Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:01, 3 March 2018

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 22:14, January 24, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

Talk & archives for WP Japan
Project talk 2006 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Task force talk/archives ↔ Baseball (1) Bibliography (1) ↔ Cinema (1) ↔ CJKV (1) ↔ Districts and municipalities (1) Gaijin tarento (1) ↔ Military history (1, 2, 3) Music (1) Mythology (1, 2, 3, 4) Owarai (1) Politics (1) Prefectures (1) Royalty & nobility (1) Science & technology (1) Shinto (1) ↔ Tokyo (1) ↔ Transwiki ↔ = joint task force
Old notice board All of 2004 Jan–Mar 2005 Apr–Jun 2005 Jul–Oct 2005 Nov–Dec 2005 Jan–Feb 2006 Feb–May 2006 Jun–Dec 2006 Jan–Jun 2007 Jun 2007 – Sep 2008
Related talk/archives Anime and manga (index) Hello! Project (1) Pokémon (index, PAC (1, 2), PAC 2) Sumo (1, 2, 3) Square Enix (index) Tokusatsu (index) Trains (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Search the archives:
V·T·E

Article on a relatively low-vis Japanese topic assuming prior knowledge of the sakoku period?

Hey, I'm in the early stages of a massive expansion of our Man'yōshū article, and out of vanity (or perhaps shame) I just now checked if I had a hand in what's already there, and apparently four years ago I did this, something 2018 Hijiri is not especially proud of for its being more interested in poking fun at a 19th-century orientalist than in actually summarizing the history of MYS translation into other languages.

But a thought occurred to me while reading it: Keene obviously assumed his readers would know that in the 1830s, the only Japanese sources Klaproth could have consulted without extremely high-level diplomatic and commercial ties would have been castaways, but can we assume the same knowledge on the part of our readers? If the article on the history of Japan didn't specifically mention that Japan was closed off to Europe during this period but did mention a random castaway, that would be really weird, but the MYS article is relatively "obscure", so should we just assume it is "behind" to the history of Japan article?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think sakoku is important to the passage in question. The way I read it, there was a German guy traveling east. In Siberia, while looking for various different languages, he came across some Japanese guys, who helped him translate some Japanese text. That it was impossible for Klaproth to enter Japan at the time is irrelevant to the fact that he produced a poor translation whilst in Siberia. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

GAN: Hachijō-jima

There's a Good article discussion happening at Talk:Hachijō-jima/GA1. If someone else can come look at this, that would be great. I've done an initial review, so now we need someone to implement the changes. I'd do them, but then my review wouldn't be valid for making it a Good Article. Thanks for any help! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If one or two people can come look over this and make the suggested changes, that would be great. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I reviewed it, so I can't be the one making the changes. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Chiryū Festival

I am working on List of Important Intangible Folk Cultural Properties and am wondering into what subsection the designation of the Chiryū Festival should go. Should it go into 民俗芸能 (渡来芸・舞台芸), i.e. Folk performing arts (Entertainment from Abroad and Performance Arts), as indicated by the (often somewhat outdated) database or into 風俗慣習 (祭礼（信仰), i.e. Manners and customs (Religious festivals and beliefs) as it says for instance here? Also there is a possibility that there are two designations. So basically what I am asking is whether the festival has been designated for the puppet play or as a festival (for floats, etc)? bamse (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. It appears to me that the designation goes only to the puppet play (知立のからくり), so I think the former is correct. I cannot find any records of the festival being designated on its own as 風俗慣習 in 重要無形民俗文化財 anywhere. Alex Shih (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Min-on Concert Association

I have been submitting an article on the Min-on Concert Association and made edits based on suggestions from editors. I was referred to this page but am not sure how to present the article to the editors here.19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgrlee16 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Stgrlee16. The draft of the article can be found at Draft:Min-on_Concert_Association. I added a couple of things. Maybe other people can add some more. In any case, why don't you go ahead and submit it once more? The references it already has look like plenty for the initial version of an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Margin,will do.Stgrlee16 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Mottainai

There is a discussion at Talk:Mottainai regarding how well the article represents usage of the word and the appropriate use of sources. Please join in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Shogi vs. shōgi

There seems to be a possible edit warring brewing over at Shogi ( or Shōgi) about the use of the macron. Shogi seems to be westernized enough that the macron is almost always no longer used when term is used in English in newspapers and books per MOS:JAPAN#Determining common usage. It's not really the just the main article that this is affecting because other related articles such as Japan Shogi Association, etc. as well as various category pages, etc. were also moved to the macron version. I understand that shogi is of Japanese origin, but like many Japanese words in has been commonly used in English to some degree. It might have reached level as sushi, anime, manga, karaoke, etc., but it does now seem to be more commonly used instead of the translation "Japanese chess". Anyway, in the past year and a half especially, first with Karolina Styczyńska and then with Sōta Fujii, the game has seen an increase in coverage by non-Japanese media outlets, and these all (as far as I can tell) don't use the macron. FWIW, if the macron is needed then that's fine, but I think it needs to be discussed since it affects so many pages. I was thinking about starting a discussion about it on Talk:Shogi unless there's a better place to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Shōgi#Shōgi for relevant discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Date formats

Can anyone clarify whether there is one preferred date format for Japan-related articles? Is it day-month-year (DMY), month-day-year (MDY), YYYY-MM-DD (all numerical) or something else, particularly with respect to publcation/access-dates for citations. I can't find anything specific in MOS:JAPAN which means the fall-back is MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATETIES. I'm bringing this up because I seem to be going around in circles at User talk:Marchjuly#Date formats and here. Biografer has been going around various shogi-related articles and changing |date= and |acess-date= to a all numerical format because apparently the YYYY.MM.DD format is used on some Japanese-language websites. I've tried exaplaining that there is not (at least per my experience) one preferred date format used in Misplaced Pages articles in general, and that date formats do not really need to be changed without a fairly good reason (ala DATETIES) and a talk page consensus typically needs to be established in such cases. The articles generally follow the MDY format with respect to article content; this doesn't mean this has to be the format used for citations, but it is an acceptable format per MOS:DATEVAR, and does not need to be changed without good reason. When the dates have been returned to their original format with an edit sum citing MOS:DATEVAR, etc.; they are reverted back with an edit sum "Fix". The access-dates are also being updated when it's not exactly clear why, i.e., whether the links are actually being verified for accuracy and to be nont dead, or whether it's just to update the date for the sake of changing the date.

Another issue that needs to be clarified is the |date= parameter for {{Expand Japanese}}. Typically with respect to template such as these, the date is intended to be the date the template was originally added to the article. Biografer, however, is going around chagning these dates to the current date. For example, yesterday on Reo Kurosawa, Biografer made this edit changing the date from "November 2017" (the date the template was added to the article) to "February 2018"; today Biografer made this edit changing "February 2018" to "March 2018". If this is how it's done, then next month on April 1 the template date will need to be changed to "April 2018" and changed again as well for each subsequent month. This seems illogical since these dates are intend to let others know how long an article has had a particular issue and also sometimes for categorization purposes. Pretty much all of the articles in Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Misplaced Pages would need to be updated regularly if this is how the template is intended to work.

Anyway, I have decided to post here to try and get these issues resolved once and for all. So, any opinions either way would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Numerical dates are not allowed as a general-use format by MOS:DATE. It has to be dmy or mdy. I have no idea whether there should be a preference for one of those two over the other for Japan. Accessdate can be numerical but date cannot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I assuming by Accessdate can be numerical that this does not mean "accessdate needs to be numerical", and that "can" implies some kind of consensus may be required. MOS:DATE refers to article content per se which clarifies that, What about the "date" parameter in a citation template? Is that the "date" you're referring to in but date cannot? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The date parameter in a citation template must be spelled out in English, not numerical. The same is true for dates in the text of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Accessdates can be YYYY-MM-DD (if used consistently in all accessdates), but in text they can be only Month Day, Year, or Day Month Year (either one consistently), depending on the WP:ENGVAR. Japan does not use English as an official language, so WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATEVAR have absolutely nothing to do with the articles being Japan-related—WP:JAPAN cannot enforce a particular DATEVAR.
  The |date= parameter should definitely not be updated—we need to know how long the tag has been there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that all numerical dates can be used in citations, and have used them before myself. The issue, however, seems to be that Biografer feels that the all numerical format is the preferred format for Japan related articles or at least shogi Japan brelated articles. Many of the articles being changed have multiple citations where the MDY format has already been established, yet these are being change to an all numerical one. DATEVAR (or DATERET if you prefer} states that an established/existing format should be retained unless there’s a good reason to change it. When queried about the changes, the response has been that the numerical format is the preferred format because certain websites written in Japanese use that format. Links to a few of these websites are then provided as proof that Japan prefers the all numerical format. It’s almost as if DATETIES is trying to be forced to apply using Japanese instead of English. That might make sense on Japanese Misplaced Pages for different regional variations of Japanese, but not sure if it makes sense. Regardless, if the consensus reached here is that the default date format for citations in Japan/shogi related articles is to use the all numerical format, then that’s fine and have no problem going around an doing the clean up needed. As for the other template date changes, I’m not sure why but Biografer seems to think they need to be kept current and that they are somehow connected to the access dates of the citation templates. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The style conventions of external sources has no bearing whatsoever on Misplaced Pages styling—we have our own Manual of Style, and MOS:DATERET overrides the preferences of individual editors.

"if the consensus reached here is that the default date format for citations in Japan/shogi related articles is to use the all numerical format"—we cannot come up with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to do such a thing. User:Biografer, you need to stop this now. People routinely get blocked for exactly this sort of behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

According to this map Japan uses YYYY-MM-DD. And stop threatening me with blocks @Curly Turkey: otherwise this will be your last gobble. I don't do it without a reason as you see.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Biografer: you realize that this comment—which will permanently on record—will be used against you when this inevitably goes to ANI? You've had it explained to you why we do things they way we do at Misplaced Pages, and you have been linked to the relevant guidelines. You've run out of excuses.

Marchjuly: you are free to revert all the changes Biogafer has made. If Biografer gives you trouble, we'll take it straight to ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: and @Curly Turkey: Before anyone will revert anything look at this map. This is my final excuse. It clearly marks yellow areas which are China and Japan as YMD (I am dubious about Canada). But if this map means nothing, then fine. I will succumb to the Misplaced Pages Order.--Biografer (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As I've stated many time in other posts on other pages, all three date formats are used in Japan in materials written in English. We can agree on that. Where we disagree is that you seem to think the all numerical format is the predominant one being used in Japan because that is the one used on some Japanese websites; therefore, that is the format which needs to be used on Misplaced Pages. As others have pointed out in this thread and on other pages, that is not how date formats are determined on Misplaced Pages. As for the map, sure it has meaning when it's used in context; for example, "this map shows that the YYYY-MM-DD format is used in Japan" is a correct statement, but "this map shows that the YYYY-MM-DD format is used in Japan, and therefore that is the format which must be used by Misplaced Pages articles about Japanese subjects" is not a correct statement. When you create an article you can select the citation/date format as you see fit; if someone subsequently comes along and wants to change the format being used, they need to have a good reason for doing so per MOS:CITEVAR or MOS:DATEVAR. A good reason for doing so would be typically something like the current format is not an acceptable one per WP:BADDATE, MOS:DATEUNIFY or some other guideline, or there is a strong "national variety of English" type reason as explained in MOS:DATETIES. Editors don't get to change ciation/date formats because they personally like one format more than another, or because the a cited source uses a certain format; they are expected to retain the existing format absent a fairly need to make a change. In such case, it's often a good idea to discuss things on the article's talk page first to see if there exists a consensus to make such a change.

Anyway, today's date can be written as "March 2, 2018", "2 March 2018" and "2018-03-02" in English and all three are acceptable on English Misplaced Pages, but which one is used is determined by relevant English Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Misplaced Pages may use date formats used in reliable sources to help identify acceptable types, but it's the policies and guidelines which determine which format should be used. So, once again, you need to show which policy/guideline says that the all numerical format needs to be used with respect to articles about Japan or shogi professionals. Also, as I posted on my user talk, it best to keep new comments related to this discussion on this page so that everyone can see them. Posting on my user talk makes it easier for me to see, but not for the others participating in this discussion. If people are responding to you're posts as fast as you want them to then (1) maybe they're busy and haven't noticed the post, (2) maybe they're thinking about their repsonse, or (3) maybe they just don't want to respond. Pinging someone does not mean they will instantaneously respond or are obligated to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Biografer: You're clearly not reading what people are telling you. People also get blocked for WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I know that. I also know that admins find reasons to block other editors just because (seen that many times in various Misplaced Pages entries). I also know of policies such as WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, but I need to assure you all that I am here to build an encyclopedia. We started this discussion to come to agreement of some kind, not to spur it up to AN/I. Let's keep this discussion to the dates and guidelines and policies regarding them not the others, Curly Turkey.--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: So, if I will attach the map to MOS:DATETIES will it suffice or will it still be a no-no?--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's something you should discuss at WT:DATE. Policy and guideline pages can technically be edited like any other page, but since they tend to affect all articles or all users, etc., it's generally better to discuss them first per WP:CAUTIOUS. The best place to do that would be on the relevant talk page or at a place like WP:VP/P. I don't see the point for adding that information especially if you're going to say "See this map because it shows that the YYYY-MM-DD should be used in Japan..." because that would not be a true statement in my opinion. You can, however, try and convince others that it is if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with comments above. It is irrelevant how dates are written in any language other than English. We don't format dates as "1 april 2018" in Dutch-related articles because that how it's written in Dutch sources. So, changing the date format to all numerical because that's how it's written in Japanese is wrong.

Clean-up templates should retain the date that they were added to the article. As said above, this is used for tracking purposes. DrKay (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We use yyyy-mm-dd format in special cases (such as tracking or indexing). But in the main we use English-language style on the English-language Misplaced Pages, which is mdy or dmy. Local consensus is not allowed to override this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Yes, in the main we use either mdy or dmy but when it comes to accessdate articles regarding China for example, on English Misplaced Pages, we use YYYY-MM-DD format. For as far as I know, dates in refs might be written differently then the dates in the article.--Biografer (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your "dates in refsmight be written differently then the dates in the article" is a bit ambiguous. For publication dates "differently" encompasses only mdy or dmy, not numeric. Is there anything about this you do not understand? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick note regarding YYYY-MM-DD in Japan. Yes, that's correct to a degree, but the actual format in Japan is along the lines of 2018年2月21日. That is not the same as writing the date 2018-02-21, but rather the equivalent of spelling it out in English as 2018 February 21, which we do not do in English. Any dates in references or the body of the article that are written in YYYY-MM-DD format should be changed to the date format established in the article (either "21 February 2018" or "February 21, 2018"). There are no exceptions to this on the English Misplaced Pages. If one of those two formats has not yet been established for the article, then pick one based on the version of English used in the article. If none has yet been established, establish one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful insight @Nihonjoe:! I wanted to invite you and @Yamaguchi: to this discussion but was in fear of being accused of canvassing. Unfortunately, I think you might misunderstand what the discussion is about here. We are trying to come to agreement weather to use YYYY-MM-DD format in accessdates, and consecutively in dates of citations, not the main article. Main article will remain mdy (and I have nothing against it), its the dates in citations that are bothersome because this map shows that Japan uses the same date format as China and Korea.--Biografer (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: See my comment above, specifically the "Any dates in references..." part. That's referring to accessdate, though not using that phrase specifically. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with waht Nihonjoe posted above and actually intended to write something similar as a reponse to you on my user talk yesterday, but didn't want to split this discussion up any further. As Nihonjoe points out, a date like "March 3, 2018" is most commonly written in Japan/Japanese as 2018年3月3日, which is not exactly the same as "2018-03-03". If you look at enough websites written in Japanese, you'll also probably find things like "2018/03/03", "2018.03.03" or even "平成30年3月3日". All of these date formats can p be used, but the fact that they can be used doesn't mean that they need to be used or should be used on English Misplaced Pages. The same can probably be said about any language which uses a "different" format to express dates. What you do not seem to get here is that when a date format (even for citations) has been established, there is no need to go around changing it to another format without a very good reason (e.g., WP:BADDATE or MOS:DATETIES) for doing so. Moreover, changing a citation style or date format is probably one of those things which you can be WP:BOLD and try, but which you should discuss on the talk page and establish a consensus for if by chance you are reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand this type of post @Marchjuly: because of 2 typos that you made! That is exactly what I was doing by changing the date. I was being WP:BOLD, and now its my second day of discussing it without editing any articles.--Biografer (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You were bold and you were reverted because you made a change to the date formating which was considered contentious. At that point, you should've discussed/proposed changing the date format on the article's talk page. The is no "Misplaced Pages house-style" when it comes to citation styles or date formats; multiple formats are acceptable as explained in MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:CITEVAR. The YYYY-MM-DD format is one of the acceptable formats for citations, but it is not the only format. It can be used, but it doesn't need to be used. So, unless there's a good reason which requires that the format be changed to an all numerical one, there's no reason to do so. This is what people have been trying to explain to you. Now, if think there's a "good" reason for making such as change, then you should clearly explain why in your edit sum or in a subsequent article talk page post. If someone reverts your change and leaves an edit sum clearly explaining why, then they feel that your reason is not good enough. At that point, you should discuss per WP:BRD. You've also not clarified why you were changing the dates in the {{Expand Japanese}} templates. This is clearly unnecessary as well as others have pointed out. Does this mean that you now understand why these template dates do not need to be changed or do you think they still need to be changed? As for the errors in my last post, if you're not just being snarky and really have a hard time understanding that "waht" was intended to be "what", especially in that context, then others might start assuming that item 5 of WP:CIR#Language difficulty is a possible issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been through similar discussions before, so perhaps I should throw in my 2 cents. Japan writes dates in variations of the yyyy-mm-dd format (sometimes as 2018年2月21日, sometimes as 2018-02-21 and sometimes with the year based on the emperor's year of ascension, although that is becoming less common). However, in English writing, Japan uses yyyy-mm-dd, and practically all the forms found in both US and UK writing. The US and UK form typically depends on where the writer was educated or where his teacher was educated or which market he is writing to (eg car makers typically use US formats because the US is their biggest market and they want to keep their biggest market happy). Which comes down to English writing in Japan has no real preference and all 3 forms allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT can be used in Japanese citations with no preference. MOS:DATERETAIN also comes into effect - if an article already has a predominant a date format for the citations then that format should be retained. Changes are only allowed to bring the few outliers into line with the others in that article or if consensus has been reached on the talk page to change it.  Stepho  talk  00:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

First, there was an edit conflict when we both were trying to post a response; so, I've inserted my last post above yours since it was intended to be a direct response to what Biografer posted.

I think you've just summarized what everyone else posting above has been saying and everyone, other than Biografer, seems to understand. It is generally considered that the citation style/date format used by the first major contributor is the one which should be retained unless there's a good reason to change it per both MOS:CITEVAR and MOS:DATEVAR. People may disagree on what qualifies as a "good" reason to make such a change. When that happens, a consensus should be established on the article's talk page for the change. Biografer was changing the date formats in quite a number of articles. When the edits were reverted citing relevant policies and guidelines, Biografer simply reverted the reverts. Since there were so many articles involved, it was pointed out on Biografer's user talk that there was no need to change the date format and the response was "All of those shogi players are Japanese so they use year-month-date and 2. Mdy in both article and sources can be confusing for editors. Fair argument?" which is not an absolute truth on multiple levels. Other attempts were made to discuss/explain things on Biografer's user talk here and here, but were unsuccessful. So, the discussions moved to other pages like User talk:Yunshui#Relationship between template dates and access-dates and User talk:Marchjuly#Date formats, and eventually ended up here. Biografer only seems to have stopped converting the date formats because of this warning added by Yunshui at User talk:Biografer#Changing dates. Note the additional warning added today by Alex Shih. Curly Turkey posted above that I should just go back and revert to the established date format, but I've decided to wait until this discussion is resolved. It does seem, however, that it actually has been resolved and that it is just Biografer who is still arguing that the all numerical format is the one which needs to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih warning was unnecessary.--Biografer (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing others' posts

@Biografer: I originally posted something about this on this thread here, but removed it because I didn't want things to go off on a weird tangent. However, after this post I think it needs to be pointed out. Please stop edting/copy-editing other editors' posts. There is no need for you to go around and make any "corrections" to other editors' posts. Talk pages are not articles, so spelling errors, grammar errors, etc. do not need to be corrected. If you notice a spelling error, etc. that makes a post difficult to understand, you can ask for clarification; however, you do not need to "fix" it except in certain specific cases. If there's a serious format, syntax, layout error which affects the page's format or otherwise makes the thread hard to follow for other editors, then sometimes those can be fixed per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors or WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors. When that happens, you should make a separate edit and leave a clear edit sum as to what you're changing and why. If you notice any mistakes in things you've previously posted, you can change them per WP:REDACT. Changing or correcting others posts, however, like you've been doing is something you should avoid per WP:TPO. This has nothing to do which date format is being used, and I'm happy to continue that discussion above; however, if you "edit" another one of my posts, I will ask an adminstrator for assistance at ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: First of all, forgive me that I ignored your previous posts regarding this issue. Clearly, there was a lot more info then that, so that post might have slipped through. I for one like when people spell stuff correctly. That way, it is easier for me to follow what is being said. I hope you will agree with me that I am not doing it for a malicious intend. Since I can't edit your posts, maybe you will fix administrator error yourself, please?--Biografer (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biografer: Just don't edit others' comments, even if they make mistakes. Minor formatting (like fixing a broken link, fixing indent level, and similar things that don't change what they wrote) is okay, but just do not ever edit another editor's comments. Just don't. Period. It causes too many problems. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Like what problems? I see one problem here, that is when someone makes typos, the post becomes hard to read for me (and probably everyone else). My suggestion to Marchjuly is to get the bloody spellchecker. Every Windows and Mac software comes with it! Even iPhone have it. By the way, @Marchjuly:, what software are you using?--Biografer (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Biografer It causes people to think you're changing their comments, even if you aren't. It causes people to not trust you, which is a big problem on a collaborative site like Misplaced Pages. If other editors don't trust you, it can be hard to work with them on anything and be productive because they're always worrying that you're changing others' comments. The solution is simple: Do. Not. Do. It. Ever.

If you get annoyed by others' typos, suck it up and deal with it like an adult. It's your problem, not theirs. Everyone makes mistakes, and if you constantly point out others' mistakes (whether directly or by being passive-aggressive and changing their comments without their knowledge), you will end up being blocked. Again: Do. Not. Do. It. Ever. Just don't. It's really quite simple. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I had removed my first post about this, so you simply might not have seen it, which means I'm not going to say you ignored it. However, now that you’ve been advised about WP:TPO, you should stop doing that to not only my posts, but all other editors’ posts. Also, just some friendly advice: I also don't like spelling/grammar errors and I try to correct mine when I find them; however, you are going to have ignore those made by others unless they really do affect the meaning of the post. If you start regularly posting things like "please correct the spelling of XXXX" or "BTW, XXXX is spelled incorrectly" or "'XXXX' does not have a "u" in it", etc., you're going to start having problems with other editors. It's best just to ignore things like "adminstrator", etc. when the meaning is obvious. I'm sure others would be able to find errors in your posts (even in your last post above), but they don't point them out unless there's a real need to do so. If you keep doing these things and then get all self-defensive and say people should use a spellchecker because you don't like spelling mistakes, you are going to quickly end up at ANI. You simply do not need to edit another editor's post because even a minor change might possibly change the intended meaning. Moreover, if you do feel there's a need to edit another editor's post (see WP:TPO for some common examples of when this is considered OK), then it's a good idea to do it in a separate edit which clearly explains why you are making the edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixing typos doesn't change a meaning (unless you are referring to a to an), then yes, they might. I for one change my mistakes when I see one but I am not saying that I am perfect. I encourage people to fix theirs, and its not an order. Using a spellchecker was a friendly suggestion.--Biografer (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

New map module for WPJA

Frietjes created a new module for use in infoboxes and anywhere else a map showing all of Japan is needed. See Module:Location map/data/Japan complete for details on usage. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We also have Module:Location map/data/Japan Kansai, created by Bellezzasolo and tweaked by Frietjes. Feel free to use them as appropriate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Project-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles