Talk:Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

Article title

Has there ever been a discussion about whether this article and the other bombing of Yawata should be moved to Yahata, as that is the correct spelling and pronunciation of the city's name in Japanese? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess the current title is because of all the military history sources which spell it Yawata. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That is what I suspected. My concern is that there is also a Yawata, Kyoto which uses the same Chinese characters but different pronunciation. 八幡 is also a common name for Japanese shrines, and sometimes has a third pronunciation of "Hachiman" as well as Yahata and Yawata. I will investigate whether the city in question ever changed the official pronunciation of its name (which is a possibility). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As Binksternet notes, I used this title when creating the rticle as it's what the English-language sources (including modern works) call the city. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Even so, the style guide is clear that modified Hepburn is preferred, so the original point still stands. --Iceburg Lettuce (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Implementing Harvp

Implementing Harvp templates in this article wouldn't change the style of the shortened footnotes, but would link the shortened footnotes to their corresponding expanded citations. This would make it easier for readers to find the corresponding places where the citations point. That being said, I think we should implement this system in the article. Does anyone else agree or disagree? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be all in favor, if you're volunteering to do the work. Do you have a script? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to do all of the work. I don't have a script, but I think the find and replace tool will work just fine. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm implementing the template, but feel free to revert and discuss here if anyone disagrees about this format change. Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not just use sfn template? Less typing and the only difference is parentheses around date.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, Because it changes the existing format the least. It is closest to the current "style" and therefore has the least friction and maintains consistency with the current format per WP:CITE. Lastly, if nothing else, it is easier to implement because the surrounding ref tags that already exist need not be removed. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd totally support a change to the Harvard/sfn references. I developed this article before they were commonly used, and they are a much superior system. I'm going to be out of town over the weekend so can't make this change myself for a few days. If anyone else would like to do so, I would be grateful. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The parentheses can be retained with template:sfnp. removing the unnneedsd ref end red cleans up the code GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, you bring up a good point. In that case, I'm all for sfnp. Regardless, sfnp and harvp are functionally the same, so I will refrain from arguing minutiae. It sounds like we have a consensus, too, so I will begin implementation if no one else minds. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried to implement the templates but it resulted in an edit conflict. I will try again later, as it seems to be just as much work to fix the conflict as it is to start all over again. :( Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented the new style. Please check my work. Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

First raid on home islands since Doolittle

This was the first bombing of the home islands since the Doolittle raid. It used to say that in the first couple of sentences, but it's been removed. Looking at the history, I think the removal was an accident. Can we restore this? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If the info is verified by a reliable source, I am all for it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the previous first sentence which covers this. Combined with the note someone helpfully added, I think this makes things clear. Thanks for raising this. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)