User talk:Lordshmeckie

I read over one of your posts in the "Change Merry Go to Going Merry" area, and I would like to ask where exactly is the policy about the original version being used? I have a feeling this will play a VERY important role in our case, and even future cases reguarding using the true names of One Piece. Justyn

"(cur) (last) 17:56, 14 September 2006 Lordshmeckie (Talk | contribs | block) (User has presented evidence. Also, term is far more used in Wikipedia (unless you've edited those mentions, as well))"

Huh? WhisperToMe 01:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you have any objections to me moving back Going Merry to Merry Go. The discussion on the Zoro page ONLY affects that page :) - Also, you aren't moving the pages properly. There is a move button. If you have problems moving pages, don't move them yourself. Ask admins like me to help you. WhisperToMe 02:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

See, Roronoa Zoro MIGHT be acceptable because the first publications of the U.S. manga DID use that name. Again, I'll let that be a stalemate for now.

But in the case of Merry Go and Seven Warlords, the original names are absolutely unacceptable for the English-language Wikipedia. Only the old-time, hardcore fans on the internet know about the characters by the names. The increased Google hits are due to the fact that the group simply has been around longer and has used the internet longer. The English-language One Piece editions cited are published in virtually all English-language speaking parts of the world - Except for Singapore. I cannot confirm any aspect of the Singaporean dub OTHER than the use of "Roronoa Zoro".

Also, remember that new users and anonymous typically do not define policy on Wikipedia.

You may ask why I snub the fan base? Easy - Using those names won't help the "Average Joe" - If all of the official, accessible, commercial versions use X convention, X convention is most useful to the "Average Joe" WhisperToMe 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: "Regardless of what you feel is best for the "Average Joe", the policy is what it is, no matter what technicalities you want to use. The "Average Joe" will hardly be as confused as you seem to think they will, considering the "Average Joe" can easily see all the (referred to as ______ in the English adaptations), as well as the fact that their search will be redirected. Most casual One Piece fans not aware of the original version will probably already notice a glaring amount of changes beyond names, anyway (i.e. plot points and deaths), so the terms "Shichibukai" and what have you will be the least of their suprises.

 	+ 	
 	+ 	Regardless of how you feel about the names and fanbase, the policy is what it is. Lordshmeckie 03:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

AND? We could do "Pocket Monsters, known in English as Pokemon" or "Nihon, known in English as Japan" - Which leads to this: Why? Why? Why? The confusion is not over whether Joe will know that Merry Go = Going Merry - Joe will think that Wikipedia is not stating things that are relevant to him. Why should Wikipedia only present an article for a vocal but small fan base?

"Regardless of how you feel about the names and fanbase, the policy is what it is. " - No. The policy does not say "fans only" - If it did, the guys on the talk page would unanimously say so. That's not the case with the longtime editors. You know where the talk page is.

"Most casual One Piece fans not aware of the original version will probably already notice a glaring amount of changes beyond names, anyway (i.e. plot points and deaths), so the terms "Shichibukai" and what have you will be the least of their suprises." - That's different. That's not the same issue as the naming. With plot, it's easy. Just say "In the original Japanese, X. In the English adaptations, Y." That's not the issue.

Wikipedia is a general-use encyclopedia for all audiences, not just for fans. If you want a One Piece wiki catered SPECIFICALLY for fans, that's fine; the Wiki software is open to everyone. We need fans here to make clarifications about plot and check facts. But fans can't just tailor all of the articles just for themselves. WhisperToMe 03:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"+ Your arguments are grossly flawed, for a few reasons. One, your examples were terrible, as "Pokemon" is a FAR more used term by English speakers than "Pocket Monsters", while the altered One Piece terms are not. Going with that, Pocket Monsters was changed to Pokemon by the creator(s) of the franchise (Nintendo), while the One Piece changes were done by an outside source (Viz and 4Kids). Also, for whatever reason, you seem to believe this policy means that every Japanese name ever must be used over the English one. Paying attention to the argument of the other side reveals that this is a matter of a more commonly used name, and the other side has been able to produce a great deal of evidence that the original terms are, indeed, more used than the adaptations. In fact, one could argue that the majority of fans of the series use, and are more familiar with, the Japanese terms. This is factoring in dub only fans vs. sub fans, as well. Also, one could argue that the information is more accurate when using the the original names of people and places allocated by the author, and creator of said people and places. The reasoning is there in bulk. Why you seem so dedicated to this "cause", when its primary supporters are you and one other guy, is beyond me. Lordshmeckie 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

How do you know that all English-speakers generally prefer the fan base terms? That's very hard to prove. Google hits only show website put up by hardcore fans. And those websites came first, so they were listed first.

I can understand if "Zoro" is more well-known, because officially it did come first. But with the others... not really.

What you said was directly contradicted by the outcome of the Naruto naming order dispute. The editors chose to use the Western order, something seen in the dub TV show and the English-language spinoff novels, instead of the Japanese order used by the internet fan base. WhisperToMe 03:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Another flawed argument, as there is a MASSIVE difference between the arrangement of a given name and family name, and the complete alteration of a name or term. Name order is one thing, but when a name is completely changed, that's a whole different story. Also, I never said "all" speakers prefer it. Please read what I say. And, again, you try to write off proof backing the name changes as the acts of "hardcore fans" (most of which are not "hardcore" by any means, but simply preferring the original terms, or just unaware of 4Kids' changes in some cases), but again, the policy is what it is, no matter how much disdain you appear to have towards the series' fanbase. The Japanese terms are more popular and more used, so they qualify. Lordshmeckie 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

The underlying principle is the same. See, Naruto's naming order issue does not technically fall under the MOS because Naruto is a manga (and features fictional characters) and because Naruto is not set in modern-day Japan.

So, how did we come up with this decision to choose Western order? EASY! "We" chose that based on what "we" thought was more commonly used. Did the "Oh, the long time fans" excuse work here? Nope. Read the talk pages of the dispute, and you will know what I mean. Guess what? This is relevant because the actual name itself and the naming order both affect the article title and how the characters are referred to in the bodies of articles.

Wikipedia cannot have a double standard in place, Lordshmeckie. WhisperToMe 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"You seem to pick-and-choose what helps your points, ignoring what counters it. The underlying principle is not the same, actually, because, as I said, this is given-name-family-name vs. a complete name change, which is far more likely to confuse people, convolute matters, and simply cause information to be distored, in a sense. Also, the actions of some "we" don't concern me. I'm a man of facts, and the facts show that the Japanese names are more used in general, according to Google, than the English ones. There is no double standard; the One Piece sections are (barring any changes you or Geg make) following Wikipedia's naming policy, and that's that. As unhappy about it as you may be, the Japanese terms are more commonly used, and proof has already been given by others besides myself.

 	+ 	
 	+ 	And, if I'm not mistaken, the Naruto section does use the actual translation of the "jutsu"s over the names given in the English adaptations, so using the Naruto section to further your argument doesn't help. Lordshmeckie 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

"You seem to pick-and-choose what helps your points, ignoring what counters it." - I addressed what counters it. I mentioned why the Naruto thing is relevant to the debate. Also, it's my job to persuade you to follow my viewpoint or at least to make peace with the other viewpoint. I will only say what helps my argument. You've heard of the principles of making a persuasive essay, right?

"this is given-name-family-name vs. a complete name change, which is far more likely to confuse people, convolute matters, and simply cause information to be distored, in a sense." - Huh? It's very easy to explain it away. How come this is any different from the One Piece debate? The One Piece naming can do the same. Remember my Japan example? Even if Joe knows this, he will wonder why the encyclopedia uses what "the fans" (and by the fans I mean a small vocal group on the internet) use. You have not proven that most English-speaking use these fan names anyway.

Most of all, you did not address the point that I made about the Wikiproject Anime talk page. If it was policy, why did the other editors not agree with you? Why not edit around Wikipedia some more? Experienced users like myself, Geg, Kunzite, TheFarix, etc. know the audience of Wikipedia.

"And, if I'm not mistaken, the Naruto section does use the actual translation of the "jutsu"s over the names given in the English adaptations, so using the Naruto section to further your argument doesn't help." - Did they decide to do that? They probably simply haven't decided what to use. Give it some time.

Think of it this way - How would you present One Piece to a general, non-fan audience?

WhisperToMe 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me state my point: As of right now, there is no consensus over how the WP:English is to be applied, so DO NOT SAY that XX viewpoint IS the policy and pretend that "that's that" as if everybody agrees with you (and the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Reguarding_the_Naming_Policy_CRITICAL says otherwise). You need to argue this on the Wikiproject page with TheFarix and the actual Wikipedia community elites and members.

By "we" I define the long-standing, active, experienced Wikipedia editors, by the way. Not that they all necessairly have the same viewpoints; they know how the system works.

Here's a quote: "I take a short wikivacation and this comes up. Why limit it to just most common usage by fans? Limiting it to a subset of English-language speakers engages in a systemic bias and is contrary to wikipolicy on naming conventions, which includes all English-language speakers. Also, determining most common English usage can be very difficult at it is, but determining which is "more recognized by readers" will be impossible. My rule of thumb has been to use the spelling/naming of the official English-language publications unless it is indisputable that the native spelling/name is in wider use. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)"

And doing that can only be done by "what is more widely used on the internet" - It's almost impossible to see what is more widely used by everybody. And decisions do not always fall to popular use - the Naruto naming order deal had to do with what set of names are more commonly used. WhisperToMe 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC) WhisperToMe 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject for a moment...

Confrontational communication, especially accusing people of elitism, won't help anything, Shmeckie. So, you may wish to speak with a bit more tact in your attempts to persuade WhisperToMe. Otherwise, you're merely wasting everyone's time arguing.

Also, on a minor note, Naruto is set in modern day Japan. Or rather, a modern era fictional world based on Japan. They have wireless technology and electronics. (But still communicate via homing pigeon between villages...) --tjstrf 14:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a purely semantic difference if I've ever heard one. --tjstrf 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Untitled-1 copy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Untitled-1 copy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)