Talk:Japan/Archive 21

Complete country name of 日本国 Nippon-koku

"日本国 " seems to have a practical translation of "Country of Japan" as compared to just "Japan". - knoodelhed (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly a literal translation, but we don't always go with literal. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

See also here. "Japan" is the official English name. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Japan, Government: Dominant-Party System

I, or anyone else, could provide an abundance of sources to show that Japan is a dominant-party system.

Perhaps the data speaks for itself, though.

Out of the 74 years since the new constitution, just six of these years has the LDP not been in power.

Clearly a Dominant Party System; perhaps even the archetype of such a form of democratic governance. We see the same with Singapore, another democracy.

Not a hugely important alteration but nonetheless should be added under 'Government' in the fact sheet, as it is the form of govt that Japan has.

RobinHammon (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Intforce can you elaborate on the reasoning for your opposition? I don't think it's that important, but one could certainly argue the dominance of the LDP is already a feature of the Japanese system, at least on a national level. That's not a reason per se to add it to the infobox, though, so I'm kind of neutral on this... --Urbanoc (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose at the moment on the basis that the subject isn't mentioned in the article body, although on the principle I am also neutral. I wouldn't say it's the same as Singapore, but there is clearly a dominant party. CMD (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox not the place for this.....fine in the body with an explanation. But just a linked term in the info box is misleading as it gives the impression of an authoritative or totalitarian state.Moxy- 03:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Moxy: thanks for your replies. Yours seem good reasons for not adding the "dominant party" bit, so my opinion now is to let it the way it is, unless someone gives a good argument for inclusion. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Moxy, Urbanoc; I argue that it being true is definitely a good enough reason on its own. A country having a "dominant-party" system does not imply authoritarianism, although authoritarianism requires at least a dominant party system. I feel that would be a prime example of the fallacy of the converse. A dominant party being necessary for authoritarianism does not mean that it is sufficient for authoritarianism. Singapore undoubtedly has a dominant party, and it is not authoritarian. If the people simply choose a single party and willingly vote that way then a state can be completely democratic and sill be a dominant-party system. As for this not being mentioned in the body of the article, I point out that it is mentioned that "the politics of Japan have primarily been dominated by the LDP since 1955" in Politics of Japan. NateNate60 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears a very good argument for adding it to the info box. Any arguments against this? RobinHammon — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Simply being true is not in itself a sufficient reason for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is central to the way Japan is governed. We now accept it is true, and accept that it is referenced in the main body. But it is also central to how Japan is governed. If it should not appear here, it should not appear in the infobox for Singapore either. RobinHammon (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be an argument to put forward at the Singapore talk page, but has no impact on what happens here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Reversions of citations et al.

I have made a few edits to this article which have:

• Italicised a transliteration of Japanese;
• Hyphenated citation parameters;
• Added an ISSN;
• Added URL, via, and URL access parameters.

@Nikkimaria has reverted these as "not improvements" and "previous was correct". Nikkimaria has previously reverted citation maintenance by @Headbomb (see her talk page) with the justification that she does not think that "any of the changes made ... were necessary or improved the article". (In my opinion, her reversion was not necessary, nor did it improve the article.) I believe these are improvements, albeit very small. At this point (if we had continued to revert each other) this would be a candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Should my edits remain? Tol | Talk | Contribs 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing is certainly not an appropriate response. What leads you to believe that your changes were improvements? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anything I did was canvassing. My edits are justified:

• MOS:FOREIGNITALIC recommends italicising foreign words.
• Hyphenated citation parameters are preferred.
• An ISSN assists with identification of the publication.
• URLs help people go to the cited article, and URL access parameters show icons to indicate if they will have to pay or register to read the article.

You have not pointed out anything that you actually disliked about my edits; all that you have said is that they are "not improvements". Is there anything actually wrong with my edits? Tol | Talk | Contribs 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The translation template has been retained, as have a few other items, but much of the edits simply added unnecessary clutter. Adding a limited-access JSTOR URL where there is already a JSTOR ID resolving to the same location, for example, just adds a duplicate link; "1992-03-XX" is no more useful than "March 1992" and introduces unwanted inconsistency. As to the rest of your post, we will need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I now understand your points; I'll let the article be. Thanks for explaining your reversions. Tol | Talk | Contribs 06:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic makeup in infobox

I want to start a discussion on this content: [1]. I am skeptical of synthesis on the Yamato/Ainu/Ryukyuan subgroupings, but the CIA Factbook source ([2]) does verify the statement of "Japanese 98.1%, Chinese 0.5%, Korean 0.4%, other 1% (includes Filipino, Vietnamese, and Brazilian) (2016 est.)". Pinging User:Rzzgn and User:Nikkimaria. — Goszei (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I think I see the problem: it says that the "data represent population by nationality", rather than ethnicity. Britannica, however, does present the same data anyway under a section on "Ethnic groups" ([3]). I think this is because (1) the Japanese government does not collect ethnic data (2) nationality is probably a good enough approximation, with a notation of such – we should we wary of leaving out populations like Zainichi Koreans, but their numbers are fairly small. We could add a footnote explaining this further, if needed. — Goszei (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree we should be included this content, between the nationality vs ethnicity issue and the subgroupings OR. Britannica still labels its diagram as nationality, not ethnicity AFAICT. I can't tell where either source has gotten its data from, do you know? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I presume both sources are doing math based on primary info from the Japanese Statistic Bureau (it is released in the spreadsheet called "Foreign National Residents by Nationality" in the 2021 Statistical Handbook, for example [4]). The math adds up, more or less. The CIA World Factbook should certainly be usable as a reliable secondary source, though (preferable to citing primary documents).

My point before was that these sources do present the nationality data (and importantly label it as such) when discussing ethnic groups, since it is presumably the best anyone can do without official data collection. I think we should do the same in the infobox, with a footnote. I just corrected this error in the article body, where it said "98.1% ethnic Japanese", when the CIA says "98.1% Japanese nationals".

I just tested it, such a footnote can be placed in the "ethnic_groups_ref" parameter. — Goszei (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to present nationality data in a field labelled for ethnic data, even with a footnote, and even leaving aside the other issues with the edit in question. But let's see if anyone else weighs in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure about presenting nationality as ethnicity, and the splitting up of the Japanese ethnicity may not be immediately understandable. Such considerations should however also apply to the Demographics section, which presents the ethnicity data separately to citizenship data without any qualifier. CMD (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion here, after fixing the misconceptions and inaccuracies on this topic the article body. Even with a footnote, like Nikkimaria said, it would be confusing and lead to misconceptions. — Goszei (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. The content of Japanese ethnic groups is supported by exact data. In fact, the problem is not whether content is accurate or not, but whether it needs to be added to the infobox. Other East Asian countries have ethnic information in infobox. Why is Japan so special? Rzzgn (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What exact data are you referring to? As already pointed out, the data provided so far refers to nationality, not ethnicity. It may approximate ethnicity, as Goszei explains, but it cannot be described as "exact". Further, what information to include is decided on a case-by-case basis, so what other pages may or may not do is immaterial. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt such data exists, for the reasons I had already outlined below (why was Rzzgn's comment posted above mine?), and the simple answer to "why Japan is so special" on this point is that Japanese censuses do not record this data. It might also be worth noting that the South Korea infobox does have an entry on this, but its "information" is practically useless and runs counter to the normal purpose of an infobox. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The edition I edited quoted two materials, one of which is CIA's world book, which may be about nationality, but the other is about ethnic groups. You'd better read other people's version before you cover it. Rzzgn (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (sorry to be late) As far as I am aware, the Japanese government neither maintains nor has an infrastructure in place to record information on the ethnic background of either its own citizenry or its resident aliens. The figures cited by the OP are for national citizenship, not ethnicity, as is made clear by the fact that "Japanese", "Chinese", "Filipino" and "Brazilian" are not ethnic groups: the majority of the "Brazilians" are almost certainly "ethnically Japanese" (although, again, this data is not recorded AFAIK, the government has historically subsidized the descendants of Japanese emigrants "returning" to Japan on special programs that I don't claim to know anything about), while Donald Keene, until his death two years ago, would have been included in the figure as "Japanese" because of his becoming a naturalized citizen, which no one would claim changed his ethnicity. I'm "ethnically Irish" (as in mostly of Gaelic stock, not to mention most of my known ancestors having been Roman Catholics), and while the Japanese government does classify me as "Irish" in its statistics, I could have the exact same ethnic background but have dual citizenship and be registered as "UK" (which most Japanese, including those who work in Immigration, would likely misread as "English"). As for indigenous ethnic groups like the Ryukyuans and Ainu, these are not formally distinguished in census data or other government statistics from Yamatunchu/Wajin, and this is complicated further by the fact that mixed-ancestry people who self-identify as Ainu might be genetically identical to mixed-ancestry people who self-identify as Wajin, while on the other end of the country those who identify as Ryukyuan might be identical to Yamatunchu in all but self-identification, and these self-identifications are not recorded in any comprehensive nationwide fashion. (And while I've never been to Okinawa, I've met plenty of people who came to the Kinai for college or work and who would probably identify as Ryukyuan if I asked them.) If one ignored self-identification and calculated numbers based on estimates of how many people speak Ainu or one of the Ryukyuan languages as their first language, the number for the former would be extremely low (a miniscule percentage of the national population), while the latter would be distorted by the tendency among both scholars and laymen not to treat Ryukyuan as a separate language from Japanese (no one around here talks about their mother tongue being Osaka-ben and Hyojungo being their second language, and I'm pretty sure many Okinawans see it the same way); if one relied on estimates as to the number of people for whom it could be said that the majority of their direct ancestors in the year 1800 spoke this or that language ... well, such figures are almost certainly extremely speculative and unlikely to be of much use or even interest to readers of this national overview article. The descendants of 19th-century European settlers on islands that would not be incorporated into Japan until later are another group that are included in that "Japanese" figure cited up above but are ethnically distinct from the majority of Japanese, but their numbers as a proportion of the national population are probably even lower than those of the Ainu: certainly substantially less than 0.001%. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

14.199.188.151 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tol | talk | contribs 06:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

change the gdp(nominal) per capita ranking from 23nd to 23rd AllMyOpinonsAreWrong (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Addition of new Nobel prize winner in literature.

Kazuo Ishiguro won the Nobel prize in literature in 2017 Kazuo Ishiguro born in Nagasaki (Japan) when he was five ,the family moved to England.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepesh7409 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

However when he won the Nobel price he was A) no longer resident in Japan and B) no longer a Japanese citizen. So I don’t see how this is an accomplishment to add to the country of Japan page. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

Need to remove the last paragraph of the Religion section in Japan page, reason is that the religions mentioned in there are very minute and unnoticeable in the country, so it would be better if removed, living in Japan for 30 years I havnt once met or even seen any Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Sikh or Bhai'i faith followers anywhere so let it not be on that page but still if anyone finds it interesting can go to the 'Religion in Japan' page for learning more but those who want an overview its not preferable to show that last paragraph. 61.1.158.153 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We don't change articles based on personal anecdotes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Japan" name origin

This is from the Tombstone of Yegun of Baekje (禰軍 墓誌銘) (A.D. 678)

標點文 大唐故右威衛將軍·上柱國禰公墓誌銘 幷序 公諱軍字溫, 熊津嵎夷人也. 其先與華同祖, 永嘉末, 避亂適東, 因遂家焉. 若夫巍巍鯨山, 跨青丘以東峙. 淼淼熊水, 臨丹渚以南流. 浸煙雲以摛英, 降之於蕩沃. 照日月而㨩悊, 秀之於蔽虧. 靈文逸文, 高前芳於七子. 汗馬雄武, 擅後異於三韓. 華構增輝, 英材繼響. 綿圖不絶, 奕代有聲. 曾祖福, 祖譽, 父善, 皆是本藩一品, 官號佐平. 幷緝地義以光身, 佩天爵而懃國. 忠侔鐵石, 操埒松筠. 範物者, 道德有成. 則士者, 文武不墜. 公狼輝襲祉, 鷰頷生姿. 涯濬澄陂, 裕光愛日. 干牛斗之逸氣, 芒照星中. 搏羊角之英風, 影征雲外. 去顯慶五年, 官軍平本藩日, 見機識變, 杖劒知歸, 似由余之出戎, 如金磾之入漢. 聖上嘉歎, 擢以榮班, 授右武衛滻川府折衝都尉. 于時日本餘噍, 據扶桑以逋誅. 風谷遺甿, 負盤桃而阻固. 萬騎亘野, 與盖馬以驚塵. 千艘橫波, 援原蛇而縱濔. 以公格謨海左, 龜鏡瀛東, 特在蕑帝, 往尸招慰. 公侚臣節而投命, 歌皇華以載馳. 飛汎海之蒼鷹, 翥凌山之赤雀. 決河眥而天吳靜, 鑿風隧而雲路通. 驚鳧失侶, 濟不終夕. 遂能說暢天威, 喩以禑福千秋. 僭帝一旦稱臣. 仍領大首望數十人, 將入朝謁. 特蒙, 恩詔授左戎衛郎將, 少選遷右領軍衛中郞將兼檢校熊津都督府司馬. 材光千里之足, 仁副百城之心. 擧燭靈臺, 器標於芃棫. 懸月神府, 芳掩於桂苻. 衣錦晝行, 富貴無革. 雚蒲夜寢, 字育有方. 去咸亨三年十一月卄一日, 詔授右威衛將軍. 局影彤闕, 飾躬紫陛. 亟蒙榮晉, 驟歷便繁. 方謂克壯淸猷, 永綏多祐. 豈啚曦馳易往, 霜凋馬陵之樹, 川閱難留, 風驚龍驤之水. 以儀鳳三年歲在戊寅二月朔戊子十九日景午遘疾, 薨於雍州長安縣之延壽里第. 春秋六十有六. 皇情念功惟舊, 傷悼者久之. 贈絹布三百段, 粟三百斛, 葬事所湏, 幷令官給, 仍使弘文館學士兼檢校本衛長史王行本監護. 惟公雅識淹通, 溫儀韶峻, 明珠不纇, 白珪無玷. 十步之芳, 蘭室欽其臭味. 四鄰之彩, 桂嶺尙其英華. 奄墜扶搖之翼, 遽輟連舂之景. 粤以其年十月甲申朔二日乙酉葬於雍州乾封縣之高陽里, 禮也. 駟馬悲鳴, 九原長往. 月輪夕駕, 星精夜上. 日落山兮草色寒, 風度原兮松聲響. 陟文榭兮可通, 隨武山兮安仰. 愴淸風之歇滅, 樹芳名於壽像. 其詞曰 冑胤靑丘, 芳基華麗. 脈遠遐邈, 會逢時濟. 茂族淳秀, 奕葉相繼. 獻款夙彰, 隆恩無替. 其一. 惟公苗裔, 桂馥蘭芬. 緖榮七貴, 乃子傳孫. 流芳後代, 播美來昆. 英聲雖歇, 令範猶存. 其二. 牖箭驚秋, 隙駒遄暮. 名將日遠, 德隨年故. 慘松吟於夜風, 悲薤哥於朝露. 靈轜兮遽轉, 嘶驂兮跼顧. 嗟陵谷之貿遷, 覬音徽之靡蠹. 其三.

Clearly states 日本 = Baekje. Baekje used the term 日本 as one of the name for Baekje before Japan did for itself.

Everybody talks about theory, but this is physical evidence built in A.D. 678. When did Japan started call themselves as 日本? When did Nippon Shoki was written? Everything happened after the fall of Baekje. Coincidence?

Mind blown. Kadrun (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources like tombstones are not appropriate sources for making this kind of claim. See WP:NOR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What values more than physical evidence? NONE Kadrun (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, according to our policies, that is not the case. Do you have any reliable secondary sources supporting the change you want to propose? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

When did Japan first used the term 日本? If you can provide any source prior to 678 A.D. I'll give up? Kadrun (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit war

Hey Kadrun and Nikkimaria can you please discuss this issue here. Two more reverts and I'm gonna get an admin.CycoMa (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

We have a problem when someone doesn't accept physical archaeological evidence? I have been telling to provide the earliest record of 日本 used by Japanese and Nikkimaria keep fail to provide ANY source to counter claim, yet just telling me that tombstone is not worth a evidence? So pyramid, and all other things cannot be used as source per Nikkimaria, correct? Kadrun (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The earliest physical evidence for Japanese using 日本 is in 734, the tombstone of 井真成. Oh wait, the tombstone is not the evidence per Nikkimaria, so let's go to 746 instead. That's about 70 years difference! Kadrun (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Also that the tombstone was found in 2011, and it was a huge deal for Japan; Japan even opened international symposium in 2012 for this. If new discovery is found, we use it to correct misinformation. Simple as that. What Nikkimaria is doing is completely ignoring physical evidence, which has more value than any other proofs (1st hand vs 2nd hand). I don't understand the logic here.Kadrun (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Name

I suggest to include Empire in Japan's name after the Imperial Family. Egon20 (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that lists the name of the country as having Empire in it. We don’t determine the name, reliable sources do. Canterbury Tail talk 13:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

'''Not done:'''If you go to the official website of Japan (https://www.japan.go.jp/), it does not include what you suggest it should. Do you have other sources to support your position? Jurisdicta talk

Featured article?

This article is currently ranked as wikipedia's worst featured article, being in more clean up categories than any other. The article is made worse by the addition of an unnecessary sentence sourced to a poor source that does not support the claim it is adjacent to. If this article is not improved, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review. DrKay (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The article last passed FAR at 6,000 words of prose; it has since become bloated to almost 14,000 words, so most of the text has not been vetted in a review process. This article should go through FAR even if someone cleans up the error maintenance categories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay and SandyGeorgia: I support taking it to FAR as well. I'm sure that there will be some editors at WP:Japan willing to help on such a high-profile article. — Goszei (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I still see lots of problems, but I only get one FAR nomination every two weeks, just like everyone else. If you are willing to type up the list of issues, you could submit it to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Restoring from archives, still problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Lots of work done here in the past few months. Hard to move forward with no specifics.--Moxy 🍁 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

SG: revisiting

Reviewing this version:

• You can install this script to keep dates in order.
• There are many duplicate links, but perhaps some can be justified: you can install this script to highlight dup links.
• See MOS:SANDWICH: The first image of a section should be placed below the hatnote templates. (I have corrected.)
• The (bloated) 14,000 words of prose have now been reduce to a manageable 7829 words "readable prose size"; very nice !!!
• To be consistent with the rest of the article, should be 1,000 ... check throughout ... researchers in science and technology per capita in the world with 14 per 1000 employees.
• This is a commercial source, and surely a better one can be found: [5] ... check throughout for similar.
• All sources need publishers (and authors and dates when available); check throughout, sample: "FIBA Basketball World Cup 2023". Retrieved September 24, 2020. Websites need accessdates, sample: "Japan – Student performance (PISA 2015)". OECD.
• This needs a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (not laypress): Japan has a high suicide rate; suicide is the leading cause of death for people aged 10 to 40. Similarly, a better source might be found for this: Another significant public health issue is smoking among Japanese men.[270] Japan has the lowest rate of heart disease in the OECD, and the lowest level of dementia in the developed world.[271]
• Check throughout for potentially dated text or missing as of dates: sample, source to 2016, meaning data may be five years old: Japanese newspapers are among the most circulated in the world.[317]
• This look suspiciously like an error, doublecheck?

  Turnbull, Stephen (2011). Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 61. ISBN 978-1-84603-961-4.

  Turnbull, Stephen (2010). Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Osprey Publishing. p. 61. ISBN 978-1-84603-960-7.

• Re-cast sentences to avoid starting with a number, sample: 867,000 researchers share a 19-trillion-yen research and development budget,[183] which relative to gross domestic product is the second highest budget in the world.
• With several changes in the preceding sentences, it is not clear what "it" here refers back to: It entered a lunar orbit on October 4, 2007,
• Cited to 2008 ... run through all citations looking for those that can be updated: About 80–90% of those practicing Islam in Japan are foreign-born migrants and their children.[248]
• Check throughout for MOS:CURRENT, sample: Few children learn these languages,[254] but in recent years local governments have sought to increase awareness of the traditional languages.

Remarkable progress so far. With things like this addressed, I look forward to seeing this article marked "Satisfactory" at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. I would be interested in hearing the impressions of DrKay and Nihonjoe. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think most of these have now been addressed, or at least are ready for another look. IMO the current duplicate links are justified, and I've standardized on no-commas for numbers in the 1000s. I was not able to find much in the way of sourcing for the specific claims regarding heart disease and dementia; these may need to be recast or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Nikkimaria looking in anew:

• Size at 7,600 words of prose is excellent, no dash or date issues, wikilinking is good (yes, there are dupe links, but they can be justified), image layout and MOS:CAPTIONS punc good ...
• Japan is the third largest automobile producer in the world ... There are 175 airports in Japan ... (check throughout for as of dates, samples only)
• Most of the uses of the word also are redundant; see User:Tony1 writing exercises.
• Similarly, see overuse of however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia (overall is another one). See also User:John/however.
• What is the comma convention in the article on numbers? It stretches over 3000 km (3,000 ???)
  • Four digits no comma, five or more comma. I think this is consistent throughout? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Trust you (I didn't check :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Re-cast this sentence to avoid the awkward double parens?? Japan has the sixth longest coastline in the world (29,751 km (18,486 mi)).
• Please use the |trans-title= parameter on citation templates to give readers an idea of the title of the source, sample: 令和元年全国都道府県市区町村別面積調（１０月１日時点） (in Japanese). Geospatial Information Authority of Japan.

In my opinion, this article has advanced enough to be removed from the Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given list. It would be helpful to hear from DrKay and Nihonjoe as to whether it can be marked "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020 after addressing any stragglers identified above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work Nikkimaria.--Moxy 🍁 21:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. I can't help with translations, but otherwise I've taken a stab at all these points. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. It might be a few days, though, as I've already got a fair number of things I'm working on outside of this article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, unwatching for now; please ping once you've been through. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Status

@Nihonjoe and Nikkimaria: is it time to revisit to determine if the article can be marked “Satisfactory” at WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware everything mentioned above has been addressed aside from the translations which I'm not able to assist with. If there are other points outstanding, let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, on my list, but busy for rest of today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what needs translation. Nothing above clarifies that. Other than that, I agree with Nikkimaria. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I did go through and fix 2-3 references that needed a trans-title. If there are other translations that need doing, let me know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments

I am not a regular at the FA process, so please forgive me if I make any mistakes or breach convention.

It's great to see this article being turned around, but I think there are still some issues:

• Some sections do not really provide a good summary and focus on certain (relevant but not really necessary for a general overview) details while omitting important background. For example, until I added some content, the Languages section did not even mention that Japanese is the national language, and when straight to describing the writing system. It also mentioned that English is taught in elementary school without mentioning the background of the use of English in Japan. I think the environment (not looking at the general issues of climate/energy policy in Japan and instead looking at a 2020 plan for coal plans from a popular source), foreign relations (admittedly a bit more difficult to write, but think it could do with some changes to emphasize broader foreign policy as opposed to bilateral relations) and customs and holidays (does describing three phrases really give a good overview of Japanese customs?) sections have some issues with this (honestly I see some issues with other sections too but I don't think they are as problematic as this). I have already adding more info to Langauges, and I plan to bring this up at the climate change and environments projects to get a better perspective there.

Another thing that could be an issue is this:

• Use of popular journalism/mass media instead of more academic sources for long term trends (not saying popular media doesn't have its place, and so far it looks like it is used well, but some food for thought). Also dunno about REThink Tokyo's reliability.

Thanks for the consideration. It is tough for a country article to become and stay a FA, and I hope this goes well. MSG17 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What did you have in mind with regards to "broader foreign policy"? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say, for example, that Japan's WWII atrocities should be covered based on the impact they have had on relations with other Asian countries (which, tbh, would probably be China and Korea mainly) as a whole. Of course, Korea should probably still get the most detail, being probably the country with which Japan has the most detailed and complicated foreign relations with (geographical closeness and economic relations but a lot of issues over WWII). Also, it would be good to look at general trends (ex. (historical?) anticommunism, pacifism [EDIT: and militarism], geographical regions), and maybe something on the Quad instead of 2000s bilateral treaties with India and Australia. Soft diplomacy through media might also be a possibility. However, I think this is something I will have to ponder, research more, and find good sources for. Like I said, it is admittedly difficult to see what the "optimum" way of writing such a section is and to balance the needs of accuracy and summarization. MSG17 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Foreign aid and infrastructure might also needed a sentence. MSG17 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that Nikkimaria has trimmed these sections, which I think is an excellent choice that makes the article more focused. MSG17 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Recognised Language: Ainu

https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2019-08-05/japan-new-ainu-law-becomes-effective/#:~:text=(Aug.,People%20Is%20Respected%2C%20Act%20No. https://www.languagemagazine.com/2019/02/19/japan-recognizes-ainu/#:~:text=The%20Japanese%20government%20has%20endorsed,Ainu%20language%2C%20now%20spoken%20by https://www.languagemagazine.com/2019/02/19/japan-recognizes-ainu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judeobasquelanguage (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Those support the recognition of the people, but not designation of the language. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That is pretty much the same thingand i believe you are being picky for your own political bias against minorities, the way it is coming across, if you looked at the bill "The resolution recognized the Ainu people as “an indigenous people with a distinct language, religion and culture”." this is the source I have given which you clearly haven't read or you wouldn't be spouting anti-minority bullshit Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, and please don't throw around accusations. If you can present a source that says the language has been officially designated, then that can be included. Those sources do not say that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• "No to addition in infobox of very small minority language.Moxy- 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not see why not?86.30.52.72 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not even a small minority language, it's functionally extinct. Only 2 native speakers, and that last count was several years ago, and around 300 people worldwide who can speak some. We don't list old extinct languages that are not in everyday use in country infoboxes. It would be more appropriate to list Latin in Italy's and Aramaic in Syrias than Ainu in Japans, and we don't do that. Canterbury Tail talk 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is still recognised not to mention theres a revitalisation movement behind it, what you are saying is you want it to die and ainus to be assimilated into japan fully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.200.10 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Um no I didn't say anything even remotely close to that, so please strike that comment as it constitutes a personal attack. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Its implied by your dismissive attack on ainu, this isn't an attack i'm just calling out anti-indigenous stuff when I see it because we don't need hate in this world, and wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of knowledge, yet you are treating it like we can sideline important issues because theres been years of suppression which lead to its decline, thus not worthy of being noted, wether this is intentional or not its extremely disrespectful to be dismissive towards indigenous languages. If Ainu is listed it is going to increase exposure to the language and help the revival movement, which you could be a part of! and more people will learn about it as currently ainu isn't well known about anymore and is on the verge of being forgot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not debating what’s going on in my mind with a block evading user throwing around accusations. Canterbury Tail talk 01:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Heavy bias in lead section

As someone from the US who is half-Japanese (my mother is from Japan) and has spent about half a year among local populations and settings in Japan, not just tourist settings, the last paragraph of the lead section reeks of heavy bias. Not everything significant about Japan is anime, video games, technology, tea, restaurant cuisine, etc.

Unfortunately, the norms of East Asian culture are such that it’s frowned upon to call out attention to problems, whether it be societal or personal. But that doesn’t make said issues disappear. The issues are still very prevalent and important, and in many cases more significant than some of the more “positive” things mentioned in the lead section. (On a side note for anyone who edits other country articles, this may also be problematic for articles of other East Asian countries, but Japan is the one I’m obviously most familiar with)

I don’t have the time or research skills to do all of the legwork. But to start the discussion and get the ball rolling, I’ll drop a list of the main problems in Japan nationally, that either affect a significant amount of the population or a significant amount of the area.

This isn’t an exhaustive list, and some may not be significant enough to merit a mention in the lead section. And certainly there are varying degrees of inter-relatedness between multiple items listed, but I’m ultimately listing all that come to mind as talking points to bring awareness to. I’ll try to list them in order of significance (greatest to least) based on my own perception of what I know and have seen:

• Aging of population

• Population decline

• Overpopulation in urban areas/lack of available land for grown and development – aside from the northernmost province of Hokkaido which has a much colder climate and is far from the main job sectors, almost all of the landscape not inhibited by dominant natural features (mountains, rivers, etc) is densely populated, with some rice fields here and there

• Overfishing

• A general lack of food sustainability – as mentioned before, there are rice fields, but it’s not always enough to sustain the population. Aside from rice and fish, much of the food is imported. Being an island country, the infrastructure and supply chain for importing food is more expensive, which raises prices for the consumer.

• Overworking – in relation to the per capita GDP, Japanese culture overworks the citizens compared to other countries with similar income levels

• High cost of living

I will add a tag at the top of the section that is most profoundly affected, and hopefully we can make some changes to provide a more neutral balanced viewpoint. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Pls don't randomly tag articles without providing sources for content additions or revisions as your have done to the middle of a few leads. So what your saying is you would like to have more in the lead about sustainability? Is this covered in the article....if not the body would need coverage before any additions to the lead.Moxy- 06:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. To include anything, reliable sources must support the statement. I'm unaware of any source saying overfishing is related to Japan's population decline. The age pyramid is certainly out of wack... perhaps the UNDP from the UN might have good sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

I think under the word Japan it should say Kingdom of Japan because Japan is a Monarchy TheTopazRuby (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The government form doesn't usually dictate what the name of a country is. In this case there's no evidence that's the full name of the country, and it's unlikely to be found since Japan doesn't have a king so wouldn't be a kingdom. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Official name

Isn't Japan's offical name the State of Japan (Shinjitai: 日本国)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9008:1301:E9B6:E2C9:D772:F50B (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

See note 2: the official name in English is just "Japan". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That's weird. 2001:8003:9008:1301:E9B6:E2C9:D772:F50B (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tokyo as the national capital

Tokyo is the de facto capital because no laws designate it officially as such. However, Tokyo as a municipality hasn't existed since 1943 when Tokyo City was abolished. Saying Tokyo is the capital today is like saying an entire state of the USA is the national capital. DC is still a first-level administrative division, but it's one singular city. Tokyo Metropolis includes the special wards of the former Tokyo City, which are all basically individual cities in their own right, plus towns and villages out west and small islands in the Pacific. The Emperor's residence, the National Diet, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Court are all located in Chiyoda, so would it not be more accurate to say that Chiyoda is the de facto capital, not Tokyo?

This is like the page for Tokyo Metropolis itself where it says the capital of Tokyo is Tokyo, but the Tokyo Metropolitan Government building is located in Shinjuku. This page does list Shinjuku as the prefectural capital of Tokyo, though, which makes more sense when reading it in my opinion. Brisket76 (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen the linked article Capital of Japan? Moxy- 02:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Capital area" is more of a regional designation and is just another name for the Greater Tokyo Area which includes several other prefectures. Brisket76 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The idea that cities are a product of their municipal boundaries is far from a universal viewpoint. In my experience it is primarily an American phenomenon. CMD (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Religious distribution in the infobox

Almost every other Wikipedia entry about a particular country e.g, United States, India, China etc has statistics about ethnicity and religion in the infobox, therefore I see no reason why Japan shouldn't. There was nothing unusual about my edit[6] that was reverted by @Nikkimaria: citing ambiguous reasons such as it being "overdetailed".Neplota (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Overdetailed" is in reference to the relevant guideline: "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". This is further complicated by the significant contextualization that would be needed for this data - see second para of Religion in Japan. In short, it's too much detail to present where you proposed, and WP:OTHERCONTENT is not sufficient to overcome those problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If the infobox template allows me to add religion related figures, than that means it doesn't consider it "overdetailed". That's just your subjective opinion. It's unnecessary only for you as many people including me find knowing about a country's religious composition useful.Neplota (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The existence of a parameter doesn't require that it be used in every case - again, see the MOS. While I appreciate in your subjective opinion this information is useful, no one is proposing removing it from the article entirely, just allowing it to be properly contextualized where there is space and flexibility to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No - We don't need the infobox overloaded. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Update the Largest cities of Japan list

This article has a template with a list of the "Largest cities or towns in Japan". However, it is based on a 2015 Census so it should be updated with recent data. -Artanisen (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The template has been removed (by another editor). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's hope for the best....never liked them.Moxy- 03:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't think it was bad, just outdated. The article could have a list of top 10 largest cities. -Artanisen (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I checked this website Statistics Bureau of Japan - Statistical Handbook of Japan 2021 , "Chapter 2 Population (PDF:4,688KB)", it only shows 2015 population information. -Artanisen (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Changes to dating system

Given that this is an article on ancient Japan and not Christianity or Christian or Western history, the dating format used should be BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era). This would help promote the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. I will be making these changes in the next few days if there is no discussion on the topic. EuCJD (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Object, stable and per MOS:ERA and MOS:STYLEVAR needs a very good reason to change it. Not being related to Christian or Western history isn't a valid reason to change from BC to BCE etc. Should keep the version in use, whichever one it is. If we wanted to do anything we'd actually change the article to the Japanese year system. Changing it to a preferred style just invites edit wars over it, leave as is. Additionally this isn't an article on ancient Japan, just Japan in general. Plus the official Japanese government English language publications and sites happily use AD and BC. There is no strong connection either way. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I too object to the change. Masterhatch (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Government type

Regarding this edit: as noted previously, linking in this way is not consistent with MOS:SOB, because you cannot see where one link ends and another begins. This could be resolved either by limiting the parameter to a single type, or by using only a single link - I don't have a strong preference as to which. But the claim that this "works fine" is not correct, and WP:OTHERCONTENT does not support perpetuating this problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense and is a worthy critique, but that shouldn't justify removing additional information. The rule you linked says 'When possible', implying that it is not obbligatory nor is it always recommended to do so. For instance, removing the 'Unitary' label is unnecessary as you can also just remove the hyperlink for 'parliamentary' and leave the 'Unitary' label intact. Besides that, the overwhelming majority of Wiki pages hyperlinks every word when it comes to the Form of government, thus removing it from certain pages destroys the constistency of said articles. Vladimir Budinski (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That other articles have such problems is not a justification to have one here. It provides no additional information when you can't tell that there are multiple link targets there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The article you linked explicitly says that you can not use such an argument as the only argument, which I wasn't implying, if anything was a simple side note. The claim that it, quote: "provides no additional information when you can't tell that there are multiple link targets," is kinda incorrect because you can tell that there are multiple links, as it is a 4 word sentence in which every word represents a very specific topic. When someone hovers over 'Unitary', for example, he's clearly going to see that it only occupies the 'Unitary' section, and not the whole sentence ('Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy'). If the words 'Constitutional' and 'Monarchy' were linked separately, then I'd understand your concern, as there is a page for the topic 'Constitutional Monarchy', but removing links for both 'Unitary' and 'Parliamentary' is unecessary, as the 'Manual of Style' states that you should not link every word when possible, and in this case it is impossible to do so without losing worthwhile information. Vladimir Budinski (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You can tell that the links represent multiple topics, but the primary audience who would benefit from these links would be those unfamiliar with these topics - and such people have no way of knowing that every word represents a different topic. Nor should we rely on hovertext to clue them in. This presents an accessibility problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Flag history and what it means

, 45.50.32.214 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

original "the principle cause of death is cancer" suggest you change it to "the principal cause of death is cancer" 142.114.12.65 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, done. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Islam in Japan

The text in regard to adherents of Islam claims 43,000 people are ethnic Japanese. This is not supported by the evidence provided in the link. It states 43,000 are thought to be Japanese nationals. Being a National or citizen of Japan is quite different from being ethnic Japanese. 109.149.161.183 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

Change "economy" to "economy" as per MOS:OL 168.8.125.20 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC) 168.8.125.20 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I think there is just the one link to Economy of Japan other than the main hatnote in the #Economy section. Seems a reasonable link to me Cannolis (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Fixingthis1000 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Update the flag to Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg

I need to update the flag to this: Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg Ok Fixingthis1000 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What is your rationale for this change? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

EmpireOfJapan1930 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The Flag sould be changed to Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg Please.

I want the Flag of Japan (1870–1999).svg to be the flag. EmpireOfJapan1930 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The old flag does not need to be included on the Japan article. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is nippon first then nihon second

I cannot understand the statement. In wikipedia japan Is supposedly first nihon while the second is nippon. Wrong naming order! Its reversed opposite flipped naming in japan name in japanese. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:B404:34A3:8805:7618 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

All explained in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

State of Japan

The page says that the translation of the formal name (日本国) translated into English is "State of Japan". However, the name says Japan on the official name section. Can someone fix this? If not, can someone explain this decision to me? StrawWord298944 (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

See the explanation in note 2. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Driving side

Driving side must be RHD (Right Hand Driving) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.12.74.82 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Left- and right-hand traffic. CMD (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't think me removing an 88 would remove other links sorry Camillz (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

Add English as unofficial secondary language as many Japanese people speak it in some capacity.Felixsto (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Felixsto (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

What is your edit request and references? Please put in the format of "Please change X to Y" and here is the reference to support that change. Canterbury Tail talk 02:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Please change languages from Japanese to Japanese and English. Up to 30% of Japanese people know some English with at least 2% snd up to 8% of the population being fluent. It's a minority language.

It's not an official minority language. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"일본국" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 일본국 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § 일본국 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

update GDP statistics in the infobox

can the GDP statistics of Japan be updated to their estimates in 2023 by IMF (link for reference: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/April/weo-report?c=158,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2023&ey=2028&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 ). Savitarp45 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Notably Less Info compared to Other Countries

This page about Japan has notably less paragraphs, word count and references compared to other major countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, China, and Russia. So it should be expanded. -Artanisen (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No, those ones should be reduced. This article is correctly sized. High-level country articles should be summaries with child articles going more in depth. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a competition, maybe the others need to be written more efficiently whereas this one makes a lot of use of sub-articles. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a competition, this article has significantly less content and references in general. So more could be added. -Artanisen (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the very few featured country articles. It is good precisely because it is concise, which means it is an effective encyclopedic summary. It is 100% the case that the problem lies with probably the majority of other country pages - these are generally overlength, most typically with excessively long history sections that have not been properly summarized despite the existence of history child articles. The Japan country page is a model for other country pages, not the other way around. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Dominant party system?

Since the LDP has been in power since the mid 50's with only a few short stints where it hasn't been, could Japan be considered a dominant party system? ICommandeth 05:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that draws that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

There's this article that talks about Japan's dominant party system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_System ICommandeth 12:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree they have a " dominant party" but it's not a "system" geared towards that. Moxy- 13:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is unitary not linked?

I just saw that my edit was reverted and that apparently the same edit had been also made and reverted before. Is there some kind of reason behind it because I don't really understand why this country page specifically wouldn't do it? EldritchEmpress (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:SOB. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a misapplication of the rule considering the fact that it's referring to sentences and how every other country page seems to do it. The template itself also specifically says to link to the labels. EldritchEmpress (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that, thanks. It presents the same usability issue here as it would in a sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

So, is every country page going to have to be redone now then? EldritchEmpress (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The ones that have this issue should be fixed, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction under "Industry and services"

Hi! Under the Industry and services section, there is a photo of a Toyota Camry (XV70). The caption states "A plug-in hybrid car manufactured by Toyota." Toyota has never made available a plug-in hybrid version of the Camry to any global market; only a standard hybrid model (sold alongside petrol) was available. Suggestion to change caption to "A hybrid car manufactured by Toyota." 2600:1700:A52F:4010:54B3:EA2B:FF30:6EF8 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done..

Moxy- 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Driving-side: Right

Driving-side: Right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyponto (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)