Talk:慶応

慶応
RFD for the proper-noun sense "Keio University". Does the name of that institution warrant inclusion for some reason of which I'm unaware? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The first sense is kept, the 2nd sense is unintuitive, so it should be kept as well as a disambiguation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment : Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Stanford all refer to the universities of the same name, and we also have acronyms such as MIT and UCLA. We don’t have an entry to explain the universities themselves, which is a job for Wikipedia. The entry 慶応 is very similar to them, so if we keep them, keep it too. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. I prefer the kinds of definition given by and ; accordingly, I have altered  thus. Is that acceptable to the two of you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: why do you link romaji? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For two reasons: First, because there is always (or always ought to be) an entry for the ローマ字 Romanisation and, second, because it many cases it is quite likely that there will be an entry for an English term (or term in another language) — that is a descendant of the Japanese term — at that spelling (for example, ). Why, is such linking objectionable? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * English terms can be linked separately but you shouldn't link romaji, they are not words, only romanisations. Romaji entry serve the purpose of finding kana and kanji entries (disambiguation is on the kana page, not romaji, which has no definition). Even better and more standard is to use, which will automatically romanise kana (capitalisation, spacing, morpheme boundaries and the two particle with irregular pronunciations are all taken care of but it won't cater for verbs ending in お + う to get "ou" ). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. So, is deprecated in favour of ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, but has more features, as I described above, e.g.:  (capitalization),  (separating morphemes to avoid "ō", "ī", etc. when it should be "ou", "ii", etc.),  (spacing and irregular particles). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sweet. I'll try to get the hang of using that one, too. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, "ou"-verbs can be done the same way as 子馬 - with a dot, . Also, い-adjectives: . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the second definition say that this is an abbreviation (or abbreviated form)? bd2412 T 13:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea. How's this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good enough. I'd keep as it is. bd2412 T 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, keep. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's safe to close this discussion, marking this sense kept. Any objections? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, Kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)