Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Names of modern Japanese emperors: Reply, replace removed comment |
→Footnote, template or something: We can make it short |
||
Line 639:
I agree, #2 looks good ... I still wonder about which date should be given priority (Western vs. Japanese). I think in an ideal world it would be Western (which is the form the vast majority of users expect), but if the Western date is not always known/calculable (which seems to be the case?) then we might have to go with Japanese. Either way, it probably would be a good idea to explain the Western/Japanese calendar date issue in the Explanatory Note footnote you are working on. My only comment is that the Explanatory "Note" looks like it will inevitably be as long as the Japanese Manual of Style itself, which might kind of defeat the purpose (maybe a link to the J-MoS might work instead?). Or, should each main topic (Japanese names, Japanese dates, Japanese place names, etc.) get its own "explanatory note" for simplicity's sake? Just a few thoughts. [[User:CES|CES]] 02:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
: I agree we don't want to simply duplicate MoS, but we could make a short page which gives a quick summary of each point, and links to the appropriate reference; e.g. the line about names would just say something like "Japanese names were historically given with the family name first", and link to [[Japanese names]], etc, etc. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 20:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
| |||