text:
Talk:Romanization

Comment

 * ''See also: transcription of Chinese (talk | edit history ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantnood (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Roman"
"Non-Roman languages"?? It appears that you mean any language not normally written in the Roman alphabet. Thus Greek, Russian, and Arabic are "non-Roman" languages. Why don't you explain what "non-Roman" means? The term could be misunderstood; people could think that English is a "non-Roman" language since it didn't come from Rome. Michael Hardy 02:56 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks to Brion VIBBER for changing it to make it more clear.

 * -- Wintran 03:20 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Capitalize term or not?
I have been thinking about whether or not we should use a capital "r" when we type "romanization". First, I was certain that "Romanization" was the correct way to write it, but now I have seen the non-capitalized version being used by encyclopedias and dictionaries as well, and I am not quite as certain anymore.

- Wintran 00:42 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * It's incorrect. You "Romanize" when you turn something into Rome; you "romanize" when you apply a method of transcription.  Compare with xeroxing, hoovering, and any number of brands and names that have turned into generic words.  I've changed the article. Jpatokal 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Romanization is a proper name, hence, it is correct to capitalize it. when you "catheterize, you do not turn a penis into a catheter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmmhmd (talk • contribs) 11:04, July 5, 2014

 * Hmm? No, it's not a proper name, what makes you think it is? Jpatokal (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Romanization, as used in this article to mean transcription into a Latin based alphabet, is not a proper name. is trying to expand a discussion at Talk:Pinyin about the use of the word 'romanization' on that page. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Becoming a Roman
How do you call the process of barbarians becoming Romans? -- Error 05:19, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * According to OED, also "Romanization". Defintions 1 is "Assimilation to Roman customs or models." One quote is from 1876. The transliteration meaning came the latest ('tho not that much later): first quote in 1894. --Menchi 05:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Other languages
There are several other languages (or groups of languages) that could be covered here:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.e (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 June 2004 (UTC)
 * Greek
 * ancient
 * medieval
 * modern (demotic)
 * Sanskrit and other Indian languages
 * Thai

Really, there are romanization systems for just about any non-roman script you can imagine -- while the term may have arisen originally in the context of Asian languages, I'm not sure it's NPOV to imply that that is the central meaning of the term today... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.160.138 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2004 (UTC)
 * Arabic

 * Hebrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippietrial (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

 * Thai (have added relevant references Woodstone 15:22, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC))

Why not add norwegian? ø -> oe, å -> aa, æ -> ae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.121.98 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

 * Norwegian is already written with the Latin alphabet, so simplifying these letters isn't romanization. —Michael Z. 17:24, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

 * Icelandic isn't, though. It still uses an entirely un-Roman letter: the thorn (þ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.26.111 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

 * The Icelandic, and the Old English, are Latin alphabets that have adopted letter(s) from Runic. One might say that the letter thorn is romanized as th or y—as in "ye olde gray mare"—but I don't know if it's technically correct.  There's more fun stuff in category:Uncommon Latin letters —Michael Z. 00:20, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

 * I think the term romanization is more commonly used for oriental languages, because they are not alphabetic. Transliteration is a more specific term, often used to describe the romanization of Cyrillic, and other languages with alphabets, that can have a letter-for-letter correspondence with the Latin alphabet.  —Michael Z. 16:42, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

 * I think the association of 'romanisation' with East Asian languages likely has more to do with what was going on in the world at the time the word sprang into use: the height of impetialism in the east, the opium wars, &c. And if it's disfavoured for Cyrillic in favour of transliteration..maybe some byproduct of East-West tensions over the last 100 years? Dunno. 'Romanisation' is the word used for transliterating Greek, though. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Several concepts are mixed up in these remarks. General terms are transliteration and transcription: changing a tekst from one writing system into another. Romanisation is one of these where the target script is the Roman alphabet. Transliteration is reversible and often letter by letter, and thus only suitable for alphabetic scripts (including abjads and abugidas). Transcription is more oriented to rendering pronunciation in the target script, and suitable for any original script.−Woodstone (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Transliterating Cyrillic
For anyone interested, here's the Russian example "Tchaikovsy" transliterated according to several different systems, from Russian and Ukrainian. See also Romanization of Ukrainian.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 November 2004 (UTC)

Methods of romanization
I have taken the liberty of removing the (frankly) nearly incomprehensible paragraphs by the esteemed 63.22.206.187, which also contained a number of outright mistakes (hatsuon means "pronunciation" in Japanese, not any specific character), and rewritten what I hope was the gist of them. Corrections welcome, and I'd like to hear more about "phonemic conversion" (how does this differ from transcription?). Jpatokal 17:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm mostly guessing, but there are some hints in this paragraph from International Phonetic Alphabet:
 * When characters from the IPA phonetic alphabet are embedding in another script they are isolated from the rest of the text with either slashes ("/") or square brackets ("[" and "]"). Linguists use brackets when a narrow phonetic transcription is given, for example the English word "huge" would be [çjudʒ]. Slashes denote a phonological transcription:"huge" would be /hjudʒ/.
 * I think phonemic conversion (or phonological transcription) is a general indication of a word's pronunciation. You might say that in English "huge" is pronounced /hjudʒ/, and it applies equally to the way you would say it whether you were from Alabama or Jaipur.
 * Phonetic transcription would be more precise, whereby linguists will use all those fancy IPA characters and modifiers to compare the way a Yorkshireman's pronunciation of "huge" differs from an East Midlander's.
 * —Michael Z. 19:17, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Page organization
Would anyone object if I reorganized this page by writing system, rather than by language(s)? Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian belong together in a section concerning the Cyrillic alphabet, not in the current "arrangement". —Michael Z. 16:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Sounds good to me --Arcadian 19:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * One more vote in favor. Jpatokal 01:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Singapore
Is there any system on how names of Singaporean people and geographical proper nouns are romanised (for those not according to Hanyu Pinyin)? Or is it done arbitarily? Are they mainly romanised according to Hokkien or Teochew dialects of Min Nan language? -- 03:13, January 24, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.115.185 (talk)

 * Largely arbitrary and quite dependent on the dialect of the person or name in question, although if there are any standards I'd be interested in hearing about it. Most names are Hokkien. Jpatokal 04:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interested to hearing about if there is any standard for Hokkien. -- 15:41, January 24, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.114.20 (talk)
 * No. On Wikipedia we use Peh-oe-ji, but it's not very common (as far as I know). The Minnan Wikipedia is written in Peh-oe-ji. There are other systems out there too. There is no standard romanization used for names in Singapore. (other than Pinyin of course, but that's for Mandarin only, which occurs here and there in personal and place names.) -- ran (talk) 08:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * So in other words names of places in Singapore which are not transcibed based on Mandarin pronunciation are transcibed with an arbitary manner? Or is there any trace-able pattern? -- 09:59, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.247 (talk)
 * Well, there are obviously patterns, there just isn't any standard. These names were devised in colonial era and they were basically spelled in whichever way sounded about right. I guess you can compare this to Hong Kong place names. -- ran (talk) 13:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There might be no standard, as what has been suggested earlier. People's names usually are romanized based on the dialect group they belong to, and romanization of Chinese dialects dosent seem to follow a standard of any kind.
 * This ambiguity is not just confined to Chinese dialects. Even Malay words, which would have been assumed to be less of an issue since the language itself has already been romanised, do sugger from a few instances of inconsistencies. A good example is how "Punggol" ends up being spelt as "Ponggol" too as well...both road names appear in the same locality, and are actually refering to the same word.
 * I am not too sure about Indian translations thou, because I would think it follows romnisation standards adobted in India itself?--Huaiwei 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same names in Hong Kong were later changed, for instance, Un Long to Yuen Long, and Shaukiwan to Shau Kei Wan. In other words there was certain moves towards standardisation. Are there any similar pattern for the case of Singapore? -- 10:04, January 27, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.117.251 (talk)
 * I can only think of one example, "Nee Soon" (probably Minnan) is becoming less popular compared to "Yishun" (Mandarin). That's the only example I can think of though, so I'd say there's no such trend in general. -- ran (talk) 13:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm....the Yishun/Nee Soon thingy may not be a suitable example in this case, because it is more of switching from one dialect spelling to another. Should all "Ponggol" road names be amended to "Punggol", then we might have a comparative example.
 * There might be such amendements somewhere down the dusty paths of history...if I can find any examples of this, I will notify here.--Huaiwei 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, I think I misread what the Anon meant... in terms of standardization (not switching from one language or dialect to another), I honestly can't think of any examples. -- ran (talk) 18:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yepp I mean for the same sound of a language, say Hokkien, is it very often transcribed and romanised in the same way? -- 18:27, January 27, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.114.214 (talk)

Voiced/unvoiced, aspirated/unaspirated
I am interested to know about why the consonants b, g and d of Chinese languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.) as well as Korean are transcribed into p, k and t. Are the pronunciations of b, g and d different from those in European languages? -- 15:45, January 24, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.114.20 (talk)
 * → Aspiration (phonetics). Jpatokal 18:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But the Aspiration (phonetics), Voiced, Voiced consonant and Voiceless consonant articles do not provide a good picture to readers who have little knowledge in linguistics. -- 14:35, January 25, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.117.90 (talk)
 * They don't, which is why Jyutping is better than IPA for giving Cantonese pronunciation. Same goes for Hanyu Pinyin vs IPA for Mandarin.
 * The pronunciation of Jyutping / Pinyin "b d g" are indeed different from European languages, or even Japanese. English is not a good example of this, because the English system is very close to the Chinese system (i.e. unvoiced plosives are aspirated, voiced plosives are less voiced); but listen to another language (French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese...) and the difference is very obvious. To a speaker of these languages, Chinese "b d g" do sound like "p t k". (And with good reason; they're not voiced, so in IPA these are indeed /p t k/.) -- ran (talk) 08:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * If what you've suggested is the case then we should go differentiating the p sound in pend and spend, and mark them as ph and p respectively. -- 20:06, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)

Would German be closed to English? -- 09:56, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.247 (talk)
 * I'm not sure. But I believe German unvoiced plosives are aspirated, just like English (and unlike French, Spanish, or Russian). -- ran (talk) 13:43, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Aspiration (phonetics) article mentions about Icelandic, Danish, Allemannic German and southern varieties of German. For the case of Danish and southern varieties of German the unaspirated p t and k (without the h) are transcribed as b d and g. -- 20:04, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)
 * So shall we mark the voiced unaspirated g of English differently from the voiced unaspirated g of French, Spanish or Russian in IPA? -- 20:08, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)
 * Well, tradition is another factor. If Danish were a language spoken by a lost tribe somewhere and discovered only yesterday, its /b d g/ would probably be transcribed into IPA (rightly) as /p t k/. But Danish has connections with other European languages, and those languages pronounce these as [b d g], so by pure tradition, Danish also uses /b d g/. Another good example is English /æ/, as in bank. Most American accents don't pronounce this strictly as [æ], but the phoneme is written with that symbol nonetheless, due to tradition.
 * Chinese, on the other hand, is the precise opposite case. Chinese plosives are famously distinguished by aspiration; it has been this way historically and it is still this way today. This is why Postal System Pinyin and Wade Giles (as well as the romanizations of Hong Kong and Singapore) use "p t k" and left "b d g" unused. Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Hanyu Pinyin decided to use "b d g" in addition to "p t k" simply because they wanted to maximize the usage of all the letters of the Roman alphabet. (Hanyu Pinyin also uses "j q x" in rather weird ways, for example.) But that doesn't change the fact that these sounds continue to be recognized as [p t k] and [ph th kh] and therefore written (accurately) as the phonemes /p t k/ and /ph th kh/ in IPA by most linguistic literature. (Of course there are also books that try to argue that these are actually underlying /b d g/ and /p t k/, but these are the minority and we probably shouldn't be going into such deep level and controversial phonemic analysis at this stage.)
 * As for English: I don't understand your question, really. You described the g of English and the g of French in exactly the same way. In this case, of course they should be marked in the same way. -- ran (talk) 20:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * So should the Danish b be marked /p/ in IPA, and p be marked /ph/?
 * You mentioned the English g and French g are not the same. Should they be marked differently in IPA, to reflect the fact that their degrees of voiced are not the same? -- 21:06, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)
 * Sure, but it's not really necessary. There's no more voiced /g/ or less voiced /g/ to distinguish in English.
 * As for Danish: I've explained alreadly. -- ran (talk) 21:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * So there are traditionally not differentiated in IPA is that right?
 * For Danish, you've answered on transcription, but not on marking by IPA. -- 21:54, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)
 * What's the difference? I answered for the transcription of Danish into IPA.
 * As for English: no, in English these are not traditionally differentiated. -- ran (talk) 21:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I got it. So in Danish it's tradition which made the different.... i.e. the same unvoiced unaspirated b is marked as /b/ for Danish and /p/ for Cantonese. I got it.
 * I mean the difference between the more voiced French/Spanish/Russian /g/ and the less voiced English/German /g/. -- 22:15, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)

One more question: should the English p sound in pend and spend be marked as ph and p respectively? -- 22:17, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)
 * Only in a phonetic transcription. In English, aspirated and unaspirated /p/ are the same phoneme, so they don't show up in a phonemic transcription, only a phonetic transcription. In Chinese, however, they are different phonemes, so they show up in phonemic transcriptions.
 * By the way, how about getting a user name? It's hard to make proposals and give opinions if you're an Anon, since people can't even keep track of you. -- ran (talk) 22:20, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

What about the French/Spanish/Russian /g/ versus the English/German /g/? -- 10:02, January 27, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.117.251 (talk)
 * What about them? They wouldn't be marked in a phonemic transcription because none of these languages distinguish more than one type of /g/. -- ran (talk) 13:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Macao
I would also like to know how proper nouns in Macao are transcribed and romanised. Is it based on Portuguese? For instance, San Kio (新橋, Jyutping: san1 kiu4, IPA: sɐn1 kɪʊ4 ), and Hac Sa (黑沙, Jyutping: haak1 saa1, IPA: hɑk1 sɑ1 ). Nam Van (南灣, Jyutping: naam4 waan1, IPA: nɑm4 wɑn1 ) is romanised with a 'v' instead of 'w'. The case of Ka Ho (九澳, Jyutping: gau2 ou3 IPA: gɐʊ2 əʊ3 ) is more confusing. -- 17:08, January 25, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.114.20 (talk)

The other way round of romanisation
Is there any proper terms for the inversion of romanisation, that is, transcription of words in roman alphabets into Cyrillic, Katakana or Han characters? -- 14:22, January 25, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.117.90 (talk)

 * Cyrillization, for one. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

Jiang's removals
Jiang removed the following romanisation systems with the remark "rm fantasy/fringe systems".

 * Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
 * Penkyamp
 * Tòngwâ Lòmáji (source)

-- 15:05, January 25, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.117.90 (talk)

 * Exactly. Please stop reinserting articles that have been deleted by consensus. Tongwa Lomaji receives only a few online hits and is therefore a fringe system. Please do not link to articles that should not exist. --Jiang 05:37, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Where was the deletion discussed to achieve consensus? Are they fantasy or fringe—there's a big difference.  If they're real romanization systems, then why not include them and mention that they are little-used, or when and where they are/were used?  —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
 * This guy is simply asserting his own sets of values and his point of view everywhere. I am considering to file a complaint. Btw, how to check if he's an administrator? -- 20:11, January 26, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.116.130 (talk)
 * You can check at List of administrators, although if you feel it's justified, his status shouldn't affect your decision to complain. Just follow the full procedure, starting with trying to find a compromise.  —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z  — Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 26 January 2005 (UTC)
 * In the meantime you might want to look at What Wikipedia is not and Google test. Not everything is notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 20:53, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're beating around the bush, Ran. Will someone please explain the objection to including these romanization systems?  Are you saying they're fake, or merely insignificant?  Anonymous, can you describe where and when they are/were used?
 * There's evidently a dispute here, but neither side is presenting any facts to support their case. —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z  — Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 26 January 2005 (UTC)

 * Try looking on Google for these three systems. I can perhaps see a case for Penkyamp, but the other two simply aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 21:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, these are the VfD discussions. I was involved in them: I cannot find the discussion for "Tongwa Lomaji". How was it deleted? -- Felix Wan 02:49, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
 * Votes for deletion/Penkyamp
 * Votes for deletion/Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
 * Sorry, I think the article "Tongwa Lomaji" was never created. Jiang just deleted the link. -- Felix Wan 02:54, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references. I didn't realize these were previously deleted articles.  —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

Are the standards for removing the article and removing the listing the same? -- 10:01, January 27, 2005, UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.117.251 (talk)
 * Removing an article that is not obvious vandalism can only be done by an administrator, and it requires consensus in the Votes for deletion process. Removing the listing can be done by anyone, but still editors should discuss and collaborate at the talk page of each article. They are separate processes, but it usually makes sense to remove links pointing to deleted articles. -- Felix Wan 18:58, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Cyrillic in Wikipedia
Please see the new page at Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at —Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:38 Z
 * 1)  Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
 * 2)  Discussing potential revision of current practices

New article: Scientific transliteration. —Michael Z. 2006-02-07 06:00 Z

Edits
I reverted to what amounted to a circular redirect via Chinese romanization. m.e. 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Latinisation vs. Romanization
We have a bit of confusion between whether Romanization and Latinisation are the same thing. Each has separate articles on Wikipedia, but this article (Romanization) claims that the two terms mean the same thing. What's the difference here, if any, and how can we clarify? If there is no difference, how should we merge the articles? The Latinisation article has some good content that isn't addressed here. MaxVeers 07:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I've never seen the term latinization used to mean romanization. Indeed, I'd never heard of the former. As soon as I saw the former article, my hand smacked my forehead in recognition. Yes of course! But it has nothing to do with romanization as the latter term is commonly used. Yes, this article says that what it deals with is also called latinisation. Perhaps this is right (I don't have the OED or similar on me). However, the two processes are very different and are better served by separate articles.
 * See Latinisation for Latinization of names in literature.
 * is perhaps better reworded as something like
 * See Latinisation for the adaptation of names into the Latin language.
 * Meanwhile,
 * See Romanization for the representation of different writing systems in the Roman (Latin) alphabet.
 * seems OK, though in order to avoid confusion I'd skip the one word "(Latin)". -- Hoary 08:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since nobody else seems to have an opinion, I guess I'll chime in and say that makes sense to me. MaxVeers 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was I who first split off the separate article on latinisation of names. I think it's sensible to separate the literary practice of naming oneself in a Latin style from the process of transliteration, as they are quite separate concepts (as discussed above). I agree with the suggestions above for the changes to the "see also" text at the top of these two articles.

It seems that a consensus has been reached to keep the two articles separate, so I'm removing the "merge" tags. Please revert and discuss if this is premature. --Slashme 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwoyeu Romatzyh (information)
For your information, the Chinese romanization system Gwoyeu Romatzyh has been a FAC since 26 March. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Any comments on the color-coding issue being discussed on the FAC page would be welcome. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Φ is PH
The greek letter Phi (Φ) was the digraph ph, although is F too, graph, photo, phono were came from that letter. --Michael Peter Fustumum 10:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See also? Why that? Why that not?
Anglicisation: Why does this appears on something that involves ADAPTING ALPHABETS? Cyrillization: This one is a good one!!!! But what about the process by which you transliterate or transcript INTO Japanese, Sanskrit, Arabian and such languages??????????????????????????????????? Francization: Why does this appears on something that involves ADAPTING ALPHABETS?

If someone could add those words and maybe articles to wikipedia it would be a good idea to do so!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
As a (non-eurocentric) multilinguist and language-lover, I came to the opinion, that nowadays too many things are romanised or latinised. You can buy whole books that 'teach you Chinese' without a single Chinese character, which is absolutly idiotic. I often see inproper use and "lingual discrimination" when using romanisations. An example is a poster in an international school that apprently shows "Welcome" in many languages, showing Chinese e.ex. as "Huan ying" instead of "欢迎" and so with Arabic, Hebrew, Russian and Japanese.

It's a global trend that I would describe as the Roman/Latin writing culture oppressing other forms of scripts. Something that should be called "Latin-centrism", "Roman-centrism" or "Roman Scriptism" has in fact no term to my knowledge. Any ideas on that? I'd like to mention this in the article later on as well. 亮HH (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Bengali romanization
A discussion involving Bengali romanization issues has been instigated at Talk:Bengali script. Please weigh in if you care. —  AjaxSmack   02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge Latinisation (literature)
The article is miscategorized as a literature topic rather than an orthographic one, and the concept is a subset of Romanization in general, from which it is not, to my knowledge, commonly distinguished. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be a subset of Romanisation if I'm understanding the article correctly. Romanization deals with transliterating to Latin script from a different writing system or from speech, whereas Latinisation (literature) is about translating to the Latin language (or an imitation of the style thereof). These seem pretty distinct to me. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I noticed exactly that myself. Romanization is for the script; you are changing other scripts into the Roman script. Latinization changes the morphology. I'd leave them distinct but they need clean-up.Dave (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Representing varieties of CYrillic
Should there be some mention of the problems in giving a single uniform romanization of all of the varieties of Cyrillic? I do not trust my knowledge enough to assert (although it seems probable to me) that there is no uniform method of representing Cyrillic across all of its varieties for different languages. One example of a difficulty that strikes me is how to handle Russian Г (representing the sound /g/), Ukrainian Г (representing the sound /h/), and Ukrainian Ґ (for /g/). TomS TDotO (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

German
As German is already written in the Roman alphabet with some special characters, it doesn't seem to make sense to include a section on the "romanisation of German", especially as the "discussion" cited is just a single forum thread. Any objections to removing it? (It seems the "re-romanisation of English" section was removed a week ago, presumably for similar reasons.) aoxiang 翱翔  (user)(talk) 17:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Countries currently changing to latin script?
This article does not deal with countries with other writing systems changing to latin script. Was Somalia the last country that changed way back in 1974, or has there been other countries since? Just curious.

Stein S., Oslo, Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.182.101 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romanization


text:
User talk:Wintran

 Welcome to my talk page!

Feel free to use this page for any comments or questions you might have about me or my changes to Wikipedia.

Wintran

Romanization
Why don't you explain what you mean by "non-Roman"? Did you have in mind that English is a "Roman" language, and that Greek, Russian, and Arabic are not? Michael Hardy 02:58 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out, it should look better now.
 * - Wintran 03:40 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Order from chaos?
Please join the WikiProject martial arts. I figure we'll never get the articles straightend out until we have an overall outline. See what you think of a couple things I've pulled from Chinese sources. P0M 01:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I actually asked Ed Poor how I should set a project up, and suggested a different name. He sort of took things into his own hands and made the project up for me. I am assuming that it is as easy to change the name of a project as it is to change the name of an article. What would you suggest as a better name? P0M 04:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanda and Wushu (sport)
Hi Wintran, could you please tell me more about sanda in relation to the IWUF? I thought the IWUF advocated only the non-contact, exhibition variants of wushu -- will sanda matches be included as a part of the sport wushu competition that are being proposed for the Olympic games in the future? Shawnc 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Yesterday while making the changes I stumbled upon the official IWUF website. In their introduction of Wushu they state the following:
 * "As a sport, wushu is composed of two (2) disciplines: Taolu(routines) and Sanshou(fight)."
 * I based my recent changes to Wushu (sport) on this information, but maybe we should mention that most people associate Wushu with the performance routines only, and that competitors seldom train in both taolu and sanda? I'm no expert so please correct me if I'm wrong.
 * Regarding Wushu in the Olympic games, that's a good question. I don't know if they propose sanda to be a part of it or if they only focus on taolu. - Wintran 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Street dance and Portal:Dance
I've just put your article into the "new articles" section of Portal:Dance. Feel free to pay it a visit. ;-) --Roland2 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! I did not know about that portal. Thank you! :) / Wintran 07:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Breakdancing
Thanks for your contributions on List of breakdance moves and the template that linked to many of the dance styles you mentioned. I'm no expert on toprock, and another hand is very welcome. Draeco 02:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, you've done a great job yourself! I'm definitely no expert either, but have been reading a lot lately trying to figure out how various street dance styles relate to each other, their history and characteristics. It's a real mess and hard to find reliable sources, but it's also interesting. I'll try to contribute the best I can, and also might be able to do some citing of sources when I get the time. I'd love to get these articles in really good shape. Keep up the good work, you're doing a great job!
 * - Wintran 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The golden age of hip hop for deletion?
I see that The golden age of hip hop is up for deletion. I wonder what you think of this. P.O.N.Y. 17:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Punk music
Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the WikiProject Punk music. Please check out the topics and lets get our WikiProject to function better. Recently, I've taken an interest in the WikiProject hip hop and I consider that WikiProject to be better developed. I am now writing to usernames on the hiphopWP who might be interested in helping with the punkmusicWP. Hopefully we can all work together to improve articles relating to punk as has been done well with hip hop. Finally, I am trying to gather support and opinions concerning the punk house article and specifically the Theta Beta Potata article which is currently in AfD (x2) at Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject_Asian_martial_arts
This project seems to have died - you're listed as a participant, perhaps we can join with WikiProject_Martial_Arts (which also seems to have died) and revitalise the aims of both. -- Medains 08:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Breakdance street paris.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Breakdance street paris.jpg. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

Flickr says the image is Cc-By-Sa-NC which is not a free license. Creative Commons licensing is confusing, only Cc-By and Cc-By-Sa are acceptable for Wikimedia.--Gmaxwell 11:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I've uploaded a suitable CC-BY-SA image from Flickr in place of the CC-BY-SA-NC image to make sure the image isn't deleted leaving redlinks on the pages using the image. If your the photographer, you can change the licence and re-upload the image under the same file name to save any trouble. -- Kind Regards -  Heligoland  |   Talk  |   Contribs  11:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi! Apparently the author of the original image has changed the license from cc-by-2.0 to cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 since I uploaded it to Wikipedia, creating the problems you explained above. Too bad the image cannot be used any more, but thanks for finding a replacement! Feel free to update its summary to reflect the new image. All the best - Wintran (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Breakdance pagemoves
Still active Wintran? We worked on breakdance articles some time back, and I've got two new developments for you. First, I've requested a move of all the pages for move descriptions; you can see the RM and comment here. Second, I've made a new template for breakdance articles that links to everything on the old Template:Breakdancing moves, plus the styles listed on your Template:Street dance. You tried to do something similar sometime back, but ran into opposition that might have dissipated. I think you were on to something by trying integrate everything into one template, and templates in general have gotten more popular on Wikipedia. The new template is Template:Breakdance. What do you think about replacing your street dance template with this one? - Draeco 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey! Sorry for taking so long to respond, have been a bit inactive as of late. I like your changes, the moves are great and I believe the template changes will work. The templates are always tricky, my only worry with the new solution is that we have to update two templates if we add a new street dance related article (both Template:Breakdance and Template:Street dance), but I don't have a perfect solution. In either way, it's great with a general breakdance template, though I did like the look of your older template Template:Breakdancing moves as well, but let's try this for a while. Nice to see you here again. - Wintran (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me write this article?
Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I have no knowledge of those topics, sorry. - Wintran (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

About Gangsta Walking: Thanks
I Greatly Appreatiate You In Showing Me Tutting, I Alwasy Knew Of It, Yet Never Knew What It Was Called. But I Did Mention floating (under the title Gliding), As Well As Waving (under the title "the wave"). I'll Be Adding Tutting At Once.

But To Answer The Question Of What Gangsta Walk Is Really About; The Walk, Itself, Is An Answer To Buck Music That Originated In Memphis During The Mid 1980s. Most People From Out Of Town Are Absolutely Blown Away Upon Seeing, Finding It To Be Very Unique & Original, I Believe Thats Why We Memphis Folks Are So Easy To For Get Where We Got Our Style From. Plus, There Aren't To Many Dances Now That Moves So Smoothly With The Beat, Down To The Bass, Snare, & Hi-hat. But Along With Being A Dance, The Gangsta Walk Is Another Form Of Self Expression & Relief From Staying In The Ghettos of Memphis, Tennessee. I Don't Know How They Live Out There In Sweden, But, The City Of Memphis Is Far From A Little, Country Town In The American Southern States That Elvis Lived In. I, Myself, See Gangsta Walking Is To Memphis Much How Krumping Is To South Central, Steering The Youth Away From An Early End At The Hand Of Street Violence. On The Video, Gangsta by G-Style, Romeo's Explanation On The Walk Can Better Explain It Than I.

And Again, Thank You.

 * Hey! Thanks for the comment and for taking the time to explain, I find it very interesting. The Gangsta Walking article looks much better now than in the beginning, you've done a great job. I realize now that gangsta walking has a much deeper history than I first thought. My original worry was over the relative few google hits because of Wikipedia's notability policy, but I know there are many ways to measure notability. Personally, I love seeing more street dance related articles on Wikipedia, and I'm very interested in learning more about this style. Just want you to be aware of that someone else might come around and challenge its notability (some articles I created in the past was deleted because of this, so I've started to take that policy more seriously).
 * Take care, I don't mean to discourage you, keep up the good work!
 * - Wintran (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Breakdance_street_paris.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Breakdance_street_paris.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DieInquisitor 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we must delete. User:Nick was the uploader, please see this discussion. Apparently, some Flickr users decide to change their license after a while to a more restrictive one, which is too bad because we can't prove that they once released their image under a free license. - Wintran (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kulture News
Can you please help out with this article? I'm new at this and have been trying to build but people are hating on Hiphop. We need you please! I think if one person detest the deletion it will stop the non sense caused by these Hiphop Haters. Corey (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with that specific topic at all. Also, I don't think people are necessarily hip hop haters just because they want to delete an article. Take care. - Wintran (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. I don't think I've met somebody with so many things in common. If you would like to talk music, movies, life, or any of the above please message me. Also I dropped out my sophmore year and I'm going to film school no Highschool needed! NoGoodScoundrel 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Hip hop culture
A tag has been placed on Template:Hip hop culture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

hello
Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
From your 2nd main page proposal: "All changes are recorded so that inappropriate changes can easily be restored." - Don't you mean "...can be easily reversed"? Surely we don't want to restore inappropriate changes? ;-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, och hur mar du? Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Haha, tack så mycket ;) You're completely right, I've changed it now. If you have anything else on your mind regarding my design, such as its greatest flaw, don't hesitate to tell me :) - Wintran (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Varsogod (Or is it: "Du ar valkommen"?), vän :-) It looks pretty good to be honest. One of the better ones :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * "Varsågod" or "Ingen orsak" (literary "no reason", used like "you're welcome") :D Why are you studying Swedish? :) Glad you like my design! Check out my 4th proposal as well. - Wintran (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

main page redesign proposal
Hi, I saw your comments over on main page redesign proposal and was hoping that you could take a look at my proposal and give me some feedback.--88wolfmaster (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

mainpage proposal
Hi there! I made my own proposal, and it is mostly an combination of your stuff and 88wolfmaster's - love to know what you think of it. JoeSmack Talk 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hip hop
Hi, I read the past discussions on merging the hip hop article and I agree that making it a disambiguation page is the best solution. Feel free to comment at Talk:Hip hop. Spellcast (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page redesign
Hello, ! 2008 main page redesign proposal was recently cleared of all design entries. You may want to re-enter your design(s), based on the details here. (You can see the old list of designs here). NOTE: A survey was conducted on what users wanted to see in the new main page, you can see the results here. Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll in selecting five proposals before an RFC in which it will be against the current main page. You're input would be appreciated. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Userboxes
Notice: All of your Userboxes should be placed underUserboxes and in the sub-article accordingly. Wikipedia categorization isn't reserved for your own personal use, please stop wasting Wikipedia resources. Thanks. --
 * There was no such collection when I first created those userboxes. Feel free to add them there if you like, I don't have time at the moment. Be bold if you feel I'm "wasting Wikipedia resources", my intentions are all good. Please consider being more polite in the future. Thanks. - Wintran (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Hi! My name is Michel von Behr, I always used Wikipedia as a source of knowledge and information, but this is the first time I'm actually writing something. I just read an article about dancing, found it very interesting, and wondered who contributed to it - found out that Wikipedia keeps track of every contribution, and you were one of the authors.

Anyway, I'd like to just talk about Wikipedia, how did you started participating, where are you from, what are the dynamics, etc. I'm 28 years, born and living in Brazil, working for a consulting firm, and very interested about the Wikipedia system.

Contact: michelbehr@gmail.com

(Sorry if this is the wrong way to contact people, if it is, please, let me know)

C ya! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelbehr (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hip hop WikiProject Roll Call
Hello, fellow Hip Hop WikiProject members!

This message is being sent out to let all listed members of the project know to re-add your name to the members list, as all current names on the list have been erased in order to find out who is still active on the project. WikiGuy86 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The graph project
Hi there - I noticed that you used to be interested in the Wikireason project. I just wanted to introduce you to a similar project, thegraph.org, which was presented at a number of Wikipedia-related conferences this year (it was launched by a bunch of Wikipedians late last year). Maybe this will interest you... --Vptes (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. My name is Claudi Balaguer (User Capsot from the Catalan Wikipedia and Occitan Wikiccionari), I've just read your profile and saw you define yourself as a citizen of the world and that you care a lot about tolerance, other cultures and minorities so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment because Catalan is not supported by a state even though our Association is working real hard. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again/gràcies, I wish you a very nice, warm and pleasant summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dance
Hey! I am trying to revive WikiProject Dance and am contacting all members to see if they are still available. If you are interested in continuing, please let me know so I can keep you on the members list. If not, let me know and I'll move your name to the inactive members. Please respond on the project talkpage within seven days or you name will be labeled inactive. Please don't reply here. You can always rejoin if you forget to respond. Also, if you have any knowledge on how to design pages, please note that. Thank you! ReelAngelGirl  Talk to me!   Tea?  15:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chinese martial arts terms
Category:Chinese martial arts terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I'm nominating Waving (dance) for deletion. Tapered (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm adding Floating (dance) to the list. There may be more if you've originated similar articles. Tapered (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Wintran


text: Talk:Cho Chang

title: Talk:Cho Chang


text:
New Zealand electricity market

The New Zealand electricity market (NZEM) is a decentralised electricity market regulated by the Electricity Industry Participation Code administered by the Electricity Authority (EA). The authority was established in November 2010 to replace the Electricity Commission.

Overview
Until 1987, New Zealand had a centrally run system of providers of generation, transmission, distribution, and retailing. Reform has since led to the separation of the monopoly elements from the contestable elements to create competitive markets in energy retailing and generation. Regulation has also been imposed on the natural monopolies of transmission and distribution.

Since about 2000, the market is split as follows: regulation, administration, generation, market clearing, transmission, distribution, metering and retail.

The wholesale market for electricity operates under the Electricity Industry Participation Code (EIPC), and is overseen by the market regulator, the Electricity Authority. Trade takes place at more than 200 pricing nodes across New Zealand. Generators can make offers to supply electricity at grid injection points, while retailers and some major industrial users make bids to withdraw "offtake" electricity at grid exit points. The market uses a locational marginal pricing auction which takes generators' offers and retailers' bids, and computes final prices and quantities at each node. These auctions are held every half-hour for a total of 48 trading periods each day.

In addition to the core wholesale spot market there are two associated markets. A hedge market for CFD financial contracts is operated by the ASX Australian Stock Exchange, and an FTR market for Financial Transmission Rights is operated by Energy Market Services, a business unit of Transpower. These markets are linked to wholesale market prices at select locations, allowing market participants to manage their basis risk.

The Electricity Authority contracts out the services required to run the electricity market. The Reconciliation Manager who reconciles all metered quantities, the Pricing Manager who determines the final prices at each node and Clearing and Settlement Manager who pays generators for their generation at the market clearing price and invoices all retailers for their offtake, are all contracted to New Zealand Exchange (NZX), who acquired the previous service provider M-co in June 2009.

The owner of the national transmission grid is Transpower, a state-owned enterprise. Transpower is also the System Operator, responsible for ensuring real time electricity supply security and quality. Transpower is the market scheduler, predicting demand to help generators make offers, as well as the dispatcher, in charge of matching demand and supply in real time.

Distribution of electricity from the grid exit points to the end consumers' premises is the responsibility of about 30 distributors, also known as lines companies, who have monopoly control of the lines services on their networks. Ownership of distributors is through trust-owned companies, such as Auckland Energy Consumer Trust, and public companies. Some major industrial users are directly connected to the grid, such as New Zealand Steel and the Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter.

There are four major generators: Contact Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy. These four together produce about 90% of New Zealand's electricity. Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy and Mercury Energy are 51% majority owned by the New Zealand government, while Contact is a 100% publicly traded company. An important feature of the New Zealand market is that all the major generators also own retailing arms. The companies are thus commonly known as "gentailers" (generator–retailers.) Proceeding 2021 TrustPower was also a gentailer until selling their retail arm to Mercury under the TrustPower brand and re-branding the remaining generation business as Manawa Energy. Manawa is now NZ's largest independent electricity generator, representing around 5% of the New Zealand generation capacity.

Retailers purchase electricity from the wholesale market, and on-sell it to consumers. Competition for retail customers varies across the country but since 1999, when full retail competition was introduced, customers have switched at a rate between 9% and 14% per annum. Consumer NZ, with support from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, provides a website called Powerswitch that enables consumers to compare electricity and gas prices from different retailers and to switch suppliers.

MBIE published a useful chronology of reforms up to 2015.

Wholesale spot market
Electricity is traded at a wholesale level in a spot market. The market operation is managed by several service providers under agreements with the Electricity Authority. The physical operation of the market is managed by Transpower in its role as system operator.

Generators submit offers through a Wholesale Information and Trading System (WITS). Each offer covers a future half-hour period (called a trading period) and is an offer to generate a specified quantity at that time in return for a nominated price. The System Operator (Transpower) uses a scheduling, pricing and dispatch (SPD) system to rank offers, submitted through WITS, in order of price, and selects the lowest-cost combination of offers from the generators to satisfy demand.

The market pricing principle is known as bid-based security-constrained economic dispatch with nodal prices.

The highest-priced bid offered by a generator required to meet demand for a given half-hour sets the spot price for that trading period.

Electricity spot prices can vary significantly across trading periods, reflecting factors such as changing demand (e.g. lower prices in summer when demand is subdued) and supply (e.g. higher prices when hydro lakes and inflows are below average). Spot prices can also vary significantly across locations, reflecting electrical losses and constraints on the transmission system (e.g. higher prices in locations further from generating stations).

Trades take place at approximately 285 nodes (grid injection points and grid exit points) across New Zealand every half-hour. Generators make offers to supply electricity at 59 grid injection points (GIPs) at power stations, while retailers and major users make bids to buy electricity at 226 grid exit points (GXPs) on the national grid.

Final prices at each node, taking account of grid losses and constraints, are processed and confirmed the following day.

All electricity generated is required to be traded through the central pool, with the exception of small generating stations of less than 10MW. Bilateral and other hedge arrangements are possible, but function as separate financial contracts. Trading develops by bids (purchaser/demand) and offers (generator/supply) for 48 half-hour periods for each pricing nodes on the national grid.

Bids and offers start 36 hours before the actual real-time consumption or trading period. Up to four hours (pre-dispatch) before the trading period starts a new forecast price is calculated to guide participants in the market. From four hours to the start of the trading period every half-hour a dispatch price is calculated and communicated. One hour before the start of the trading period bids and offers can no longer be revised (with some exceptions) and the new prices reflect Transpower's adjustments in load forecasts and system availability.

During each half-hour period Transpower publishes a new real-time price every five minutes, and a time-weighted 30-minute average price. The real-time prices are used by some large direct-connect consumers to adapt their demand. The prices are however guidelines only as the final prices are calculated ex-post—normally around 10:00am the following day, unless there are irregularities or disputes. Using the offer prices as established two hours before the trading period and volumes as established during the trading period. Differences between forecast, dispatch, real-time and final prices can be significant.

Studies
In 2009, the Commerce Commission released a report by Stanford economist Frank Wolak on the ability of the four largest electricity suppliers to exercise unilateral market power in the wholesale electricity market and the economic rents (any payment in excess of the cost of production) that may have resulted. Using empirical industrial organization techniques, Wolak estimates these rents to be $4.3billion over the 7 years he studied when compared with a perfectly competitive market. The methodology he used and the results are also described in a working paper. His report was criticised for aspects of its methodology, with the Electricity Technical Advisory Group (ETAG), Ministry of Economic Development, claiming that there is no evidence of the sustained exercise of market power. The Commerce Commission decided not to act. Rex Ahdar, University of Otago, later opined that competition law in New Zealand is inherently ill-suited to tackling a network industry such as electricity.

An agent-based model (ABM) developed at Auckland University was used to analyse the New Zealand wholesale electricity market. The model suggests considerable market abuse and quantified the combined market rents for 2006 and 2008 to be $2.6billion, when compared with a perfectly competitive market as counterfactual.

In terms of residential electricity prices, a 2015 report found these were twice as high under retail competition.

Incidents
There have been long-standing concerns about the potential for market abuse under nodal pricing, particularly when the transmission system becomes congested.

Genesis Energy was "net pivotal" north of Hamilton on 26 March 2011. The HVAC network was under scheduled maintenance with 2 of 6 220kV lines out and 3 of 5 110kV lines out, thereby restricting supply from the South Island. Extreme bids by Genesis Energy sent Auckland spot prices to $$23,047$/MWh (€$15,000$/MWh), these prices later returned $197/MWh (€125/MWh) – a factor of 117×. The Electricity Authority declared a UTS (undesirable trading situation) and subsequently dropped the final price to $$3,000$/MWh (€$2,000$/MWh). The Electricity Authority decision was challenged and the High Court of New Zealand found in favor of the regulator. In its submission, the Electricity Authority stated that "the high interim prices on 26 March 2011, if they are allowed to become final prices ... threaten to damage the integrity and reputation of the wholesale market for electricity".

History of reform
Regulation of the electricity market started in a light-handed fashion but there has been an increasing trend towards more heavy-handed regulation. Light-handed regulation is based on the threat of regulation providing an incentive on companies with market power to exercise self-regulation. The normal regulatory legislation such as the Companies Act, Electricity Act, Resource Management Act 1991, Commerce Act 1986, and Fair Trading Act 1986 provide the framework for regulating normal commercial and environmental transactions.

The government has increased the extent of intervention through the Electricity Industry Reform Act 1998, which forced power companies to divest either their energy or their lines business. The Electricity Amendment Act 2001 led to another round of industry reform concentrating on achieving better governance of the electricity market and tighter control of monopoly functions. The "threat of regulation" was extended to the production of a set of regulations that would be brought into effect if the industry's self-regulation did not meet the government's criteria.

On 16 May 2003 the result of a referendum by industry participants and customer representatives on a proposed set of self-regulating rules was announced:

 * consumers voted 4.4% for the proposal
 * traders voted 66.2% for the proposal (traders comprise generating companies and retailers)
 * transporters voted 47.4% for the proposal (transporters comprise distributors and Transpower)

As there was not a substantial majority of all classes in favour of the proposal it was not implemented.

The result put paid to the prospect of a multilateral agreement on the governance and operational arrangements for the electricity market. The New Zealand government invoked the regulations already prepared to meet this contingency. The "threat of regulation" had been insufficient to stave off regulation.

On 2 July 2003 a draft set of Electricity Governance Regulations and Rules was issued on behalf of the Minister of Energy by the Electricity Commission Establishment Unit (ECEU). This set was for consultation purposes and after submissions were received and reviewed, a set of regulations and rules was recommended to the Governor-General.

In September 2003 a revised set of draft rules and regulations was issued by the ECEU for submissions by the end of October. The set did not include proposed transmission regulations, which were still being drafted. Also in September the Minister of Energy announced the chair and members of the Electricity Commission. Roy Hemmingway, whose most recent position was chairperson of the Oregon Public Utility Commission in the US, took on the role as chairperson of the commission.

The final set of Electricity Governance Regulations and Rules (excluding rules for transmission) became effective on 1 March 2004. The final chapter of the Electricity Governance Rules, on transmission, was gazetted on 28 April to become effective on 28 May 2004.

A Ministerial Review of Electricity Market Performance was initiated on 1 April 2009 and led by an independent Electricity Technical Advisory Group, appointed by the Minister for Energy and Resources, with assistance from officials from the Ministry of Economic Development. There were 29 recommendations arising from the review.

One of the key recommendations approved by Cabinet was the transfer of ownership and operation of some power stations between Genesis Energy and Meridian Energy in order to increase retailer competition in both islands and to give Genesis a South Island generating base. It was decided that Genesis would receive the Tekapo A and Tekapo B hydroelectric power stations from Meridian, and Meridian would receive the Whirinaki Power Station from the government (although Meridian eventually declined to accept). The transfer of Tekapo A and B was completed on 1 June 2011.

On 1 November 2010, the Electricity Authority commenced operations, taking over from the Electricity Commission.

In April 2013, the Labour Party and the Green Party said if they were to win the 2014 election, they would introduce a single buyer for electricity, in order to cut retail costs. The government responded by calling it "economic vandalism", comparing it to the Soviet Union, but Greens co-leader Russel Norman said it would boost the economy and create jobs. By the following day, shares in privately owned power company Contact Energy had fallen by more than 10 percent. The general election held on 20 September 2014 was won by the National Party. Share prices of listed electricity companies rose significantly when the share market opened on the Monday following the election.

Milestones in the reform process

 * Prior to 1987, the New Zealand Electricity Department (NZED), a government department, controlled and operated almost all electricity generation and operated the electricity transmission grid.
 * April 1987 – The New Zealand Government corporatised the NZED and formed a state-owned enterprise – the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ).
 * April 1993 – Electricity Market Company (later called M-co) established as a joint venture by New Zealand electricity industry players to act as a focal point for the design of a wholesale electricity market.
 * The Metering and Reconciliation Information Agreement (MARIA) was set up as a multilateral arrangement to allow for retail competition for customers with half-hour interval meters.
 * Former local electricity supply authorities established as energy companies.
 * April 1994 – Transpower separated from ECNZ and established as a stand-alone state-owned enterprise.
 * July 1994 – NZEM commences trading as a secondary market for ECNZ hedges. An independent market surveillance committee was formed.
 * June 1995 – After an exhaustive policy debate, the government announced significant reform of the electricity industry including a framework for buying and selling electricity through a wholesale pool.
 * February 1996 – An interim wholesale market is put in place allowing ECNZ and Contact to begin competing.
 * April 1996 – Contact Energy commenced operations.
 * October 1996 – The reformed wholesale electricity market (NZEM) begins trading.
 * April 1998 – Government announced the Electricity Reform Act 1998, which included:
 * Privatising Contact Energy.
 * Splitting ECNZ into three competing state-owned enterprises.
 * Instructions to all energy companies to split their retail and lines businesses and sell one or other within a set time period
 * April 1999 – Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) disbanded, establishment of three separate competing spin-off generation companies in the form of Mighty River Power, Genesis and Meridian Energy. A low-cost system for customer switching established allowing every consumer to choose their electricity retailer.
 * May 1999 – Contact Energy shares listed for trading on the New Zealand and Australian Stock Exchanges from 11 May 1999.
 * February 2000 – The Ministerial Inquiry into the electricity industry begins.
 * June 2000 – The report of the Ministerial Inquiry is published.
 * November 2000 – Electricity Governance Establishment Project set up as a result of the government's review of the report of the Ministerial Inquiry.
 * December 2000 – Government Policy Statement published.
 * April 2003 – An industry referendum on the outcomes of the Electricity Governance Establishment Project (EGEP).
 * May 2003 – The rules developed by EGEP fail to gain sufficient support in the referendum to avoid government regulation.
 * July 2003 – A draft set of regulations and rules was issued for consultation.
 * September 2003 – As a result of submissions received, revised rules and regulations were issued for further consultation. A revised Government Policy Statement was issued for submissions and the Electricity Commission was appointed.
 * 1 March 2004 – The Electricity Commission took over control of the New Zealand electricity market from the self-regulating bodies, the MARIA Governance Board (MGB) and the Rules Committee of the NZEM.
 * October 2004 – The Electricity Act was amended to increase the powers of the Electricity Commission.
 * April 2009 – Ministerial review of Electricity Market Performance commences.
 * 9 December 2009 – Minister announces outcomes of market review, including 29 new measures.
 * 1 November 2010 – Electricity Authority takes over from Electricity Commission, and the Electricity Industry Participation Code comes into effect.

Current structure
The New Zealand electricity market is split into the following areas: administration and market clearing, regulation, generation, transmission, distribution and retailing.

The current legislation (Electricity Industry Reform Act 1998) prevents the ownership of cross-sector investment (that is energy and lines functions). This means a generation company cannot own or have an interest in a distribution company and a distribution company cannot retail electricity or deal in electricity hedges. There are two exceptions to the regulations: generation companies can own the lines required to transport electricity from their power stations to the grid or local distribution network; and distribution companies can own a small amount of conventional generation capacity within their network but are not limited in the level of renewable generation capacity. There is no barrier to vertical integration from generation to retail. The overall arrangement of the industry creates some very interesting market behaviour amongst the players.

Generation is dominated by five companies: Contact Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy, and Trustpower.

Retail companies
The retailers are: Contact Energy, Ecotricity, Electra Energy, Electric Kiwi, Energy Direct, Energy Online, Flick Electric, Genesis Energy, Giving Energy, GLOBUG, King Country Energy,, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy, Nova Energy, Opunake Hydro, Paua to the People, Payless Energy, Powershop, Pulse Energy, Tiny Mighty Power and Trustpower.

Many of the retailers are owned by generating companies. For example, Mercury Energy owns GLOBUG and Tiny Mighty Power. Some retailers are restricted to certain geographical locations, such as King Country Energy which supplies to the King Country region of the Waikato.

Generation companies
The electricity sector in New Zealand is dominated by five generators, which are Contact Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy, and Trustpower. These are all active in generation, the wholesale market and retail sales of electricity. Between these five companies they produce or control more than 95% of NZ's total electricity generation.

All of these five companies are listed and traded on the NZX stock exchange. The New Zealand government has 51% ownership of Genesis, Mercury, and Meridian. Contact is also traded on the ASX Australian exchange.

There are a number of smaller companies in the electricity generation industry including WEL Networks, NZ Windfarms, NZ Energy, MainPower, Pioneer and Top Energy.

The retail space is dominated by the five generating companies. The generation and retail companies use this vertical integration as a natural hedge to manage risks associated with volatility of the spot market. For example, during a dry year, the high prices in the wholesale market price benefit the generation arm but hurts the retailers who buy at wholesale prices and sell electricity to consumers at fixed prices; when prices are low, the loss of profits in the generation side is offset by the profits in the retail business.

These five companies have now extended their risk management strategy further by aligning their retail and generation businesses to the same geographic locations. For example, the majority of Meridian Energy's generation assets are in the South Island, and that's where their retail strongholds are. Mercury Energy's generation assets are exclusively in the North Island, and its customer base is also primarily in the North Island.

title: New Zealand electricity market


text:
Japanese calendar

Japanese calendar types have included a range of official and unofficial systems. At present, Japan uses the Gregorian calendar together with year designations stating the year of the reign of the current Emperor. The written form starts with the year, then the month and finally the day, coinciding with the ISO 8601 standard.

For example, February 16, 2003, can be written as either 2003年2月16日 or 平成15年2月16日 (the latter following the regnal year system). 年 reads nen and means "year", 月 reads gatsu and means "month", and finally 日 (usually) reads nichi (its pronunciation depends on the number that precedes it, see below) and means "day".

Prior to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1873, the reference calendar was based on the lunisolar Chinese calendar.

History

Over the centuries, Japan has used up to four systems for designating years: the Chinese sexagenary cycle, the era name (元号) system, the Japanese imperial year (皇紀) and the Western Common Era (Anno Domini) (西暦) system. In the 21st century, however, the era system (gengo) and Western system (seireki) are the only ones still widely used.

Chinese Calendar
The lunisolar Chinese calendar was introduced to Japan via Korea in the middle of the sixth century. After that, Japan calculated its calendar using various Chinese calendar procedures, and from 1685, using Japanese variations of the Chinese procedures. Its sexagenary cycle was often used together with era names, as in the 1729 Ise calendar shown above, which is for "the 14th year of Kyōhō, tsuchi-no-to no tori", i.e., 己酉.

In modern times, the old Chinese calendar is virtually ignored; celebrations of the Lunar New Year are thus limited to Chinese and other Asian immigrant communities. However, its influence can still be felt in the idea of "lucky and unlucky days" (described below), the traditional meanings behind the name of each month, and other features of modern Japanese calendars.

Era Names (gengō)
The era name (元号) system was also introduced from China, and has been in continuous use since AD 701. The reigning Emperor chooses the name associated with their regnal eras; before 1868, multiple names were chosen throughout the same emperor's rule, such as to commemorate a major event. For instance, the Emperor Kōmei's reign (1846–1867) was split into seven eras, one of which lasted only one year. Starting with Kōmei's son the Emperor Meiji in 1868, there has only been one gengō per emperor representing their entire reign.

The nengō system remains in wide use, especially on official documents and government forms. It is also in general use in private and personal business.

The present era, Reiwa, formally began on 1 May 2019. The name of the new era was announced by the Japanese government on 1 April 2019, a month prior to Naruhito's accession to the throne. The previous era, Heisei, came to an end on 30 April 2019, after Japan's former emperor, Akihito, abdicated the throne. Reiwa is the first era name whose characters come from a Japanese root source; prior eras' names were taken from Chinese classic literature.

Japanese Imperial Years (kōki or kigen)
The Japanese imperial year (皇紀) is based on the date of the legendary founding of Japan by Emperor Jimmu in 660 BC. For instance, 660 BC is counted as Kōki 1.

It was first used in the official calendar in 1873. Kōki 2600 (1940) was a special year. The 1940 Summer Olympics and Tokyo Expo were planned as anniversary events, but were canceled due to the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Japanese naval Zero Fighter was named after this year. After the Second World War, the United States occupied Japan, and stopped the use of kōki by officials.

Today, kōki is rarely used, except in some judicial contexts. Usage of kōki dating can be a nationalist signal, pointing out that the history of Japan's imperial family is longer than that of Christianity, the basis of the Anno Domini (AD) system.

The 1898 law determining the placement of leap years is officially based on the kōki years, using a formula that is effectively equivalent to that of the Gregorian calendar: if the kōki year number is evenly divisible by four, it is a leap year, unless the number minus 660 is evenly divisible by 100 and not by 400. Thus, for example, the year Kōki 2560 (AD 1900) is divisible by 4; but 2560 − 660 = 1900, which is evenly divisible by 100 and not by 400, so kōki 2560 (1900) was not a leap year, just as in most of the rest of the world.

Gregorian Calendar (seireki)
The Western Common Era (Anno Domini) (西暦) system, based on the solar Gregorian calendar, was first introduced in 1873 as part of the Japan's Meiji period modernization.

Nowadays, Japanese people know it as well as the regnal eras.

Seasons
There are four seasons corresponding to the West's:

However, there is also a traditional system of 72 microseasons (kō (候)), consisting of 24 solar terms each divided into three sets of five days,   and with specially-named days or Zassetsu (雑節) indicating the start and end of each. This system was adapted from the Chinese in 1685 by court astronomer Shibukawa Shunkai, rewriting the names to better match the local climate and nature in his native Japan. Each ko has traditional customs, festivals, foods, flowers and birds associated with it. One can nowadays download an app to learn about and follow along with these "micro-seasons," listed below:

Zassetsu
Zassetsu (雑節) is a collective term for special seasonal days within the 24 sekki. Shanichi dates can vary by as much as 5 days. Chūgen has a fixed day. All other days can vary by one day.

Many zassetsu days occur in multiple seasons:
 * Doyō (土用) refers to the 18 days before each season, especially the one before fall which is known as the hottest period of a year.
 * Higan (彼岸) is the seven middle days of spring and autumn, with Shunbun at the middle of the seven days for spring, Shūbun for fall.
 * Shanichi (社日) is the Tsuchinoe (戊) day closest to Shunbun (middle of spring) or Shūbun (middle of fall), which can be as much as 5 days before to 4 days after Shunbun/Shūbun.

The term (節分) originally referred to the eves of  (立春, 315°, the beginning of Spring),  (立夏, 45°, the beginning of Summer),  (立秋, 135°, the beginning of Autumn), and  (立冬, 225°, the beginning of Winter); however, it now only refers to the day before.

Months

As mentioned above, the Japanese calendar used to be based on an adaptation of the Chinese lunar calendar, which begins 3 to 7 weeks later than the Gregorian. In other words, the Gregorian "first month" and the Chinese "first month" do not align, which is important in historical contexts.

The "traditional names" for each month, shown below, are still used by some in fields such as poetry; of the twelve, Shiwasu is still widely used today. The opening paragraph of a letter or the greeting in a speech might borrow one of these names to convey a sense of the season. Some, such as Yayoi and Satsuki, do double duty as given names (for women). These month names also appear from time to time on jidaigeki, contemporary television shows and movies set in the Edo period or earlier.

The Japanese names for the modern Gregorian months literally translate to "first month", "second month", and so on. The corresponding number is combined with the suffix 月 (-gatsu, "month"). The table below uses traditional numerals, but the use of Western numerals (１月, ２月, ３月 etc.) is common.

Week
Japan uses a seven-day week, aligned with the Western calendar. The seven-day week, with names for the days corresponding to the Latin system, was brought to Japan around AD 800 with the Buddhist calendar. The system was used for astrological purposes and little else until 1876.

Much like in multiple European languages, in which the names for weekdays are, partially or fully, based on what the Ancient Romans considered the seven visible planets, meaning the five visible planets and the sun and the moon, in The Far East the five visible planets are named after the five Chinese elements (metal, wood, water, fire, earth.) On the origin of the names of the days of the week, also see East Asian Seven Luminaries.

Sunday and Saturday are regarded as "Western style take-a-rest days". Since the late 19th century, Sunday has been regarded as a "full-time holiday", and Saturday a half-time holiday (半ドン). These days have no religious meaning (except those who believe in Christianity or Judaism). Many Japanese retailers do not close on Saturdays or Sundays, because many office workers and their families are expected to visit the shops during the weekend.

10-Days (jun)
Japanese people also use 10-day periods called jun (旬). Each month is divided into two 10-day periods and a third with the remaining 8 to 11 days:
 * The first (from the 1st to the 10th) is jōjun (上旬)
 * The second (from the 11th to the 20th), chūjun (中旬)
 * The last (from the 21st to the end of the month), gejun (下旬).

These are frequently used to indicate approximate times, for example, "the temperatures are typical of the jōjun of April"; "a vote on a bill is expected during the gejun of this month." The magazine Kinema Junpo was originally published once every jun (i.e. three times a month).

Days
The table below shows dates written with traditional numerals, but use of Arabic numerals (１日, ２日, ３日, etc.) is extremely common in everyday communication, almost the norm.

Each day of the month has a semi-systematic name. The days generally use kun (native Japanese) numeral readings up to ten, and thereafter on (Chinese-derived) readings, but there are some irregularities.

Tsuitachi is a worn-down form of tsuki-tachi (月立ち), literally "month start." The last day of the month was called tsugomori, which means "Moon hidden." This classical word comes from the tradition of the lunisolar calendar.

The 30th was also traditionally called misoka, just as the 20th is called hatsuka. Nowadays, the terms for the numbers 28–31 plus nichi are much more common. However, misoka is much used in contracts, etc., specifying that a payment should be made on or by the last day of the month, whatever the number is. New Year's Eve is known as Ōmisoka (大晦日), and that term is still in use.

As mentioned below, there is traditional belief that some days are lucky (kichijitsu) or unlucky. For example, there are some who will avoid beginning something on an unlucky day.

April 1
The first day of April has broad significance in Japan. It marks the beginning of the government's fiscal year. Many corporations follow suit. In addition, corporations often form or merge on that date. In recent years, municipalities have preferred it for mergers. On this date, many new employees begin their jobs, and it is the start of many real-estate leases. The school year begins on April 1.

Rokuyō
The rokuyō (六曜) are a series of six days calculated from the date of Chinese calendar that supposedly predict whether there will be good or bad fortune during that day. The rokuyō are commonly found on Japanese calendars and are often used to plan weddings and funerals, though most people ignore them in ordinary life. The rokuyō are also known as the rokki (六輝). In order, they are:

The rokuyō days are easily calculated from the Japanese lunisolar calendar. The first day of the first month is always senshō, with the days following in the order given above until the end of the month. Thus, the 2nd day is tomobiki, the 3rd is senbu, and so on. The 1st day of the 2nd month restarts the sequence at tomobiki. The 3rd month restarts at senbu, and so on for each month. The latter six months repeat the patterns of the first six, so the 1st of the 7th is senshō, the 1st of the 12th is shakkō and the moon-viewing day on the 15th of the 8th is always butsumetsu.

This system did not become popular in Japan until the end of the Edo period.

National Holidays

After World War II, the names of Japanese national holidays were completely changed because of the secular state principle (Article 20, The Constitution of Japan). Although many of them actually originated from Shinto, Buddhism and important events relating to the Japanese imperial family, it is not easy to understand the original meanings from the superficial and vague official names.

Notes: Single days between two national holidays are taken as a bank holiday. This applies to May 4, which is a holiday each year. When a national holiday falls on a Sunday the next day that is not a holiday (usually a Monday) is taken as a holiday.

 * † Traditional date on which according to legend Emperor Jimmu founded Japan in 660 BC.

 * * Part of Golden Week.

Timeline of Creation of and Changes to National Holidays

 * 1948: The following national holidays were introduced in the Public Holiday Law (国民の祝日に関する法律): New Year's Day, Coming-of-Age Day, Constitution Memorial Day, Children's Day, Autumnal Equinox Day, Culture Day, and Labor Thanksgiving Day.
 * 1966: A supplementary provision to create Health and Sports Day was introduced in memory of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. Vernal Equinox Day, National Foundation Day and Respect for the Aged Day were also introduced.
 * 1985: Reform to the national holiday law made days like May 4, sandwiched between two other national holidays, a generic national holiday (国民の休日).
 * 1989: After the Shōwa Emperor died on January 7, his birthday, April 29, was renamed Greenery Day and The Emperor's Birthday (observed as a national holiday since 1868) moved to December 23 for the succeeding Akihito.
 * 1995: Reform to the national holiday law added Marine Day, to be celebrated July 20.
 * 2000, 2003: Happy Monday System (ハッピーマンデー制度) moved several holidays to Monday. Starting with 2000: Coming-of-Age Day (formerly January 15, now the second Monday in January) and Health and Sports Day (formerly October 10, now the second Monday in October). Starting with 2003: Marine Day (formerly July 20, now the third Monday in July) and Respect for the Aged Day (formerly September 15, now the third Monday in September).
 * 2005, 2007: April 29 was renamed Shōwa Day, and May 4, previously a generic national holiday (国民の休日), became the new Greenery Day.
 * 2014: Mountain Day was established as a new holiday, to be observed starting 2016
 * 2019: Akihito's birthday is December 23; however, he abdicated April 30, 2019, in favor of his son Naruhito, which moved the "Emperor's Birthday" holiday to February 23. Because the transition happened before Akihito's birthday but after Naruhito's, the "Emperor's Birthday" holiday was not celebrated that year.
 * 2020: The speech given by Naruhito during the New Year was the first given since 2017, when Akihito halted the practice to reduce his workload.
 * 2021, 2022: Because of the COVID-19 crisis, Naruhito's New Year's greetings were delivered via a televised speech instead of in-person.
 * 2023: The imperial family's New Year's greetings were held publicly for the first time in three years. The Emperor's Birthday on February 23 will also be the first time public celebrations will be held for the occasion since Naruhito's ascension in 2019. The latter events in 2020, 2021 and 2022 had all been cancelled due to concerns over COVID-19.

Seasonal Festivals
The following are known as the five seasonal festivals (節句 sekku, also 五節句 gosekku). The sekku were made official holidays during Edo period on Chinese lunisolar calendar. The dates of these festivals are confused nowadays; some on the Gregorian calendar, others on "Tsuki-okure".

 * 1) 7th day of the 1st month: 人日 (Jinjitsu), 七草の節句 (Nanakusa no sekku) held on 7 January
 * 2) 3rd day of the 3rd month: 上巳 (Jōshi), 桃の節句 (Momo no sekku) held on 3 March in many areas, but in some area on 3 April
 * 3) * 雛祭り (Hina matsuri), Girls' Day.
 * 4) 5th day of the 5th month: Tango (端午): mostly held on 5 May
 * 5) * 端午の節句 (Tango no sekku), 菖蒲の節句 (Ayame no sekku)
 * 6) * Boys' Day. Overlaps with the national holiday Children's Day.
 * 7) 7th day of the 7th month: 七夕 (Shichiseki, Tanabata), 星祭り (Hoshi matsuri ) held on 7 July in many areas, but in northern Japan held on 7 August (e.g. in Sendai)
 * 8) 9th day of the 9th month: 重陽 (Chōyō), 菊の節句 (Kiku no sekku) almost out of vogue today

Not sekku:
 * January 1: Japanese New Year
 * August 15: Obon – the date is "Tsuki-okure". In central Tokyo Obon is held on July 15 (The local culture of Tokyo tends to dislike Tsuki-okure custom.)
 * December 31: Ōmisoka

Gregorian months and the "One-Month Delay"
In contrast to other East Asian countries such as China, Vietnam, Korea and Mongolia, Japan has almost completely forgotten the Chinese calendar. Since 1876, January has been officially regarded as the "first month" even when setting the date of Japanese traditional folklore events (other months are the same: February as the second month, March as the third, and so on). But this system often brings a strong seasonal sense of gap since the event is 3 to 7 weeks earlier than in the traditional calendar. Modern Japanese culture has invented a kind of "compromised" way of setting dates for festivals called Tsuki-okure ("One-Month Delay") or Chūreki ("The Eclectic Calendar"). The festival is celebrated just one solar calendar month later than the date on the Gregorian calendar. For example, the Buddhist festival of Obon was the 15th day of the 7th month. In many places the religious services are held on 15 July. However, in some areas, the rites are normally held on 15 August, which is more seasonally close to the old calendar. (The general term "Obon holiday" always refers to the middle of August.) Although this is just de facto and customary, it is broadly used when setting the dates of many folklore events and religious festivals. But Japanese New Year is the great exception. The date of Japanese New Year is always 1 January.

title: Japanese calendar


text:
Talk:List of female movie actors (A-K)

What makes these actresses notable? And while we're throwing adjectives around, where's the list of spankable actresses? Where's the objectivity here?

 * "notable" duly removed... ;-) Martin

Country disclaimers
I plan to add the entry for Indian actress Madhuri Dixit. Hence would like remove the following disclaimer "... United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland ...". Or do I add India to the list ? Jay 12:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Go ahead. I can't figure out why it was added in the first place, other lists don't have arbitary restrictions like that.  Some lists have restrictions but the restrictions are reflected in the title.  -- Popsracer 07:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Removed the country disclaimers. Jay 15:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sexism
Ya gotta love the fact that we don't have a "List of actresses" because that would be sexist, but we're ok with a "List of female movie actors". - Bunk 05:41, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * It's the most amusing aspect of this endless list. But is 'female movie actor' a retronym? 'Live actor' certainly is... Wetman 07:39, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Ya gotta love the fact that we don't have a "List of actresses" because that would be sexist, but we're ok with a "List of female movie actors"." Yep, you gotta love it! Sexism times two. Bluelion 04:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Screen Actors Guild calls their acting award for females the "Award for Best Female Actor". RickK 04:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Here's your nonsense. "In current English usage, the word actress has been labelled by some as pejorative." On what frickin' planet? "Female actor' is better? Gimme a break! Female man is better than woman, I suppose. I really don't care what sexist term the Screen Actors Guild uses. "Female Actor' is nothing short of silly.Bluelion 04:50, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought I made an idle comment; now I realise it wasn't an idle comment at all. The term female actor is stupidity raised to an art form. I'd like some political correctness genius to explain what the Sam Hill female actor means if it doesn't mean actress? And I'd further like someone to explain how the Sam Hill it isn't considerably more perjorative and insulting than actress Bluelion 05:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * And the Oscars for females is called the Academy Award for Best Actress. Jay

Debating about political correctness is not Wikipedia's job. We should just use whichever form is most common in the real world. As far as I can tell, that's "actress". -- Oliver P. 08:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I plan to rename this page to "List of movie actresses". Jay 06:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * exactly. It's ok to refer to all actors, regardless of sex, as "actors", but when we're talking about specifically female actors the word is "actress". Not that confusing. --Krsont 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a useful division?
Another point: is it really useful to separate actors from actresses in this way? We don't have separate lists of male and female artists, politicians, or scientists, as far as I know. And is it really useful to separate "movie" and "television" performers? We'd end up with two sets of lists with a huge overlap. I suggest that we have List of actors and actresses, and then split it up by surname and by nationality, similar to List of people by name and List of people by nationality. That enables more divisions than just splitting by sex or performance medium. -- Oliver P. 08:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not too sure about the division movie/television, but I tend to think that the division by nationality is mainly useful for politicians. -- User:Docu

 * Just by name, then...? I suggested nationality because someone wanted the page just to contain people well known in the English-speaking world, which would be just awful. By having separate lists for separate countries, that person would be able to browse lists of the people they were interested in without needing to bias the main list towards any particular nationalities. But anyway, what's your opinion on the division by sex? -- Oliver P. 09:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't mind it, afterall there are separate awards (and there wont be "a huge overlap"). -- User:Docu

 * yup, similar to the way we have list of male tennis players and list of female tennis players because they have separate championships and awards. Jay 11:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, good point. :) -- Oliver P. 13:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==== I doubt that Nell Gwynne appeared in any movies before dying in 1687. Perhaps this list has been moved (too frequently), starting life as List of Actresses? - Nunh-huh 01:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 1 possible wiki link for List of female movie actors (A-K).
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the List_of_female_movie_actors_(A-K) article:

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link English usage: ...[List of female television actors]] . Note: In current English usage, the word actress has been labelled by some as pejorati...

WTF
Is this category a joke or something? All I could find on this category are:

 * 8 listed items
 * Soumitra Chatterjee who is a famous bearded hero of Bengali films (he is man, for god's sake)
 * 2 links leading to non-existent articles - List of Nepali actresses and List of American actresses
 * More Indian prsence than anything else

What is this crap? Please, either delete this, or make it far, far, and far better. At least get it over with the "By Country" stuff. Make it substantial, whatever. - Aditya Kabir 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of female movie actors (A-K)


text:
Talk:Whitewater controversy

Autobiographies mustn't be used as citations
Once in this article Bill's book My Life is used as a citation. Five times Hillary's Living History is cited. Autobiographies mustn't be used as citations. I hope someone with some time can address this. Find other citations, or remove these. Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Whitewater controversy