text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Archive 1

Hiragana and katakana
Where are the hiragana (ひらがな) characters? These are used more than katakana (カタカナ), which are the only demonstrated set. Katakana is used to write foreign words, onomatopoeic words, or biological names, but for most else it's supposed to be hiragana. I have a chart of kana that I've placed somewhere. When I can dig it up, I'll put up a link to it, for anyone interested. - coldacid 20:00 -0500 2004-03-24

 * The characters themselves are in the charts for Hiragana and Katakana, and the romanization is given in the Hepburn charts. — Gdr 09:06 2004-04-01

Syllabic n
I have a problem with point 3 in the Romanization section:

"Syllabic n ン followed by b, m; or p is written m."

This is not only not standard practice, it's also confusing and misleading. The syllable "n" exists in Japanese; there's no reason to transcribe it as "m". Exploding Boy 01:59, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, what has happened to "Naming conventions Japanese"? The link just redirects to this page and there's nothing on it here.  As far as I recall no consensus was ever reached on the issue either. Exploding Boy 02:01, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * I rescued the material about given name/family name ordering and put it on this page. The only other material was about names of Emperors, about which I know nothing, so that's still waiting for a knowledgeable person to add it. Gdr 15:35, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

 * It's still there if you look at the page history. I added a link at the top of this page. -- Taku 02:08, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * The 'm' romanization is not standard, but it's in widespread use.

 * Here's what Google returns:
 * Edogawa Ranpo:748 vs. Edogawa Rampo: 1630
 * Shinbashi: 17000  vs.  Shimbashi 14600
 * Jinbocho 2420     vs.    Jimbocho 3170
 * ... and most importantly,
 * Monbusho 21,600   vs.    Mombusho 1900

 * And JR uses it: Shimbashi, Nihombashi, etc. - - Paul Richter 02:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually using "m" is a part of standard Hepburn romanization, and the reason for using it is simply that 新聞 is pronounced "shimbun". However, revised Hepburn (adopted by the Library of Congress among others) uses "n" in all cases.

 * Personally, I lean towards the revised style, but there are some words where "m" is pretty well entrenched or used in the official romanization, eg. Asahi Shimbun, Namba Station. Jpatokal 03:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm neutral about this; m gives the best indication of pronunciation but n isn't so bad.— Gdr 09:21 2004-04-01

 * Maybe the right thing to do is to leave this open, with a recommendation to use whatever is most common in use. Gdr 15:50, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

 * Howzabout we agree on n for new/obscure/equally popular words, but allow m for entrenched usage? Jpatokal 15:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * There were no loud objections, so now it's policy. Jpatokal 04:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The new policy seems good to me. I shall undo my Monbushō → Mombushō change. Gdr 09:13, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)

Hello, I have an opinion about "n" versus "m". I favor "m" because that is the Japanese pronunciation.

Somebody cited statistics for "Monbusho" versus "Mombusho", but I think they are not the right numbers to give in a debate about Hepburn romanization, since the "n" is Kunreishiki and Mombusho was the Education Ministry, the only major proponent of Kunreishiki.

Adopting the "n" invites readers to pronounce words incorrectly. If we want people to pronounce incorrectly, we might as well adopt Kunreishiki (heaven forfend!). Hepburn, including the "m", at least gets some people to pronounce some words correctly. Given that we have adopted Hepburn, we should use the "m", which continues to be correct pronunciation. The pronunciation Ra-n-po is incorrect; Ra-m-po is correct. Shi-n-bashi is incorrect; Shi-m-bashi is correct. Ji-n-bocho is incorrect; Ji-m-bocho is correct (at least in the consonants). Mo-n-busho is incorrect; Mo-m-busho is correct (again, in the consonants).

The "m" of Hepburn is not "generally deprecated." It is not deprecated in any way within the Hepburn system. It correctly conveys pronunciation. That's why I advocate using it.

Fg2 02:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You do realize that n becomes m before b and p in English? E.g. "can be" /kæm'bi/. The only reason it's more noticeable in Japanese is that syllabic n is longer than English syllable-final /n/. If we start using nː, n̄, or n̩ for ん (hopefully only before た行 and だ行), maybe it would make enough of a difference. Until then, all things being equal, I'll take the version that's kana-lossless. --Aponar Kestrel 16:57, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

 * I agree that n can be pronounced as m before b and p (even though I don't pronounce it that way myself). Perhaps there's some variation in Japanese, as there is in English (if so, it might deserve an article from someone more knowledgeable than I am). But, I would like to approach this from another point of view. The title of this section n is not universally correct. I learned it unquestioningly as syllabic n but the n is often simply incorrect. It's more often correct than syllabic m would be, and far more convenient than syllabic n or m, whichever may be appropriate in the individual case at hand (I'm saying this with tongue in cheek!). The hiragana ん is neither an n nor an m; it changes according to the situation. Now, I know better than to try to get the world to change the name of syllabic n. That's not what I'm trying to do. What I am trying to do is to get people to romanize ん as n when the English pronunciation is n and to romanize it as m when the pronunciation is m. If I knew those pesky symbols of SAMPA or IPA I'd say /n/ and /m/ (and maybe they're what I mean, or maybe not). In either case, it's kana-lossless, since syllabic n and syllabic m represent the same kana, ん. Whew! I wrote more than I planned. Let's hear the counterarguments. Fg2 04:09, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * You're quite right; it is still kana-lossless, and that was stupid of me. That said, I never see anyone write, e.g., "Mombusho" (excepting romanization discussions). The only actual words I can think of where 'm' is commonly used are "shimbun" and "Kampai". Whichever way we do it, we do have to break consistency occasionally -- but we do it far less with 'n' than 'm'.
 * I also think it's a little odd, linguistically speaking, to give only one of ん's four allophones a different rendering while all three of the others are written the same way. (Yes, four: m̩, n̩, ŋ̩, and... I think the primary/default allophone is something like ɣ̃ in Tokyo-ben, but don't quote me on it.)
 * Anyway, if it were in common use, I'd say 'go for it', but I think it's probably not going to get used all that much by people looking things up (who are more likely to use wapuro anyway, but that's a whole 'nother argument). And let's face it: we're largely talking about a set of people who can see the word karaoke and read it as carry-okie. Using m instead of n isn't going to make all that big a difference.
 * Incidentally, although English varies on a lot of things, this isn't one of them. You do pronounce it that way (at least in that phrase) -- unless, of course, you're thinking about it while doing so. (And yet, year after year, practically every single student in Linguistics 101 is absolutely certain that they don't.) I suspect, given the similar phonotactic structure of these two cases, that Japanese is the same way; but I can't cite a reference on that, so don't quote me on that either. --Aponar Kestrel 08:55, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

 * I've met a lot of people who deny that they're saying things I hear them say, or pronouncing things the way I hear them, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to discover I'm one of them! Fg2 09:56, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Particles
Revth, you edited Japanese grammar changing e to he and o to wo. But Manual of Style for Japan-related articles says to use e and o. Can we come to an agreement? Gdr 15:50, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

 * There was no answer, so I reverted the changes. Gdr 08:49, 2004 Apr 13 (UTC)

Double n
Although rule 4 indirectly addresses this, what's the standard for a doubled n? Should "emperor" be tennō or ten'nō? We seem to be using the former, and I prefer that because there's not really an ambiguity that would require an apostrophe, but computer dictionaries seem to only like the apostrophe version and I do see it in stuff by Viz, so it should probably be mentioned. DopefishJustin 15:46, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Definitely tennō, writing "ten'nō" is hypercorrect and pointless. I'm also not sure what computer dictionary you're using, as all Linux IMEs that I know of are quite happy without the spurious apostrophe...  Jpatokal 16:32, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I haven't tried entering Japanese on Linux. If you enter tennou in Microsoft's IME, you get *てんおう (it considers the double n to be the single character ん), so to get てんのう you need to enter ten'nou or tennnou. In the JquickTrans dictionary (which I usually use), entering tennou gets you *てっのう, the apostrophe again being necessary. I guess you can explain these away as dumb programming, but why Viz renders 亀仙人 as Kamesen'nin is beyond me. DopefishJustin 19:20, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * How IME's handle input is not really relevant. What matters is the published form and, as you said, it isn't ambiguous in this case. The basic rule is to use n' when it is ambiguous (i.e. when the n is followed by a vowel or y). Say we have a name like "Sanin".  We can't tell if it is Sa-n-i-n (San'in') or Sa-ni-n (Sanin) unless we have some way to distinguish n from ni. Or kani vs kan'i etc.  Viz is just unnecessarily applying this rule. Mdchachi|Talk 16:19, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Image captions
It doesn't seem to be possible to use Unicode characters in captions for images, so should long vowels just be unmarked? DopefishJustin 15:46, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's the lesser of two evils. Jpatokal 16:32, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * New MediaWiki version makes this moot (Unicode now works in image captions), so I removed the note about it. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 20:03, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

On Japanese words with established English spellings
I notice in the style manual in the romanization section an example of long vowels is given using the name Tokyo, written as Tōkyō. While this is a correct romanization of the long o, Tokyo is almost exclusively written without macrons in an English context. The same applies to other words like sumo (sumō), Kyoto (Kyōto) and Hokkaido (Hokkaidō) which have established English spellings. This should be noted. Exploding Boy 00:55, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * I removed the examples and added a new section on established English spellings. Please improve. Gdr 14:30, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Google not returning numeric Unicode entities
Apart from the fact that it's a PITA to use numeric entities at all, Google seems not to be returning them, as suggested on this page. this page will do it, though you need to view source, perversely, to see the entities, and I suspect it only handles the Japanese range. (unsigned comment by User:Adamrice)

I agree that it is a pain. Maybe one day the English Wikipedia will transmit in UTF-8 (see Unicode). In the mean time the CGI script below may be useful. Gdr 09:40, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

htmlify.cgi #!/usr/local/bin/python import cgi import sys sys.stderr = sys.stdout print 'Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8' print print '' print '<title>Convert text to HTML</title>' print '
Convert text to HTML
' def conv(char): o = ord(char) if 32 < o and o < 127: return cgi.escape(char) else: return '&#%d;' % o   form = cgi.FieldStorage if form.has_key('text') and form['text']: t = unicode(form['text'].value, 'utf8') u = ''.join(map(conv, t)) print '
' print '
To get this:	' + u + '
' print '
Write this:	' + cgi.escape(u) + '
' print '
' print '<form action="htmlify.cgi" method="POST">' print '<input type="text" id="text" name="text">' print '</form>' print '' print ''

Arbitrary division 8

 * I don't desire to get into a discussion over the relative merits of WTB's concerns, but I do agree that there needs to be some clarification as to what the style should be. I tend to agree with WTM that we should chose the more "pure" form of the artist's vision-- in the case of some imports, and Viz's in general, that tends to be the manga. (Anime edited for Y7 is hardly ever true to original form.) I don't want to pass judgement, but it seems that WTM is mostly guilty of following (to excess?) the spellings in that "pure" manga, which it turns out is riddled with errors.
 * I'll save Whisper the trouble here: you can't possibly agree with him on that, because that's not what he thinks. His preference is to use whatever localization is used in the manga. To my knowledge, no one here has so far advocated a 'purist' standpoint (although Wikiwikifast briefly did over on Talk:Sailor Moon after WTM moved Usagi Tsukino to "Bunny Tsukino"). I personally prefer the original names, but I accept that I am usually in the minority: and besides, Wikipedia describes what is, not what should be. --Aponar Kestrel
 * I'm thinking about the "populist" standard of article naming (using the Google Test), and I can see the merits of that. While not as pure, it is possibly more approachable to the average end user. My concern with this is two fold, can you tell me how to proceed in these cases:
 * Proper character names. Generally, the first name of a character is more Google-popular than the character's full name, even when narrowed down to the topic at hand. To take your example, "Usagi Tsukino" is less popular than just "Usagi" (when qualified to just sailor moon pages) yet we both agree that just "Usagi (Sailor Moon)" is not the appropiate name for the article.
 * This comes under the general category of 'use the shortest form that doesn't cause confusion'. For example, 'Usagi' could also mean the title character of "Usagi Yojimbo". We probably don't need a disambiguation page titled 'Usagi', because then we'd also have to have one for 'John', or at least 'Sakura'. And so forth. --Aponar Kestrel
 * Inconsistencies of sources. It is odd (to me) that we can have character names from different sources in character lists. We could have (hypothetically) "Tuxedo Kamen", "Sailor Mini-Moon", and "Bunny Tsukino" all in the same list, though all three names are derived from a different source. (Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to illustrate a point. I haven't watched/read Sailor Moon in years.) This is possibly fine, but is a drawback to the purely populist view.
 * That assumes that you treat each name individually. Personally I think it's more intuitive to treat groups of names like that as a group. However, I suspect that since people tend to seek consistency (internally and externally), this will seldom if ever happen even if one doesn't. --Aponar Kestrel
 * Trends over time. A third issue, and one that is always going to be a problem when you use a translation or popular vote, is that things change. Today, the accepted spelling for a manga not released widely in the US could be one thing. Next year, when the manga reaches our shores in some obscure publication, we could all be updating every article to use those translations. A year from that, we'll be updating again because the anime on Toonami is now driving how people refer to the work. Having a reference source negates some of those difficulties and ensures consistency over time. What has been demonstrated however is that a translation, even with the best of intentions, can rarely be considered a reference source.
 * Such popularity shifts will probably not occur frequently, however. When they are observed to occur -- as they probably will, especially if people document, say, series that haven't been released in the US) -- well, Wiki is not paper; it's easy enough to update, and (if properly written) the articles won't be factually in error even before the update. --Aponar Kestrel
 * If it is appropiate to move these questions elsewhere, that's fine by me. I'm just determining how I can apply these rules in the future and how I should reexamine the articles that I have already contributed. And by raising some of these concerns (playing "devil's advocate"), it might cause us to reexamine or clarify some of the existant policy guidelines. JRP 20:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, this is the right place for them. And these are at least new concerns instead of the same-old-same-old rehashed arguments we've been listening to. --Aponar Kestrel 21:25, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

I don't know if this is right place to post this question because it involves the right name for an article, but the decision for the right name is made more complicated by Japanese localization problems.

The article in question is Muten-Rôshi (one of the ones renamed by WTM) and a bit more information on this question can be found in that talk page, but it's worth asking here. I'm hoping that knowing the "correct" answer from this example will nail down the rules for me so I can make sure that I use them correctly in the future. (Though, I suspect there is more art here than science.)

The first step would be the Google check, and here's the beginning of that results. (The full table is in the Talk page for the article.)

 * Roshi is a poor name, despite being the most popular by a factor of 3x because it's a generic term (see Buddhist terms and concepts) and we shouldn't override the generic term (even for an article that doesn't exist yet) for a character name. (Note that this name is only the most popular because it catches both the Master and Muten forms of the name. Maybe that makes it not count.)
 * Master Roshi would be a better choice because it adds the familiar qualifier to the generic term. However, that's number three on the list. (Master Muten Roshi doesn't even deserve consideration because I refuse to admit that Viz can honestly on purpose act like that's his real first name, even though they've printed it that way multiple times.)
 * Kamesennin would be a good second choice, but Viz doesn't print it that way (they use Kame-Sen'nin) and it's bad Romaji. (Is it? I'm not the expert.) Do we accept bad Romaji in article titles?

So, given this choice, what's the best pick? The generic name? The bad romaji name? A corrected romaji name that no one uses? The english dub name, even though it's #3 in popularity? Or should I just take the short road and correct the Shonen Jump ô and replace it with ō? JRP 22:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with the series in question, but diacritics should not be used in article titles. For representing long vowels in Japanese in the content, the sole correct choice (as discussed above in tortuous detail) is ō. And yes, "Kame-Sen'nin" is bad romaji; "Kamesennin" would be correct. Jpatokal 00:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * (repeating myself from over on Talk:Muten-Rôshi) You're right about which two to be conflicted on; you should use either "Kamesennin" (which, as Jpatokal has said, is the correct romanization) or "Master Roshi". I suggest that you try to use names drawn from the same source for all the Dragonball Z articles, unless you end up with strongly conflicting majorities on different characters as to which source to draw from -- although I don't think that's likely. If it does happen -- well, just use your best judgment. No worries. --Aponar Kestrel 02:26, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

Suffixes
I am wondering does anyone know about any convention regarding suffixes of an article title like prefecture, province and so on. It seems sometimes a suffix is capitalized; e.g. Ise Province, Foo District, Tokushima and some while a suffix is not capitalized like Tokushima prefecture, Tokugawa shogunate. I don't have a preference but I just need to know which one is correct and why. -- Taku 06:37, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Just today, I was wondering why article titles for prefectures have a lowercase p, and provinces have uppercase. It's very strange to me. Certainly, prefecture and province should be capitalized identically. Wikipedia seems to have (or at one time to have had) a rule that the second and later words should be lowercase, so things that got in early, like prefectures, have the second word in lowercase. When I write, I usually try to put the word Prefecture with the first letter capitalized. It seems much more natural, since it's part of a proper name. Doing so doubles the amount of typing, and I wish Wikipedia had put them in with capital letters to begin with. Possibly, it's a difference between British and American English. Again, I don't know. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Fg2 09:02, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

American English always capitalizes place names in full (e.g. Yamaguchi Prefecture, Chiba City, Senri New Town). British English occasionally leaves the "common" part of the place name in lower case, but I've also seen British English capitalize the full name, too... so it seems safe to me to capitalize every word in a proper place name. - Sekicho 15:59, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I agree with your plan. Fg2 12:58, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks people. Actually I have remembered that sometime before, I and some people capitalize prefectures but someone reverted it and that was the end. Now, I think we agree to capitalize prefectures. I will put a notice regarding suffixes at the main page. -- Taku 00:17, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Place names
Here's another issue that needs to be resolved: how should articles for places of interest like 法隆寺 be named? Here are some options:
 * 1) Horyuji, the plain Japanese (Google: 6,290 but this includes #2)
 * 2) Horyuji Temple, Japanese with a redundant gloss (Google: 1,860)
 * 3) Horyu-ji Temple, disambiguate suffix Lonely Planet style (Google: 748)
 * 4) Horyu Temple, as Taku just suggested on the Manual page (Google: 334)

Personally, I don't like any of these, but I think number 2 is the least of four evils, although number 3 comes close behind since it makes it clearer that "-ji" means temple. Number 1 is basically not English, while the fourth without -ji just sounds strange and isn't popular on Google either; I would say "Horyuji" or "Horyuji Temple" in English, but I'd never say "Horyu Temple". Opinions? Jpatokal 13:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think #2 or #3 are conventional. I don't have much preference between them. Another question is whether to capitalize temple. I think it is not a proper noun like Edo period but I am not so sure. -- Taku 13:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, "temple" should definitely be capitalized if it refers to a specific temple. "Horyu Temple" is right. Just like Yasukuni Shrine and Osaka Castle. - Sekicho 14:54, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sekicho does have a point there... although "To Temple" and "Senso Temple" still look exceedingly bizarre to me, and as shown earlier Google also favors "Horyuji" form by 6:1.  But if there are no better ideas, can we agree on Horyu Temple (法隆寺 Hōryūji) as the standard form? I'm itching to do something about the horrible mess that is Category:Buddhist_temples. Jpatokal 07:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1-2-3-4 as listed would be my preference in order ... I am not a fan of calling Google searches an authority (see my comments on name order above) but in this case I think they've got it right. I would have no problem with 1, 2, or 3 but as has been mentioned above although 4 might be more "accurate" than 2 or 3, it looks bizarre (and looks bizarre precisely because practically no one would refer to these places as Horyu Temple or Kinkaku Temple in English).  Ironically it's the "bizarre" form that most people seem to call the shrines by (Ise Shrine, Izumo Shrine, etc.)  But if we're just talking about temples I prefer 1 ... it's shortest and most common according to Google and my own experiences (I can't recall, for example, ever hearing English speakers say "Kinkakuji Temple", instead just "Kinkakuji").  2 or 3 adds the redundant "Temple" but it clarifies that the article is about a temple so that serves a purpose.  The hyphen is a matter of asthetics ... personally I would think most people searching for Kinkakuji in Wikipedia aren't going to take the time to type it, but as long as we're consistent that's what matters. CES 07:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Examples like To Temple and Kiyomizu-dera Temple make it pretty clear to me that we should omit "Temple" and rely on the Japanese (ji, do, in). I see two separate issues here: one is making sure that people can find the article; we can cover that with redirects. The other is internal consistency, and that's most visible in Categories. I changed a couple of articles just now, not knowing that this discussion was going on. (I might have read it and forgotten it --- having lots of things on my mind this week --- or I might not have read it --- not sure. I did read and participate in the discussion about provinces and prefectures.) There's only one left of any significance, Todai-ji. I didn't change that because lots of pages link to it, and furthermore, it seems best to make a decision about whether or not to put the hyphen in. I started a lot of the articles for Kyoto and Nara temples, without the hyphen in most cases, but in truth I don't care, and either way is fine by me. One last comment. I tried several times to change the way the name of Byodoin displays in the category, to distinguish it from Byodoin Temple in Hawaii, making it easier for the reader to select an article. I don't want to change the name of the article, just to make "Kyoto" or "Uji" or "Japan" appear after its name in the Category:Buddhist temples. Nothing worked. Anyone know how to do it? Fg2 08:33, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

And now I'm leaning towards option 1 also. Poking around, non-Japanese temples with well-known foreign names (eg. Angkor Wat, Wat Phra Kaew) are also listed without the redundant "Temple" tacked on the end, so there's precedent for this too.

It's tough to make a universal rule though, since as Sekicho says eg. Ise Shrine and Osaka Castle are the usual names, not "Ise Jingu" or "Osakajo". But eg. Meiji Jingu and Izumo Taisha are usually known by their Japanese names. What to do? Jpatokal 09:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Mention of Meiji Shrine in this context made me laugh. A long time ago, a TV show called The Love Boat did a two-hour special in Japan where the characters visited "The Meiji Jing Shrine." For shrines, I'd suggest using the proper name, followed by "Shrine," instead of jinja, jingu, sha, gu and other suffixes. Thus, Meiji Shrine (as the article is already named), Ise Shrine, Heian Shrine. The spoiler is Toshogu. I've never heard it called "Tosho Shrine." For castles, I think we should use the proper name followed by "Castle" as we have in Edo Castle, Himeji Castle and others. BTW, I think Edo Castle and Kokyo should be merged, being two short articles about the same place. Fg2 22:11, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

My vote on this would be 1-2/3-4 (I think the difference between 2 and 3 must be considered on a case-by-case basis, which isn't very helpful). Generally speaking, when English speakers who are knowledgeable about Japan talk about temples and shrines, we say "Ise Jingu" or "Kiyomizu-dera" (and yes, we do say it with exactly that punctuation and capitalization!). "Heian Temple" sounds very odd to my ear: I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.

The Japan Stylesheet, which was put out by SWET about 15 years ago, recommends that you do use Japanese suffixes and never use redundant English and Japanese (so don't say "Shirakawa River")

The exceptionn is cases where there's already a momentum of English usage in the other direction. For example--Mt Fuji, not Fuji-san (and definitely not Mt. Fuji-san). adamrice

 * Even rivers are a bit tricky I think ... in English it's natural to call Sumidagawa "Sumida River" but calling a river called Shirakawa "Shira River" seems a bit odd. But maybe that's just me? =)  Also, adding the word "River" also helps to distinguish between a river, a place name, and a person named "Shirakawa".  We'll have to tackle rivers next week! =) In any case, would we agree that #1 is the concensus opinion for temples?  Hyphens have their pros and cons ... as long as we're consistent I think that it's not a really big deal.  Any one here have a passionate opinion one way or the other? CES 00:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * For temples, I agree with #1: Horyuji (with or without a hyphen, I don't care much either way). Regarding rivers, we don't have much yet, so agreement based on careful reasoning would be extremely helpful in minimizing the need to move articles. I tend to agree with kawa/gawa: Kandagawa, Edogawa, Arakawa, Tamagawa, Oigawa, Tenryugawa, Chikumagawa, Shinanogawa, Shirakawa, Yodogawa, etc. etc. With these, I fall pretty clearly into the no-hyphen camp. Fg2 03:42, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I see one potential problem with a hyphen. There are some place and personal names containing ji like Kisshoji (place) or Tendouji (person name). One reason to add a suffix temple is disambiguation. But other than this, I am fine with horyuji or horyu-ji -- Taku 15:29, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I like the disambiguation factor too ... also, using the hyphen might make the place names a little easier on the eye for longer temple names. CES 18:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have a strong preference between "Horyu-ji" and "Horyu-ji Temple", but I do have a very strong preference for the use of a hyphen for all endings (e.g. river, temple, etc), because it clearly marks off the ending from the actual name; that way, with the places where the name happens to have the same ending (e.g. the examples above by Taku), naive readers will know it's actually part of the name. Noel (talk) 15:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not a big fan of the hyphen, especially in the case of those temples where the 'temple' ending is commonly attached in English. (e.g. Byodoin, Todaiji, Kiyomizudera, Hachimangu) But, that said, my preferences lie in the order presented above (1-2-3-4). Using the regular Japanese name is most preferable because that's the actual name of the place. I don't want to see my hometown's sites rendered as "Nueva York" or "自由の女神像", as those are quite simply not their names. Once someone (perhaps myself) gets around to making an article on Buddhist temples in Japan, a user will be able to find explanations of the meaning of -ji, -gu, etc with a minimum of effort. In the end, I'd be happy with either of the top two, but please please don't end up using the fourth option. Horyu Temple, To Temple, Senso Temple, just sound wrong. LordAmeth 11:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I just noticed that User:Jpatokal has moved several of my pages (and probably quite a number of others) to include macrons in the article title. Was there consensus on this? I'm personally a big fan of not using macrons or accent marks in the article titles as it makes them less easily searchable, and arguably harder to pronounce or understand for those who are not familiar with the given language. (For example, I know how to pronounce "Curacao"; I have no idea how to pronounce "Curaçao".) See Naming conventions (use English). LordAmeth 11:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Asian languages naming table
Since Wikipedians who mess with Korean and Chinese related articles made naming tables, I decided to lump in Chinese and Korean together to create an "Asian languages" table. In several articles, the "Japanese" got lumped in as well. See: Chopsticks, Go (board game), Liancourt Rocks, Manchukuo, and Sea of Japan as examples. (The Liancourt Rocks table was started by another person who had the same idea.)

NOTE: The "Hepburn" added to the "Romaji" indicates only that the standard way of writing it conforms only to Hepburn - It does not imply that more romanization systems should be added to the table. WhisperToMe 21:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I may be in the minority on this one, but while I think the naming table is a neat idea, I wonder if it clutters up the articles more than it helps. Some of the articles now have large blanks at the top of the article (Go) while others make you wonder if the naming table will soon be longer than the article itself (Sea of Japan) ... this is probably the wrong forum for a discussion on these tables (since more than Japan-related articles are in question), but I am slightly concerned that with these tables Wikipedia is turning into a foreign language dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. CES 15:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm in agreement with CES on this one, really. In the case of 'Sea of Japan', especially, I don't think it's needed at all: there should of course be a section on the naming dispute, but simply adding something like "Russian and Chinese maps also typically use Sea of Japan (日本海 Rìběnhǎi and Япо́нское мо́ре Yaponskoye More(?) respectively)" to the "naming dispute" paragraph would probably be enough to make the box almost useless. More generally, when a box such as this suffices, the names of things or places from multiple languages are almost certainly not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Contrariwise, when they are encyclopedic, a little box isn't enough; we need a full paragraph of text -- at which point we probably don't need a box anymore, since it's redundant. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:22, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Actually, the naming dispute has its own article (Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan), and the names and stuff came from that article. WhisperToMe 00:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * ... which means you're duplicating information that already exists somewhere else. That's probably not a good thing. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:22, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

 * The reason the info was duplicated is to simply show the Korean/Chinese/Japanese on the page about the Sea of Japan, and then to go into detail on it on the debate over it. All Korean/Chinese articles are supposed to show the Korean/Chinese characters and romanizations of them. WhisperToMe 06:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm in agreement with the two people above. Just take a look at the chopsticks article and compare the box with the paragraph below it.  They both convey the same information: the box takes up more space and distracts from the actual article. - Sekicho 01:49, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * The reason the boxes were made is because Korean and Chinese have two largely-used romanization systems (as opposed to Japanese only having one), and that Korean also has the Hanja and Hangul. In my opinion, a paragraph with the right information can do more than a table. But unless specific information on its usage can be found, a table is better. WhisperToMe 02:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But if specific information on its usage can't be found, is it really all that interesting? That said, there are a very few cases where a table would be useful. May I suggest Zen? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:22, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Romanization redux
Whisper has pointed out that some of the Sailor Moon characters have strikingly common nonstandard romanizations. Of course the situation is even worse for 天王はるか Ten'ō Haruka. I converted these to "Meioh Setsuna" (etc.) in the article text, but I'm wondering if this was really the right thing to do here. I could make a strong case that Meioh should be treated as no more worthy of use than Meiô, but I don't know what the "average reader" would be least surprised by in this circumstance (especially given that any group of five readers will likely be split as to their preferred spelling). So, generally speaking -- do people agree with my first impulse ("Meioh": vox populi, vox Wikipedias) or my second ("Meiō": damn the otaku, full speed ahead)? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 23:17, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
 * Canonical form: 冥王 せつな Meiō Setsuna
 * Google search for "Meioh Setsuna" (14,000)
 * Google search for "Meiou Setsuna" (870)
 * Google search for "Meio Setsuna" (92)
 * Google search for "Setsuna Meioh" (4,910)
 * Google search for "Setsuna Meiou" (734)
 * Google search for "Setsuna Meio" (3,400)
 * For me, it depends on why the naming is used more commonly. If it is because official publications spell it that way (As in the case of the Japanese and English versions of the Sailor Moon manga, which use "Kaioh", "Meioh", and "Tenoh"), then I would do so on an article. If it is because fans like using wapuro, even though the official publications don't do it, then I would default to the official spelling, or if none exists, the MOS Style spelling. WhisperToMe 01:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ten'ō vs. Tennō discussion moved to Talk:Haruka Teno. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 07:40, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Another way to show a macron
Someone found another way to write a macron. He or she used a code to get o. The macron is "higher" than the one in the standard character (ō). I did not know about that code until seeing it in the Lupin article. WhisperToMe 06:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I put a message on that user's talk page saying how to get the usual macrons. Someone once scolded me for using undefined to get superscripts. Something about a limit on the number of something-or-others that can go in an article. Leaving aside limitations, I don't know why the higher bar might be better... maybe it's easier to see?Fg2 06:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that many older computers may not be able to see the traditional "macron" character. WhisperToMe 16:55, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Using isn't quite wikicode to get a macron. Instead, it references Template:o and includes it inline. This is a bad thing because then the Wikipedia server has to go and fetch another file and perform the inline substitution. To prevent possible denial-of-service attacks based on Template: abuse, only five templates are permitted per article; thus frequent use of  and similar constructs will cause templates to break. Please continue to use &#333; et al. --Aponar Kestrel  (talk) 17:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
 * ... I should add that older computers won't understand " " either, so that's no argument at all, I'm afraid. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 17:58, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
 * Okay. I let the person know on his talk page that he can't use the template to get a macron. :) WhisperToMe 18:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The five-include limit is brain-damaged, which I complained very loudly about until somebody finally reassured me that it's been fixed, though the fix will not go live until MediaWiki 1.4. I still think templates are the way to go for this, but not until the restriction is lifted again.
 * "brain-damaged"? That's a little strong, Furrykef. Anyway, I've gone in and edited Template:A, Template:O, and Template:U -- apparently User:Kukkurovaca created them for ease of use in transliterating Sanskrit. Ick. The less stress on the server, the better. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:38, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
 * It may be strong, but it's not literal; no offense to those who implemented it, but it really is not the Right Thing. Moreover, I doubt this use of templates creates any special stress on the server, as rarely as these templates are likely accessed. - Furrykef 02:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If there is going to be a vote on this, I would go with using the HTML character reference. :) WhisperToMe 02:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind that isn't actually the correct character... Exploding Boy 15:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * It used to be. - Furrykef 02:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that, but it's not any more. Exploding Boy 21:00, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

These templates have all been deleted now - the Insert: box on edit page now provides a way to insert most special characters. Noel (talk) 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Use of given names of historical figures
This was moved from Tokugawa Ieyasu.

I changed "Tokugawa" to "Ieyasu" in many places because that distinguishes Ieyasu from his descendants. Likewise, "Toyotomi" --> "Hideyoshi" and "Oda" --> "Nobunaga".

 * I dunno. This seems like a bad thing to me.  People who don't know better are going to start thinking that Toyotomi and Oda are their given names, not their family names.  Is there really a need to distinguish these individuals from their descendants? Sekicho 12:35, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think so. Nobunaga's son died with him, but he had a brother, Yurakusai (if I remember correctly). Hideyoshi's son is mentioned in the article together with Hideyoshi, so saying "Toyotomi" seems unclear to me. Likewise, Ieyasu's sons figure in this article, so it seems necessary again. I looked at the articles on Nobunaga and Hideyoshi, and they prefer to use the given names. (However, I didn't look to see whether or not I'd changed them --- I might have!) Similarly, British kings go by given name: James, Charles, George etc. rather than by family names (Windsor, and so forth). I know that these generals weren't kings or emperors, but perhaps it's by that analogy that they're commonly called by their given names in English. After all, they wanted their positions to be hereditary. This makes them different from modern military generals in the US or Britain. Anyhow, it's not the most important thing. If there's a consensus to go back, I'm ok with that. Fg2 12:50, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think Fg2 is correct. It it just a convention to use given names instead of family names in articles like this. I looked at an article in Britannica and it uses Nobunaga:

 * Meanwhile, Nobunaga promoted a new economic policy by abolishing the collection of tolls on the roads and from the guilds, both of which had been privileged sources of income for the local daimyo.

Coincidentally, they got really lengthy and balanced articles of Japanese historical figures. We are still far behind. -- Taku 17:47, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would support using given names if we were writing about several Tokugawas in one article. I don't think we should use given names all the time, especially when there's no chance of confusion (such as this article, where "Oda" would obviously refer to Oda Nobunaga.) - Sekicho 23:57, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess Oda's pretty clear in this article!Fg2 07:00, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think this is an issue of ambiguity. It is just so common in writing Japanese history in English to use Nobunaga instead of Oda as I quoted from Britannica. -- Taku 02:43, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is an issue of ambiguity, of course: if it might not be clear which of two figures with the same surname are meant, then we need to use the given name. Likewise, in the relatively unlikely event that we're discussing two people with the same given name, we need to use the surname. However, if neither would be ambiguous, then as far as I'm concerned this is no more important than British vs. American spelling, and I don't think it's worth the trouble of fixing (except for the sake of consistency within a given article). --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:47, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

 * Second Aponar Kestrel. This needn't develop into a policy, but I think it's perfectly reasonable (and attested to elsewhere) to use given names in this context. Now, if there are articles about the history of Kabuki, and we need to refer to all the different Ichikawa Danjuros out there, we've got another problem. adamrice 13:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no problem there. They are always referred to with the suffix Roman numeral, e.g. Ichikawa Danjuro IX, and the articles should be titled that way; if you need a short name for them, refer to them as Danjuro IX - that's the usual practise in the Western writings on kabuki which I have. Noel (talk) 16:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should develop a convention, which is not seen anywhere but here. As I said, my point is we should follow what almost all history books do. Sometimes the names Oda and Toyotomi are unambigous, but it is just too normal and accepted practice to use given names refer to historical figures. -- Taku 16:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * I concur. In all my history books, when they are referred to with only one name, it's always as Hideyoshi, Nobunaga, etc. (Perhaps this is because, at least in Hideyoshi's case, his son is an important actor in the closing days of Ieyasu's consolidation of power, so Toyotomi would be ambiguous, and of course the full name is clunky.) Noel (talk) 16:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should develop any convention either. In the English version of the manga Naruto, the character's names are in Japanese order, and they always refer to each other in short hand by their given name, perhaps as a way of reflecting what was done in historical periods of Japan. WhisperToMe 22:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Not everything about Japan and Japanese is reducible to manga. Exploding Boy 18:39, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, for that, we need 男はつらいよ！ adamrice 20:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, informal conversation is very different from encyclopedic work (of course people use given names in conversation... formal writing is much different). But I'll accept Taku's argument, although begrudgingly. - Sekicho 20:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * As far as history studies in Japan, it is quite common to use (only) given name for historical figures, at least in Japanese. How about refering them first with their full name and in following only their given names? --Aphaea 00:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Random question
... I'm sorry, I don't know where better to ask this. Is there a name for abbreviations like wāpuro or Kimutaku? We could really use an article on it, but I don't know what to name it other than 'Japanese abbreviations'. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 02:27, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
 * Check out Portmanteau. It covers combinations of complete words (like portmanteau) as well as parts of words (such as smog). I don't know a specific term for words from Japanese. Often, they're closely analogous to acronyms and initialisms, formed by taking the first kanji from key words in a phrase or name just as acronyms are formed with the first letters (although neither of your examples falls into this category). If nobody has a better suggestion, why not go with "Japanese abbreviations.' Fg2 03:44, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe wasei-eigo. Kappa 08:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a new page for naming order issue
I have created a separate article about naming order issue: Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/Naming order. Personally, I hate to have a separate page about the same topic and I wish I didn't interrupt any discussion we have been having so far. But it should be helpful for us to summarize discussion and really go to come up with a solution in the near future. -- Taku 04:57, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Rendering of Japanese Names
After looking through some articles on Japan, I got the feeling that we should try to simplify the way Japanese names are given within articles. A lot of articles give names the following way:  (, ) -- e.g. "Kazuhiko Katō (加藤一彦 Katō Kazuhiko)" -- see the article on Monkey Punch. It seems a bit silly and redundant to me to have the rōmaji repetition of the name (only in reversed order). I am aware of course that the part following the kanji is supposed to be the transliteration, while the part before the bracket is supposed to be the form of the name commonly used in English, so there is a conceptual difference. But practically, this only means repeating the name and creating unnecessary work. There seem to be the following ways to go about it: No. 1 would seem to include all the information pertinent to a name, but seems to me too much work, unless the English name is very common. No.4 saves a lot of work, but I for one would prefer to see kanji next to names newly introduced in an article, without having to go to a second page. No. 3 would display the name in a format familiar to Western readers -- but is this necessary? If people are unsure about whether something is the first or the last name, they can also look it up on the manual of style. Also, the word order wouldn't match the kanji. My personal favorite would be option No. 2. Obviously, this would be a bit awkward for names that are frequently mentioned in the Japanese media, but if the person is really a celeb, the name would have a link to a page that would also provide the name commonly used in English. Any thoughts? Perseus 05:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) drop all macrons from the first mentioning of the name, thus creating something like an "English rendering" of the Japanese name (thus: "Kazuhiko Kato (加藤一彦 Katō Kazuhiko)")
 * 2) only use the rōmaji rendering, in last-name first-name order  ("Katō Kazuhiko 加藤一彦")
 * 3) use the rōmaji rendering, in first name-last name order (Kazuhiko Katō 加藤一彦 )
 * 4) drop both the kanji and the rōmaji rending if the name has a link (so that people interested in the kanji / transliteration can look them up -- e.g. Kazuhiko Kato); if there is no link, proceed as until now.

 * I would support number 2, but I think some people might have some objections, especially with the naming order. (See Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/Naming order for more information.) [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 00:45, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * And yes, I realize that this idea kind of conflicts with my statement in the naming order discussion. [[User:JoshG|Josh | Talk]] 14:39, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefer a combo of 1 and 4 - 4 if there is a link, 1 (with full romaji with macrons, etc in Japanese order, in parens immediately following) if not. Noel (talk) 16:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Saddleback

Saddleback may refer to:

Fauna

 * Saddleback (bird), two species of New Zealand bird of the family Callaeidae
 * North Island saddleback, the North Island species
 * South Island saddleback, the South Island species
 * Saddleback caterpillar, Acharia stimulea, the larva of a species of moth native to eastern North America
 * Saddleback clownfish, Amphiprion polymnus, a black and white species of anemonefish
 * Saddleback seal, or harp seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus
 * Saddleback toad, a genus of small, colourful toads the family Brachycephalidae
 * British Saddleback, a modern British breed of domestic pig
 * Wessex Saddleback, a breed of domestic pig originating in the West Country of England
 * Angeln Saddleback, a rare breed of domestic pig grown mainly in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

Geographic features

 * Saddleback Hill, a mountain in Massachusetts
 * Saddleback Mountain (disambiguation), a number of mountains worldwide
 * Saddleback Point, a headland on the northern coast of Elephant Island, in the South Shetland Islands of Antarctica
 * Saddleback Valley, South Orange County, California, U.S.

Institutions, schools, and organizations

 * Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California, U.S.
 * Saddleback College, Mission Viejo, California, U.S.
 * Saddleback High School, Santa Ana, California, U.S.
 * Saddleback Valley Unified School District, South Orange County, California, U.S.

Other uses

 * Saddleback roof, usually on a tower, with a ridge and two sloping sides
 * Saddleback Maine (ski resort), a ski area on Saddleback Mountain in Rangeley, Maine, U.S.

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

title: Saddleback


text:
Talk:Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics

Maps need to be EU-28
Current maps are EU-27 and need updating. It will need someone with more skill with the new Eurostat site than I have. Can anyone help? Grhabyt (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Gibraltar
AFAIK, Gibraltar is outside of the EU. Somehow. --12.216.243.109 07:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No - some provisions do not apply (such as the Customs Union) but it is inside and has been since 1973. That is why Spain had to open the border.  See Special member state territories and their relations with the EU. --Henrygb 01:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
N.U.T.S. → Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – Page should not have been moved. Mover found full name too hard to search for, but nobody will search for N.U.T.S. NUTS is a disambig page and should suffice. --Nelson Ricardo 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support--Mais oui! 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Has already been done. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

LECs and unitarty authorities in Scotland
Trying to make sense of the refs to LECs and unitary authorities in Scotland. I presume LECs means here local enterprise companies, and these often cover areas with very different boundaries to those covered by unitary local government authorities. Laurel Bush 12:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC).

 * The LECs only apply in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, a NUTS II division. Otherwise Highland would have been geographically too big and the other mainland areas too small. --Henrygb 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I believe boundaries of Highlands and Islands LECs were changed recently, but I dont have details. This change means the statistical areas have also changed? Laurel Bush 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

EU 15, EU 25
i propose to merge the data. EU now is EU-25. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NUTS 2 / Names in this column
It's sometimes written in english (this an english article...) and sometimes in the local language. I think that it shouldn't be this way. Need a more homogenic naming.

Maybe both terms could be written (i.e. the translated name in italic or something similar).

Example :

France NUTS2 : regions (régions)

-- Éole

Candidate countries
Only CH is listed for Switzerland here, not EO39. Has EO39 been deprecated or are both in use? -- Jao (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Info
There is not information in this article on how the boundries are drawn, and what rationale is use to create the regions. Clearly declining population size are used at each level, but is there a numerical formula? (e.g. NUTS1 = 1-10 million people, NUTS2 = 100,000-1 million, etc). What is the size range of the regions at each level? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Is this what you were thinking of ? --Luxem (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

German NUTS II regions
I could be wrong, but aren't there too few NUTS II regions listed for Germany? The article mentions 22 but Eurostat use 39, as confirmed here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:154:0001:0041:EN:PDF All the other regions in the database accord with those listed. --EUstudent2009 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * They are definitely 39. A user changed it to 22 in June based on the fact that the table read "Regierungsbezirke" and it's quite true that there are only 22 Regierungsbezirke. But Germany's NUTS2 is a mixture of current Regierungsbezirke, old Regierungsbezirke that have since been merged, and entire states that never had Regierungsbezirke. The important thing here is of course not how many Regierungsbezirke there are, but how many NUTS2 regions there are, which is clearly 39. I changed the name field to "-", but any ideas how to clearer describe the situation would be welcome. — JAO • T • C 10:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your help, I thought that was the case. --EUstudent2009 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NUTS. Not NTUS.
European Commission, Eurlex, Eurostat, UK Parliament, Office for National Statistics, DEFRA, everybody uses the acronym "NUTS" in English, not "NTUS". So I've changed the article accordingly. Regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Third Map
Hi. In the third map only one colour was used, where as Map 1 and 2 have a different colour for countries that are not part of NUTS. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

NUTS and other systems
The lead section has the last paragraph (simplified here): "In addition to the full three levels for the European Union countries, all other countries have a NUTS code with {decription of code}... There are some anomalies {examples}... NUTS is thus in some extent similar to the ISO 3166-2 standard, as well as the FIPS 10-4 standard of the United States." This doesn't seem very clear or particularly helpful - in what way is it similar? Is "thus" supposed to follow from the anomalies or from the structure of NUTS coding? I've done what checking I can on the ISO and FIPS standards (not much) but I can't see any indication that they have the same anomalies as NUTS. If they do, it would be good to explicitly mention this. If the line is supposed to relate to the way NUTS codes are allocated outside the EU, the line should be moved (and again, clarified to say in what way they are similar). Can someone help clear this up? -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Statistical regions of Serbia
Could someone add the Serbian NUTS-1 and -2 to the images?--Z oupan 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

German districts NUTS 3 (?)
If only German districts are counted as NUTS 3 entries, the value for Germany NUTS 3 should be "402" per last DESTATIS statistics (see Germany ref 83). However I am not completely sure about the relation between "districts" and "NUTS 3 elements" (if it is exactly 1:1) and couldn't find an actual source for it (EU statistics re-designing their website every few years isn't really helping). I reverted my update for now, until a more knowledgeable editor can look into it and fix the numbers, if necessary. GermanJoe (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is outdated. The new classification was set by the Commission Regulation (EU) No 1319/2013 of 9 December 2013 amending annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS). There are 402 NUTS level 3 units in Germanyy according to this Regulation. Aotearoa (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and the tag, Aotearoa. I'll leave updating to interested topic experts though - the whole article, its terminology and structure is too complex for my pay grade. GermanJoe (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100219053638/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu:80/statistics_explained/index.php/NUTS to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/NUTS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100410171617/http://www.statistics.gov.uk:80/geography/nuts.asp to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/nuts.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123004458/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/vetsurveillance/reports/geo-units.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/vetsurveillance/reports/geo-units.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


text:
File:LindseyBuckinghamLawandOrderAlbumcover.jpg

Summary
album cover Law And Order (1980) by Lindsey Buckingham


text:
Toro (comics)

Toro is the name of two fictional characters appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. The first Toro was originally featured in Timely Comics and later published as a Marvel Comics superhero who appeared as the partner of the original Human Torch.

Publication history
The first Toro made his debut in Timely Comics' Human Torch Comics #2 (premiering fall 1940 with no cover date and as issue #2, having taken over the numbering from the single-issue Red Raven). Toro appeared in numerous comics titles in the 1940s, both during World War II and the post-war era. He starred with Bucky in Young Allies Comics, and made appearances in various issues of Kid Comics, Amazing Comics, Complete Comics, Mystic Comics, All-Winners Comics, and Sub-Mariner Comics. In 1948, however, the Human Torch dropped Toro as a sidekick, picking up with Sun Girl instead.

Toro and the Torch later appeared in Atlas' Young Men #24 (December 1953). Toro also made several appearances in Marvel Comics titles, beginning with reprints of Human Torch stories in Marvel Super-Heroes #12–14 (Dec. 1967-May 1968), followed by a previously unpublished Atlas-era Human Torch story in #16 (Sep. 1968).

Toro appeared in a new story in Prince Namor, The Sub-Mariner #14 (June 1969) where he was seemingly killed off. He subsequently appeared in flashbacks and historical stories, being a regular character in the 1970s Invaders series. After years of only appearing in flashback stories, he returned to current publication with the 2008 Avengers/Invaders maxiseries and the 2009 miniseries The Torch.

In 2014, as part of Marvel Now! the All-New Invaders were relaunched and a flashback story was told about Toro during WWII in issues #6–7 and it is revealed Toro is an Inhuman in issue #10.

Thomas Raymond
Thomas Raymond was born in New York City to parents who were laboratory assistants to Phineas Horton, creator of the original Human Torch. After their employment with Horton had ended, they were killed in a train derailment. Toro himself was found at the site of the accident by a traveling circus completely unscathed despite the blaze from the wreckage raging around him. He was found to have a natural immunity to fire. Adopted by the circus, his complete immunity to flame was used to draw additional crowds to the circus sideshow.

Eventually the circus is visited by the Human Torch, and as he draws closer to Toro the younger man's flame powers fully erupt for the first time. The Human Torch teaches Toro how to control his flame powers, and from this point onward, Toro becomes a protégé and partner of the Torch. He later becomes a co-founder of the Invaders.

Toro is the only member of the Invaders to survive the war mentally and physically intact. He marries Ann Raymond and assumes a pedestrian life, until he's killed in battle with the Mad Thinker years later, destroying the Thinker's laboratory in the process. Toro's body is never recovered.

Toro's wife Ann Raymond appears three more times after his death. First, in Power Pack #56 – 62, she appears and a "Mr. Raymond" also appears, who can flame on, but is apparently trying to hide his identity from the world; this is never fully explained as the series ended (this story also heavily implied Frankie Raye was Mr. Raymond's daughter). Next, Ann Raymond appears sporadically in Avengers West Coast #48 – #65, befriending the original Human Torch after his body is dug up and reactivated. Later, in Namor #8 – #12, Ann Raymond, who is now romantically involved with the Torch, accompanies him when he saves Spitfire's life through a blood transfusion—returning her to her youth in the process. Since the West Coast Avengers and Namor storylines, Ann Raymond (and for that matter "Mr. Raymond") are not seen again, until Torch #1, in which Toro is shown staring into her window from a rooftop as she snuggles on the couch with a man the Golden Age Vision refers to as her new husband. The Vision tells Toro that he needs to move on with his life.

Toro appears in the Avengers/Invaders maxi-series alongside his fellow Invaders when an incident takes them from the battlefields of WW2 to the present Marvel Universe, where they encounter both the New Avengers and Mighty Avengers and the Thunderbolts. An examination of him by S.H.I.E.L.D. agents reveals that Toro is a mutant. In Avengers/Invaders #12, Toro is revived from the dead by the Cosmic Cube thanks to a wish made by James "Bucky" Barnes, and met as he rises from his grave by the Golden Age Vision. Bucky is careful to manage the wish so Toro's revival does not upset the time stream, Toro only coming to life after the Invaders have returned to the past. Toro is the same age he was when he died.

Thomas "Toro" Raymond is the protagonist of the 2009 miniseries The Torch. Set during Dark Reign, the series opens shortly after Tom has been brought back to life by Bucky's wish. He is deeply unhappy because he is legally dead, his wife has remarried, no one seems to remember him, and the world has progressed rapidly without him. The Golden Age Vision tries to encourage him to seek a heroic path, but agrees to transport him to the Mad Thinker. Toro announces that he plans to kill the Mad Thinker for murdering him, but loses his powers before he can act on this. The Mad Thinker quickly takes him prisoner and vivisects him to learn more about his powers. He discovers that Toro is indeed a mutant, but that there are artificial cells in Toro's nervous system of exactly the same kind that make up the Human Torch. Further investigation reveals that Toro's mother, Nora Raymond, once worked for Phineas Horton, the scientist who created the Golden Age Human Torch. Still wounded, Tom is dragged to his feet to witness the Human Torch's resurrection. His friend is under the complete control of the Mad Thinker, and does not recognize him. Tom's attempt to get through to him seems only to make their captors angry, but the contact serves to reignite Tom's power.

When the Torch is being forced to destroy a small European village, Toro attempts to escape. While he was still unable to completely activate his powers, he does manage to break the device they had been using to control the Torch. The Torch returns to kill and maim everyone who tried to control him, and Tom's powers are completely activated in the resulting fire. Tom loses sight of the Torch in the melee, and flies to New York City in the hopes of finding him. There he contacts the Fantastic Four. Reed Richards confirms that the Mad Thinker was telling the truth about his powers.

Following the Infinity story, when Terrigen Mists were scattered around the world, Toro was subjected to Terrigenesis and engulfed in a cocoon. Being unknowingly an Inhuman descendant, it was now theorized that Toro's powers found their origin in his recessive Inhuman genes.

After America is conquered by Hydra during the 2017 "Secret Empire" storyline, Toro and Jim Hammond seek help and sanctuary in Namor's realm. However, Namor had been promised Atlantis would be left alone if they cooperated and thus imprisons Toro and Hammond to turn them over to Hydra.

Benito Serrano
A new Toro appears as a member of the Young Allies. This Toro is Benito Serrano (the same identity as the Toro from Counter-Earth), but is from the "normal" Earth-616 Marvel Universe.

During the "Secret Empire" storyline, Toro appears as a member of the Underground when Hydra took over the United States.

Powers and abilities
Toro has superhuman abilities which are similar to those of the Human Torch (the ability to fly and burst into flames, as well as flame resistance). These were originally thought to be caused by his parents' exposure to radiation prior to his conception, making Toro a genetic mutant. Investigation by the Mad Thinker reveals that the similarity is because his nervous system has incorporated artificial power cells, exactly the same kind of power cells that power the original Human Torch. Reed Richards confirmed that these cells interfered with the natural expression of his mutant powers, causing him to mimic the Human Torch. Many years later, Toro's origins were retroactively changed again, to explain his powers in fact came from recessive Inhuman genes. After exposure to Terrigen Mists, he cocooned and expressed his full powers. Where previously he "subconsciously duplicated" the Human Torch's appearance, now Toro's body was composed of pink, gaseous, chemical flame.

Toro's metabolism is enhanced when he activates his flame powers, once recovering from heart surgery within a few minutes, and once healing extensive damage inflicted by the Mad Thinker's experiments to the point that open wounds healed and scarred over in the time it took him to fly from the North Atlantic Ocean to New York City.

The second Toro has the power to change himself into a superhuman form with bull-like horns and skin, greater physical mass, superhuman strength and the ability to leap far distances.

Other versions
Before an Earth-616 counterpart appeared in the second Young Allies series, the Toro of Counter-Earth is called Benito Serrano. He is a member of the Young Allies of Counter-Earth, who can transform into a super-strong Minotaur-like humanoid (toro means "bull" in Italian and in Spanish).

In other media

 * The Thomas Raymond incarnation of Toro appears in The Super Hero Squad Show episode "World War Witch!", voiced by Tara Strong. This version is a member of the Invaders.
 * Benito Serrano appears in Hulk: Where Monsters Dwell, voiced by Michael Robles while his monstrous form's vocal effects are provided by Edward Bosco. This version was transformed into a Minotaur by Nightmare to serve as his anchor to the mortal world. While the Hulk and Doctor Strange help free Serrano, his astral form is compromised, leaving him trapped in his monstrous form. Subsequently, he joins the Howling Commandos while waiting for Strange to find a way to restore him to normal.

title: Toro (comics)


text:
Reedham railway station (London)

Reedham railway station is in the south of Purley in the London Borough of Croydon on the Tattenham Corner line. The local area is residential and the station is near the A23 Brighton Road. It is 15 mi measured from London Charing Cross. The Brighton Main Line is adjacent, but is not served by this station.

Although occasionally referred to as Reedham (London), it is most commonly suffixed as Reedham (Surrey) (despite not officially being part of Surrey county since the creation of the London borough of Croydon in 1965) in order to distinguish it from the station of the same name in Norfolk. Its three-letter station code is RHM.

History
The station was opened by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway on its branch line to Tattenham Corner as Reedham Halt on 1 March 1911. Situated 49 chain from Purley railway station, it was built with 300 ft long platforms and adjoined an overbridge crossing Old Lodge Lane in Purley. It took its name from the nearby Reedham Asylum for Fatherless Children, founded in Richmond by philanthropist Andrew Reed in 1844. The asylum was renamed Reedham Orphanage in 1904 and Reedham School in 1950. It closed in 1980, but the trust which ran it still occupies the original lodge (gatehouse) of the estate.

After a period of temporary wartime closure between 1917 and 1919, the halt became a station on 5 July 1936. On 12 May 1980, the suffix "Surrey" was added to the station's name to distinguish it from Reedham (Norfolk). Some timetables used to refer to the station as "Reedham (GLC)". Having first been lengthened in advance of electrification of the line in 1928, the platforms were again extended in 1982 to take eight-car trains in the days when a train had both a driver and a guard. However nowadays, due to lack of station CCTV to assist the driver to close the doors safely, trains without train-mounted external cameras are only permitted to open the doors on the first four carriages.

A new passenger footbridge was installed in late 2013, removing the existing disabled access; the platforms were also resurfaced. A request for full disabled access was made to Network Rail and declined in 2014.

It has Croydon's lowest passenger count in 2016 and it was the scene of a fatality in 2017. The council car park at Reedham was used as Network Rail's base to replace one of the rail bridges adjacent to the station over Christmas 2016.

The telecommunications mast adjacent to the station was increased in size again in 2017 to 25m from 22.5m inline with the planning permission granted in 2016.

It was initially proposed that from 2018, when the Thameslink Programme is completed, services on this line would be operated with larger 12 car trains offering all day direct services to Cambridge via London Blackfriars. However, in September 2016, these proposals have been dropped; instead, services on the Tattenham Corner Line are to "remain as Southern South London Metro services with increased capacity as compared to today".

Services
All services at Reedham are operated by Southern using  EMUs.

The typical off-peak service in trains per hour is:
 * 2 tph to London Bridge (non-stop from Norwood Junction)
 * 2 tph to Tattenham Corner

On Sundays, the service is reduced to hourly and runs between Tattenham Corner and Purley only. Passengers for London Bridge have to change at Purley.

In May 2018, as part of the Thameslink Programme, the service frequency was increased from 2 to 4 trains per hour, although this has subsequently been reduced back to 2 trains per hour following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Connections
London Buses route 312 provides service to the station. Additionally, several other routes, including 60, 166, 405, 434, 466, and Night Route N68, offer convenient stops within a 2-5 minute walking distance from the station.

title: Reedham railway station (London)


text:
Intraspecific breeding

Intraspecific breeding is sexual reproduction within a species. It can refer to:

 * Selective breeding of plants or animals by humans, to choose desirable traits
 * Hybridization, when both parents are members of the same species

title: Intraspecific breeding


text:
Sebatik Island

Sebatik Island (Indonesian/Malay: Pulau Sebatik) is an island off the eastern coast of Borneo, split between Indonesia and Malaysia. It is one of the 92 officially listed outlying islands of Indonesia.

Sebatik has an area of approximately 452.2 km2. The minimum distance between Sebatik Island and the mainland of Borneo is about 1 km.

Sebatik Island lies between Cowie Bay (also known as Teluk Tawau) to the north and Sibuku Bay (Teluk Sibuku) to the south. The town of Tawau lies in Sabah just to the north. The island is bisected at roughly 4° 10' north by the Indonesia–Malaysia border - the northern part belongs to Sabah, Malaysia (Sebatik Malaysia) while the southern part belongs to North Kalimantan (previously East Kalimantan), Indonesia (Sebatik Indonesia).

Sebatik Malaysia has a population estimated to be approximately 25,000; there were 47,571 people in Sebatik Indonesia as at the 2020 Census.

The demarcated international border between Malaysia and Indonesia stops at the eastern edge of Sebatik Island, so that the ownership of Unarang Rock and the maritime area located to the east of Sebatik is unclear. This is one of the reasons why the Ambalat region waters and crude oil deposits east of Sebatik Island have been the centre of an active maritime dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia since March 2005. The ambiguity of the border at the eastern edge also caused a dispute over two nearby islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, both south of 4° 10' N but administered by Malaysia. The territorial dispute was resolved by the International Court of Justice in 2002 which awarded the islands to Malaysia.

While there are border guards on the island, there is no immigration office, no customs house, no barbed-wire fence and no walls demarcating the border. Instead, the only evidence of a border are the concrete piles buried every kilometre from east to west.

Sebatik Island was one of the places in which heavy fighting took place between Indonesian troops and Malaysian troops during the 1963 Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

The North Borneo Timbers company operated a logging concession on the island until the 1980s and its mostly expatriate employees lived in a self-contained community in Wallace Bay. Sebatik Malaysia is within the administrative division of Tawau. For electoral purposes, Sebatik falls within the parliamentary constituency of Kalabakan and the state assembly district of Sebatik.

Sitangkai Indonesia (at its closest points) is approximately 175 km to Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi, Philippines, the second-closest point between the two countries after the Miangas island in North Sulawesi.

Attractions
In the village of Sungai Haji Kuning, there exists a house known as the "Two Country House Tour" that is divided by the Malaysian-Indonesian border. Further along the border, within Pancang as well, a public swimming pool known as "North Sebatik Swimming Pool" bisects the international border.

title: Sebatik Island


text:
User:Britishmsm3

T.D. 2/25/05

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/

title: User:Britishmsm3


text:
Talk:Electromagnetic interference

Blocking FRI
I'd like to have more information about solutions to block RFI. Like info on the VCC filter and decoupling. --Toric 07:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How to add simplest electromagnetic shield
A simple conductor mesh connected to the ckt gnd will do or we have to do more for the shielding. u can send me replies on ele.nikhil@gmail.com

Electromagnetic interference
Electromagnetic interference redirects here, but it seems like radio frequency interference is a type of electromagnetic interference. -- Kjkolb 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Radio frequency interference → Electromagnetic interference – {Radio frequency interference is just one kind of electromagnetic comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interference vs. interference
wrote in this reversion:
 * rv: interesting article, but it's only one guy's POV, and he's a network engineer, not RF; he's confusing interference (wave superposition) with interference (bad stuff)

What causes interference (bad stuff) other than interference (wave superposition)? If a receiver is selective enough to pick apart two superposed signals, then is the other signal really interference (bad stuff)? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Consider a conventional AM radio channel with carrier frequency F and bandwidth B. The receiver has to have bandwidth B in order to receive the signal. In other words, it has to receive all frequencies from F-B/2 to F+B/2. If I then switch on a device that emits EM waves at frequency F+B/4, say, then that emission will be within the band of the receiver and, if it is powerful enough, will cause interference. This might manifest itself as a whine added to the audio output or, worse, it might overload the receiver and cause it to go nonlinear, blocking the wanted signal entirely. This is more serious than just the superposition of waves. Reed seems to be implying, although he surely knows better, that all radio signals have zero bandwidth. His digression about the interference of photons is a straw man. Nobody, not even the FCC, thinks that radio sources interfere with each other because their photons are competing for space.

 * David P. Reed is a proponent of ultra-wideband (UWB) radio. This is technically a great idea, with the potential to squeeze much more bandwidth out of the RF spectrum than we get with conventional technologies, but it has just one tiny flaw. It involves taking over the entire RF spectrum so that all non-UWB (what he calls 'dumb') devices won't work any more. The regulators are a little bit reluctant to hand over the entire spectrum to Reed and his colleagues, and Reed never stops complaining about this. When you read his articles, you have to ask yourself where his interest lies: is it in delivering accurate information, or is it in campaigning for his favourite technology? He may genuinely think that he is doing mankind a favour, and perhaps if the whole world goes UWB then he may be proved right, but he is being a bit selective with the truth in order to promote his view. There may be a way to express this issue in NPOV terms for Wikipedia, but that isn't going to happen if we just quote Reed verbatim. --Heron 11:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I wasn't quoting Reed verbatim, just stating my own understanding in the subject in my own words. In your case of AM radio, there are ways to improve the selectivity of the receiver. Can't it tune out a lot of the whine from the F+B/4 source by rotating the loop antenna? Or can't it notch out the F+B/4 and use the lower sideband to error-correct the upper sideband? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting with the 'verbatim' thing. I like the idea about using one sideband to correct the other one, but you are getting into complex signal processing territory, which is exactly where we don't to be. The point is that there are billions of 'dumb' radio devices, and other types of devices like speaker cables, that are susceptible to RFI and won't work if UWB is given free rein. Yes, those devices could be redesigned, but who is going to pay for that? If UWB isn't properly regulated then life is going to get more expensive because of all the extra filtering and shielding that 'dumb' devices will need. Anyway, that's just futurology at this stage. Meanwhile, we have to speak the truth. This means not pretending that interference doesn't exist just because there is one class of devices that doesn't care about it. Thank you for listening. :-) --Heron 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Why don't we want to be in complex signal processing territory? After a point, there is more gain from more efficient use of bandwidth than loss from more complex receivers. Look at XM and Sirius satellite radio; they add complexity to the receiver to fit more channels into the small amount of bandwidth that they are allocated. As for who's paying: the people are continually paying for every year that the unselective legacy devices are not redesigned. These payments take the form of monopoly rents to the holders of exclusive spectrum licenses. And no, UWB isn't the only way to increase the selectivity of a communication system. But just to clear out misunderstood words: Do you agree that EMI can be defined as what happens when selectivity fails? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Isn't that like saying that gun murder can be defined as what happens when bulletproofing fails? I don't see the point of this redefinition game. (Well, actually, I do: it's to sell UWB.) Yes, I agree that EMI requires two participants - the transmitter and the receiver - but your definition is just pushing the blame, or at least the difficulties, to one side of the relationship, which is just as wrong as the conventional definition which pushes them to the other side. There is an interesting essay to be written about this, but it's futurology, not encyclopedia material. The truth is that bandwidth restrictions have worked fine until now, and continue to work most of the time, and 'interference' means what it says in the dictionary, not what Reed thinks it means. New technologies might make the old regime redundant in the future, but stuff that might or even should happen is not the domain of Wikipedia. --Heron 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The "susceptibilities" section now adequately describes the receiver's part in the EMI phenomenon, so I'll leave it roughly as is until UWB or some other tech starts making citable headlines. Unwatching. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Radiated Spurious Emissions and 2nd Harmonics
--EXo 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

EMI is commonly attributed to the electromagnetic noise in the form of conducted or radiated electromagnetic emissions of an operating electronic device, equipment, or station that have adverse effect in the radio-frequency signal or data transmission system in use today.

However, even when not operating or powered-on, an electronic device can act as a source of EMI if it is brought close enough to a RF transmitting device. The electronic parts receive RF energy from the transmitting device, which is enough to switch-on or -off the semiconductor diodes or any die with P-N junction at a very brief period of time with frequencies in the multiples of the transmitting frequency. Hence, this electronic device will interfere the RF transmitting device.

For example, a mobile phone is sending RF signal to a cell site or transmitting tower through the uplink channels of the local GSM900 system. Then its charger is also held near the phone during the call. The semiconductor parts are positively-biased, very briefly depending on the radiated spurious emissions or signal coming from the mobile phone. They switch-on and off at 1800MHz, 2700MHz, etc. Worse still, when GSM1800 is also used in the location the charger affects that system.

The user may not notice any difference because most chargers are designed and produced with the requirements for limited radiated spurious emissions and 2nd harmonics are met. Most products are in compliance with the RF standards set by international organizations and governments.

Removal of redundant and unsourced additions
Since it is redundant and unsourced, I have moved this material out of article space and onto Talk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

''EMI/RFI Sources. The sources of EMI/RFI can be broadly classified as Natural sources and Man-made Sources.Natural sources can be further classified into terrestrial and extra-terrestrial. The commonest example of terrestrial natural source is lightning. The effects of a lightning strike can be more benign like the familiar crackle on the radio. It can also be destructive wherein the surge currents due to lightning can result in burnout of components and total destruction of systems. Other example is Electro Static Discharge or ESD. Materials can accumulate a static charge because of friction (this phenomenon is called as the Tribo-electric Effect i.e. generation of electrical charge due to friction). It is also common for the human body to accumulate charge due to friction of the skin with clothing. When such a charged operator touches a sensitive equipment an ESD event occurs. The discharge can cause damage to the equipment. Extra-terrestrial sources can include the Sun, Radio-stars (called Pulsars) or other galactic sources. Man-Made sources can be classified as Intentional and Un-intentional sources. In case of intentional sources, the intention is to generate RF energy say for communication (e.g. mobile phone) or carrying out certain process on material (induction heaters, microwave ovens) or for  medical applications (e.g. diathermy). Whilst in case of un-intentional sources, the intention is NOT to generate RF energy, but is inadvertently generated. The commonest example is a SMPS where the intention is to convert voltage from AC to DC and to keep the transformer size small. This involves up-converting the 50/60Hz AC to higher frequencies and in doing so RF energy or EMI is inadvertently generated. Other examples of unintentional sources are motor drives, thyristor converters, dc-dc converters etc.'' - Originally added by User:Chetankathalay.

Scope of article
The article on electromagnetic compatibility gives a much broader (and more correct) description of EMI than is discussed here. I think this arcticle should be restructured and expanded acccordingly. Any objections? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think electromagnetic compatibility is a very well done article. Thanks for volunteering the much needed improvements here. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic last sentence in the first section
"If EMI for electronics or astronomy is reduced so is happened to RFI. (EMI/RFI in Roumanian language, 2005 - 2009)."

I cannot make sense of this sentence or even what I assume is a reference in parentheses. Would someone fix this problem?

I'm sorry I can't do it myself (due to Adult-onset Still's disease, my daily fever creeps up with any activity, so I have to pace myself carefully) and I appreciate the hard work of the person who can and does fix it. Thanks! Geekdiva (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

satallite and microwave link interferance
i want to know the effect of satellite waves in my microwave point to point link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.239.5.4 (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Commercial Links
The bottom half of this article had a mixture of useful commercial links with information and links to pages that are principally advertising products / companies. I have tried to impartially remove those with little information content and a more commercial bias. I can see that this could be a contentious issue, if there are any concerns, please feel free to revert, replace or get in touch.Roggg (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree. Glrx (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

EMI Manufacturers
Should I understand this title as "companies which produce Electromagnetic interference"? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.154.145 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was unclear, moreover these companies seem to be normal semiconductor producers, of which there are much more. So I don't see the relevance either and I've removed the section. anoko_moonlight (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Integrated circuits tend to demodulate high-frequency carrier signals
This is rather misleading. The key is that something non-linear is acting as a Detector. It's not just an Integrated circuit, but any non linear device. eg The Cats-Whisker detector in your grandfather's Crystal Set radio. I've edited out the technical errors and bad grammar.119.18.11.19 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposing merge of EMC Problem
I suggest that EMC_problem_(excessive_field_strength) is merged with this article.

"EMC problem" is a useful article title. One can suffer from an EMC Problem, similar to a Health Problem, a Hearing Problem or a Wild Animal Problem, but this doesn't mean these need their own pages.

Thomasonline (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why the proposal is to merge to Electromagnetic interference rather than Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), as these are different concepts. Given this, and the lack of support over almost 3 years, I'll close this proposal. I'll link from the EMC page; I'm neutral on whether a merge to the new target is actually necessary. Klbrain (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic/Electrostatic/conducted EMI
It is unfortunate that the term EMI is misleading as there a three fundamental forms of unwanted coupling (which is what EMI is all about): Electromagnetic, Electrostatic, and Conducted. This is a fundamental and important aspect but the difference between Electromagnetic and Electrostatic especially is not made clear to the average reader in this Wiki article. CPES (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the article
1. The article says "On integrated circuits, important means of reducing EMI are: the use of bypass or decoupling capacitors on each active device (connected across the power supply, as close to the device as possible), rise time control of high-speed signals using series resistors, and IC power supply pin filtering. Shielding is usually a last resort after other techniques have failed, because of the added expense of shielding components such as conductive gaskets."

The article does not gives a practical example for filtering EMI. I would be nice to clarify the practical aspects and add a section with a simple schematic that explains how you filter out a signal that goes in the input of a device such as, for instance, a DC/DC converter. My understanding is that EMI filtering can be done with a combination of inductions in addition to capacitors.

2. The article mentions "Such software can find samples in time, frequency or time-frequence space that are contaminated by an interfering source".

It's not clear to me if "time-frequence" should be "time-frequency" but, even if it just makes sense to me to write "time, frequency or both".

ICE77 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Alleged decline in signal quality, weasel words in source
The statement is in the 7th paragraph of the section "Interference to consumer devices," specifically that "[r]adio frequency signal quality has declined throughout the 21st century by roughly one decibel per year as the spectrum becomes increasingly crowded." However, the article cited buries the claim in weasel words. The phrasing there is "Some industry experts reckon that, since 2001, radio frequency signal quality has been falling by about 1dB each year," followed by "That aforementioned 1dB per year drop means, folk in the business say, carriers need to roll out 14 per cent more base-stations to make up the loss." I haven't been able to find a single additional source to back this up, and, given language such as "some industry experts reckon" and "folks in the business say," I find it hard to consider it a verifiable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbtflakes (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Electromagnetic interference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016064153/http://www.kyes.com/antenna/interference/tvibook.html to http://www.kyes.com/antenna/interference/tvibook.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107083636/http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LMV831.pdf to http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LMV831.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016064153/http://www.kyes.com/antenna/interference/tvibook.html to http://www.kyes.com/antenna/interference/tvibook.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

nice interference images from European TWDR
There are some nice interference images from European TWDR due to 5GHz wifi in the references. (e.g. page 7 of ) It should be easily relatable by readers as most people have seen Doppler weather radar images. I cannot find a free image on the internet. If someone with access can publish one to Commons, that would be great. --Voidvector (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, found one here --Voidvector (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Example video is of absurd length
It's 14.5 hours long. A short clip demonstrating the worst of the interference would be far more useful. Imagine someone watching the entire thing, lol. LesbianTiamat (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure which link it is, but feel free to delete it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electromagnetic interference