Talk:Japanese writing system

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2015 2016 2020 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Objection to presumptive removal under WP:LLMPRV

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 19:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am formally lodging an objection under WP:LLMPRVOBJ to the recent presumptive removal of my contributions to the "Use of scripts" section by User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. While the structural density of the additions regarding Japanese administrative orthography may have superficially triggered an automated noticeboard sweep, a manual review of the text demonstrates that the material consists of highly specific, verified legal and linguistic data that cannot be generated pseudonymously or via generic hallucination. The expansion replaces outdated and vague generalizations with the actual statutory frameworks currently governing public sector writing in Japan, specifically detailing the functional mechanics of the 2010 Cabinet Instruction on Kanji Usage (Naikaku kunrei No. 1) and its relationship to the modern 2022 official document drafting guidelines (Kōyōbun sakusei no kangaekata).

The material removed includes critical encyclopedic details that map orthographic separation (kakiwake) across polysemous words, formal nouns, auxiliary verbs and particles. Furthermore, the rollback to the Katakana section reintroduced a broken sentence fragment where a main clause regarding geometric styles had been completely severed by a previous editor, while simultaneously stripping away a properly formatted Citation Style 1 template for Alexander Vovin's peer-reviewed chapter in Contemporary Korean Linguistics. Blanking this exhaustive, highly technical material on the presumption of automated drafting degrades the academic baseline of the article. Because the text aligns entirely with objective primary sourcing and directly fixes existing prose flaws, I request that the material be restored in accordance with the objection process.

Ryoske (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You were asked not to ping me last time. Do not ping me.

Note to other editors, as this content was removed via LLM presumptive removal, it may only be restored if the steps described at the objection process are followed. This means another editor may assume responsibility for the content which requires first that all content and its sources be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with polices and guidelines. This means that all content and sources must be checked and corrected to ensure there are no V, OR, NPOV, MOS, etc problems. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)