Wiktionary talk:Japanese article standard

The naming and indexing of articles

One-kanji words with no okurigana

What should we do with Japanese words like 山(やま) whose written form coincides with a single kanji? Obviously they will go on the same page with the kanji. Using 山 as an example, should we divide the article 山 into four sections:

• the kanji 山
• the Japanese word 山
• the Chinese word 山
• the Korean word 山 (assuming there is one; I don't speak Korean)

Alternatively, should the entry for the kanji form a framework into which Japanese, Chinese and Korean words coinciding with the kanji are then embedded? --Yajuu 09:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I call upon Muke's more–dictionary-like CJK template. --Vladisdead 09:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks great to me.--Yajuu 10:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've looked at Muke's template before but it's a bit late for me to analyze it fully which I feel it deserves. It does seem very nice. I will try to do so soon.

I've also been thinking about how single-CJK-character "word entries" should fit in with the existing single-CJK-character "character entries".

I've actually converted a small number of these entries to add word meanings. I've done this by increasing every heading level by one and putting the "character article" first, which would be followed by "Chinese", "Japanese", and "Korean" and that order. I think I've called the first "CJK character" but I'm quite conscious that the choice of the correct name may be tricky. In translation sections of English words I use "Chinese Characters" but I wish both used the same.

I have also thought about trying to add "word" entries under the "Chinese Hanzi", "Japanese Kanji", "Korean Hanja" entries. But due to the amount of cluttered technical information in those I think that would be the poorer solution. Perhaps it would be even clearer to put the character article after each language-specific article. It might come down to deciding whether English-speaking users are more likely to browse CJK characters or words in a CJK language.

— Hippietrail 13:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)