This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Me neither. Doi's website says that the season with the lowest ratings was actually Stars, but he's not very detailed, so it's hard to say. --Masamage♫01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is mostly an American view of the series... the Japanese view isn't really supported on the website. Instead it talks about the American view. In Japan Chibiusa rated in the top ten according to the manga in popularity ever since she showed up, where as Usagi had slipped. Volume 4 puts Sailor Moon at 1, Sailor Venus at 2, Princess Serenity at 3, Sailor Mercury at 4, Sailor Jupiter at 5, Usagi at 6, Ami Mizuno at 7, Luna at 8, Sailor V at 9, Aino Minako at 10 (Volume 7 puts Chibiusa at 1, Sailor Moon second, Neo Queen Serenity third, Sailor Pluto fourth.Usagi Tsukino sixth,)--Hitsuji Kinno21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Japanese transliteration, this is pronounced "supers", not "super S", and it was under that assumption that I moved the page. Dekimasuよ!12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we request to move it back? The S is to emphasize the Super, as well as it is part of the title. The reasoning given by the user who requested said it was part of the WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOS-TM.--Hanaichi13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to revert it, purely because there was no discussion on this occassion. I can't even find the WP:RM request that was said to back this up, and if there was one, it was done behind our backs. This is not an uncontroversial move, and must be agreed on, or at least brought up, for goodness sakes. --Masamage♫17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not end up filing a full request last time and I wasn't involved in moving the page this time... but I still believe that the move was correct. We should just go ahead and create a discussion space and listing at WP:RM. Dekimasuよ!04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably listed in the "uncontroversial moves" section at WP:RM and moved on its merits, without the mover checking first to see if the move had been discussed before. Dekimasuよ!04:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result was move per WP:MOS.Stifle (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sailor Moon SuperS→Sailor Moon Supers — Since this title obviously violates WP:MOS-TM and WP:MOSCAPS, I originally listed it in the uncontroversial moves section of WP:RM where it was moved to the non-emphatic title; but, soon was moved back. The article, and the section immediately above this notice on the talk page, both state that the capital S is only for emphasis, and is not pronounced separately. The Manual of Style trumps common usage, per many examples cited in those manuals, as well as overwhelming prior consensus. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is a formality, and a waste of time; but, the article title will probably get changed back and forth again without the discussion. Neier (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Oppose, because the series is not called "Supers". I simply don't see how lower-casing the S makes the encyclopedia better. It makes it less accurate and no clearer. --Masamage♫17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Oppose, the arc is not called "Supers", the title is pronounced "supers" (as in more then one super) but officially it is called SuperS. The logo of it clearly defines the S part different from the Super part. I myself don't see how lower-casing the S makes the title more accurate. While you say its a waste of time, you could expect most editors here to feel otherwise as they are the ones who have worked on the articles since the start of the Project and they know otherwise. Suddenly moving the article to a title which the editors have not made a consensus on simply can result in mass confusion and large discussions. Discuss it here, or suggest it.--Hanaichi02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except, this is not a vote, and WP:OWN sorta looks down on the premise that you have mentioned. This article does not exist in a vacuum. It is a part of the entire Wikipedia. The entire Wikipedia has a style manual that must be followed, in order to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. There are times when the style guide is at odds with individual preferences; and, that is why if someone has a problem with a particular style guide, they are encouraged to bring it up on the style guide's talk page. Neier (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the series's logo, the finally "S" was always capitalized and seperate from the rest of the word "Super". CamelCase in trademarks are always an editorial judgment, per WP:MOS-TM. Also, WP:MOSCAPS does not forbid the use of caps in cases like these either. --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:MOS-TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." This seems pretty clear-cut, and I had also considered it uncontroversial and moved it previously, and had that move reverted. Dekimasuよ!02:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it isn't necessarily that. Do you know why the policy is the way it is? Someone citing it might believe that reason applies in this case. -GTBacchus(talk)02:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support MOSTM is quite clear on this. I really disagree with MOSTM and think it should be changed (I was involved in a long dispute over TNA Impact!/TNA iMPACT! that resulted in the article being fully protected for a month and and entire archive of the talkpage discussions over it since I insisted on using "iMPACT" due to it being the official capitalization), but until it is changed I will continue to enforce it. TJSpyke04:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, IAR won't help. It would just delay it, but these editors would just keep at it until the article was moved. TJSpyke20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you can explain why it's common sense that this article should be an exception to the general rule that's been agreed upon by a broad consensus. -GTBacchus(talk)10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite everyone using the statement "It breaks the policy", I shall give the reasons why this article should be an exception.
It is common sense, or common knowledge, that SuperS is used more so then Supers, judging from googling thousands of sites, even Anime News Network, the website commonly used to cite anime information in Wikipedia (judging by the recent Naruto GA articles), uses the Super S or SuperS format.
Wikimoon uses SuperS as well, if we change it, they probably would have to comply as well, though I'm not totally sure about that.
Amazon does use the format SuperS, except that it is mainly used in the anime goods rather then the manga goods.
Due to the large S at the end of the Super, people easily identify that this is the 4th arc the article is talking about. I'm quite, if not, very, sure that SuperS would clearly identify the topic, unlike Supers.
Those are my reasons. GTBacchus, you yourself said that dablinks are pretty versatile, but wouldn't it be a lot easier for people to straight away identify the article they need? While indeed Neier said that Manual of style trumps common usage, I feel that this article should be exempted because of common sense.--Hanaichi11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how "SuperS is used more than Supers" is "common sense"... I usually use "common sense" to mean things that anyone would just know by guessing it, because duh. I've got common sense, but I don't know the first thing about Sailor Moon. Perhaps you mean that it's "common knowledge", among the fandom? -GTBacchus(talk)18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it is perfectly acceptable to have articles that go against the guidelines and policies, per Ignore All Rules, if it is determined that the encyclopedia will be better if we do so. My argument has been that this article will be less accurate if we make the change, and that that policy is flawed anyway. We're not compelled to blindly follow every written word; we get to think about the application, too. --Masamage♫20:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; I would never suggest following rules blindly. Let's keep our eyes open and think about this - why is the policy flawed? Do you have any response to the reasons that support the policy? Do you think they're totally invalid, or just not applicable in this case, or what? -GTBacchus(talk)22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy is of limited use in general, if any. Grammatical correctness is one thing, but I'm not sure that clarity really suffers by accurately presenting the official names of things. Sure, the pronunciation of SuperS is ambiguous, but all you have to do is look at the article to figure out how to say it--and, hey, the same is true of any word that originally came from a foreign language. One click, and bam, information. That's what Wikipedia is about. The other thing is that extant articles aren't all required to follow this rule anyway. Besides the ones I already listed elsewhere, there's Dr Pepper, which is punctuated incorrectly and looks like it should be pronunced "durr". Apparently that's not enough reason to rename it. I don't know why that exception is made, and I also don't know why this article is expected to be held to a different standard. --Masamage♫01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the guideline about not using special formatting has got anything to do with clarity. I thought it was about neutrality, and that replicating special formatting constitutes helping trademark holders with their brand management. Who on Earth sees "Dr Pepper" and thinks it's pronounced "durr Pepper"? You haven't mentioned the actual reasoning behind the guideline, and whether or not that applies, in this situation and in others. -GTBacchus(talk)02:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, look in the section below, at the long post begining "Well, when a name appears in print...". I think I summarized it pretty well there, or at least, that's the reasoning that seems to resonate with most Wikipedians when we're talking about this guideline. -GTBacchus(talk)20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The second capital "S" is only there to give the logo a graphical symmetry. It serves no grammatical purpose because it is not CamelCase and should be ignored by us for this reason. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per common usage. The guidelines are clear about capitalization rules, but they're also clear that common usage takes precedence as standard English. If the title is best known among English-speaking people as it is now, then there's no reason to change the title, unless by doing so you can achieve a significant improvement on the article; enforcing guidelines just for the sake of doing so, regarless of common usage and article improvement, is disruptive and goes against the spirit of the guideline. Anyway, common usage here, as even the people supporting the move know the series by this title; Sailor Moon is after all one of the best known anime works in English-speaking countries. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MOSTM is the deciding factor here, and is quite clear on this case since the last S is capitalized for stylistic reasons only and there is no good reason to ignore standard English just because the logo has the S capitalized. Your argument didn't work for a similar article (TNA iMPACT!, which was moved to TNA Impact! even though I made it quite clear that iMPACT was both the official capitalization and the most common). TJSpyke23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline WP:COMMONNAME is actually pretty clear that common names are the default unless some other naming convention applies. Kazu-kun, you can talk about people enforcing guidelines just for the sake of doing so, but I don't believe anybody is advocating that. I think we should follow MOSTM because the reasons behind it apply to this situation, and I think the page move will improve the encyclopedia. If you wish to argue against the move, you should address the actual reasons behind MOSTM instead of simply claiming that such reasons don't exist. -GTBacchus(talk)23:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the second capital 'S' in "SuperS" does not convey a semantic distinction within the word (like camelCase does), hence it is used purely for decoration and may in fact be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject, by obfuscating the name's actual pronunciation. The nihongo-template in the lead paragraph and the title card next to it should suffice to describe the official typeset, as per WP:MOSCAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization. – Cyrus XIII(talk)15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a semantic distinction within the word, as it aids disambiguation from the similarly named SM Super and SM Super movies. -Malkinann (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather a distinction between two individual words ("super" and "supers") and the capitalization of the second 's' in "supers" has no bearing on that. – Cyrus XIII(talk)19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - they are very similar names, and capitalising the last S for SuperS would assist in disambiguating between the two. In people's names, we sometimes use their full names (rather than their common names) to disambiguate between similarly-named people, or a bracketed description of their profession. -Malkinann (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official':
Based on the examples on WP:MOS-TM, this only applies to when the trademark is in all caps. There is an entirely seperate line item for when trademarks in CamelCase. --Farix (Talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I almost never invoke WP:IAR, but I think this might be a good time for it, purely because I completely fail to see how renaming this article "Supers" improves Wikipedia. Actually, I'm not sure this style guideline makes any sense at all--all it does is make the encyclopedia less accurate without adding any additional clarity. Furthermore, the constraint of making article names follow traditional capitalization rules is not remotely universal, being quite clearly contradicted by such articles as eBay, iPod, mIRC, pH indicator, foobar, dinnerladies, and arXiv. As such, I believe that the wording in the Manual of Style should be reexamined, and that this article should retain its title. --Masamage♫22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and before anyone brings up WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that is not what I'm doing; rather, I'm trying to show examples of other non-traditionally-capitalized article names that appear to be regarded as correct usage by consensus. (The only one I'm not sure about is dinnerladies.) --Masamage♫03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, although I think it is common sense that SuperS is used more so then Supers. Even Super S is used. This link also shows that Amazon uses SuperS. I tried googling the different variations of it, but of course, nothing happened. However, the couple of first hits use SuperS instead of the proposed Supers. Does that indicate something?--Hanaichi11:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) only conflicts with WP:MOSTM/WP:MOSCAPS if you buy into the notion that capitalization is more than a style choice. Prior wiki-consensus is that it is not; and, there is already clauses in MOSTM/MOSCAPS that state that alternative capitalization is ok if it means anything (eg Using all caps is preferred if the letters are prononunced individually,) Neier (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fact that a guideline is not applied entirely consistently actually an argument for ignoring it in this case? Shouldn't we rather consider the reason behind the guideline, and ask whether that reason applies in this situation? -GTBacchus(talk)21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masamage was trying to draw attention to the fact that it isn't always clearcut. What are the reasons behind the guidelines? -Malkinann (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when a name appears in print, there's more than one thing going on. It's spelled some way. It's capitalized and punctuated some way. It's in some particular font, size color, italicized or bolded or underlined or not, etc. We endeavor to spell everything correctly, but we don't try to follow the specific formatting used by trademark holders.
We don't follow each instance of a trademarked name with a trademark symbol, for example. Many trademark holders would insist that their trademark always appear with certain flourishes, such as the macy*s star, or the Cyrillic "Я" in the name of the band KoЯn. However, if we follow every whim, then we're helping them do their advertising. The purpose of special formatting is to make a brand stand out from the information around it and stick in the viewer's memory. Making certain words more visually arresting is incompatible with NPOV. What's more, most reputable publications, sources such as the New York Times, don't follow formatting whims of trademark holders, although they will use unorthodox spellings.
It seems advisable to draw the line somewhere, and we have historically chosen to draw it just short of special capitalizations that don't correspond to semantic units (a la CamelCaps). CamelCaps, as well as cases such as "iPod" and "eBay" make phonetic sense, because they distinguish parts of the name that are pronounced (and to an extent understood) independently. A capitalization such as "Sailor Moon SuperS" doesn't aid in pronunciation or understanding, unless the title is taken to be "Sailor Moon Super-S", but my understanding from the above discussion is that the final 'S' is not pronounced separately. That makes it purely decorative, and that puts it across the line for a lot of Wikipedians, based on what I've seen of that guideline's use. -GTBacchus(talk)00:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Besides, isn't it common sense that SuperS is used more so then Supers? Perhaps it is due to the title card, but I often see SuperS or Super S used more so then Supers. If we change the title to Supers, I'm afraid people might get confused between Super and Supers.--Hanaichi05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not "another use" of the same title - they are different titles, which would be made clearer if we kept SuperS and the movie where they were. -Malkinann (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe argument that English rules should apply to Engrish seems illogical in of itself. Engrish is Engrish for a reason--it's Japanese filtered through English in a way that pleases the Japanese ear. Japanese official titles do not conform to English grammar rules. Shall we list the illogical forms of all of the English-given titles in anime too? There are a lot of engrish titles. I vote that SuperS is not English, in the sense that we know it, but in that category along with Spanglish and Konglish that the Linguists have not decided yet. Yes, this is an English encyclopedia, however, there are still titles that are not English that make it into this because of Google popularity. You argue that "Supers" is a real English word. Please show me that it is grammatically possible to put an "s" on an adjective like "Super" in the English language? Arguing this on a linguistic basis which you are currently doing by saying this is an English dictionary and that this title is an English word and not Engrish really makes no sense. Engrish is Engrish for a reason. And the Japanese logic behind it was to call it "Su-pa-zu" 'cause they think adding an "s" makes it more super... And since caps make no sense in Japanese, capitalizing it makes it even more "super" This is what you're dealing with. One culture looking at a language and surmising off of it. Just like American Anime fans use "baka" without really understanding the linguistic nature of it. You argue it's English. But it's clearly not from my linguistic POV. It's Engrish. Pure unadulerated Engrish, and as such, it should stay. BTW, in the eyes of the creators it was not stylistic to cap the S. It was Japanese logic trying to understand English. Thus in their eyes, necessary, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument that "Supers" isn't a grammatically meaningful English word doesn't really bear on this situation. We're rendering a proper noun - the name of a series in the Sailor Moon anime. Those don't have to be grammatical words; they're titles, and we always (AFAIK) show fidelity to titles as regards spelling. Capitalization and formatting is distinguished from spelling, and the community's choice for some time has been to standardize Capitalization and formatting.
I understand your point, that the final capital 'S' in "SuperS" plays a definite role in "SuperS", as an Engrish word. If we take the title to be written in a language that uses different capitalization rules... that's interesting. This is not an argument I've run into before, I think. I wonder how we handle other works with titles in other languages that use the latin alphabet, but capitalize differently. -GTBacchus(talk)06:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS-JP is pretty specific on this point: "Titles of songs, and the names of singers, companies and so forth are often capitalized when written in Roman script within a Japanese-language context or (in flyers, posters, etc.) for a Japanese audience, and the relevant publicity departments or fanbases may vehemently insist on the importance of the capitalization. However, these names and name elements are not excluded from the guidance provided by the main manuals of style for English-language Wikipedia." For what it's worth, this is exactly the type of question the section in question was created in order to address: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/misc17#jAPAn's CrAZy caPItaliZaTIONS. It's led to a lot of standardization, particularly in the handling of song titles. Dekimasuよ!14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only limitation that part of the article gives is that one should not use all caps for a title. The rest is preferable. I addition, it was decided by 3 people and not put to a vote. It was not approved by a higher admin. That hardly counts as consensus. It's 3 guys deciding the rest of wikipedia. Besides, they aren't addressing the problem here... they are are addressing Japanese misunderstanding of how English normally works as a functioning language rather than the use of Engrish, which is separate. You can even argue they are a bit ethnocentric as well. If it was put to consensus at the larger manual of style rather than confined to one corner, maybe then I could understand, but it seems rather trivial to support the argument.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really in response to me? There were six people in the discussion, all of whom agreed, two of whom were long-standing admins, and all of whom are long-standing contributors and members of the Japan WikiProject. At least half of them have lived in Japan. One of them even initiated this discussion. And you are mistaken in your conclusion that the participants were only addressing "Japanese misunderstanding of how English normally works". I am somewhat insulted on their behalf that you think they are simply guilty of ethnocentrism. And if you really wish to submit that the Japanese Manual of Style is inapplicable to articles on Japanese topics because it is just "confined to one corner" of the MOS, it doesn't really have any reason to exist at all, does it? Dekimasuよ!06:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ethnocentric" only in so far, as this is the English language Wikipedia in which we (naturally) use English. And claiming that there is no actual consensus to normalize stylized text formatting and the respective addition to WP:MOSJP was made by a group of rogue editors somewhat misrepresents the situation. This was merely done to ensure the consistent application of previously established guidelines across the encyclopedia (neutrality is an important factor here) and with most of the editors involved being participants of one or more Japan-related WikiProject (and per WP:AGF), we can certainly assume that they are not unempathetic towards Japan-related issues. – Cyrus XIII(talk)15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF - the consensus pointed to doesn't seem like it is widely accepted when there were only three editors commenting, regardless of what projects they belong to. -Malkinann (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, to me it is quite obvious that the guideline is in fact widely supported. Even if only four of five individuals were initially involved in the creation of said amendment, in the year that has since passed many other editors have been routinely applying it to articles and as far as I know, the passage still remains unchallenged on the guideline talk page. That is one way consensus, more specifically, a silent consensus can work. The burden of speaking up against a guideline lies with the people who disagree with it. – Cyrus XIII(talk)19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly seen WP:MOSJP applied many times uncontroversially, which would seem to support Cyrus' contention that it does, in fact, enjoy a somewhat broad consensus support. It certainly wouldn't hurt to ask the community in some larger venue about it, though. -GTBacchus(talk)20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without specificity, you argument lacks holding. I have some options.
1. Since this is ongoing and doesn't seem to have end, can we ask for a mediator to solve this problem from a higher position that has nothing to do with any Japanese articles? I think this course of action would be more clear.
In addition, while English is preferable, my argument still stands that it's a foreign-based word, thus foreign-based rules apply. Just like you translate 源氏物語, Genji Monogatari to Tale of Genji and not invent a new name for Genji like Gary.
2. Have the original article reevaluated by the people it actually effects. Since my problem is that only three guys wrote said paragraph and decided for the rest of Wikipedia what the rules should be without voting or proper notification of the projects that it effects, I think this breaks all sorts of rules. Silent consensus is not enough. There s a psychological phenomena where if you think it an answer is correct, but everyone else contradicts you, then you will think you are wrong, even if you are right. You will follow the class. In this fashion by changing the paragraph without proper voting what the people in said article did was to basically make a decision for the rest of the people who thought it had a larger consensus, but that consensus was false to begin with and based on ethnocentric ideas. (I, being a major in cultural anthro can point out to the flaws in the phrasing that would make me think as such.) Without proper notification to the projects it would effect, such as the Japanese Culture project, the Anime Manga Project, this is basic forced consensus, in addition if there are people pushing other people to follow the rules, this is basically false consensus, and thus you get the I'm wrong in a classroom effect. Why should 3 guys get to decide the fate of wikipedia because they think that transitional languages like Creole and Pigeon are "not proper" ways to title articles? So my proposal is that we take this to a higher level--the manual of style and do proper notification of AMP and the Japanese Culture Projects and others that it might effect about this matter. Also point out the original flaw in said paragraph was decided by three guys on the spur of the moment without proper notification of said projects and the possibility of people pushing other people around to follow said guidelines. The handling of foreign words should better be addressed by the MOS anyhow. Also ask about things like "iPod" etc, which was raised by Masamage, but not properly addressed by you guys.
I would prefer that we do number 2, and then based on the results, do number 1. If you do not accept this proposal, I'll take that as an admission of error and thus, backing away from your position.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I don't know where you got "3 guys" from - it's wrong. At any rate, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is best to alter a rule by discussion of the rule itself, rather than to argue over its application in one instance. I believe you'd agree with this. GTBacchus is already an administrator/mediator who is relatively uninvolved in editing Japanese articles; he came here from a neutral venue, Wikipedia:Requested moves. This discussion has high visibility due to its listing there. Also, Using the example of Genji Monogatari was somewhat serendipitous; we have the article on the music group 光GENJI located at Hikaru Genji (musical group), not at "HikaruGENJI". Your special claims as far as your anthropology background are unnecessary; as I mentioned earlier, at least half of the people involved in creating said rule have lived in Japan, and for that matter, I have a degree in anthropology myself. I do not find it ethnocentric to insist upon consistent application of a formatting rule throughout what amounts to a single publication.
If you really wish to pursue an alteration of the most specific rule involved, I'd suggest initiating a discussion at WP:MOS-JP. If you just want WP:MOS-TM to be clarified, I'd suggest initiating a discussion there. Those would both be fine. Arguing against the proper application of a current guideline is a less understandable course of action. If the guideline is changed at some point, we can always move the article again to comply with it. Dekimasuよ!06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restarting indent. The three guys was in the listed example for WP:MOSJP above for why the article should be moved. I counted the number of people in your "uncontested" "non-voted upon consensus" and it was exactly 3, and then backed it up with exact psychological reason why it continues to be only three people. You have not addressed this properly. Living in Japan is not the same thing as understanding how a language functions. And as I understand it three people from WP:MOSJP on a certain rule, is not "half" it's 3/3 out of, let's quote from Wikipedia:About "75,000 active contributors" contributors on what was called a "written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." encyclopedia. Doing the math, this is rounding, zero percent of the population and overall, with the Japanese and AMP project alone, it's still minscule. Thus I question the rule. Because you argued and cited an article in which a collaborative effort and decision for the rest of wikipedia was not initiated. Thus I am asking for a vote on said rule, because decision of said rule was unfair and not done by administrative powers with the effected pojects notified. If the people misunderstood and did not question who made the rule, it's simple. People see the guideline and think, "Oh my God, lots of people voted on this, I shouldn't question it." But if they knew it was three, then they might question it. So putting it to another vote is reasonable, by following original wikipedia rules of discussion and oppose and support, as we have been doing here. Wikipedia is collaborative. Collaborative efforts means there has to be a large consensus for a rule to hold. It's not made by three people who are asking for help.
Living in Japan isn't the same as being Japanese. "Have lived" in Japan is not the same as being Japanese either. There is a possibility of living in a country and staying insular and not being Japanese. You should also read the articles on Japanese brazilians and how that resulted. There are numerous articles about people who move to a country and end up not interacting with the culture. And living in Japan isn't the same as being a cultural anthropologist. But I would rather not get academic on you and list the articles and numerous examples in this direction.
This is a question in cultural anthropology terms of culture and communication. I am stating that what is on SuperS would be considered "pidgeon" and thus a non-english word. Supers, as a word in English does not exist. It's a Engrish word. (Which you also did not address). Given it's a non English word, it should follow non-english rules. As stated by MLA and Chicago Manuel of Style. Both state to uphold spelling, and to put words in italic. Which Wikipedia is trying to adhere to in some degree. (Favouring both for citation purposes.) This is not a matter of caps insomuch as being able to preserve the linguistic nature of the word itself in the cultural view and context of said word. What the cap rule as I understand it is, is a guard against usage of English where it's just random capping, but not purposeful capping, as in understanding how language and typography function. I am arguing that this is *one* instance where a cap has a certain function in the psychology of another culture, and thus must stay. It has meaning in that culture, and is a function of what is in effect a blend language, "Engrish."
I really have to question your citation abilities as I looked at your citation where you said, "this has high visibility" but it only has one entry! And it's arguing in favor of what you guys would like, rather than a NPOV. I really am starting to question your idea of what "consensus" is made of. It's not one person on a page with no talk in the talk page. It's not three people making rules for the rest of wikipedia who "have lived in Japan" and then go about enforcing the rules making others think there are more than three people involved. A consensus is made up of a group of people who are effected by said rule.
Given my above argument, I wish to ask for a hold on the decision put forth in this article until the discussion in aricle proper is properly decided. Arguing that we should move the article for the interim on the bais of what was three guys and one person saying they would comply, is not wikipedia standard. So until standard on this is established, I wish for people to hold off until said rule is questioned. Thank you.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concensus has nothing to do with voting; and, everything to do with what you have mislabeled with your psychological BS. Wikipedia is filled with people who take issue with one policy or another. Sometimes, it leads to change. To suggest that editors of the pages where MOS-TM, MOSCAPS, and MOS-JP have been applied in the past year are somehow ignorant lemmings without the will to question the actions of the bullying community at large is insulting to everyone involved.
Nobody has yet explained how an undistinguished s at the end of the word fits the definition of CamelCase, or Pidgin for that matter. iPod, eBay, and others are CamelCase words; but, SuperS is not. And, it's still beside the point. Debating why the MoS does or does not treat those articles specially is pointless on this page because this is not the discussion page of WP:MOSCAPS or WP:MOS-TM. As dekimasu has tried to point out several times, the place to change policy is the policy pages. If you don't like WP:MOS-JP, discuss it there; but, I don't think the "pidgin" argument is convincing enough to mandate a forced disparity between MOS-JP and the larger manuals. As it is now, MOS-JP is consistent with MOSCAPS and MOS-TM. The paragraph was added by me (and edited by several people in the interim) in the midst of a housecleaning of sorts, where most of wikipedia's articles with stylistic capitalization issues were standardized. A disproportionate number of those articles seemed to be Japanese articles, since those subjects exhibit much more tendency towards stylistic caps than other articles, so, it was important to clarify the point that they are not any different with respect to the rules. Nobody disagreed with the point that MOS-JP should clarify its stance wrt the other style manuals at that time. On this particular article, we have some disagreement; but, the one thing I have not seen is a convincing case that MOS-JP should not follow MOSCAPS and MOS-TM (and, by extension, remove any crutch that anime or jpop enthusiasts might try to hold up as an excuse for breaking those last two standards). Neier (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now imagining an anime called hApPy fuNTimEs hoORaYHOorAY, and that helps me understand the motivation behind these rules. Is that the official, Engrish-y, consistently-used title of my fictional anime? You bet it is. Would it be completely insane to refer to it by that name? Absolutely. Honestly, I guess I don't think the reason for the capitalization in SuperS is much more than to make it look pretty, and unless we want to have to type hApPy fuNTimEs hoORaYHOorAY exactly right every time some day, maybe it would be better to move. --Masamage♫00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know why the above has to be boxed off, but regardless, if people have more to say they are welcome to do so here. --Masamage♫22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Neier The Camel Case article wasn't consistent either. If iMac can be argued as Camel case, and thus can stay as camel case, then why can't Abbreviations and acronyms Oulipo which is in that article you cited? The difference? One is a French article and the rest are American and English-based. I kind of see that as culturally-centric. And I would hope that you would dissect my arguments rather than hit below the belt. I find it immature. I was asking for leeway time to simply question the rules properly and not do as previously suggested. Which was to switch it, and then have to switch it again, but rather save us some history and effort and linking by keeping the article as is, until the issue is discussed on page proper.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, I believe, is that there is a separate section in the guideline for trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter; it doesn't actually have to do with the CamelCase article. The article itself does not advocate or deprecate the use of CamelCase. By the way, no history was lost in the move. The amount of work to fix links here is really quite small in comparison with the amount of work that would be required if you do end up changing the guidelines; are we going to move that discussion elsewhere? Dekimasuよ!06:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they couldn't. Those are abbreviations, and as such a completely different argument. The policies we've been linking are about capitalization in particular. (Someone could argue that SMS should be renamed to Sailor Moon Super on the basis that that's the official pronunciation (per the eyecatches), but that would be way too confusing since it's not written that way--and as stated above, we're generally obliged to follow official spellings (ie. "Super" as "S"), but not necessarily official capitalizations ("Supers" as "SuperS"). Also, your suggestion that SMR could be threatened is patently ridiculous, since it stands for two different words and is pronounced as the letter R in the eyecatches. --Masamage♫21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the "Supers" spelling, consistent across all the articles, is making all the articles unstable - people keep on fixing it back to SuperS. -Malkinann (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious way to deal with this instability, is by directing these people towards the consensus established on this talk page and politely ask them to maintain consistency throughout all articles per the lead paragraph of WP:MOS. – Cyrus XIII(talk)00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most of the people doing it are unlikely to be deeply involved with Wikipedia (or to have...any idea). So far it's mostly anons, as far as I've noticed. --Masamage♫03:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I was concerned with the common usage of the title. Many see it as SuperS, not Supers. We can't exactly tell hundreds of anons to go here, see this consensus, please understand why we are different from the rest of million fan sites and official sites and expect them to accept it.--Hanaichi09:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused on the true order of the second half of the season. Wikipedia has the English airdates different from what TV.com and a few other sites have, so what is the true order? ---Shadow (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should the three SuperS special episodes (←scroll down to "The SuperS Specials") be mentioned here (or somewhere else)? They aired between ep. #131 and #132 and started in the show's regular time slot, but are otherwise independent of the 4th season, plot-continuity-wise. --Keith111 (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few months have passed without an objection, so I will go ahead and add them. The specials are also discussed on a work-in-progress page that was started in December 2007 but is still incomplete as of March 2010:
Megumi said, "The enemy is very funny. I was very surprised when I saw it on TV. Why are all the enemy gay!? I don't understand!"
Kotono said, "Until now all of the enemy had been girls, and we were saying that it might be more sexy with guys. But then they were gay.."
Megumi said, "This is the leading edge TV program in the world. This is the program that all the kids watch. I was surprised. I spit out the potato chips all over! It has Okiayu-kun.."
Kotono said, "Furukawa Toshio-san, and Ishida Akira-kun."
Megumi said, "It's going to be interesting to watch what happens to Sailor Moon."
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: Moved. Given that the only oppose has been struck, and the proposed title is plausible, after two listing periods it is moved. — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The nominator has a bad understanding of MOS:TM and other policies. Although it can certainly be argued SuperS is the common stylization, the nominator has not given a valid reason for the move. ONR (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. The user User:Old Naval Rooftops has no idea of my understanding and can only assume. The fact is I did give a valid reason for the move. This is the correct spelling and stylisation. It is not two seperate words, it is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.198.157 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an English-language source to state that SuperS is one word in the English-language release? If so, it would be consistent across languages and this would be an uncontroversial move. ONR (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty confusing: for example, Sailor Moon R stands for return in the first part of the season 2, and in romance for the following part; Sailor Moon Super S stands for super in season 3 (Sailor Moon takes first time the Super form). But season 4 is Sailor Moon Supers (also the other Sailor Senshi take the super form). Mostly written SuperS because of confusion with the third season. I guess. Don't ask me for proof. It happens that there should be two lists: List of Sailor Moon Super S episodesList of Sailor Moon S episodes (i.e. season 3) and List of Sailor Moon Supers episodes (i.e. season 4) with a {{confuse| }} template in each one. --Robertiki (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
