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)

As long as the epithets, which are something people want to read, remain in that first paragraph, I don't really care what you do with it. I'd like to see them stay, but honestly this is something I care very little about. 13:47, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I too agree with Levi. I don't think the redundant templates are especially awful, but I don't find them "more professional" either.

So as I see it right now:

For
 * 1) levi
 * 2) staw
 * 3) apoel
 * 4) lelouch
 * 5) sewil
 * 6) masterdeva
 * 7) sff9

Against
 * st
 * dp
 * jsd
 * 1) awaikage

Is a poll necessary?

i also agree with levi even if i cant vote-- 02:31, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

No a poll isn't necessary. Only sarcasm is. SeaTerror (talk) 06:24, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

A poll will be open when nobody will have anything to add. We are not in a hurry, give it some time.

As for now, I'll stop adding Nihongo templates. 12:45, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Shall we make a poll then? 09:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should. 09:25, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

How that would be done? I think something like this will do:

''Given that the Japanese name in kanji and its romanization should be provided for all original words (the first time they are used), IF these informations are already present in the associated infobox, then it's superfluous to add them in the paragraph as well. (see the examples)''


 * I agree
 * I don't agree.

what do you think?

A poll is too soon to add. SeaTerror (talk) 18:03, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

its not too soon discussion has been open for like a week-- 18:06, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Levi, that's pretty much how I would word it too. Go ahead and make the poll. 18:08, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with ST. Regarding the subject, here's a good quote from Lelouch: "Yes, but people don't usually look at the infobox. This template is used to display Japanese names in a standardized way. It provides readers with the Japanese characters, the romanization for pronunciation, and the English equivalent.". 18:10, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody commented on the forum for days, so that's the right time to make a poll. 18:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Not when there are many things to discuss. Nobody has once disproved any of the statements we have made. Especially about how they make the articles more professional. SeaTerror (talk) 18:50, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry to make a poll, if someone says he still want to discuss, then talk. It's not an urgent matter anyway.

@ST: that they make the articles more professional is only an opinion, there's nothing to prove or disprove.

This template isn't much, but it gives the jname, rname, and ename a neat format. Before when this template didn't exist, we had to format the jname, rname, and ename manually, for example by inserting brackets, italicizing and bolding. However, the Nihongo template automates it. All the editor has to do is insert the appropriate information in each parameter. But as some of you already pointed out, these information are already included in the infobox. 05:56, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you made that point... nobody is against the template itself, in fact whenever we have to add the jname and romanization using that template is a must. My point is that's simple pointless if those information are already present... to me looks like using the template twice in the same paragraph.

I also agree with Levi here,having the same information all over the page is useless,just as having the more than one link to the same article in a single paragraph..--

Not even close to being the same thing. Besides what I already said of it looking more professional looking people would most likely read the paragraphs instead of the infobox. For the record it is professional because that is how EVERYBODY does it. Go to any Wikia/Wikipedia page and you will see this. SeaTerror (talk) 17:22, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia nor any Wikia are professional encyclopedias. So your point would be more like "it looks better because everybody does it like this". Which is indeed more factual, yet still not really convincing.

Your point is moot considering the fact a real encyclopedia wouldn't even mention manga/anime. SeaTerror (talk) 18:18, June 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this make Wikipedia a professional encyclopedia?

It makes Wikipedia and Wikia the only ones that cover them. Hence your point is just plain bad. It can't be used against what I said because a real encyclopedia wouldn't cover the subjects. SeaTerror (talk) 18:41, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yup. A real encyclopedia wouldn't cover those subjects. So you can't use Wikipedia as a reference for what is a "professional" look.

You can because it is the only one that would. SeaTerror (talk) 19:00, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

In the wikipedia article of Monkey D. Luffy they indeed use Nihongo in the paragraph, but they also DON'T have the kanji and romanji in the infobox... so isn't that an argument in my favor?

Yes. Owned, so it's either type nihongo in the text OR type it in the infobox. I prefer the infobox, since we have special rows for that (unless we choose to delete them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Piece too bad for you that the actual main article uses both. SeaTerror (talk) 21:15, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

So they're inconsistent… How's that for a model of "professionalism"?

We also shouldn't focus on imitating Wikipedia since Wikipedia also says that the Gomu Gomu no Mi means Gum Gum Fruit instead of giving a more accurate translation. 17:15, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

I prefer just the infobox. 09:18, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

So?

Should we start a poll? I've already post above the prototype.

Yes make the poll. 16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.

I don't remember the current policy for the length, can someone please fill that part? Thanks.

I think it's one week, I added that.

We decided to allow them to be decided in the discussion. 1 week is fine.

Rest of the poll is fine too. 18:52, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we stop adding Nihongo Templates for now? 09:38, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The poll isn't over yet so the old rules still apply.

Ok. 06:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Poll
To vote you must have at least 300 edits and you must have been registered here for at least 3 months. The poll closed on July 4th at 11:40 UTC.

Given that the Japanese name in kanji and its romanization should be provided for all original words (the first time they are used), IF these are already present in the associated infobox, then it's superfluous to add them in the paragraph as well. (see the examples).

I agree

 * 11:44, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:48, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  11:57, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16:34, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:32, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) MasterDeva (talk) 16:14, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Bastian964 23:50, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:32, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) MasterDeva (talk) 16:14, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Bastian964 23:50, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree

 * 13:20, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 18:26, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16:52, June 29, 2013 (UTC) Not a big fan of differing from Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. But I don't care enough to make a huge fuss.
 * 16:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Post Poll Discussion
Alright, who's gonna remove the template from the articles? 12:50, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

The bot. I refuse to ruin the wiki. SeaTerror (talk) 18:11, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Is it even possible to do it with a bot? It's not removing every Nihongo template; just the duplicates. 18:41, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I say we do it when we have a chance, like if we are editing an article. There is no need to do all that work in one go, it's not an urgent matter. Also it's not just removing the nihongo from the first paragraph, it's moving it in the infobox, keep that in mind.

Yeah, as Levi said. It's not really important so we don't have to rush. 08:32, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Should we bold the epithet and alias inside the infoboxes? It makes them stand out. 08:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

They are already in bold in the paragraph.