Category talk:Ships of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
On category names of the JMSDF ships[edit]
現在、コモンズにおける海上自衛隊の個々の艦艇のカテゴリ名はCategory:JMSDF Kongō (DDG-173)のように先頭に "JMSDF" がついています。これは一見して海上自衛隊の船と分かるので便利ですが、国外の報道などでこの船が言及される場合、"JS Kongō" と表記されており、乖離がやや気になります。そこで、個別の艦艇名のカテゴリはまだ多くないので、手遅れにならないうちに、これを一律でCategory:JS Kongō (DDG-173)のように "JS" 表記に改名する必要がないか、御意見を頂きたいと思います。
なお、ja:船名に説明があるように、「JS」という文字列が使われ始めたのはたしか、2009年ごろで、それ以前はJDSとなっていました。現在活躍中の船は「JS」で統一されているようです。この「JS」表記に改名した場合、この表記が導入される以前に退役した艦艇をどうするのかという問題が残ります。それ以前は外国語の報道などでは「JDS」となっていたようで、過去に属する船にまで現在の物差をあてはめて「JS」表記とするのは歴史を改竄しているようでスッキリしません。しかし古い船のカテゴリ名を「JDS」とすると、結局は時代によって接頭辞が異なることになり、分かりにくく混乱するようにも思います。こうした観点からすると、現在の"JMSDF" は便利ではあると思います。選択肢としては、大まかに
- 現状のまま、"JMSDF" で行く
- 過去・未来を含めて、"JS" で統一する
- 2009年以降現役の船は"JS" で統一、それ以前の船は "JDS" とする（警備艦時代は？）
の3つが考えられます。御意見をお待ちしています。--トトト (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Renaming the category names of the JMSDF ships[edit]
I have proposed renaming of the categoy names of the JMSDF ships with the prefix "JMSDF" to "JS". There are too many "JMSDF"s in the search box when one tries to find something related to the JMSDF. Since it is not the official prefix, it should be renamed.--トトト (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a discussion going on about prefixes at Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:Ships by name. Please wait with action until result is known. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the discussion going at Category talk:Ships by name#Category format, the situation is a little different here. A JMSDF ship is built solely for the JMSDF, and is not sold or exported to other owners after its retirement. And it has no IMO number. When it is decommissioned, it will be automatically scrapped or sunk. The pennant number may alter when it is converted to a training ship for the sailors, but the prefix "JS", which is officially attached, never changes. And "JS", I think, is also relatively accepted among the Japanese fans/watchers, which means that your concern over the language-dependency of prefixes is not even a problem with the JMSDF.
Meanwhile, it seems to take a year or longer to decide this prefix issue, and I don't see any such conclusion as removing all the prefixes be realized in the near future. And more categories are needed for the JMSDF ships now.
So, if a clear objection to this JMSDF→JS renaming doesn't come, I would like to do so.--トトト (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)- My only concern is finding images in Commons for people who wants to write an article about a certain ship in a local Wikipedia. In my opinion the best solution is to categorise IN COMMONS by the name, that can be found on that ship. Painted or on a nameplate. In those local wikipedias can any system be used, I have no preference. Although any system based on the year of completion in my opinion is the simplest. The IMO number does not play a role. That category was intended for grouping images of a certain ship, that had different names and registrations. Your system is based on knowledge, if the prefix is not painted or placed on the ship. But I am not the person to revert those names, if a conclusion isn't reached on the ship names. So feel free to do what you think is best. More important is, that the images are categorised systematically. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, sorry for the late reply. I understand that the systematization of naming is important. But given the fact that currently US and UK naval ships have their official prefixes USS and HMS, the JMSDF ships should better be the same. And I'd like inform you that the painted names of these ships are in Japanese kana, not in roman alphabet (cf. JS Amagiri's painted name "あまぎり", for example). Like it or not, anyone who wants to write an article should have minimum knowledge of the thing. The pennant number on each JMSDF ship makes people easily find the true name.--トトト (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- My only concern is finding images in Commons for people who wants to write an article about a certain ship in a local Wikipedia. In my opinion the best solution is to categorise IN COMMONS by the name, that can be found on that ship. Painted or on a nameplate. In those local wikipedias can any system be used, I have no preference. Although any system based on the year of completion in my opinion is the simplest. The IMO number does not play a role. That category was intended for grouping images of a certain ship, that had different names and registrations. Your system is based on knowledge, if the prefix is not painted or placed on the ship. But I am not the person to revert those names, if a conclusion isn't reached on the ship names. So feel free to do what you think is best. More important is, that the images are categorised systematically. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the discussion going at Category talk:Ships by name#Category format, the situation is a little different here. A JMSDF ship is built solely for the JMSDF, and is not sold or exported to other owners after its retirement. And it has no IMO number. When it is decommissioned, it will be automatically scrapped or sunk. The pennant number may alter when it is converted to a training ship for the sailors, but the prefix "JS", which is officially attached, never changes. And "JS", I think, is also relatively accepted among the Japanese fans/watchers, which means that your concern over the language-dependency of prefixes is not even a problem with the JMSDF.
_at_Maizuru.jpg){kind=link}
Comment: Since there were no clear objections to the proposal for more than a month, I would like to rename these categories.--トトト (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Done ....Disabled links in some of the files will be fixed by bot within a week or so.--トトト (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)