Talk:Kamen Rider Black (character)
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2013. The result of the discussion was keep and cleanup. |
project's importance scale . |
Fictional characters | ||||
|
Merged
I merged
Requested move 21 January 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. I don't see a strong swell of argument in favour of the move, with some definite opposition, and the conversation has stalled after several weeks. No consensus means we stay at the long standing title that has stood since 2007. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment there's an edit war on the article page, and this rename seems to be associated with that. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- No. That guy was just really and incredibly uninformed as to what happens when pages are merged. It's still a really stupid practice that there were two pages on "Kohtaro Minami" just because in one show he's "Kamen Rider Black" and in the sequel he's "Kamen Rider Black RX".--2601:140:8200:DE:3005:7302:9C2B:33D8 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose move, preferring the existing title. - Per 'c.s.n.s.' 03:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)]
- Is the only reason you're opposing because you don't like "Kohtaro"? Because I just want the page to be a different title than "Kamen Rider Black".--2601:140:8200:DE:9557:CA6D:B4F9:693C (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the only reason you're opposing because you don't like "Kohtaro"?
No. Please do not ascribe motives to other editors. I am not convinced that title is aligned with the'c.s.n.s.' 05:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)]- The title just shouldn't be "Kamen Rider Black (character)" because the "Kamen Rider Black RX (character)" page is now part of this one because both are the same character (南光太郎) portrayed by the same actor (Tetsuo Kurata). It just seems that your hangup on this is the fact that "Kohtaro Minami" never caught on, despite "KOHTARO" being on a cake in the TV show 30 years ago. So long as this page's name gets changed to anything resembling the translation of "南光太郎", that should be fine, right?--2601:140:8200:DE:A4F7:B517:D3F5:358 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- NOTE: I have requested input from uninvolved editors at 'c.s.n.s.' 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Romanisation - Kohtaro, Kotaro, Kōtarō?
Fellow editors,
In accordance with
However, looking at the relevant section of
If an article uses English-language reliable sources and those sources use a particular form of romanization to name a topic, give preference to that romanization in the article title and body text. If an article uses only Japanese-language reliable sources, use the romanization given in them. If no romanization is given by the reliable sources used in an article, use modified Hepburn romanization.
Given the absence of any references for the article, by a strict reading of MOS:JA, we should be defaulting to Modified Hepburn romanisation. I would consider that it is likely, however, that some English language reliable sources could be found, and that we should also examine a common usage romanisation.
On that basis, at the risk of
While many of these will be to non-RS standard sources, given the overwhelming predominance of Kotaro Minami, I suggest that it is not reasonable for us to preference an alternative & maintain alignment with MOS:JA.
Thoughts? -
- People making fan subs and fan translations over the past 10 years have always mysteriously ignored obvious clues and written proof that official translations exist for these things so Google isn't going to help. There are likely to be no reliable English language sources that is character by anything, so that leaves us with whatever we can get from the TV show (unless there are English language publications that use "Kotaro Minami") which counts as a Japanese language reliable source that has a romanization in it. Besides, "Kohtaro" doesn't match either of the other two systems you mentioned which would write his name as "Kôtarô" rather than "Kohtaro".--2601:140:8200:DE:9557:CA6D:B4F9:693C (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- As has already been observed the "oho" nonsense is not part of any system at all (try writing names like 大芦 Ōashi or even 大山 Ōyama and you should see what a silly idea it is). The problem is that almost all romanisation attempted by Japanese speakers is a write-only exercise, if it is any more than decoration. No-one is expected to read it. And there is generally no attempt at consistency, because something not intended to be read does not need consistency. So I think the MOS:JA guideline should be changed, to exclude any romanisation attempts occurring in Japanese. Moreover, contra the situation in Japanese texts, en:WP should be seeking to be read, and readable by English readers, so except in overwhelming cases it should use consistent romanisation, for which Hepburn is by far the most widely accepted. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)]
- That seems like a really silly idea. Particularly when on this page we're talking about a fictional character from a TV show. Just because you don't like names being written like "Ohno" or "Katoh" doesn't mean that this page shouldn't use "Kohtaro" in its title. But either way, my intention was to have this page be named after whatever translation of 南光太郎 there is rather than it being named after one of two alter egos the character was known by.--2601:140:8200:DE:438:BA66:631D:337 (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- As has already been observed the "oho" nonsense is not part of any system at all (try writing names like 大芦 Ōashi or even 大山 Ōyama and you should see what a silly idea it is). The problem is that almost all romanisation attempted by Japanese speakers is a write-only exercise, if it is any more than decoration. No-one is expected to read it. And there is generally no attempt at consistency, because something not intended to be read does not need consistency. So I think the