Talk:antijapanese

RFD discussion: October–December 2022
This is a rare misspelling and these should be excluded per CFI. shows absolutely damning frequency ratios, 150 000 in 2019. The ratio of 500 would alone make it a misspelling, and 10 000 would alone make it a rare one. This could be speedied; hardly anything gets as clear as this. Usage guides proscribe this spelling; GPO manual does. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wrong: these are percentages. The ratio is 1500, which is not so bad for "rare misspelling". But one has to note that Google tends to pick hyphenations across the page as solid forms, so the actual performance is probably worse. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not every rare/nonstandard form is a misspelling (a term which should really be retired in favor of "proscribed spelling", given that we don't label entries like as "fake words"). There are plenty of English terms that use lowercase forms of demonyms that would normally be capitalized (compare  or ). Binarystep (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Policy uses the term "misspelling" so it did not retire the notion. From a copyeditor standpoint, this is incorrect (mis-), not alternative. Surely a copyeditor would correct this. And frequency ratio AKA relative frequency is the evidence of copyeditor behavior. One can argue that the frequency ratio is not so bad as to make it a "rare misspelling", merely a misspelling. There is more at for those interested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Worshipping Google Ngram Viewer is unwise. Equinox ◑ 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If frequency empirical evidence is not good enough evidence, what is? We can observe this is not how anti-X terms are generally formed in English. Another criterion of "common" misspelling could be the absolute count in, which yields 110 results, nearly all of which are for "antiJapanese" or "AntiJapanese"; then there is the Twitter hash tag. Maybe someone will be able to attest this in Usenet; I sent it to RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep - this nomination is prescriptivist snobbery. Theknightwho (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree - keep. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 00:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Kept Flackofnubs (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2022–February 2023
does not seem promising. The Google Groups search finds also occurrences of "antiJapanese". Does anyone know how to force Google Books to be case-sensitive? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think case-sensitive search was disabled many years ago to save on computer processing power. — Soap — 03:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

RFV Passed: has already passed RFD, nominator is banned. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Passing RFD has no bearing on passing RFV, the cites must be added to the entry. Not cited. AG202 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominator being banned isn’t very relevant either. 70.172.194.25 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through the first 15 pages on Google Books, and the only relevant hits with this capitalization I noticed were by Saich, e.g. . Most of the results, especially the ones with capitalized J, are scannos. Same goes for all the IA hits I checked, even when they appeared with this capitalization in the preview. Only needs one more (once the previous is formatted). I suspect this is citable but I don’t want to put more effort into it atm. RfD result implies that if this is citable then the citations should count, and not be excluded as typos, but doesn’t necessarily imply it’s citable. 70.172.194.25 20:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

✅. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I mean, both of those are from Usenet posts that don’t capitalize at all (e.g., “chinese” and “hk”), but if we’re being super lenient then it’s fine. Better than nothing, at least. 70.172.194.25 20:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the first citation real...? I can't find it in the book, and the form "anti-Japanese" appears elsewhere in it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Added a third Usenet citation, so the term is still passing. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)