Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Japanese Template misuse by MewBot

There are three types of Japanese kanji categories that normally show up in Wanted Categories:


 * 1)  . The category takes takes  with three numbered parameters:
 * 2) The kanji (required)
 * 3) The hiragana (required)
 * 4) The type of reading- normally either "on" or "kun". It can be left blank, but it gets added to a cleanup category.
 * 5)  . The category takes, with only one parameter:
 * 6) The hiragana (required)
 * 7)  . This isn't a Japanese-specific type of category- I've always just used, which takes two parameters for these entries:
 * 8) The language code (ja)
 * 9) The kanji

The first category is added by a template to the entries themselves. in the first category adds the other two categories to that category. All three category types should be very easy to automate: all of the information needed to populate the template parameters is included in the category name in a very consistent pattern. The third parameter for is an exception, since it's completely unpredictable- but it's optional

Haplology never got around to putting much error-checking in these, so bad input creates categories that look deceptively normal. In the 28 categories of the second type that I just fixed, is the wrong template for such categories and "kanji" is the wrong first parameter, but it sort of works. For example, in the original version of Category:Japanese terms spelled with kanji read as ゆみ, the first line reads "This category lists Japanese terms spelled with kanji read as ゆみ." It's only when you check the linked word that you find that it's linking to "kanji#Japanese" as if kanji were the entry for a CJKV character. All three categories at the bottom of the page are bogus, but look real. The first should be something like Category:Japanese terms spelled with 弓, but is instead. The second is a self-reference, and the third shouldn't be there at all.

Before I started using the Japanese templates, I spent a good bit of time looking at existing categories and the entries that referenced them to see what the current practice was, and how everything worked. You should have, too. Please be more careful.