Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Translation/*/Lang/ja

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Japan (Talk)

Founded: 18 March 2006
(18 years, 5 months and 18 days ago)
Articles: 94,321 (184 featured)

Shortcuts
WP:JAWP:JPWP:JPNWP:WPJWP:JapanWP:JAPAN

Templates

{{WikiProject Japan}}   {{Japan current era date}}   {{Japanese}}   {{nihongo}}   {{Nihongo2}}   {{Nihongo3}}   {{Nihongo foot}}   {{Needhiragana}}   {{Needkanji}}

Project parentage
V·T·E·Q115724607 on Wikidata

Suggested merge

[edit]

For details, see the talk pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Japan-related translation requests and Wikipedia talk:Translation/_ja. -- Grgcox 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather important misspelling

[edit]

This is a more visible talk page (although I don't know if it'll do any more good) so I'm leaving a note over here!

On this page, there's a link to the "Translation Request" page for Japanese-->English. I can't edit the page, but "Japanese" is spelled "Japonese" for the entire page. It's driving me batty, and it's probably a word that you want spelled correctly. (EDIT: Eeep, nevermind, it was easy to fix. Sorry for the trouble!)

Translation needed: Poor English welcome template

[edit]

Hello,

I've created a template in English, and a category, of welcoming messages for editors whose English is not good enough to make useful contributions, and who cannot understand this if it is explained in English. I was inspired to do this by this user's talk page. Would someone please create a Japanese translation? Of course, if you see a way to make the English original better, please feel free! Arigatou gozaimasu! Tualha (Talk) 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese version done: {{welcomeen-ja}} -- Meyer (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a typo, ウィキペディアへの投稿はいつも歓迎しいますが、残念ながら今までWelcomeen-jaさんが書いた英語文がウィキペディアの水準に満たしていません should probably be ★★歓迎しますが★★ instead of 歓迎しいます... Overall the template looks great though! Konamaiki 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Thanks for catching that. It's fixed now. -- Meyer (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's blunt... is it even necessary? Unless of course, the contribution makes no sense at all. -- Emana 03:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]