the paper, there is only mention of the popularity of the Hepburn romanization and nothing in the paper on the comparison between it and Kunrei-shiki romanization that you said here. And besides the comparisons on the Hepburn romanization in the report, it didn't mention anything about removing all the phonetic marks from the Hepburn romanization as you asked, therefore the Hepburn romanization in the report by default refers to the standard Hepburn romanization with the phonetic marks. Meanwhile, the Chōkai with the macron is standard Hepburn romanization, while the Chokai that removed the macron is not. 隐世高人 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. Both the paper and the report describe people's general preference for the “standard” Hepburn romanisation, but those references fail to mention other variants of the Hepburn romanisation such as the Gaimusho-shiki and the road sign romaji which go without macrons (also, you can see there isn't single example of words with long vowels listed in those references). Hence, I don't think they count for proof of the standard Hepburn's popularity over other variants, nor Chōkai 's majority over Chokai. Now let me introduce another reference that would strengthen my opinion: according to this report published by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (who is in charge for deciding place names in Japan), in 2004 they conducted a survey of maps for foreigners published in Japan and directional traffic signs with place names written in alphabets installed in major cities and tourist attractions. The result is, of all place names surveyed there, 2 % used circumflexes (^) for long vowels, 27 % used macrons (¯) whilst a striking 71 % didn't use any diacritical marks at all. I believe that would be a proof of non-macron's popularity over macron, if not of Chokai 's majority over Chōkai. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: Not the point is your view. All you have provided so far are suggestions for place names in Japan by the Japanese government, and they didn't really and completely reflect the general use of any Japanese language romanization in any part of the world. With that in mind, as I have said above, I think the Hepburn romanization was referred to in the paper and the report I provided is the standard Hepburn romanization. Turning to the report from the Geospatial Information Authority that you provide here, within the section regarding the usage of romanization in the report, their survey was limited to maps published only in Japan. (or it could be said that they were surveying whether maps published in Japan complied with the romanization writing system that they suggested on behalf of the Japanese government, which had removed all the phonetic marks from the Hepburn romanization as you asked), though within the next section regarding the usage of signs on maps in the same report, the range of the survey covers 24 of kinds maps from 9 different nations from all over the world, including Japan. (which indicates that they also surveyed maps from other nations in this report, but didn't describe the related survey results for these maps within the section regarding the usage of romanization) Furthermore, the usage of the Japanese language romanization in the maps cannot represent the general use of any romanization system from the Japanese language romanization anywhere in the real world, as it is probably not used by people in the real world with the same romanization system in the maps. On the title naming for the categories on the Commons, we should follow the usage of most people on the Japanese language romanization, that is the Hepburn romanization. 隐世高人 (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they were surveying whether maps published in Japan complied with the romanization writing system that they suggested on behalf of the Japanese government, such a conspiracy theory doesn't count. What counts is the fact that there is the majority of 71 % long vowels without macrons, compared to a mere 27 % with macrons, not only on maps but also on road signs. This apparently shows the actual usage of non-macron form of romanisation in the real world. Nonetheless you are deliberately ignoring that there are variations in the Hepburn romanisation, insisting that the Hepburn romanisation means by default the standard Hepburn with macrons and that the standard Hepburn is the most widely used romanisation system (both of which I think are not necessarily true). If you continue to repeat such claims, you need to provide a further reference that describes the standard Hepburn (i.e. long vowels with macrons) is actually used more than the other variations of Hepburn that don't use macrons anywhere in the world. And if you fail to do so, your claims will be nothing but groundless theories, as there already is evidence that the non-standard Hepburn is actually used more than the standard Hepburn. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: The fact should be that usage of the Japanese language romanization in maps and on road signs cannot represent the general use of any romanization system from the Japanese language romanization anywhere in the real world at all because these two only make up the minority of the usage of languages and words in the real world, and furthermore the information on the usage of the Japanese language romanization in both of them, which you provided here, are limited to in Japan and cannot make sense of the details usage of them in anywhere else in the real world, while you're not giving explanations regarding why the Geospatial Information Authority didn't describe the usage of any romanization system from the Japanese language romanization in maps from other nations in their report, which is also provided by you here. In addition, it is you who is refuting the information on the usage of the Japanese language romanization that was provided by me here, and arguing the modified Hepburn romanization system suggested by the Japanese government, which had intentionally removed all the phonetic marks from the Hepburn romanization as you asked, is used more than the standard Hepburn romanization system in the real world, therefore that it is you who needs to provide further data to confirm what you think, rather than by me to provide new information to support my claims. If you fail to do so here, then making assertions with groundless theories is up to you, not me. 隐世高人 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I necessarily have to “provide further data”, but according to this paper there was a survey held among 68 university students asking how they wrote 神戸 in romaji. Result: 15 students used diacritical marks (it is not specified whether it was macron or circumflex), 16 wrote non-standard form of Koube whilst the majority of 37 used no diacritical marks at all. The paper suggests this result may owe to road signs in Japan that don't use macron, which the students (and supposedly most people in Japan) were familiar with. Either way, as these surveys confirm the usage of non-standard Hepburn (namely long vowels without macron) in the real world, it is you who need to present counterevidence to go with your claims. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: Firstly, it is you who is refuting the information on the usage of the Japanese language romanization to prove my view that was provided by me here, then you must provide further data to confirm what you are thinking and it isn't groundless theories from yourself. Secondly, the information you provided only proved that the uses of the modified Hepburn romanization system with intentionally removed all the phonetic marks are existing in the real world when using romanization of the Japanese language, but it cannot confirm the exact situation of the use for the system. Besides, let me say again that usage of the Japanese language romanization on road signs and such cannot represent the general use of any romanization system from the Japanese language romanization anywhere in the real world, and that even if every person were familiar with this since they maybe not agree with it themselves and they don't use it like so, as they couldn't do anything with them. Lastly, Kobe to the same type of special case as Osaka, which was mentioned by トトト in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, in the romanization of the Japanese language, and doesn't have comparative referential meanings here. 隐世高人 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided multiple examples of non-standard Hepburn usage in the real world and yet you keep refusing to accept them, whilst you won't (or maybe can't) present a single evidence to prove your claims? What a shame. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: Aha, you called "shame" on me? I provided here extracts from the paper on the usage of Hepburn romanization among English speakers and others around the world and the official report about the general use of Hepburn romanization among Japanese citizens from the Japanese government, but you refuted that fail to mention the usage of the modified Hepburn romanization system with intentionally removed all the phonetic marks in either of both and deemed these to be the system actually in them. Just as I said above, however, "the information you provided only proved that the uses of the modified Hepburn romanization system with intentionally removed all the phonetic marks are existing in the real world when using romanization of the Japanese language, but it cannot confirm the exact situation of the use for the system", and all you have provided states the system only exists mainly in the romanization of the Japanese language related to the Japanese government as the system are suggested by them. Then you keep insisting on your "groundless theories" now with failed to provide further data to show the exact situation of the use for the system and calling "shame" on me, it should be felt ashamed by you who said the word "shame", isn't it? 隐世高人 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm and don't get me wrong, I never said shame on you or you should be ashamed or such. Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, your “extracts from the paper” merely say that people in Japan generally prefers the Hepburn romanisation over Kunrei-shiki; they does not show if the standard Hepburn is used more than the non-standard Hepburn, thus your claims cannot be confirmed by the source. It's totally up to you if you provide additional references, but failing to do so will significantly weaken your position. Last but not least, I also have to mention that it is you who refuted the community-accepted naming Chokai in the first place. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yasu: Huh, I'm getting you "wrong"? Did I say wrong about any of the things I mentioned above? (including the word "shame") Meantime, you still keep insisting on your theories with all the facts I mentioned. 隐世高人 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are getting it wrong (including the word shame). If you continue to refuse to present a concrete example showing the majority of the standard Hepburn over the non-standard in the real world, then it will be no use discussing any further – it will be only a waste of time.
Pinging @Ricky81682, Jmabel: any ideas to get rid of this deadlock? Yasu (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: Lol, I'm getting you "wrong" with the facts? That's really interesting. Maybe you're not aware of what l said here and you continued to keep insisting on your groundless theories to "waste the time" as you're unwilling to face all the facts that l mentioned above. 隐世高人 (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems noone pays attention to your unprovable and groundless theories now. 隐世高人 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this discussion started in the first place because your reverts without explanation were not approved. (Ricky81682, correct me if I'm wrong.) That means you have to prove your claims by presenting a real example, not a theory which you inaccurately call a “fact”. Either way, we'll soon see which one of us is right. Yasu (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: Whatever you said, I've already provided information here to prove my views, but you as I said above, failed to provide further data to confirm your theories that refute my views and are "wasting the time" to continuing keep insisting on your groundless theories here. If you still continue to keep doing so, that only shows your theories are unprovable. 隐世高人 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, no more repeating yourself; it's time to listen to third parties. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: You need to know that Hepburn romanization was invented mainly for the English language and its speakers since its inventor was a native English speaker, and suggested names by the Japanese government are created through the intentional removal of all the phonetic marks from the Hepburn romanization. (the words aren't attached to any romanization system of the Japanese language due to the act of the Japanese government) 隐世高人 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: I have replied to User:Jmabel clearly that "the Hepburn romanization is the most widely used romanization for the Japanese language worldwide, and it is mentioned in the Hepburn romanization and the romanization of Japanese on the enwp, (you can edit it yourself if you think not)" With the need to show actual usage by how many people in the real world that you brought up, well then could you show detailed numbers of how many people are using the system by the Japanese government within Japan in the real world? If you cannot, please do not ask for such requests in the issues, again. 隐世高人 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you get it wrong, I didn't request “the detailed numbers” of people using Chōkai out there; a few examples of Chōkai would be enough. But either way, if the Hepburn romanisation was actually the most widely used system, then it should be much easier to show such examples of Chōkai than those of Chokai, right? I don't think I am demanding too much. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who "invented" whatever romanization. It is a English-Japanese translation attempt so you are either going to have it invented by a native English speaker, a native Japanese speaker or someone very odd. What logic is that? If the government uses it, why is your personal opinion so important? Many en:Romanization of Japanese were not popular and this is the one the Japanese government chose to use so that's good enough to me to pick as the choice to the name of this category to store media in. Either way, a redirect is sufficient in the very oddball chance someone using an English-language keyboard is going to type it in. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Government workers in Japan do their jobs for the ministry they belong to, but not necessarily for the country Japan itself, nor for encyclopedic objectivity. If one believes in everything the Government of Japan publishes, Category:Seta River, for example, should be renamed as Category:Setagawa River because of the sign: . This cannot be the rationale on which commons categories are to be determined. --トトト (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: No, there has a most popular romanization of the Japanese language now, it's the Hepburn romanization! Therefore the naming rules for the categories on the Commons need to follow the idiomatic preferences of most people, rather than following the unpopular modified Hepburn system suggested by the Japanese government that is not attached to any romanization systems. So it is not my personal opinion, and this is based on the idiomatic preferences for the romanization of the Japanese language of most people. 隐世高人 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the subcategories in Category:Seta River except for one are named "Setagawa." So it probably wouldn't make a difference if the category was Category:Setagawa River. In this case it seems like people prefer "Chōkai" since that's how most of the categories with that name are. So if it were me I'd just go with that. Although I'm not going to vote on it since admittedly I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the usage of special characters in category names. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Let me summarise this prolonged discussion so far, for future reference:

See also: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 91#User:隐世高人, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 104#User:隐世高人 and edit histories of Category:Mount Chokai/Category:Mount Chōkai

Facts
Claims by 隐世高人
  • The Hepburn romanisation is the most used system in Japanese romanisation and the standard Hepburn system uses a macron to indicate a long vowel.
  • This paper and this report show the popularity of the standard Hepburn over other romanisation systems.
Claims by Yasu
  • Hepburn romanisation has many variants, and some of them do not use macrons for long vowels.
  • According to a report by the GSI, Japanese place names with long vowels, as seen in maps and road signs, are 71 % written without any diacritical marks and a mere 27% with macrons.
  • Another paper says a survey among 68 university students resulted in only 15 students using diacritical marks whilst 37 going without such marks, showing the majority of the non-macron form over the macron form.
  • 隐世高人's paper and report merely indicate that the Hepburn system is generally preferred than the traditional Kunrei-shiki system; they do not directly mention long vowels, so they cannot prove the majority of the standard Hepburn (macron form) over the non-standard (non-macron form).
  • 隐世高人 should present additional reference that proves macron form is actually used more than non-macron form, but 隐世高人 fails to do so.

Feel free to add or correct. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claims by トトト
  • Chōkai is already being used by authentic English writings e.g. Encycloepedia Britannica. The Hepburn has an absolute merit of being friendly to those who have little knowledge with Japanese language, because it is closer to the real pronunciation of the original Japanses word. If one writes an academic essay on history of Japan, ā ē ū ō cannot be omitted. Here is how it is being used in a modern acamdemic work: “Supporting surface forces: the main force of the surface unit of the Malaya Unit ([consisting of] five heavy cruisers (the flagship Chōkai, and the Kumano, the Suzuya, the Mikuma and the Mogami of the 7th Cruiser Division), one aircraft carrier (the Ryūjō), two auxiliary seaplane tenders (the Kamikawa-maru and the Sagara-maru), six destroyers, etc.).” The Operations of the Navy in the Dutch East Indies and the Bay of Bengal (Remmelink, Willem et al) [colored by トトト]
  • Category names in commons should be friendly to all the users. In this sense, Chōkai with macron is the most suitable name. トトト (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Request for comments at Village pump[edit]

I admit I have very little Japanese (probably about what is typical for an educated West Coast U.S. Anglo-American), so I don't know what my opinion is worth here, but I'm certainly most familiar with the modified Hepburn without macrons ("Chokai" here). - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing the term “modified Hepburn” because Modified Hepburn uses macron as default. The one that Yasu is very fond of is “pseudo-Hepburn” without academic background, so to speak. --トトト (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it, there are quite a few officially used variants of the Hepburn romanisation that do not use macrons. And use of macrons is discouraged by academics when readers are not familiar with Japanese language. Given that Commons users do not necessarily have Japanese knowledge, category names should go without macrons. Or at least for place names, as there will be no compelling reason to ignore/overturn the GSI regulation. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The style guide of the Japan Review, an academic journal published by the International Research Center for Japanese Studies, says , “Long vowels should be indicated using ō, ū.” “Provide macrons for all long vowels except in anglicized words such as Shinto, and main islands and cities such as Hokkaido, Honshu, Tokyo” [page 7]. The UT document you have cited is assumed to be for everyday colloquial sentences, but not for academic papers to be published. --トトト (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@トトト: which could cut equally either way, since Commons is not an academic paper. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed at your lack of imagination. Hepburn romanization has been used in Encyclopedia Britatnica or academic papers or because it itself is informative. And I, as a commons user, have been hanging around this project because it is a fun place to browse around. One can move from a category to another with a simple click, and while doing so one becomes interested in a new topic or an object. That is why a category name is better to be informative itself.
Donald Keene, an American-born historian said: The pronunciation of Japanese in transcription is very simple. The consonants are pronounced as in English (with g always hard), the vowels as in Italian. There are no silent letters. Thus, the name Ise is pronounced "ee-say." Note that these sentences are is in his book with Japanese words spelled with genuine Hepburn.
With genuine Hepburn, a non-native user can get a better grasp of the word, since it enables him to imagine how to pronounce it. It also enables Japan-native users to guess or trace the original Japanese word easily. When one browses categories of a location that he is less acquainted with, a distinction between a short vowel and long vowel is especially helpful. If ō or ū has been stripped from a category name, a Japan-native user often has to click and open the category to identify what object it represents, which is quite a degradation of usability. When category names function as though an index of a book, just as in this example, such extra clicks are unnecessary.
And commons users are actually getting used to Hepburn romanization, since most of the train station categories of Japan are spelled with genuine Hepburn (see this category). This owes mostly to the good old Japanese National Railways, which spelled the station name signs with genuine Hepburn. So the fact that Commons being a image reservoir doesn't mean that every Japan-realated category name should be pseudo-anglicized as Tokyo or Kyoto.
So I reitelate that there's more upsides to spell a Japan-related category with genuine Hepburn for all the users . And a cateogory name spelled with genuine Hepburn often matches with the article name of English wikipedia. So, nothing difficult at all. If a category is being spelled with genuin Hepburn, leave it just as it is, because it is more informative than a pseudo-Anglicized one. --トトト (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine Hepburn is, indeed, marginally more likely to get Japanese pronounced correctly by foreigners at a certain level of knowledge of the language, but if you've ever heard an American who has never studied Japanese try to pronounce even "Shinjuku" or "sayonara", typically they don't even know that they don't even know what syllable gets emphasized. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier in this debate, there is no reason to favour Japanese-speaking users over others. Out of the world population (8 billion), native Japanese speakers count up to 128 million, and those who learn Japanese as a foreign language are at a mere 3.6 million. We cannot be sure users with no knowledge of Japanese language (more than 7.8 billion) would care if long vowels had macrons or not, as such people would not be able to pronounce long vowels correctly even when the vowels had macrons. That said, it would be the best way to go with the non-macron form that is proven to be de facto for place names. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said earlier, genuine Hepburn not only helps Japanese users but also non-native users. Jmabel also admitted it above. And that's why it has been used in Encyclopedia Britannica and academic papers. So let's stop this nonsense discussion. There is no problem if a commons category matches with the name of the corresponding the article in English wikipedia. --トトト (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that essentially no one outside of Japanese speakers know or care about Hepburn, genuine or otherwise. Nor would most people pronounce long vowels when they see a macron or whatever. It makes sense that Hepburn would be used in academic papers, because it's academia. The target audience of Commons isn't solely people who have PhDs in linguistic studies though. You've really lost the plot if that's who your trying to cater the names of categories to. Sure the English Wikipedia article uses it, but we don't base category names purely on the titles of Wikipedia articles. In fact we frequently do the exact opposite. It's not like people can't just name Wikipedia articles whatever they want to either. So the title of an article is in no way authoritative. Especially not in cases like this one were the general consensus clearly leans toward using the style that most people can write and understand for the name. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title of an English wikipedia is important, because it's a standard of how a Japanese word should be spelled in an international project like commons. And categories like neighborhoods, writers, generals, shrines, railway lines, stations and rivers are already written with genuine Hepburn. And usabilty of these categories will be hugely degraded if distinctions of short vowels and long vowels are to be stripped off. If an ordinally user outside of Japan doens't care whether it's genuine Hepburn or no, then we should take into consideration whether it's usable for those who browse these categories most. I see no general consensus leaning toward pseudo-Anglicization of every Japan-related category, which is simply ridiculous and impractical. --トトト (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have such wrong views on the standard Hepburn romanization likely being that you've never had any experience with learning the Japanese language. What you need and should know is that the people who learn the Japanese language anywhere in this world other than Japan, are learning the Hepburn romanization only is the standard Hepburn romanization, not the modified Hepburn romanization system with intentionally removed all the phonetic marks and which is suggested by the Japanese government. I said below here that "the views on the decision from the Japanese speakers who are non-Japanese users on the Commons" should also be under consideration, not to be considered the views from other non-Japanese users on the Commons, including the ones who are never familiar with the Japanese language. Therefore the ones who are to participate in the discussion here need to have learned the Japanese language or be familiar with it at least. RZuo, do you think? 隐世高人 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the book I used in first learning Japanese (I believe it was an early edition of Japanese for Busy People, but it's been so long I could be mistaken) used modified Hepburn without the macrons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop referring to your believe here that is groundless. The opinions/believes from anyone in the discussion that may impact important decisions on the Commons should be needed to provide reliable information, through their own, to confirm these, or else these are groundless. And are you sure that you are really familiar with the Japanese language? 隐世高人 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have minimal Japanese, but in particular: I'm at exactly the level of needing to use something like Hepburn because I'm not really literate in kanji or kana. - Jmabel ! talk 14:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@トトト: English Wikipedia has its own naming convention, and we are not necessarily obliged to follow suit, as Commons is not Wikipedia. And in case you missed it again, train station names in Japan are written with macron because they are named in accordance with the Railway Standard, which is also a variant of Hepburn and not what you call “genuine” Hepburn. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

imho, the decision about which romanisation scheme to use for japanese names, can only be decided by the japanese users of wikimedia commons, or all the japanese users of wiki projects. i would suggest a poll be made and invitations to vote be sent to japanese wiki projects.

other than japanese users, i would think certain authoritative organisations for reference could be the japanese government; japanese universities, libraries and archives; (if exists) japanese organisation in charge of english translation; library of congress romanisation table File:ALA-LC Romanization Table Japanese (2022).pdf.--RZuo (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me I'd just go with "Chokai" since most people in the world don't have the ability to type it out with the special character above the O, which I assume is why we favor Latin scripts for category names to begin with. That said, at the end of the day it's probably something that needs to be worked out by Japanese users per RZuo's comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to type Chōkai to reach this category. By simply typing Category:Chokai in the search box, Category:Chōkai (ship, 1932) will be shown immediately thanks to the newest wikisystem. --トトト (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but if people are making new categories related to Chokai they will have to do it with the special character. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a category is a darn important editing. One should take a second to copy and paste Chōkai to do so. --トトト (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a complicated word or phrase sure, but that's not what this is. It would be ridiculous to expect people to copy and paste the the name of a category if it's only a few letters long just because it has a special character in it that doesn't need to be there in the first place. I'm pretty sure we actually have guidelines about that. Like you can't just put random nonsense characters into a category name. Same goes for non-Latin characters. Like if someone created a category title with all Latin letters except they randomly inserted a kanji character into it for no reason no one is going to just be like "well, it's important editing. So you should just copy and paste the name. Shrug." I don't really see why this is any different. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody omits umplaut when creating a subcategory of Büren (Westfalen), whether ü is easy to type or no. It is irrelavant indeed. The same can be said with ā ē ū ō. These are not nonsense characters at all, but in fact used commonly under Category:Neighbourhoods of Kita-ku, Nagoya, for example. If they are to be prohibited in commons, a chaos will reign over this project; because it will be difficult to imagine the original Japanese words even for native Japanese users. --トトト (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their random nonsense characters for people who don't know what they are or have the ability to type them out with their keyboards if they want to create a category with the word "Chokai" in it. That's no insult to diacritics or whatever though. Anyway, your claim that it would be chaos if we didn't use is clearly hyperbolic. There's essentially zero functional or actual difference between "Chokai" and "Chōkai" when it's written out. I'm not an expert when it comes to the Japanese language by any means, but I have enough faith in our Japanese users to believe that they can deal with it perfectly fine even the diacritic is absent from the word. Although I did say it should ultimately be up to the Japanese community to decided. So it's not like I'm saying my opinion is the only correct one or that it should be followed. Really, either one is "correct" and it mostly comes down to personal preference, but again, Japanese users should make the final decision one way or another. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like トトト said above, you only need to "simply typing" Chokai "in the search box," the pages with Chōkai "will be shown immediately" and vice versa. And if your keyboard cannot support when you want to type Chōkai, then you can "take a second to copy and paste". Meanwhile, why couldn't we pick the one with the most popular worldwide when "there's essentially zero functional or actual difference between" the two "when it's written out"? 隐世高人 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like トトト said above I'm aware of what トトト|トトト said and how search works. Like I said above, my comment had to do with creating categories with the name "Chokai" in them, not searching for the word. So what's your point? Or are you just reiterating something I already knew and that has nothing to do with my original comment?
why couldn't we pick the one with the most popular worldwide We could, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to do that. Otherwise I assume that's what we would be doing right now. Although it does beg the question of how exactly we would go about determining what the most popular way of writing it world wide is. My is that it would be without the diacritic since most people in the world don't have a way to type it that way, but then I'm sure people who write it with the diacritic would find a reason to say that's invalid, faulty logic. Same goes for people who want it to not have the diacritic and metric your going to use to determine which form is most popular. The only sure thing here is that you and 隐世高人|隐世高人 have essentially beat the discussion into the ground without this being resolved. Hench why I think it should be left up to other people. Or both of you could just continue talking in circles about it. I could ultimately care less, but I would like to see this figured out and I don't see that happening without consulting with an outside party. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the categories are being created through typing with the keyboard, why couldn't the people who cannot support these on their keyboards when they typing, to creating categories in the way that was quoted from トトト in my second point above? Therefore your opposing point exactly isn't the point! 隐世高人 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where or when did I say categories can't be created by copy and pasting the name? It seems like both of you just need something to argue about. I'm not changing my opinion that people shouldn't be forced into doing that way if their keyboards don't support diacritics. In the meantime this tangential side conversation clearly isn't going anyway. So it would be cool if both of you dropped it. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your words, all people should be abandoned to use Latin letters with phonetic marks when some people's keyboards don't support them, instead of being "forced" the latter "into doing that way". But why are there still using Latin letters with phonetic marks in many places in this world, and why the categories with Latin letters with phonetic marks in their titles, like the subcategory Büren (Westfalen) mentioned by トトト above, are still been creating on the Commons? 隐世高人 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask whomever created the category. That said, people do all kinds of things that go against the consensus or guidelines. That's obviously not an argument though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you not only lack familiarity with the Japanese language, but also with the naming rules for the categories on the Commons. As I mentioned within the section User:隐世高人 in the page Administrators' noticeboard on the Commons, as per the naming rules, the standard Hepburn romanization that is most popular (I have provided information above here to support this statement and noone could provide additional effective information on the Commons to negate this so far) shall be used as the title name of the categories related to Japan that use Japanese words on the Commons. 隐世高人 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can conclude that when I didn't even give an opinion about why the person who created the category (which isn't even in Japanese BTW) did it with "ü" instead of "u", but sure. I don't know anything about the Japanese language or how to name categories because I said you should ask the person who created the category why did it that way. Whatever you say. It's rather ironic that in your last message you asked Jmabel to stop referring to their "groundless" believes and then proceeded to do the exact same thing in your next message. You and トトト clearly just need something to argue about. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel and Adamant1: It seems that you're never familiar with the Japanese language, and certainly cannot understand the Hepburn romanization, meanwhile, continuing to debate with the ones who do never familiar with these in this discussion for coming to the decisions related to this discussion is not helpful overall, and therefore to avoid continuing waste time and other resources, in my opinion, it doesn't need to continue to debate with you in this discussion. Maybe you think you're winning, but it's just because you are never familiar with the Japanese language, and I don't want to continue to debate with the ones who are never familiar with the Japanese language in this discussion, it just like the sheep never understand what the meaning of the horse neighs when they are met, and the ones who are never familiar with the Japanese language never understand what I'm talking about when I tell them some information about the romanization of the Japanese language and the Hepburn romanization, too. I wouldn't debate with you on the issue of the romanization of the Japanese language in this discussion unless you have already finished the full familiarity or the formal study of the language. Of course, if there are other people whose real familiarity or finished formal study of the Japanese language to participate in this discussion with their own views, I'm willing to continue the exchange of views with them for reaching a decisive consensus associated with this discussion. 隐世高人 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@隐世高人: speaking for a moment as an admin, I strongly suggest you stop insulting other users, myself included.
Taking off my admin hat: (1) For what it's worth: I worked several years of my life in software internationalization. I wrote the bulk of the documentation about internationalization in the Microsoft Windows SDK, and worked closely with the Microsoft team that are collectively known as "Dr. International". I may not have particularly deep expertise on the Japanese language, but I'm well beyond being a random user who has wandered into this discussion. If the purpose of this were only for fluent Japanese speakers, we presumably wouldn't be using Romanization at all, we'd be using kanji and kana, and assume that users had access to an appropriate Input Method Editor. (2) I have only very elementary Japanese. I suspect that, on a worldwide basis of users, that makes me a lot more typical user than not. I doubt that more than 10% of people who use Commons have advanced or fluent Japanese, probably fewer. (3) If you look back through the discussion, you will see that I have not taken a side between Hepburn as such and modified Hepburn. I've just asserted that we should consider that modified Hepburn is also quite widespread (including, from what I remember from visiting, in Japan). I personally don't think there is a clear case either way. (4) Yes, I fully understand what the macron signifies in terms of pronunciation, and that it is a more accurate representation of how the word is pronounced. Given that the most proper way to write most Japanese words -- Kanji -- provides no phonetic clues at all, that doesn't seem like a particularly clinching argument. Nor does academic use necessarily trump more vernacular use. Plenty of categories on Commons use relatively vernacular names when a more formal name exists. For example, we refer to "Mexico", not the "United Mexican States" and, for that matter, "Munich", not "München". I suspect that almost no English-speaker would ever think to write "Tōkyō" instead of "Tokyo" unless they were transcribing a sentence written in Japanese. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I have no idea which letters in my words above "insulting" you, but the use of the word "insult" by you made you more interesting than Yasu. Probably you pride yourself on your internationalization achievements for languages and are also proud of the title "Dr. International", but I, via your post related to the Japanese language in issues associated with the language here, haven't seen your professionalism on the language in each word, and therefore I believe you cannot make good estimates to the Japanese language in the discussions related to the language. Every letter I'm putting here now is irrelevant to whether you are an admin anywhere or other, and I wish you, as an admin, would be more rational with some facts, such as your familiarity with the Japanese language still having numerous shortages. 隐世高人 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"never familiar with the Japanese language…certainly cannot understand the Hepburn romanization…never familiar with the Japanese languag…never familiar with the Japanese language…like the sheep never understand what the meaning of the horse neighs when they are met…never familiar with the Japanese language [that's four times]." If you can't see how that's insulting, I don't know what to say. Again: the demand that only those with fluency in Japanese can have an opinion on how to romanize it is absurd. It's as if someone were to say that only someone fluent in English could have a meaningful opinion on how to write English loan words in katakana. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeatedly employed "the Japanese language" here to underscore the scope of the languages, it didn't bear insulting implications and I don't think there has any insult meaning in such employment. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The insulting thing about your comment is comparing other users to animals, not that underscored the scope of languages or whatever. Not that you were underscoring anything having to do with the scope of languages to begin with anyway though, but regardless, it's pretty insulting to make allusions to farmyard animals when discussing other users. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These words and ideas as your own and I cannot make any operative change to them, therefore I have no intention to respond to them on this issue you have raised at present. 隐世高人 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The decision shouldn't be limited to only being made by Japanese users of any wikis, whatever the decision to make in any way, considering that the Commons is neither a website in the Japanese language nor a website in Japan that provides services. As a global English language website to provide services for the world, the views on the decision from the Japanese speakers who are non-Japanese users on the Commons are also important. 隐世高人 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have no knowledge about japanese transliteration. i would just follow the library of congress. File:ALA-LC Romanization Table Japanese (2022).pdf section 2.5 says long vowels are transcribed with macrons. RZuo (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i support moving to "Lake Chokai" (without macron), because road signs are written this way, e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/hdNW3kpdxxG1iJZJ6 . RZuo (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, how will you respond to these about what I put here earlier today? 隐世高人 (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@隐世高人: your link simply points to the comment RZuo just made. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: Sorry, it should be this one. 隐世高人 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@隐世高人: "the scope of the languages" is not coherent enough English for me to make head or tail of it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 202306[edit]

determine a name following these steps:

  1. if a name has a commonly used, official english name, use that. for example, if it's an international company, it has websites/social media accounts, it's registered in govt databases and has an english name, etc.
  2. if it appears on road signs, and the road signs have an english translation, use that.
  3. however, if there are multiple names according to #1 and #2, and they are all commonly used, then we follow library of congress's transliteration guide (File:ALA-LC Romanization Table Japanese (2022).pdf). (which means, if i read it correctly, use macrons.) we also create redirects from the variant without macrons to the actual titles.

guys, i really have not much knowledge about japanese language or its transliteration, and i havent read your long passages, but here i give this proposal, just in hopes that yall could spend less of your beautiful life on this problem.--RZuo (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really have not much knowledge about Japanese language I can almost guarantee that people like 隐世高人 wouldn't care about how proficient me or Jmabel are in Japanese if we agreed with them. Also, I'd love to use that excuse in CfDs having to do with English since most of the people who participate in them clearly don't know jack about how to speak the language properly. Unfortunately (or really not) that line of criticism only seems to be OK when non-English speakers use it to try and get their way though, not the other way around. Anyway, more on topic, who cares how the Library of Congress translates it? "Their just a non-Japanese American source who doesn't know anything about the language!!" probably no one is going to say even if it's the truth. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, I wouldn't debate with the ones who do never familiar with the Japanese language on the issue of the romanization of the Japanese language in this discussion, unless there are ones whose real familiarity or finished formal study of the Japanese language to participate in this discussion with their own views. 隐世高人 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent proposal, but let me remind you that, as place names in Japan are to be written without macrons under the governmental (and international) guideline, they would automatically fall into the #1 spot, I think. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said here above, the modified Hepburn romanization system suggested by the Japanese government, which had intentionally removed all the phonetic marks from the Hepburn romanization as you asked, cannot represent the own choice of all Japanese citizens in Japan in any meaning, and the Japanese language romanization on road signs and such even if these citizens don't agree with it themselves and they don't use it like so, but they couldn't do anything with them. And that you are asking on the Commons exactly further reinforces the actions of the Japanese government and the arbitrarily making the choice on behalf of all Japanese citizens in Japan by yourself. 隐世高人 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter which romanisation system represents the own choice of Japanese people; as you previously put it, Commons is a global English language website to provide services for the world, so its category names should not be decided solely by Japanese-speaking users. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, as per the naming rules for the categories on the Commons, the idiomatic preferences of all ones in the real world who really familiar with the Japanese language, including the Japanese ones in and out of Japan, shall be used as the title names of the categories related to Japan that use Japanese words on the Commons, and you're just arbitrarily making the choice on behalf of they by yourself here. Yeah, although I mentioned above that the Commons is "a global English language website to provide services for the world," I still said that the decisive decision should only be made by Japanese speakers, (or at least the ones who really familiar with the Japanese language) which is the same reason that the decisive decisions related to the English language on the Commons should only be made by English speakers (surely as above similar, or at least the ones who really familiar with the English language) and not by the ones who never really familiar with this language. 隐世高人 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am “arbitrarily making the choice” on behalf of Japanese people. Studies show that the non-macron form is much more used than the macron form for place names in Japan, and in the first place, the people who created the government guideline are Japanese. Anyway, I'm not really sure how much familiar you are with the Japanese language since I never saw you writing in Japanese, but if you didn't speak Japanese at all, you are still welcome to this discussion. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, you're wasting time to continue keeping insist on your groundless theories and claims here, which are failing to overall refute the information that was provided by me here to prove my view on the usage of the Japanese language romanization. For instance, you said that "the people who created the government guideline are Japanese", but like you, they are only representing a minority of the citizens in Japan, and cannot represent the whole of the Japanese. Therefore I won't intend to respond to these groundless claims by you here until you could provide further data to confirm what you think and unless you writing other words here that are not from these claims. 隐世高人 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally up to you if you abandon this discussion, but before you do that you need to know that the information provided by you does not represent the whole of the Japanese either, as it does not endorse that the macron form is actually used more than the non-macron form. In that sense, it is you who really is insisting groundless theories and claims here. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, not to waste time anymore, I am ready to accept the RZuo's proposal. Indeed, I think this is such a breakthrough for this prolonged discussion. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to accept the RZuo's proposal. +2. That seems like the only way this will reasonably be worked out. The conversation is clearly at a dead end otherwise though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the knowledge that I know that the information that was provided by me here, which is referred to many people worldwide, including most Japanese people, in the real world. Maybe these information doesn't completely reflect whether the usage of the standard Hepburn romanization with the phonetic marks is more than the modified Hepburn romanization system with intentionally removed all the phonetic marks, but for now, the facts are that these information has set the position of the standard Hepburn romanization in the romanization of the Japanese language on the international level whereas you cannot prove in totality that these information contains the modified Hepburn romanization system and you failed to provide further data to confirm you said that the usage of the modified Hepburn romanization system is higher, the facts above show well which is the one who continues keeping insisting on his groundless theories and claims here. Therefore I didn't deem the present situation was any breakthrough for the discussions, and if it was, that's just that it was attained with your continued wasting time and other resources to continue keeping insist on your groundless theories and claims here. 隐世高人 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What matters here is how long vowels are generally written (with or without macrons) in the real world, and fact is that you failed to provide data to confirm long vowels with macrons have more usage than those without macrons. So if you continue to insist on your theories, you have to give us convincing proofs of macrons. Otherwise, stop repeating yourself and accept this proposal – then we will be all set. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you prove in totality that the information on the usage of the Japanese language romanization, which was provided by me here to prove my view on issues contains the modified Hepburn romanization system with intentionally removed all the phonetic marks? No, you've only proved that the uses of the modified Hepburn romanization system are existing in the real world when using romanization of the Japanese language. And did you provide further data to confirm you said that the usage of the modified Hepburn romanization system is higher? Never! Even you haven't provided any relevant data that is useful for it here. Those show well which is the one who wastes time and other resources to continue keeping insisting on his groundless theories and claims here, and your doing here above are clear demonstrations of how the one who did so continually accuses the opposite side as such one. 隐世高人 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you have proved here so far is that the Hepburn romanisation is somewhat popular than other Japanese romanisation systems, not that the macron form is more used in the real world than the non-macron form. And I am pretty sure my opinion is not at all groundless as I have already provided relevant data to prove the non-macron form has more usage than the macron form. So again, you have to provide convincing proofs of macrons to continue your argument, or stop wasting time and accept this proposal. Don't make me repeat three times. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just implement RZuo's proposal so this be done with already. 隐世高人 is going to have an issue with this no matter what and their objection shouldn't overrule everyone else opinions that the proposal is the best way to resolve this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not at all hesitant to do that as long as no further objections come up, say, within a week or two. @Jmabel, do you see any problems with this proposal? Yasu (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I feel this has all been much ado about nothing. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you're just stubborn to still be wasting each and every one of the resources and continue keeping insist on your full spectrum of groundless theories and claims here, and under such circumstances, if I continue to discuss these issues with you on them, then it's simply to continue wasting each of the resources of the ones involved in the issues along with you, here. But as I have said above, I would still welcome "other people whose real familiarity or finished formal study of the Japanese language to participate in this discussion with their own views" and to reach "a decisive consensus associated with this discussion" with "the exchange of views with them". 隐世高人 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that everyone (except one who keeps refusing to get the point) seems to reach a consensus at last, we would be better off reinstating the non-macron category names as listed below (feel free to add if I am missing something):

Some of them have already been put on the CommonsDelinker commands. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You call that what you continue keeping insist on groundless theories and claims with you cannot confirm when there is nothing to show the overall data within the people in the real world who are familiar with the Japanese language on their preferences related to the romanization of the Japanese language to be "a consensus"? Well, it's a nice definition for the word consensus! 隐世高人 (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to be a good loser. You were not able to convince us, you have to face that fact. And consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that in this discussion, you have shown or confirmed nothing to support your theories in totality. In your words, meanwhile, the "consensus" is just to find others, in the discussion, who agree with your theories, and not to get more recognition via providing information or showing data here. Oh, maybe we should call this move as "looking for mates", rather than "seek consensus". On the basis of all the facts that have been showcased here, it's more like you need to learn to be a good loser, and not me. 隐世高人 (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems you persistently refuse to accept to be a loser (although I believe you are). Either way, as this discussion has come to a conclusion, it is no use repeating yourself anymore. Learn something from this thing and move forward. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way to see that you've failed to show any data or provide any information to support your theories in totality up until now for over half of the year, and this is the reason why it still cannot "move forward" in the discussion associated with the issues. 隐世高人 (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Lake_Chokai&oldid=813906971"