Talk:JLPT Guide

Starting point
We must remember that these guides were created to help people pass the JLPT level 4 test. Work on the JLPT 4 test first, and then if you wish, go to level 3,2, and then 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.140.15 (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 17 December 2004


 * I'll have to disagree here. Not everyone comes to this book looking for basic stuff. Aside from that, this is a volunteer-based collaborative project. Just work on whatever you like and think is best. --Swift (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Swift said, I think we should work on what we think is best. These guides are not limited to the beginner level, but cover (or can cover) all levels. --211.120.119.94 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorization
I put this into Category:Standard curricula because many other college admissions tests reside there as well and Category:Standardized tests is pretty much empty and not worthy of a top-level category. On JLPT Guide/About JLPT it states this test was a requirement for admission into Japanese colleges until 2003. Thus, I feel Category:Standard curricula is acceptable. If there were an easy way to refile everything in Standard curricula in Standardized tests and then rename Subject:Standard curricula to Subject:Standardized tests, it might be that the latter would be preferable. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between a test and a curriculum. While JLPT certification is often used as a requirement for school and work, there is no openly published curriculum. There is even no official list of things to study. Only the test itself is standardised in the sense that scores should accurately reflect abilities, and the evaluation is consistent over time.
 * I see a use for both subjects. Both SATs and GREs are standardised tests, but there are also some books here on Wikibooks that are designed specifically to fit standard curricula (e.g. the South African Home Economics ... can't remember an actual example, but I can try to dig it up if you like). --Swift (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Japanese in describing test contents
On many of the pages, grammar terms and table headers are written in Japanese. The focus of the test is learning Japanese, so this is understandable. However, for N5 and N4 test takers, the focus of the test is on test contents -- not on learning more complicated kanji in order to learn what the test contents are. Is it reasonable to use table headers like "meaning" instead of "意味", particularly on N5 and N4 pages? Astrochicken (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Using ruby on kanji lists
In the kanji lists, I think we should use the following formatting

The following formatting is common for longer texts, but not so good for lists of kanji that already show the onyomi and kunyomi.
 * べ

Thoughts? --Astrochicken (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)