Forum:Ruby Template

First thing first, this is not a continuation of an older forum, but a new take of an idea that was brought up there. You can read the old forum if you want, but I will talk about what was said there in short.

The Ruby Template is a way to use kanji and furigana as it should in the Japanese language (kana over kanji) for pronunciation. chapters, episodes, and attacks sometimes get another meaning with the kana, so I think it is should be included. Now, the reason it hasn't been used is because it was voted against it in the old forum, which had a few problems:


 * 1) It's from five years ago, and one of the main points against it was that not all computers could read it. I don't know how computers are now, but its best to check it, so if anyone knows how to do it please help us.
 * 2) The discussion then diverted to include another way to have the kana feathered, and the discussion was moved from "If" to "Which" and so the "If" lost. We know how to poll better know.
 * 3) Another argument against it was that it wouldn't be relevant to any one who isn't familiar with the Japanese language. For this, I'd like to bring up the Nihongo and say that this argument is relevant against using that one as well.
 * 4) Going back to the first problem, it's from five years ago! Out of the nine participants, only five are still active. Users have changed, policy have changed, it is time for the ruling to change.

Thoughts? Rhavkin (talk) 18:04, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand, HTML5 included Ruby years ago and nearly every browser supports it now. 18:56, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

The main reason was because it would look bad or that there was no support. The examples comment on the old forum still applies. SeaTerror (talk) 19:16, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Awaikaga, thank you for clearing that up.

SeaTerror, "look bad" is a matter of opinion, and either way, that is the proper way to write Japanese so even it did "look bad" it wouldn't matter much. We wouldn't stop using kanji if some people said it "look bad" either. And as for outvoted, if we had the same vote now, it would be 3:2 in favor of tooltip, so like I said, thing changed. Rhavkin (talk) 19:36, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of using a mouseover tooltip to show furigana in cases where the intended reading is different from what the kanji would suggest. Placing the furigana above the kanji makes the former pretty hard to read. The example for the tooltip option in the old forum works fine for me, but we would probably want to make it more visually obvious that a tooltip is even there (ie by underlining the text like we do for status icons on character galleries). MizuakiYume (talk) 20:02, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

MizuakiYume. that is where the old forum broke down. Let's focus on the "If" before the "How". As for the "hard to read argument that was also in the old forum, let's test it out:


 * Current: Gomu Gomu no Pistol (ゴムゴムの銃 (ピストル))
 * Ruby: Gomu Gomu no Pistol (ゴムゴムの 銃ピストル).

At this point I would like to point out two things:
 * 1) I do not know how to include the tooltip within the Nihongo, so if anyone does, please show an example, otherwise, it might be unusable together.
 * 2) At the beginning, I offered to use a template like shown here, and it's usage with the Nihongo as shown here.

Rhavkin (talk) 20:19, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Having the furigana above the kanji makes the furigana too difficult to read because of the small text size, not because of its placement. I also only support using a Ruby template with kanji where the intended reading is different from usual. Otherwise it gets too crowded, as with your second example link to the BnHA wiki. For example: and not: The excess furigana are really not necessary. The tooltip apparently isn't derived from Ruby at all, but it is usable. Example of the tooltip (mouseover the 煩悩): This method admittedly has visibility problems, since there's no indication of where to mouseover, so I'll set it aside for now. MizuakiYume (talk) 21:29, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
 * Hyakuhachi Pound Ho (百八 煩悩ポンド 鳳)
 * Hyakuhachi Pound Ho (百ひゃく 八はち 煩悩ポンド  鳳ほう)
 * Hyakuhachi Pound Ho (百八煩悩 鳳)

Again, we can't really judge the "it's too small" argument because that is how it is used in the Japanese language. And you didn't used the Nihongo in your examples and I don't think Ruby should replace Nihongo and I don't want the discussion to be Ruby vs. Nihongo. If they don'y work together then we better not use Ruby (luckily they are, except for with tooltip).

As for your notion to only use it when needed, I feel like it will cause many discussions about "when is it necessary" but A. It goes into the "How\When\Where" more then the "If". and B. What wrong with talking things out? Rhavkin (talk) 21:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that this template is needed. Furigana is used for Japanese speakers to understand how a kanji is read, for the English speakers on this wiki we have romaji which does the job of communicating pronunciation. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:05, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

And yet, we're already using furigana, but with this, instead of having it in brackets, we can write Japanese as it should be. no one is saying it's instead of romaji. Rhavkin (talk) 22:10, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Don't see how it changes anything about the point I was making, but I added the template. It appears to have broken the tooltip option at least. Unless someone with more expertise in HTML can fix it, I guess it's no longer an option.

If we really want to get into how furigana is used in the Japanese language, it's a tool specifically for younger/less experienced readers that may not yet have a solid grasp of the various readings of kanji. Someone fluent in Japanese would not require furigana at all except, again, where the intended reading is different than the usual. This is why I suggest only using Ruby for such cases as the above examples of Pistol and Pound; it's not relevant elsewhere. If people are already capable of reading Japanese fluently, they won't need the extra furigana. If people are learning the language, this wiki isn't meant to be a resource for that purpose and shouldn't need to include standard kanji readings. If people can't read Japanese to begin with, then this won't affect them one way or another, aside from potentially cluttering the page with tiny text.

I'm not arguing Ruby vs Nihongo. But if we're adding a Ruby template, it should only be in the aforementioned cases where furigana changes/adds to the meaning of the kanji. The "how/when/where" in this case is mutually tied to the "if"; if you're proposing to incorporate the Ruby template into the Nihongo one, therefore adding furigana to every kanji on the wiki, then I reject it altogether. MizuakiYume (talk) 22:26, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

I suggested this one a long time ago, previous forum. Let's be honest: there are several features on this wiki that not all computers can read, such as hover-over symbols and this. But the way it is now, the furigana bracketed next to the kanji, just looks less than pleasant. If we implement this, the main problem is that it solves the bad looks and it notifies the readers which furigana represents which kanji more easily. 23:29, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

If you would look at my comment just above your example, you'll see the relevance of me asking how to use tooltip with Nihogno.

The "How", "When", "Where", and "Which" discussions are different from the "If" in the way that the "If" talks about to pros and cons of using it. What you said on your second paragraph about furigana intended for younger readers is relevant to this discussion, and I would argue that since furigana is already in use on this wiki (despite the fact this wiki isn't for someone who want's to learn Japanese), and that the Ruby is a better way (the "How" and "Which" discussions) then the brackets we use now. If, however, there is someone here who wants to learn Japanese through this site, the I think the romaji is what they'll use, so "readability" shouldn't be much of a factor in that case.

Does anyone have a reason not to use furigana? I would think not, because as mentioned previously, it's already in use. Is Ruby better then brackets? I think yes because it's the right way to use furigana. Rhavkin (talk) 06:28, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the stance that if we implement this, it should only be used for unusual furigana readings (i.e. the furigana that's currently written out next to the kanji in brackets). 06:52, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of my own opinion on this, I thought it might be a good idea to have a visual reference for how Ruby template would look if implemented on an actual wiki page, since single-line out-of-context examples aren't a great way to show its proposed eventual usage. So here's a bunch of sandbox pages: Now back to being subjective. I agree that the current system of using brackets for unusual readings isn't visually ideal. Should we use a Ruby template to replace the current bracket system? Sure, not going to argue against that. Should we use a Ruby template to add furigana to literally everything? Definitely not. Aside from the reasons I already gave, I noticed while making these mock-up pages that putting furigana on everything also makes it harder to distinguish which readings are unusual. If the point of including furigana on unusual readings is to show when "chapters, episodes, and attacks sometimes get another meaning with the kana", it defeats the purpose to hide the tree in a forest. MizuakiYume (talk) 21:04, October 2, 2018 (UTC)
 * Santoryu page as an example of predominantly standard readings, with only existing bracketed furigana
 * Santoryu page with furigana on all kanji
 * Black Leg Style page as an example of predominantly unusual readings, furigana on all kanji
 * Gomu Gomu no Mi, Techniques page as an example of mixed standard and unusual readings, furigana on all kanji

Iv'e decided to stop fighting this and have the "How\When\Where\Which" discussion now because I see it keeps coming up. I saw your example pages and I have to say that to me, using Ruby on everything doesn't bother me that much, but I wouldn't mind only using it on unusual readings if that an issue that have weight over whether to use it at all or not. Rhavkin (talk) 03:40, October 3, 2018 (UTC)