Talk:Shūkan Shinchō

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Shukan Shincho)

7 November 22[edit]

I deleted a non-neutral phrase that was not in the link provided to justify it and i replaced it with an information actually mentioned in the link provided, plus I added a link to the page "Shūkanshi" wich is a japanese term for weekly tabloid. Please do not delete a contribution without a valid reason. Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated by a reliable source and you put another statement using the source in a false way. So it would be reverted. --Egeymi (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The statement you added is "It claims that "[its] average reader is 41.4 years old, 34.2% are white collar, and 60.9% own their own homes" and that "the majority [of its readers] are upper class, wealthy and intellectually inclined"

This statement is not given in the source hope you can understand. If you want to insert it you should give a source for it, not use the source which does not say so. --Egeymi (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is in the source! Just read it instaed! Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as for the first phrase, you should realize it is not a factual information Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and you have not explained why you deleted "Shūkanshi" Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added see also page and the sentence you inserted. But you cannot delete the other statement.--Egeymi (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
where is the other statement in the source? And what justify it as a valid statement to describe the Content and political stance of the magazine, in an encyclopedic way? Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It never contains pornographic news and has a dignified layout, increasing its prestigious status in the Japanese society." does that strike you as the sort of formulation or "information" who has its place on a wikipedia page? Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is part of the magazine's stance. Could you please add your statements in the talk page of the magazine. --Egeymi (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the "see also" section, see also sections are there to provide further information on related subjects, and the "Shūkanshi" article is useful additional information, as it is a page about the category of magazines that this magazine is. the fact that the name "
Shūkanshi" is already mentioned in the article is not a reason to delete it from a "see also" section. Snarcky1996 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then see the following statement under MOS:LINKONCE:

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. So no need to repeat it. --Egeymi (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The related rule states "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." under MOS:SEEALSO --Egeymi (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It must be added that this is the magazine marketing of itself, not a factual information Snarcky1996 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a third contributor opinion on this, then? Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About what? If you are talking about See also issue, it is not open to such process, because the rule is very clear. Why are you insisting on adding see also section to the page Egeymi (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the rule state "Generally", and instances of repetitions of links in Wikipedia articles, notably in a "See also" section, are not rare. I want to add it because it is useful generalities about this type of magazines . But I return the question to you: Why do you want that much to delete my newly-added See also section? You already deleted it before, before I added a mention of Shūkanshi media in the text of the article, and you didn't provide a reason at all for doing that back then. You absolutely want to delete it for some reason, and I suspect that you are only using this rule as a convenient pretext for doing so. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I just try to follow the rules. I do not have any pretext and don't blame people like this, just reminding you a rule which I repeat here: "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." under MOS:SEEALSO. I do not want to consume my time with this discussion. Just follow the rule. --Egeymi (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As i said : You already deleted it before, before I added a "Shūkanshi" link in the text. You didn't had the "This is what the rule say" justification for deleting it back then.
But fine, if you don't want to talk, I'll go ask myself a third contributor to provide their opinion. Don't worry, I'll only ask that to a contributor with as much longevity and experience as a contributor as you. Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a request on "Active disagreements" section of the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. Snarcky1996 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to put the same message on my talk page. --Egeymi (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was requested by the rule: "Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the other editor's Talk page." Snarcky1996 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I am of the opinion that the See Also section should not be included in this article. As the rules state, links should not be repeated in the article body. You will find further reasoning behind this general rule on a 2017 RFC. The basic consensus is, readers that make it to the see also section, have read through the article and any interesting topics already linked have been followed, "It's a "see also" section, not a "see again" section; the implication to the reader is that we're presenting some further topics in addition to the ones that have already been discussed in the article." Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I accept it then, I will not add a See also section for this link. Snarcky1996 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A majority supported moving, and the opposers failed to adequately refute the contention that reliable sources generally include the diacritics. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shukan Shincho → Shūkan Shinchō – Having the macron in the name is the more correct translation of this Japanese magazine name to English. No standard title has been established in English so we should defer to the technically correct translation for the page title. DCsansei (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but... also needs a macron over the "u"; thus "Shūkan Shinchō". Rotary Engine talk 02:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, thanks for the flag. DCsansei (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, per Rotary Engine, if the move is necessary, it should be Shūkan Shinchō, not the proposed one.--Egeymi (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since English language does not contain accents or diacritics, transliterations into English from languages that do not use the Latin alphabet likewise should not contain any marks that are not part of English. It may be also noted that this publication's own website does not use diacritics where rendering the publication's name using the Latin alphabet. Moreover, the publication's English Wikipedia entry contains (under section header "References") 12 inline English-language cites and not a single one of those cites uses diacritics when rendering the publication's name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the first part of this comment is not consistent with our guidelines, either about accents and diacritics (WP:DIACRITICS: "the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged") or with regards to Japanese: MOS:JPCOM says "if it cannot be determined whether the non-macroned form is in common usage in English-language reliable sources, then the macroned form should be used until such time as it can be determined" and that "long vowels are written with macrons" when transliterating in "all romanized Japanese text and article titles." I am not a fan of using letters that are not a part of English since that may render articles illegible to some readers, but adding a macron to a letter does not have that effect. Recent reliable sources that are about this magazine as opposed to simply mentioning it (e.g. Mass Media, Consumerism and National Identity in Postwar Japan or Scandal in Japan: Transgression, Performance and Ritual) tend to use the macrons. Dekimasuよ! 10:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key phrase in my first sentence is "languages that do not use the Latin alphabet". Naturally, per WP:DIACRITICS, main title headers of English Wikipedia entries for, as an example, French newspapers will retain any existing accents and, likewise, headers of entries for Polish newspapers will retain any existing diacritics because those languages use the Latin alphabet and English Wikipedia is simply retaining the original orthography.
However, since English language does not employ accents or diacritics, it seems counterintuitive for English Wikipedia to insert accents or diacritics into words transliterated from other alphabets, such as Arabic or Japanese, since such artificial symbols are not even a part of the languages being transliterated.
As previously mentioned, it may be helpful to consult the 12 inline cites listed at the bottom of the article, under Shukan Shincho#References. Those links, taken from English-language Japanese sources such as this one, confirm that among them, none uses accents or diacritics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding However, since English language does not employ accents or diacritics, it seems counterintuitive for English Wikipedia to insert accents or diacritics into words transliterated from other alphabets, such as Arabic or Japanese, since such artificial symbols are not even a part of the languages being transliterated, diacritics are used in these cases precisely to approximate sounds for which there is no accurate approximation in standard English orthography. And in addition, it is inaccurate to state that these symbols or transliterations are being imposed by English Wikipedia. As shown in the lede of Hepburn romanization (which includes macrons), it "is used within Japan for romanizing personal names, locations, and other information, such as train tables and road signs. Because the system's orthography is based on English phonology instead of a systematic transcription of the Japanese syllabary, individuals who do not speak Japanese will generally be more accurate when pronouncing unfamiliar words romanized in the Hepburn style compared to other systems."
Long ago (almost 20 years ago now?) I recall not being sold on the idea of using macrons on the English Wikipedia, but it is clearly helpful for readers with even a passing understanding of Japanese, and MOS:JAPAN is happy with use of the macron, particularly when it is present in reliable sources. Here, usage in sources is split as I showed above. (Note that sources 4, 10, 11, and 12 are not reliable sources. The only sources cited in this article that should be considered reliable are The Japan Times and The Mainichi. A Public Betrayed was published by Regnery Publishing, a publisher with an explicit POV and a reputation for reliability that is mixed at best.) Dekimasuよ! 19:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the point remains that if English language does not employ accents or diacritics, then the presence of such symbols is very unlikely to be helpful to readers for whom these marks are not part of their reading experience. As for the 12 references at the bottom of this article, surely all would not be branded as unreliable for lacking diacritics and, regarding Regnery's uncertain reliability, it cannot be stretched to criticism of their proofreaders' inattention to orthography in not including diacritics.
An important argument against the use of diacritics is the fact that online content from Japan, as written in English, does not appear to include diacritics and the name of this magazine itself, on its own website, does not depict it with diacritics. Also, English-language websites of Japanese publications as well as English-language TV schedules of Japanese broadcasters, such as NHK World, do not employ diacritics for any transliterated Japanese names or program titles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, MOS:JPCOM asks us to follow usage in reliable sources. The unreliable sources in the article aren't unreliable because of whether or not they use macrons, they are unreliable to begin with, and so do not factor into the equation. The book sources (with writers both inside and outside Japan) that show use of macrons are of higher quality than newspaper sources. And the publication's website is not an independent, secondary source.
There are other factors raised by your comment, such as that NHK is run by the Japanese government which mandates a certain style of romanization whereas Wikipedia generally rejects these official versions, and that not just some but all Japanese people would type the title of this article as "Shūkan Shinchō" in roman characters just to get the Japanese characters to appear on the screen (typing "Shukan Shincho" converts to 主観新著=Perspectives on New Books?), and that this article is not only for "readers for whom these marks are not part of their reading experience" (who are free to ignore them, as they do not hinder readability). But the underlying thing that needs to be decided here is simply how the title is shown in reliable, independent sources. Dekimasuよ! 23:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that to get screen output of 週刊新潮, I would type the characters "shuukann shinchou"; the additional "u" reflecting the long vowels represented in Hepburn romanisation by macrons.
I also do not find the name of the magazine in Latin characters on the website, other than in a Twitter handle, @shukan_shincho, which may have its own restrictions on characters. In addition to the different romanisation standards mentioned above (Hepburn, Kunrei, etc), the extent to which individual Japanese terms transcribed to Latin characters are "in English" is debatable.
And adding that English does, on occasion, use diacritics; an obvious example being "naïvety". Rotary Engine talk 00:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although English language has no accents or diacritics, it uses some words borrowed from languages that do use such marks, with "naïvety" or "naïveté" along with "fiancé" or "café" among the examples that have become part of English language. All such words are also acceptable if rendered in English without accents or diacritics.
English Wikipedia has numerous main title headers of articles concerning topics from languages that do use accents or diacritics, such as Czech, French, Polish, Spanish or Turkish. The main difference in reference to the subject at hand is that such languages use the Latin alphabet and therefore those English Wikipedia headers appear in the same manner as in that language's Wikipedia.
However, languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Thai do not use the Latin alphabet and therefore transliterating text from such languages into English via insertion of accents or diacritics into the English-language text appears to be counterintuitive since such marks are not part of English language readership's orthographic experience.
Even insertion of accents or diacritics into text transliterated from non-Latin alphabet into Latin-alphabet languages that use accents or diacritics, such as French or Polish, is unlikely to produce the desired result unless the accents or diacritics used in such transliteration are the same marks that are in use and understood within the alphabet of the target country. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Roman Spinner and the move is not necessary since there's no factual mistake in regard to the title, Egeymi (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Japan has been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Accurate title, used in reliable sources in English, and does not inhibit readability for users unfamiliar with the macrons. Dekimasuよ! 10:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Natg 19 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shūkan_Shinchō&oldid=1219945118"