Wikipedia

Talk:Yui (singer)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Kana as a pronunciation guide

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

If we open as "Yui (ユイ, born March 26, 1907)", the vast majority of readers will assume that the subject's Japanese name is "ユイ". After all, that's how the template is designed to be used. In Japanese, she is "YUI", according to Asashi, Yomiuri, and pretty much any other Japanese source you want to use. Personal names are written in kan. So if you were to write "Yui" in Japanese characters, it would be 唯. The kana characters are apparently being used as a guide to the Japanese pronunciation of her name, which is quite unconventional. Look at Toshiro Mifune or Hideki Tōjō. The Romanized name is followed by the actual Japanese name. They don't have kana in the opening. So I support DAJF's edit here. Kauffner (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

DAJF should never have removed ユイ in that edit because it is contra to WP:MOS-JA, and he went against the consensus that has existed on this page for ages until your constant edits against the fact. I can find editions from 2009 that include the katakana form until it was for some reason removed by individuals like yourself who are ignorant in the fact that katakana name forms exist for Japanese people whose names are not written in Japanese. Anyway, Toshiro Mifune and Hideki Tōjō have names written in kanji and there are clear rules as to how to read kanji when they are part of names. I do not know where this abhorrence to using the katakana form of the stage names of Japanese songstresses utilizing the English alphabet instead of a native syllabary. As I wrote fairly clearly on Talk:Misia, which you have apparently ignored completely, it is not blatantly evident as to how to read these names which are not written in a method that is native to Japan.
Ignoring the fact that 唯 may be the kanji that makes up her legal name which we cannot prove, it is not evident as to how "YUI" is meant to be read. It could be "Wye U I". One of the vowels could be pronounced extended. We cannot ascertain this from just "YUI". And it is a major leap for you to assume that our readers will think "Yui" is written as ユイ just because it is included in the template. Another option which I attempted to employ on Misia, which you summarily removed because of your constant insistence that the katakana and the stylized form (let alone the word "stylized") should not be on the article would be to have {{nihongo|Yui|YUI（ユイ）}}, but this does not make it clear that "YUI" is a stylization or the primary form at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Kauffner's comments above. Including a katakana rendering of her name in the article introduction implies that that is how she is known in Japanese, which I think we all know is not the case, since even Japanese sources refer to her as "Yui", or more commonly "YUI". It is therefore inaccurate and misleading.
I would be interested to see where in the WP:MOS-JA guidelines it says that Japanese script must be used for Japanese names even when it is not used by Japanese sources. The argument about confusion as to how the name might be read is also bogus, as writing the name as "Yui" in accordance with the Manual of Style makes it perfectly clear that the name is not read "Y-U-I". That's the whole point of the manual of style. --DAJF (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
You two have been the only people to suggest that including ユイ is misleading. No one else has ever assumed this is the case. The majority of editors of Japanese articles seem to be against you two. The katakana form is included for all Japanese entities who may be known by a name that utilizes the English alphabet in Japan. This is just common practice because of the nature of their name. But instead of continuing the discussion here, Kauffner has taken his arguments to WT:JAPAN, and has split the discussion up too far.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The katakana ユイ does not belong in the article.
It can't be justified as a Japanese name, because it's not used as a name. "YUI" is the name in use; "ユイ" is not.
Justifying using a Japanese character set to purportedly provide pronunciation in an English encyclopedia, designed for an English-speaking audience, makes no sense. IPA should be used instead if there is any issue of pronunciation. See WP:PRON.
I see nothing in WP:MOS-JA that indicates non-transliteration use of katakana should be included in the article simply because the individual is Japanese.
I don't see any indication of any consensus that the katakana should be in the article. I see that it's been sitting in there for a long time, but inertia is not consensus. Consensus is a general agreement among editors; see WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus emerges out of discussions like this one. Furthermore, even if there once had been a consensus to include the katakana (which has not been demonstrated) consensus can change. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Consensus is being determined on WT:JAPAN now because this discussion has been splintered too much. Kauffner edit warred on Misia, and then started discussions here and WT:JAPAN instead of responding to the thread started on Talk:Misia. So can we not continue discussing this here and instead put focus onto one particular page rather than possibly creating conflicting consensuses because of Kauffner's inability to stick to one place?—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requested Move: → Yui

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


– The proposed moves would make the singer primary topic. Several of the articles listed on the Yui disambiguation page are partial title matches, including YUI Library and Corrector Yui. Just to be conservative, I included the page view numbers for every entry: 62335 / (373 + 62335 + 408 + 1,229 + 2,443 + 373 + 13,585 + 1,886). So even by this standard, the singer is getting 75 percent of relevant traffic. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Wolfram|Alpha search engine can figure out what topic is primary for "Yui." Kauffner (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I take the request down. This has been the RM of petty grievances. I hope you're all satisfied now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 February 2013‎ (UTC)Reply
It would have been nice if you had stated in a comment that you're withdrawing this, instead of just the edit summary. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's way past time for you get an account. Then you'd get the edit summary on your watchlist. Kauffner (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
And what has that to do with what third parties to come to this discussion and find no comments? Do you expect someone three years from now to follow threads by extensively reviewing every edit comment? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
  • Comment this was previously proposed in 2011-2012 also filed by Kauffner (see /Archive 1) which was archived just prior to the opening of this new requested move. [1] when Kauffner reduced the number of visible threads to 2 from 3 [2] and then immediately afterwards increased the visible threads to 4 [3] when filing the new move. The result was to archive just the previous requested move just before filing the new one. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment it's strange, since with the opening of the requested move, the limit would have been breached, and the old move would have been automatically archived without changing the archival parameters, as there would have been 4 threads on the page (over the old limit of 3), so the oldest one would have been naturally archived. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I'm concerned about the apparent gaming going on with this move request (as mentioned above by the IP). Please explain the reasons behind your apparent underhanded handling of this, Kauffner. Note that I'm not accusing you, but rather asking you to explain what appears on the surface to be unacceptable behavior. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Is there a rule against archiving now? I had a dream in which an RM was used to discuss the merits of a proposed move, instead for the usual exchange of personal accusations. But I guess that's not going happen. Kauffner (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Kauffner, as you have a long history of doing this on over a dozen or more RMs, both logged out as IP, and logged in (and mixing up both as at Talk:Lady Trieu) and you have repeatedly had pointed out to you, at RMs, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive and at ANI the following:

If there have been previous move discussions on the talk page, use - Requested move xxxx - where xxxx can be the year if that is appropriate, or "2" for a second discussion.

You know this rule exists, since you have expressed disagreement with it in the past, nevertheless it is part of WP:RM and we are all expected to follow it. Naturally there are good-faith cases of someone not knowing that there has been a previous RM, but in a case where the person who launches an RM with a reset of the archive concealing the RM, how can they claim they didn't know there was a previous RM? And don't reply to this cold statement of facts with a personal attack or sarcasm. Please address your own behaviour. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) You know perfectly well there's no rule against archiving, so please stop deflecting the question to something completely irrelevant. The question is why you seem to have a pattern of doing this (as presented above), and why you keep doing it. It seems completely bizarre that you would archive (or cause to be archived) only the previous RM and then change the archive setting back to what they were previously, and only then start a new RM. I would appreciate it if you would focus on the question being asked instead of pulling a "politician" and answering without answering. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

picture

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

shouldn't someone upload a picture of her, and put it in this article, probably in the infobox.thank you Sincerely zeroro 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have tried twice I believe only to be shot down both times due to "sourcing" when I have provided evidence that the original uploader of the photos has given me permission to use on Wikipedia. Oh wells. Cooldra01 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
maybe they want you to ask YUI herself alsothank you zeroro 13:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Yui (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Yui (singer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yui_(singer)&oldid=1212599506"