Forum:Template Nihongo and infoboxes

I find redundant using Nihongo in the article introduction when there is already the infobox with the original Japanese name and romanization. It breaks the reading and it's pointless. Take for example Edward Newgate's introduction: in oasis the first row is just the Nihongo template. The template was left in the pages simply because the infoboxes were added later, in fact not all pages have it, especially recent ones. Don't misunderstand me, I believe all names should have their respective original name in kanji and romanization, but if those are in the infobox that condition is already fulfilled. I suggest that In pages like Animal Species, we add the first appearance for each animal in the description because there is no infobox. Why don't we do the same for characters? Because that information is already present in the infobox, so it's redundant to add it in the introduction. Same think wiht the name in kanji and its romanization.
 * IF the kanji and the romanization are present in the infobox than it's not necessary to use Nihongo in the the article.
 * We should use Nihongo for nicknames in the infobox instead and not in the article.
 * For every other name without an infobox, Nihongo should be left, but used only for the first time it's mentioned (as we already do).

I highlighted the area of interests in the examples below to show what I meant.

Current
Edward Newgate (エドワード・二ューゲート), more commonly known as Whitebeard (白ひげ) was the captain of the Whitebeard Pirates and was known as "The Strongest Man in the World" (世界最強の男) after Gol D. Roger's death. He was a member of the Yonko that ruled over the New World until his death during the Battle of Marineford.

After
Edward Newgate, more commonly known as Whitebeard was the captain of the Whitebeard Pirates and was known as "The Strongest Man in the World" after Gol D. Roger's death. He was a member of the Yonko that ruled over the New World until his death during the Battle of Marineford.

Example of when Nihongo should be left
Momoiro Island is an island on the Grand Line. The island is filled with pink animals and plants. Its name literally means pink in Japanese. It is home to the Kamabakka Kingdom (カマバッカ王国), a place where "those with a heart of a maiden" gather. The name of the kingdom literally translates to "full of transvestites", which is exactly what the island is filled with.

Page without an infobox


News Coo (ニュース・クー) are medium-sized seagulls that deliver newspapers and wanted posters around the world. They wear hats to signify their employment and carry bags over their shoulders, just like a paperboy. The first News Coo appeared in Chapter 96 and Episode 45, delivering a newspaper to Nami. According to Nyon, they do not deliver newspapers to the Calm Belt.

(from Animal Species)

Discussion
Nobody really cares about that but since this is open I think I should state my opinion. Yeah i agree the text doesn't look good with all the Japanese letters there so I think we should remove them and add them in the infoboxes. 18:11, June 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Who said that nobody cares?


 * i didn't expect that so many people would actually care... 12:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

They belong in both sections. Not just infoboxes. SeaTerror (talk) 18:21, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Why? It's redundant. The name in kanji and its romanization should be present only one time. Why don't we add the first appearance in the introduction as well? Because it's not necessary. Same thing with that.

It makes the article more professional looking and better in general. This is how it has always been done anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 18:29, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Those templates are leftovers of when the articles didn't have an infobox. For some reasons, people started to think that was the policy, but it's not. A lot of articles don't have them.

How would you know that? I've been here longer than you have. The articles have always had them. If the articles don't have them then they should. SeaTerror (talk) 18:41, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Because when the articles were created they didn't have the infobox but only Nihongo. When the infobox was added, Nihongo was left there. Here an example. Anyway, it's not important if it was a coincidence or if it was always been done that way, my point is simple: it's redundant. They should be used only in the infobox for the same reason we do not mention the first appearance in the introduction if there is the infobox.

Like it already said it makes it more professional looking to have it in the introduction. You're the only one who cares about this too. It is just a nonissue. SeaTerror (talk) 18:51, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with what's been said. Having it in both places does make it look more professional. The infobox can be for quick information so it makes sense to have it in there, but at the same time we should keep it at the beginning of the article for people who want more information so they don't miss anything. 18:58, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with DP here. I said something very similar the other day when someone was removing epithets from articles' first paragraph. 20:01, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

That's a point of view, so I cannot really say anything to make you change mind. In my opinion redundancy doesn't make look them professional at all and, as I said, using them in the introduction breaks the reading. I would at least remove them from the nicknames in the first paragraph.

I agree with ST, DP and JSD. 20:13, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with levi, why we must have the kanji and romanization in 2 places? Its enough to have it only in the infobox. Also it brakes your reading when u have them on the article. And what exactly is professional? to have them in the article so people will find it more difficult to read? You already have that information in the infobox, no need to make the reader's reading more difficult because you believe is more 'professional'. 21:24, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing difficult to read about it. SeaTerror (talk) 21:18, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to have them twice.

Ofcourse there is, which is easier to read this http://prntscr.com/18s7et, or this http://prntscr.com/18s7qa ? 21:28, June 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Why did you take a screenshot of the examples shown above?
 * Its not a secret that I took them from above, its to show exactly what I mean. 22:12, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Professionalism is the reason to have them twice. Also I read both of those easily. The 2nd one looks really bad. SeaTerror (talk) 23:35, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

So, since the majority agrees shall I remove the nihongo templates now? Or should we have a poll for this? 03:49, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem there is yet a majority...

I always thought the 5 billion nihongo templates made the pages look really cluttered and unreadable but I was too lazy to do anything about it. I agree with whoever posted original post (which is unsigned).


 * Ops, forgot to sign.

also I don't get your logic when you say it's professional to clutter a page with crap that no-one cares about or will read. if they want to read that they go to the infobox to find it. if anything it's utterly unprofessional to let it stay. it's like saying it's professional to use source code for similar templates and only switch just the base colors because "im a hacker l33t who know html code omg watch out for me!!1!", no it's not professional at all it's just stupid.

I guess, in the end, using them "makes the page more professional" or "interrupts the reading" are just points of view. For the people who think we should use the template twice, is there any other reason to do that? I think I already explained my arguments.

Before, the name of the subject of the article, the kanji, the romaji, the english translation, and the official english name used to be put in random order in the beginning of articles. However, the Nihongo Template helped to format them in a more organized manner. Since we've got the infobox displaying all of them already, I guess the nihongo templates are no longer necessary. 10:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised by Levi. It is redundant to have both the kanji and its romanization appear twice in the article. MasterDeva (talk) 12:48, June 8, 2013 (UTC)