Is using Nihongo foot template acceptable in articles? Please do not inject threaded replies into the survey.

Survey

• Yes - Improves readability compared to having several Nihongo templates in succession. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - It does improve readability and it is useful. Wikipedia does not have a standardization for references or even variants of English, I see no reason why Nihongo foot's fate/usage rests on even shakier grounds. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No: There is no precedent for using footnotes to provide alternate readings. In fact, there is very little usage of footnotes that are not citations on this project. Either the text is included inline or just don't bother providing it if its so unnecessary and obstructive that you feel putting it in a footnote is better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: See my arguments below. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: Per the reasons provided above and below. Lucia Black (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: It helps in cases where a translated term has been expanded upon by the manga or anime translator's notes. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: BUT keep it on a case by case basis. I can see this working well on larger articles not so much for the smaller ones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Before Ryulong expresses his hate for this or me, I'm going to say I will withdrawal peacefully to whatever the result shall be and will forever drop this issue. Repeating my argument for pro usage, the template puts Japanese and Romaji into a note format so it makes it easier to read several "Nihongo words" in succession.

(Rozen Maiden manga and novels With and Without)

(GitS Game With and Without)

Again Ryulong, I am trying my best to resolve this peacefully, and am hoping you will act calmly to whatever consensus is achieved. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start the RFC while the TFD is ongoing. And this issue does not concern just anime and manga pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to contact VG and Japan. It doesn't look like the TFD will end in deletion, if it does I will withdrawal this RFC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't solve the issue of the TFD still being ongoing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was some broken rule, oops. For now, there is no harm in discussing his. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a side note, the nihongo foot is also in Stand Alone Complex and Cobra (manga). I genuinely believe its good for media more than character names. Its much more useful to have character names first. Lucia Black (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well maybe you shouldn't be adding all of these things if the titles aren't particularly important in the text itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Its important because its the original title, its just not as important to highlight the original title especially if it intrudes the article. I know the counter argument was prepared when you said that because who in the right mind would remove it? The thing is, the titles aren't removed, but for the sake of flow, we can't have them so detailed, but we can't have them so inaccurate either. Lucia Black (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If the titles are that obstructive to text, then perhaps they're not necessary to provide, particularly if it's just a supplementary book's title or a soundtrack name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I find it counter-intuitive to remove the knaji.hepburn.translation rather than putting them in footnotes. Lucia Black (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  In all of its uses where I found it, it was only being used to cut out text that's basically duplicating text elsewhere in the article. You used it to take out the title of every single instance of supplementary media that had the exact same title as the subject but with some new subtitle tacked onto it. Or its haphazard application at Rozen Maiden before I split the character list off from the main article, again. If you're only using it as taking "SPACE ADVENTURE COBRA〜ザ・サイコガン" or "攻殻機動隊 GHOST IN THE SHELL 上巻 ベーシックファイル" out of the prose then maybe you shouldn't bother to have that shit in the article in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, keep your mouth clean. this is a valid discussion, and if you don't have the maturity to stay civil, then don't speak at all. that particular media didn't even come out in the US, so its original title needs to be available. being in footnotes also helps. You are having a fit over nothing. i can understand if this is being done in a place where they are being removed from particular areas where it doesn't affect readability, but you are just doing this out of anger, not reason. Lucia Black (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is acceptable, but should be used sparingly. If the information aides the reader's understanding of the subject, it should be included. If its inclusion might be awkward in-lined in the body of the article, or too detailed, then it should be given in footnotes. And if the information is superfluous and doesn't aide the reader's understanding, it shouldn't be included at all. Before adding Japanese text, I think the latter argument should be given serious consideration. If the article can do without, it probably should. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the template, as I often feel that all Japanese characters commonly hurt readability. Japanese isn't a very common second language for English speakers, so for a vast majority of speakers, its unrecognizable characters that mean nothing to the reader. This template seems to cut down on that some, so I support it. (Though ultimately, as Odie says above, I believe much of the time it could be omitted altogether and be just fine.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a somewhat neutral perspective. Perhaps, to narrow things down a bit further, the template seems quite useful to aid articles where there is either a large amount of small in-line Japanese text or a small amount of large in-line Japanese text. From a more general perspective, since this is the English Wikipedia, reading text from other languages tends to be off-putting at (select) times especially with regards to my opening statement. With regards to Japanese-related WikiProjects, usually some of the Japanese text can arguably be of interest to subsets of readers. These may include those with a keen interest in the subject matter and perhaps even understand the Kanji etc., while doing little to nothing in aiding the average reader other than appear as mid-sentence jargon. Although this isn't definitive and sometimes implementing the template on a case-by-case basis or at times, left up to the person who contributed the most to the article in question, may be the best courses of action. —KirtZ^Message 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  In nearly every instance of the template, it is being used on an article that is already probably considered to be in a niche market for the English audience as it was probably never released in English in the first place. There are perhaps times when this format has some use, but in nearly al of the instances I have seen it is being used to remove text that is probably not relevant or important in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. Irrelevant text should be excluded to decrease clutter. However it looks as though the community would rather use the template as a compromise for that and somehow give such text at least some percentage of relevancy by way of a non-intrusive mention. I should probably add that I've never even heard of this template before this RfC and even if it was deleted I'm sure case by case discussions would resolve any further text issues. Frankly, with or without this template, there's going to be future debates regarding the relevancy of Japanese text so my opinion is that this entire RfC may be pointless. Again, I'm not taking anyone's side here. —KirtZ^Message 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]