User talk:Horeki/Archive 3

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Scattered daruma on roof tiles at Katsuō-ji

Daruma doll with one eye filled ... an unresolved wish

Horeki (宝暦) = "Valuable Calendar"

Use of small-size gallery images

I don't understand why you are changing all the normal-size graphics on WHS pages into small gallery sizes. We don't have a policy to prefer mini-graphics in galleries, and neither does enWP. The gallery is useful when there are just too many normal size graphics to fit on the page, but not instead of normal-size graphics. What you are doing is devaluing the graphic component of pages. Graphics are very important in attracting readers to the page, and in supporting the page. They should be 'readable' at a glance; galleries are a second-best format because the image is too small to have the impact that is necessary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please step back and think again. Is this apples and oranges?

• A. Galleries. Is it possible that you are drawing the wrong conclusions from the available data? Please select a specific article as an example and I will try to explain that the galleries are normal sized. Is it possible that the infobox causes distortion until the size of the article expands further?
• B. World Heritage icon. Yes, this icon in the "References" section is small so that it does not overwhelm the text.

I do not intend to devalue the importance of images. Please recall, for example, that I invested time in building the US World Heritage Table precisely because of the value of the images. --Horeki (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Blaenavon Industrial Landscape. Does the added blank space before the gallery cause the images to appear more "normal"? Compare Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

If there is an alternate and better gallery template, please tell me about it. I only know how to use <gallery> + </gallery>.

(No, that's it. The Gallery feature is rather inflexible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

This is a problem that doesn't need to be a problem.

I see no disagreement ... except perhaps about the use of a non-standard World Heritage icon? --Horeki (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012

OK, thanks for the reply. I'll sleep on it and look again in the morning. Right away I can say I quite like the small WHS icon, and wonder if we should add it to the infobox. I wasn't referring to that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please compare the size of images here and here. On my monitor, they all appear to be about the same size. --Horeki (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I've had a chance to review the galleries with a fresh mind. On the very short pages a gallery is a good solution to the problem of short text. On a longer page such as Canterbury Cathedral it is a poor method, and graphics should be arranged under the infobox, usually at 230px size. Also, we should only use graphics of good quality which make good points to support the text: there's a lot of rubbish in Commons. Apologies for having over-stated the case last night. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for working through these issues with me. Please notice the restored Canterbury Cathedral layout here.

Your comments cause me to ask you to review the 19th century photographs I added to a gallery at St Kilda. At this stage of the article's development, these old photographs may be reasonable. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for Canterbury, and I would leave the St Kilda gallery as it is now. The content is interesting. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But I think you should restore the images on Everglades to the former state: there is plenty of space for them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please take a look at the restored Everglades layout here. --Horeki (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Following Creole, I'm recommending {{WHSite}} to put your symbol up top of the page

Are you suggesting that I should remove the WHS icon from the "References" section? Is it redundant duplication? If so, fine. I will do it. . . But please consider the reasons why I put the icon in that layout position.

My graphics strategy intends to draw attention to the cited references; and indirectly, I hoped to encourage others to add more inline citations? Perhaps this implied suggestion was too indirect, too subtle. --Horeki (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we've adopted the top right position for other labels such as GA and Nobel Prize. There it says something like 'this page is a bit special'. As soon as I saw what Creole was doing, I thought, Ah, that's right, that's where it should go. I think it probably is unnecessary duplication to have it at the bottom. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will begin to remove the graphic from the References section. --Horeki (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In-line citations for BWH tables

Yes, I think the UNESCO in-line refs should be attached to the site name rather than the location. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BHW work

World Heritage work

You deserve this barnstar for exceptional work during Big World Heritage Weekend, with over a hundred edits, eight new pages and much work on infoboxes and tables. And thank you for your WHS icon, which is a great idea. Well done! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As coordinator, thank you for helping me to work through some issues which became like small stumbling blocks. --Horeki (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Graphics and layout on tabular list pages

I thought I might run through some thoughts stimulated by work on the WHS lists. They may apply to many other pages.

1. Graphics in lists or galleries should be large enough for their content to be appreciated without having to be clicked.
   1. signature graphic in the infobox: could go width of infobox (250px), but at least 230px
   2. other large graphics placed right after infobox: 220 or 230px
   3. any graphics placed left: 180 or 200px. Conflict with text flow should be minimised.
   4. graphics in a list table: 200px
   5. graphics in galleries: width = 180 or 200px; height = 160 or 180px. Note syntax for setting gallery pic size and number of pics per line at Ironbridge Gorge#Gallery. The default setting for galleries is far too small, and in the longer galleries it takes far too long to click and re-click each item.
2. Place location to be generic and simple: e.g. Tennessee, London, Tokyo. If necessary 'Bondi Beach, Sydney'. World-famous cities do not need country, so in a list of Russian sites just 'Moscow', NOT 'Moscow, Russian Federal Republic'. 'London' (unqualified) always means the place in England. Do the simple thing.
3. Name of a World Heritage site (or equivalent on another topic) has to be given in full. We face a problem here, since UNESCO have scrambled together some widely disparate things into a single 'site'. Frontiers of the Roman Empire includes walls in Britain and Germany, built at different times under different emperors... Since our UK list is geographically-based we can only refer to the British walls, but we keep the overall title.
4. Width of columns in tables needs to be adjusted after content has been added.
5. Sometimes (often?) column width in templates need to be adjusted.
6. Template links need to align with actual page titles. This because many templates show false red links when, in fact, there is a page on that topic. A short version of page titles should be used in templates, linked (obviously!) to the actual page title.

These thoughts have crystallised over the past week. What do you think? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Macdonald-ross -- Using your phrase, my thinking has been slow to crystallize.

Yes, in general, I am willing to follow your lead. IMO, more discussion is needed in two areas:

Proposal 1-1.  Dislike Graphics in in the infobox? No, I don't like this because the infobox crushes and overwhelms the introductory paragraph -- but your rationale is also valid?

Proposal 1-4.  Dislike Graphics in a list table? No, I don't like this because 150px seems large enough for the images in the current WHS tables -- but this opinion is little more than a guess.

My opinions about graphics may have something to do with the size of my laptop screen. On a regular basis, I switch from desktop to laptop, in part so that I can review what I've written by looking at the words in a slightly different format.

Perhaps our views are framed by factors we have not yet identified.

Do you know that one of the reasons for default image sizes has to do with the technical limitations of older machines and hand-held platforms -- something about the time for loading images or the flexibility of screen formats? Am I correct in guessing that smaller images are always compatable? Is it reasonable to guess that a larger-than-default format may present unanticipated problems?

 Like In each of the other proposals, you and I agree. --Horeki (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Muromachi period

Hi Horeki! I have a mission for you, should you choose to accept: Muromachi period has been on Recent Changes for a while now. It's currently at the top of our most wanted list, meaning it has more pages linking to it than any other non-existant title. I would create it myself, but I think you'd probably do a better job. Something to think about for your next article... Osiris (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. This is a rhetorical question. --Horeki (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed rhetorical question

Please go slowly. I did not know about Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. What should have alerted me to the existence of this system-created list? Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to acknowledge that the presumed "demand" for these "most wanted articles" was unknowingly created by me. --Horeki (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Numbers/Ranking at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles (April 26, 2012) Each of the following are in one or more navbox templates. Template:History of Japan plus Template:Monarchs of Japan plus Template:Japanese era name Muromachi period (180) Northern Court (北朝, Hokuchō) (165) Nanboku-chō period (114) Southern Court (南朝, Nanchō) (109)     Template:Japanese era name Wadō (era) (116) Shōka (113) Kenchō (112) Kōgen (112) Genryaku (112) Kenkyū (112) En'ō (111) Enbun (111) Gennin (111) Juei (111) Jōji (111) Jōkyū (111) Jōō (Kamakura period) (111) Kōhō (111) Meitoku (111) Shuchō (111) Shōryaku (111) Taihō (era) (111) Tenpyō (111) Tenpyō-hōji (111) Tenpyō-jingo (111) Tenpyō-shōhō (111) Ōan (111) Anna (era) (110) Antei (110) Bunji (era) (110) Bunpō (110) Bunryaku (110) Chōgen (110) Chōhō (era) (110) Chōkyū (110) Chōryaku (110) Chōtoku (110) Chōwa (110) Eien (110) Eikan (110) Eiso (110) Eitoku (110) Eiwa (110) Enchō (110) Engi (era) (110) Gen'ō (110) Genchū (110) Genkyū (110) Gentoku (110) Hakuchi (era) (110) Hōji (110) Jian (era) (110) Jinki (era) (110) Jōei (110) Jōgen (Heian period) (110) Jōgen (Kamakura period) (110) Jōhei (110) Kakei (110) Kangen (110) Kangi (110) Kankō (110) Kanna (era) (110) Kannin (110) Kantoku (110) Karoku (110) Karyaku (110) Katei (110) Keiun (110) Kemmu (110) Kempo (era) (110) Ken'ei (110) Kennin (110) Kenryaku (110) Kōryaku (110) Manju (era) (110) Ninji (110) Reiki (era) (110) Ryakunin (110) Shitoku (110) Shōchū (era) (110) Shōji (era) (110) Shōtai (110) Taika (era) (110) Ten'en (110) Tengen (era) (110) Tengyō (110) Tenpuku (110) Tenpyō-kanpō (110) Tenroku (110) Tenryaku (110) Tentoku (110) Yōrō (110) Ōwa (110) Azuchi (109) Genkō (first) (109) Genkō (second) (109) Kōei (era) (109) Kōō (Nanboku-chō period) (109) Shōkyō (109) Tennin (era) (109) Woah! Uh, it's not important. Was just an idea, that's all. It's been at the top of the navbar for a while, so I'm probably going to remove it to let some new ones go up. Regards, Osiris (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC) And yes, you do good work on creating Japanese history articles, which is why I came to you. ;) Osiris (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

French civil aviation university article asked for quick deletion

Hi. The article French Civil Aviation University we talked together has been asked for Quick deletion. I don't understand because it is not copied from another Wikipedia. The words use, the sentences are much more simple than another WP. I spend a lot of time on this article to make sure it is simple but there is still some work to do on it and everybody can help. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hey. May I ask your help for two things? Please, could your add images for the articles French Civil Aviation University and Institut Polytechnique des Sciences Avancées. For the first one, you will find it here : https://etud.insa-toulouse.fr/~contact/logos/logo_enac.png and for the second one here : http://journaldesgrandesecoles.com/lipsa-habilite-par-la-cti-a-delivrer-desormais-le-titre-dingenieur-diplome/. Many thanks for your help. Regards. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I cannot help you. The policy of simple:Wikipedia permits only images which have been uploaded to Commons. These two logos are likely protected by copyright which makes them unusable in our context.

Please review Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information. --Horeki (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem :-) and many thanks for your reply. I will try to do my best to make theses two articles Good articles. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yoshio Itagaki

Hi Horeki! This article probably has slipped through the cracks like you say, but because it's been around for so long, it'd be best to take this to RFD so everybody can have time to look into the notability issues. It actually doesn't meet the QD criterion as it is, because it makes a credible claim to notability in the Career section.

I'm also hesitant because there seems to be plenty of information out there about him (see e.g. The New York Times piece on him, biography on NYU website, and information about his work on gallery websites... Maybe there are more sources in Japanese?

Kindly, Osiris (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is about clarifying the lowest limits ambit of Wikipedia:Notability. IMO, this is an example of what Wikipedia is not. --Horeki (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by your comment?

What do you mean by your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/UNetbootin? SL93 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This graph shows the feasible region of all articles which may be included in Simple:Wikipedia

SL93 -- Are you asking a rhetorical question?

A. Do we agree intuitively that a range of factors are relevant in consensus-building. Yes?

B. Do we also agree that there will be a range of factors in any discussion about what is appropriate for inclusion in Simple:Wikipedia. Yes?

C. Do we notice that the article exists in a number of other wikis:

• de:UNetbootin
• en:UNetbootin
• es:UNetbootin
• fr:UNetbootin
• ko:유넷부트인
• id:UNetbootin
• it:UNetbootin
• nl:UNetbootin
• pl:UNetbootin
• pt:UNetbootin
• ru:UNetbootin
• sv:UNetbootin
• zh:UNetbootin

D. This suggests that a consensus about "notability" exists in each wiki-project.

Analysis: The cumulative effect of the presumed consensus decision-making serves to define a feasible region in which UNetbootin is included. In other words, this graph shows what others think about the issue you have raised. The graph summarizes my tentative opinion about why the subject of this article is possibly good, valid, acceptable or "feasible".

Summary: My guess is that UNetbootin should not be deleted; but I do not have an argument in mind which supports that tentative judgment. My thinking has not yet crystallized. For me, this discussion thread presents a novel question. I have not considered this kind of issue. --Horeki (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not rhetorical which should have been obvious or else you wouldn't have typed an essay. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a mentor Barnstar

ELTted—We are climbing steps together, yes?

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		But until then, thank you for helping my student and new SEWP editor, User:TMDnumahira with their first article. Your constructive edits are really helpful. My students need this kind of real-world use of language to communicate and create something for a real audience, not just their teacher. ELTted (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I want to do what I can to ensure that your class project is a success.

More broadly, I want to encourage the use of Wikipedia as a teaching tool for ESL/EFL.

Looking forward, we both hope for a kind of metastasis which develops from your investment of time and care. --Horeki (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Osiris—We are climbing steps together, yes?

		The Japan Barnstar of National Merit
		Because of your tireless efforts, you now have no more articles on Japanese eras to create (at least until the next one is named)... Fantastic work! Osiris (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this investment of time will be justified by a slow growth of "what links here" in each of these 100+ articles ... but we'll have to wait and see. --Horeki (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Image size

Replied on my talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking to active volcano

Hello. Do you mind explaining why you are mass-linking to active volcano, a currently non-existent page?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- first, please note that I have already created Extinct volcano and Dormant volcano.

In the next day or so, I will create Active volcano. My work now serves several purposes: (1) It allows me to survey the information already created about this subject; (2) It may suggests cites which can improve the quality of the not-yet-written article; and (3) It gives me an idea about the kinds of links which can be included in a "Select list" section.

See the development of Extinct volcano and Dormant volcano which mirrors this pattern; and compare the format of the current versions of these articles.

These articles are necessary corollaries for Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, Kyushu-Palau Ridge and Saikaidō Seamounts. This was indirectly suggested by ‎Macdonald-ross here. --Horeki (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A search reveals that There are a little less than 70 of these articles; but if I were to create "Active volcano" now too soon, Wikipedia's search engine would not show me this list. Does this help you to see what I'm doing and why? --Horeki (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Japanese throne

Sorry about removing the yellow highlights, I can restore them. But I think we should have the name of current princesses, as they are unmarried and they are descendants of the Japanese Princes. Keivan.f (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the princesses are members of the Imperial family; and yes, they are properly included in the Imperial family tree.

However -- no, they are not in the line of succession. The princesses have no place in this specific article. Do you see my point?

The Japanese system is distinctly different from the British royal house and the Swedish royal house, for example. --Horeki (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you, but I think it will be better to have their name until their marriage. Also the people who are in the line of succession are marked in the family tree by numbers and the names of princesses are written with a crank handwriting like dead princes and it is really clear that they aren't in the line of succession. Also after their marriage we can remove their name. Keivan.f (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No -- this is only a point-of-view.

Although your opinion is clear and understandable, it is only your personal opinion. In the Commonwealth, for example, your analysis of the British succession system is both reasaonable and supported. Japan is different. Please review the cited New York Times article which exlains our context. See "Japan’s Princess Kiko Gives Birth to Boy". The New York Times, September 5, 2006.

In the absence of explicit, cited support for your change, this modification of the family tree graphic is a problem.

Please restore what you have mistakenly changed. --Horeki (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no article about the Japanese Imperial Family. Please work with me to create this article. The family tree you have in mind would be entirely appropriate and helpful in that context. --Horeki (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the article as it should be. Also it will be really good if we have the article of Imperial House of Japan and I can create the family tree of all members, which is in my mind. I also will be happy to help you to write some parts of this article. Keivan.f (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the newly-created family tree navboxes are at the bottom of the page at Imperial House of Japan and Line of succession to the Japanese throne. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

They are really good! Keivan.f (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to working with you in the future. --Horeki (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

But I think it will be better if you remove the name of Hirohito, Akihito and Naruhito from Template:Mikasa of Japan family tree. Also I created Template:Japanese Imperial Family. What do you think about this one? Keivan.f (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You make two points:

A. Yes, I will remove Hirohito, Akihito and Naruhito from the Mikasa family tree.

B. Yes, the Imperial family template is good, helpful -- perhaps necessary, but I wonder about clutter? For example, see what happens to the page when this infobox is added to Emperor of Japan and Prince Mikasa. Instead, I wonder if this useful information might be better presented as a collapsed navbox at the bottom of the page? In future, there will be individual infoboxes for each member of the Imperial family. If each page has this group infobox as well, it could seem a bit overwhelming, don't you think? --Horeki (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The family tree format does help show relationships; but there is a very clear need for information about the family in the list/bullet format you have created.-Horeki (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. Keivan.f (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I may be correct about "clutter" -- maybe not? But there is no question that I am correct when I emphasize that the list/bullet format you created is very good, needed, perhaps essential. --Horeki (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Moving this to User talk:Keivan.f →I have a view about the Template:Japanese Imperial Family. Shouldn't we use & instead of +? I think & is better. Keivan.f (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In the navbox, the en:ampersand has been replaced with a neutral  • template.

I accept the implied suggestion that the plus-sign is not good. At the same time, I think that an ampersand is also not good. Is this graphic symbol satisfactory? --Horeki (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Loihi seamount vs Lō'ihi Seamount

Loihi (which I now can't spell) is more complex in its new form. and suddenly seamount has a capital letter (why?). I'm against this kind of politically correct renaming. It would have been enough to point out in the article that this silly committee had changed its spelling. Since the mount is below sea level it is not a geographical place which can be owned by any country. The committee is silly and pompous. Best wishes Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you raise two good issues. As context, please be aware that the title of articles about the Emperor seamounts in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain are include "Seamount" with a capital letter. Also, the titles of articles about the Saikaidō Seamounts in the Kyushu-Palau Ridge include "Seamount" with a capital letter. If all of these articles are wrongly titled, it is my mistake and I will make the necessary changes.

[A] 1. I have no preference for capitalization. I thought I was following a convention established by others. Please compare Category:Seamounts and en:Category:Seamounts of the Pacific Ocean. If you believe that all seamounts should be lower case in our article titles, I will be glad to agree. I do not dispute your reasoning.

• diff 07:35, 14 May 2012‎ Macdonald-ross ... (1,680 bytes) ... (Macdonald-ross moved page Loihi Seamount to Loihi seamount: 'seamount' not a proper noun, so lower case)

On the other hand, if someone else wants the term "Seamount" capitalized, I will not disagree. Please be aware that cited sources in each article have informed this judgement -- as for example, in Chikugo Seamount:

NOTE #1: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. 2001. "73 Chikugo Seamount," Summary Report of the 14th meeting of the GEBCO sub-committee on Undersea Feature Names (SCUFN), also known as IOC-IHO/GEBCO SCUFN-XIV/3, p. 67 [PDF 79 of 120]; excerpt, "Chikugo" was a feudal district name in the Edo period on the island of Kyushu; retrieved 2012-4-7.

NOTE #2: IOC-IHO/GEBCO SCUFN-XIV/3, "69 Saikaidō Seamounts," p. 66 [PDF 78 of 120]; retrieved 2012-4-7.

[B] 2. As for the Hawaiian spelling of Lōʻihi-- again, I have no preference, but I did notice that others had also adopted the Hawaiian convention. Please review

• ca:Loihi
• de:Lōʻihi
• en:Lōʻihi Seamount
• es:Lōʻihi
• eo:Loihi
• fr:Lōʻihi
• haw:Lōʻihi
• os:Лоихи
• it:Loihi

• lt:Loihi
• nl:Loihi
• ja:ロイヒ
• pt:Lō‘ihi
• ru:Лоихи
• fi:Loihi
• sv:Loihi Seamount
• tr:Lōʻihi denizaltı dağ dizisi
• zh:罗希海底山

In part, my thinking was informed by the discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Use English.

Please be aware that cited sources in each article have informed this judgement at Lō'ihi Seamount:

NOTE #3: United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Twenty-third Session Vienna, "Working Paper No. 82, "U.S Board on Geographic Names: Collection and Dissemination of Indigenous Names," p. 3; excerpt, "An example of this has been the addition of the glottal stop (okina) and macron (kahako) to placenames of Hawaiian origin, which prior to 1995 had always been omitted. The BGN staff, under the direction and guidance of the Hawaii State Geographic Names Authority, has been restoring systemically these marks to each Hawaiian name listed in GNIS" (Geographic Names Information System); retrieved 2012-6-16.

What do you propose we do now ? --Horeki (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's what I think:

1. Where the two words are not a single term, the second word should be lower-case in English, unless it is a proper noun. Most languages do not have 'seamount' in their title, it follows that 'seamount' is not part of the name. Other languages may have different rules about capitalization.
2. You could use either spelling. My view is that, since English has almost no diacritics, reading is not helped by putting them in. When we use a French word in English, we do not write it with French accents, even though educated people often pronounce it in a similar way to the French. But you are free to do what you think best. I'm just explaining my view. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In #1-above, my preference is to support your point of view. We are "on the same page".

In #2-above, we are not "on the same wavelength". Please understand that my primary focus is not the Hawaiian language nor the French language. In contexts like this one, I try to discover lessons which will help me make better guesses about what to do in Wikipedia articles which involve the romanization of the Japanese language (romaji). Perhaps you have had no reason to notice that the macron is widely used in articles about Japanese subjects. For example, consider the frequent use macrons in articles which are linked in Template:Japanese era name and Template:Monarchs of Japan. --Horeki (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see. However, Hawaii is now part of America, and now an overwhelmingly English-speaking state. Obviously (at least to me) spelling meant to be used by Americans should follow American rules. I think my example of the way we and the Americans treat French words is quite persuasive. There are thousands of French words in our language. I can only think of a few Japanese words used in English. Sushi comes to mind. I notice that some alphabetic versions of Chinese use diacritics, and some do not. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Seamounts. If there is no objection, I will invest the time needed to remove the capital letter in 24 articles. --Horeki (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)