Talk:List of Japanese writers

Is breaking up the page really necessary? I thought it was fine as is... if your browser can't read pages over 32k then UPGRADE IT. -- Goatasaur

Not because of my browser, but because of my conjucted internet connection and as-always slow wikipedia server. Remember it is not a good idea to have a long article, which takes long time to download too as does in my PC. Not everyone has a broadband connection, though mime is a broadband in college campus. -- Taku 02:17 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Good point Taku. If you want me to split the list of Japanese authors page, sing out - but you will have to fix all the links it breaks! Tannin

Oh, actually I realized I don't how to be able to submit but need only to read.I am breaking up List of Japanese authors (which is awfully long. Yeah, I know I made such a list.). Anyway it is a good idea to check what I am editing. I may break articles without notice. -- Taku 02:14 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with making a bunch of split articles. If I am interested in browsing a list of Japanese authors, the act of clicking on a bunch of links to go back and forth is going to be very tiresome. I think the original list should stay, maybe with a link to another list that is split. Either way, keeping only the split articles will make browsing a tedious exercise. -- Goatasaur

I prefer the long list but the practical matters make me impossible to add a new entry. And likely it is not all me. We can't make a decision only based on our preference. -- Taku 02:22 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you are doing now? -- Goatasaur

Huh? are you saying, I prefer a long list but I can't edit it then I should refrain myself from contributing to wikipedia. I am not sure what you mean -- Taku 02:37 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Goatasaur, you may be shocked to hear this, but the principal point of having a site as a wiki is so that people can edit it. If a great many people are unable to edit pages because of their length, that is a serious problem. Therefore, it is preferable to reduce the length of pages as a simple technical matter that enables participation.

More generally, shorter pages are usually easier to navigate, easier to edit, and faster to download, and are to be generally encouraged on these bases as a boon to our readers. --Brion 02:40 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Goatasaur, I'm not sure that I like the split-up list myself. But then I'm on cable here at home and at work too, so it's easy for me to say that. The way I look at it though, is that if it wasn't for Taku's work we wouldn't have the list in the first place, and as a general rule it is usually both sensible and courteous, where one contributor has done the vast majority of the work on a subject, for the rest of us to stand back and not joggle his elbow. Tannin

Understood. Again, I have accessed Wikipedia on dial-up on many occasions without a problem. I do see most of the work has been done and it's not something I'm going to be using any great deal, so I retract my argument. -- Goatasaur

---

I'm confused as to how this list is organized. It appears that the authors are each listed family-name first, as they would be in Japan, but 1) this is not stated, which makes it confusing for readers and editors, and 2) it leads to links breaking where there are existing Wikipedia entries. For instance, Kenzaburo Oe is listed under O as Oe Kenzaburo. However, Oe has a Wikipedia entry under Kenzaburo Oe. I would like to rework this section to be given name first, family name last, to bring it into harmony with the rest of the wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot tell for most entries which order they are in and further suspect there is some mixing if any non-Japanese editors have contributed. --Zippy 01:21, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Kenzaburo Oe's example, the article should be named Oe Kenzaburo. And I oppose to change the order because even in English writting community, the order family name is followed by the given name seems common. It is the proper order anyway. -- Taku

I defer to your opinions of name order within Japan, but in my business dealings it is becoming uncommon for a Japanese person's western-style business card to list the family name first. Further, the names of many Japanese authors are, in the west, listed family name last. For examples of how Japanese author names are listed in the West, see [[http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com]], specifically [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802150616/qid=1062814316/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-7372564-7412945 Kenzaburo Oe] on Amazon and [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568860617/qid=1062814329/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-7372564-7412945?v=glance Ryunosuke Akutagawa] on Amazon. Whichever method used, and I am for family name last for consistency, it should be described on the Japanese author pages so that all readers understand which convention is in use. --Zippy 02:17, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am sure in the scene of bussiness or news. What is unforunate to us is that we haven't yet come up with a consistent convention. You can find many confusion about Utada Hikaru or Ayumi Hamasaki in Music of Japan. I think this issuie is unsolvable. -- Taku 02:24, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

While the world is in flux, we don't have to be. Let's set a standard for other articles to follow. Here are examples of western newspapers naming the Prime Minister of Japan: BBC - Junichiro Koizumi, UPI Newswire - Junichiro Koizumi, MSNBC - Junichiro Koizumi. I suggest this form is the default in western newspapers. As newspapers and web sites like Amazon use this form, I suggest that it is now the default form in the west. --Zippy 05:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC) 05:36, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think we should do what we do in other places: use the most common name in English. So we call them Junichiro Koizumi and Kenzaburo Oe, which is what they're most commonly called in English; it does not follow that we would have to call another person, say, Ieyasu Tokugawa. - Montréalais 07:36, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is fine with me, as long as we default to family name last when the name order is not otherwise established. (so, Kenzaburo Oe and Akira Kurasawa and Junichiro Koizumi). Where the person's name is established in the west in the opposite order, that is, family name first, we can use that version for article names, maximizing the chance of users finding and linking to the article, but use the default form in lists of names like List of Japanese authors to simplify sorting these lists. Taku, what do you say? --Zippy 21:14, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the policy, the most common name in English. I understand also that family name first, given name last order is strange in English writing and is inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia articles. Honestly, this is a noisance problem to me and don't see a nice solution. I was thinking of historical names like Kakinomoto no Hitomaro while Kakinomoto is a family name. His name is never written in Hitomaro no Kakinomoto or such. It might be so confusing to some readers familar with Japanese names. Give more thoughs, I will certainly appreciate. -- Taku 00:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As long as Japanese people are willing to change their names to please the Westerners, this issue will never have a solution. It is like, when George Bush called himself Bush George in front of Japanese, people will start to get confused. The Chinese government standardized on the name usage in Western publication. Mao Zedong should never be called Zedong Mao regardless of what language you are speaking, a name is a name, names should not be changed beside transliteration. It is time for the Westerners to be global savvy. It is a wake up call that the term "last name" does not make sense outside of English speaking world. Since both ways are acceptable to the Japanese people, you'll have a hard to switch people over. One good example is Wen Ho Lee who called himself Lee Wen Ho among Chinese, but the rest of the world called him a different name. If you cannot change them, join them. It is fact of life.

The CIA Factbook of the world quotes all family names with ALL Capital letters to resolve this ambiguity. However it was Wikipedia's policy not to adopt the convention. So you have to live with the confusion because the policy does not take different world cultures into consideration. Kowloonese 01:07, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

One could also add piped links and redirect pages to resolve the fact that a Japanese person's name is often known by two different orderings in western literature so I don't see the issue here. In western literature, historical Japanese names are usually in surname, given name order, while for a modern Japanese names the ordering is opposite of their actual names. So to have a list of Japanese names written in most popular order would introduce ambiguity - for example, there is no way to tell whether an author would be listed under Akutagawa Ryunosuke or Ryunosuke Akutagawa because he's sort of modern as well as sort of not, so I would have to look under A as well as R (even if Wikipedia had adopted the all caps convention). Also, non-famous authors would be difficult to impossible to list because we wouldn't know whether we should use the actual name or not. Therefore I don't see how the popularity argument should be used to rearrange literally the entire literary list which is already organized in a clear and consistent manner. On the other hand, people in this list whose actual name is in given name, surname order is few to none. By the way, Taku: actually names like "Kakinomoto no Hitomaro" are sometimes written as "Hitomaro Kakinomoto" ("no" omitted) in western literature. --Tokek 03:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi. I'm TY, Japanese Wikipedian. List of Japanese authors totally confused me... It includes much many obscure authors (they are not known at all in Japan). I guess someone had contributed very long list of Japanese text archive Aozora Bunko. But this online archive have lots of obscure or amateur writers' name.TY 10:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. I think we must not delete stub, because It's good starting point to write articles. I mean, List of Japanese authors includes many clutter which nobody can write any articles about him/her. I guess that someone used bots and didn't check anymore whether they are real authors or just people who happened to write some text. TY 08:59, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd deleted some and added significant authors.TY 02:25, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)