FANDOM

5,612 Pages

(Post Poll Discussion)
m
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Wikia Appearance}}
+
{{Forumheader|Wikia Appearance|closed=1}}
   
 
<!-- Please put your content under this paragraph. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
 
<!-- Please put your content under this paragraph. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
Line 16: Line 16:
 
| colorscheme = WhitebeardPiratesColors
 
| colorscheme = WhitebeardPiratesColors
 
| name = Edward Newgate
 
| name = Edward Newgate
  +
| switch = no image
 
| image = {{Switch infobox
 
| image = {{Switch infobox
 
| anime = [[File:Edward Newgate Anime Infobox.png|320px|Edward Newgate, aka Whitebeard.]]
 
| anime = [[File:Edward Newgate Anime Infobox.png|320px|Edward Newgate, aka Whitebeard.]]
Line 41: Line 42:
 
| colorscheme = WhitebeardPiratesColors
 
| colorscheme = WhitebeardPiratesColors
 
| name = Edward Newgate
 
| name = Edward Newgate
  +
| switch = no image
 
| image = {{Switch infobox
 
| image = {{Switch infobox
 
| anime = [[File:Edward Newgate Anime Infobox.png|320px|Edward Newgate, aka Whitebeard.]]
 
| anime = [[File:Edward Newgate Anime Infobox.png|320px|Edward Newgate, aka Whitebeard.]]
Line 63: Line 65:
 
{{-}}
 
{{-}}
 
=== Example of when Nihongo should be left ===
 
=== Example of when Nihongo should be left ===
{{Island box
+
{{Island Box
 
| colorscheme = OkamaColors
 
| colorscheme = OkamaColors
 
| name = Momoiro Island
 
| name = Momoiro Island
Line 283: Line 285:
   
 
The bot. I refuse to ruin the wiki. [[User:SeaTerror|SeaTerror]] ([[User talk:SeaTerror|talk]]) 18:11, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
 
The bot. I refuse to ruin the wiki. [[User:SeaTerror|SeaTerror]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Zodiaque/sig1}} 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. {{User:Leviathan_89/sig2|19:00|4|July|2013}}
  +
  +
Yeah, as Levi said. It's not really important so we don't have to rush. {{User:Lelouch_Di_Britannia/Sig2}} 08:32, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
Should we bold the epithet and alias inside the infoboxes? It makes them stand out. {{User:InSaiyan/Sig}} 08:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
They are already in bold in the paragraph. {{User:Leviathan_89/sig2|20:08|8|July|2013}}
  +
  +
Another question, for characters with Captain in their names: 'Captain [[Tashigi]]' , 'Captain [[Morgan]]' and so on. Do we add the 'Captain [Name]' as epithets to infoboxes? {{User:InSaiyan/Sig}} 11:18, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
Nope, just the name. {{User:Staw-Hat_Luffy/sig4}} 11:23, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
Since the discussion is over, I'm gonna archive it. {{User:Staw-Hat_Luffy/sig4}} 10:17, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:28, March 9, 2019

Forums: Index → Wikia Appearance →  Template Nihongo and infoboxes
Note: This topic has been archived because the discussion is considered solved.
Do not add to it unless it really needs to be reopened. Consider creating a brand new forum instead.


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

  • 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).

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.

I highlighted the area of interests in the examples below to show what I meant. leviathan_89 10:36, 8 June, 2013 (UTC)

Examples

Current

Edward Newgate (エドワード・二ューゲート Edowādo Nyūgēto?), more commonly known as Whitebeard (白ひげ Shirohige?) was the captain of the Whitebeard Pirates and was known as "The Strongest Man in the World" (世界最強の男 Sekai Saikyō no Otoko?) 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 Kamabakka Ōkoku?, "Kamabakka Queendom" in the Viz Manga), 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

News Coo.

News Coo (ニュース・クー Nyūsu Kū?) 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.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  18:11, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Who said that nobody cares? leviathan_89 18:38, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)
i didn't expect that so many people would actually care...  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  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. leviathan_89 18:26, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)

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. leviathan_89 18:33, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)

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. leviathan_89 18:48, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)

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.DancePowderer Talk 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. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 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. leviathan_89 20:11, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ST, DP and JSD. Awaikage Talk 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'.  Apoelpaoole  Apoel talk  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. leviathan_89 21:27, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)

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

Why did you take a screenshot of the examples shown above? leviathan_89 21:34, 7 June, 2013 (UTC)
            Its not a secret that I took them from above, its to show exactly what I mean. Apoelpaoole  Apoel talk  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? Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  03:49, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there is yet a majority... leviathan_89 10:36, 8 June, 2013 (UTC)

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). Sewil 4:31, June 8 - 2013

Ops, forgot to sign. leviathan_89 10:36, 8 June, 2013 (UTC)

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. Sewil 4:36, June 8 - 2013

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. leviathan_89 10:36, 8 June, 2013 (UTC)

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. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  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. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 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. sff9 15:40, June 8, 2013

So as I see it right now:

For

  1. levi
  2. staw
  3. apoel
  4. lelouch
  5. sewil
  6. masterdeva
  7. sff9

Against

  1. st
  2. dp
  3. jsd
  4. awaikage

Is a poll necessary? Sewil 2:22, June 9 - 2013

i also agree with levi even if i cant vote--Quoth The Raven "Nevermore" 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. leviathan_89 12:41, 9 June, 2013 (UTC)

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

Shall we make a poll then?  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  09:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  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? leviathan_89 17:48, 13 June, 2013 (UTC)

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--Quoth The Raven "Nevermore" 18:06, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Levi, that's pretty much how I would word it too. Go ahead and make the poll.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  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.". Awaikage Talk 18:10, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody commented on the forum for days, so that's the right time to make a poll.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  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. leviathan_89 04:45, 14 June, 2013 (UTC)

@ST: that they make the articles more professional is only an opinion, there's nothing to prove or disprove. sff9 23:03, June 16, 2013

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. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  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. leviathan_89 10:58, 17 June, 2013 (UTC)

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..--Roranoa zoro Talk|||11:11,6/17/2013

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. sff9 17:49, June 17, 2013

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? sff9 18:31, June 17, 2013

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. sff9 18:58, June 17, 2013

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? leviathan_89 19:20, 17 June, 2013 (UTC)

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). Sewil 19:29, June 17 - 2013

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"? sff9 21:23, June 17, 2013

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. Videogamep Talk 17:15, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

I prefer just the infobox.   Galaxy 9000   09:18, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

So? leviathan_89 12:40, 22 June, 2013 (UTC)

Should we start a poll? I've already post above the prototype. leviathan_89 15:53, 24 June, 2013 (UTC)

Yes make the poll.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Sewil 16:07, June 24 - 2013

I don't remember the current policy for the length, can someone please fill that part? Thanks. leviathan_89 16:11, 24 June, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's one week, I added that. Sewil 16:43, June 24 - 2013

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

Rest of the poll is fine too.   Galaxy 9000   18:52, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

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

The poll isn't over yet so the old rules still apply. Sewil 13:56, June 28 - 2013

Ok. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  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

  1. leviathan_89 11:41, 26 June, 2013 (UTC)
  2.   Galaxy 9000   11:44, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Omgomg.gifWonder 怀疑 Talk 说话 Cute_Helioptile_Sprite.png  11:48, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. --Roranoa zoro Talk|||11:53,6/26/2013
  5.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  11:57, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Sewil 12:49, June 26 - 2013
  7. Videogamep Talk 16:34, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk Page  11:32, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
  9. MasterDeva (talk) 16:14, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Bastian964 23:50, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
  11. sff9 17:43, June 29, 2013

I don't agree

  1. Awaikage Talk 13:20, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. SeaTerror (talk) 18:26, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. JustSomeDude...  Talk | 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.
  4. Besty17Talk 16:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Post Poll Discussion

Alright, who's gonna remove the template from the articles?  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  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. Zodiaque             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. leviathan_89 19:00, 4 July, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

They are already in bold in the paragraph. leviathan_89 20:08, 8 July, 2013 (UTC)

Another question, for characters with Captain in their names: 'Captain Tashigi' , 'Captain Morgan' and so on. Do we add the 'Captain [Name]' as epithets to infoboxes? ' 'inSaiyan Talk  Contribs  11:18, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just the name.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  11:23, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Since the discussion is over, I'm gonna archive it.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  10:17, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.