Trust & editorial standards

Editorial Methodology

JapanNames separates sourced facts, editorial explanation, and randomized suggestions. This page describes how a candidate record becomes a published page and where the evidence stops.

Last reviewed: July 26, 2026

Scope and non-goals

What the site can document

Attested Japanese proper-name spellings and readings
Literal kanji glosses with explicit boundaries
Survey observations tied to a named sample and year
Editorial relationships between reviewed records

What the site does not certify

A bearer's personal intention or identity
Legal acceptance of a proposed registration
Naturalness of every randomized full-name combination
Nationwide frequency without appropriate population data

Evidence hierarchy

A higher-level source is not automatically suitable for every field. The controlling question is whether the source directly supports the specific claim.

Evidence level 1

Official rules and standards

Government sources can establish legal character categories or standard kanji information. They do not prove that a complete name or a particular reading is common.

Evidence level 2

Proper-name and kanji dictionaries

Dictionary records support attested spelling–reading pairs and literal character glosses. Dictionary inclusion is not a frequency estimate or a promise that every bearer uses the same interpretation.

Evidence level 3

Named surveys and rankings

Rankings support observations about the stated sample, year, spelling, or reading. Their sample boundaries remain visible and are not rewritten as national census facts.

Evidence level 4

Editorial context

Explanatory notes connect cited facts and identify uncertainty. They must not be presented as if a source directly stated an author’s interpretation.

The full catalog, including every source's stated limitations and access date, is available on the Sources & Evidence page.

From candidate to published page

Define the exact claim
A record is split into checkable fields: kanji, reading, name type, usage note, literal gloss, ranking, and relationships.
Match evidence to the field
Each source is used only for the statements listed in its supports field, with its limitations retained.
Review exact spellings
Names are checked as spelling–reading pairs. A matching romaji form or pronunciation alone is not enough.
Apply the publication gate
Required facts, citations, review status, date, and at least one useful editorial relationship must all pass.
Render and verify
The production build checks canonical URLs, headings, structured data, internal targets, sitemaps, and static output.
Correct without hiding history
A supported correction triggers re-review of the affected field and any dependent pages. Dates change only after an actual review.

Rules by content type

Given names

Every displayed kanji variant carries its own reading, meanings, usage note, confidence, and source IDs. A page is not published from romaji alone.

Surnames

Dictionary evidence supports the spelling and reading; ranking evidence remains tied to its survey year, sample, share, and published precision.

Meaning collections

Collections include only exact reviewed spellings whose qualifying kanji has direct dictionary support. A shared pronunciation is not meaning evidence.

Generator results

The full combination is randomized. Detail links appear only when the component's exact kanji and hiragana match a reviewed record.

Human judgment and automated checks

Automation checks completeness, relationships, path safety, metadata, sitemaps, and static output. It cannot decide whether a nuanced cultural explanation is fair, whether a source has been interpreted in context, or whether a proposed name is appropriate for a particular person. Those claims remain bounded or unpublished until they can be reviewed.

Publication and update triggers are defined in the Content Review Policy. Readers can challenge a claim through Corrections & Feedback.

Editorial transparency

These pages describe what the site checks, what its sources can support, and how readers can challenge a published claim.