Talk:U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2006. The result of the discussion was rename and keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Stub

This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Japan To-do:

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Japanese military history task force
	United States military history task force

[edit] Japanese title

I don't think we need the Japanese transliteration of the extremely long title, but I will preserve it here on the talk page in case anyone strongly disagrees. - Wickning1 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan (日本国とアメリカ合衆国との間の相互協力及び安全保障条約第六条に基づく施設及び区域並びに日本国における合衆国軍隊の地位に関する協定, nihonkoku to amerikagashukoku tono aida no sougokyoryoku oyobi anzenhoshojoyakudairokujo ni motozuku shisetsu oyobi kuiki narabini nihonkoku ni okeru gashukokuguntai no chiini kansuru kyotei^?)

1. That's the official English name of the agreement, not "Japanese transliteration." 2. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. You don't create an article for a "short name." --222.3.77.88 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the Japanese transliteration (all the japanese characters, and then all the romanji). No prejudice against having the full title in the article, though it is distracting and seems redundant - the way I wrote it it was perfectly clear that it came from Article VI of the treaty. Now you're basically saying the same thing twice in a row. - Wickning1 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As for using the short name for the title, that was the consensus result of the AfD referred to at the top of this page, not my personal decision (though I recommended it). - Wickning1 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)