Forum:Renaming; without explaination and supplying evidence

Okay, recently *some* of the renaming has been done correctly via these forums. However, due to Klobis' actions one of the reasons I stopped coming was this; the green data book can out confirming names but Klobis did neither supply evidence of the name confirmation to justify renaming nor did Klobis state where the new name came from.

Not everyone read green and in my case I thought names were previously confirmed, now in some cases they don't even have names. For instance, previously, "Jaya" was supplied for "Nola"'s mother, yet now its "Child of..." whatever the god of the Shandians was. If I look at the scanlations, Jaya IS the given name for this character, which either means that is the snakes name or that the translations is wrong. Yet when I corrected the name, Klobis returned it to "Child of..." without supplying the evidence why. This is one of those times a RAW helps explain and I'm sure Klobis seems to have it, but why was it not shown? It should have bee, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a reglaur anymore.

And this isn't a one off case, if it was I wouldn't have been raising the issue. We USED to do this and I want the practice re-inforced. Further more, Klobis has also been caught renaming articles to what Klobuis suspects is the correct translation, with no evidence supplied or explaination.

Heres what I want done; From now in, no one can rename a article without supply evidence, and when renaming happens you must supply the source of the name. At least list the name on Name Variants, thats what the page was set up for! In fact, the notion we're slacking and not using this page at all is starting to make get noticed.

Heres what I was aiming to get on the page: Chew

See how Chew's snap shot of his name is written on the page?

Now there are lots of renaming discussions going on, those are fine, I don't want to interfer, I just want to prevent the actions of a few editors who can't even be bothered to inform the rest of us what their doing. It upset and annoyed me then and I've been less inclined to stick around here. I'm all for the correct name, but its the renaming without evidence and explaination that got to me. I don't think I have the full 100% right to host a vote anymore, so someone else will have to host this, but I thought I'd bring the issue up.

This simple request will make all the difference. Also, the evidence must end up in that characters "Translation and Dub Issues" section, if theres none, there must be one added. This is save the less informed peeps a lot of hassle. ^_- One-Winged Hawk 13:50, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I completely agree with One-Winged Hawk. In a lot of cases, I don't even know whether a name is "official" or not... This should always be specified in an article, not mandatorily with a "scan proof", but at least with a mention of the source. (That was in my long-term todolist, actually.) Of course this is even more important if the page is renamed. sff9 (talk) 14:07, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I left the documentation of the translation problems of Mihawk's name on his page for the same reason, to explain what problems were previously, why they existed and what ultimately WAS the correct information. It actually adds to the page anyway so its not a problem if we discuss this on the page. One-Winged Hawk 14:12, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

I agree to always provide the source of the official name or the reason why the article was renamed. On Koala's example, I didn't know why she was treated as a girl while on Mangastream translation (the only avaible at the moment) was a boy untill I found a link to AP Forum. But I don't understand, are you saying to add a "Translation and dub issues" section on every article with this kind of problems and upload an image with the soure of the official name? Well, I'm not against it, but I don't think it's necessary for every page (like Koala). I think this is what, at least, must always be done:
 * If the renaming is done by who knows Japanese and doesn't agree with the spelling of the fan translation group, he has to tell his reason in the talk page, but he can rename the article (on trust). If someone else disagrees with his reason then the topic must be discussed in the talk page or in a forum.
 * Specify the official source (chapter/databook or another source) on the article, like a reference or in the "Translation and dub issues" section, or in the talk page and when avaible, provide the link to the source.
 * For rather problematic translation issues (like Jinbe, Mihawk...) adding a picture (or the link to a picture) where the official romanization is shown is the best solution. leviathan_89  14:51, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in the case of editors like Klobis, who virtually never state where the "correction" is coming from, I differently need to know where the new name is coming from. And yes, I don't mean add that section in all cases, just when a rename occurs or a data book brings up the issue. Some like Zoro and Luffy don't need explaining by now. One-Winged Hawk 15:20, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * They don't need explaining, but one could be interested in knowing the source of these names' official romanization. sff9 (talk) 15:34, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Who don't need explaining? If a databook comes up, then making a reference or post in the talk page at least "according to One Piece Green" is the minimum required... leviathan_89  16:25, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Can we confirm right here who has what source? That makes life much easier in my point of view... I have all the Japanese volumes and Databooks. 15:37, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Me too (as files). leviathan_89  16:25, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I had only a handful of raws and scanalations, up until editors with a good supply of raws came along, thats what a lot of us older editors were lumpered with. That... And the curse of 4Kids lol. One-Winged Hawk 16:28, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I do have raws for blue and red data books somewhere, heaven knows which computer I've owned though. One-Winged Hawk 16:29, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Its not just manga characters he has done it with. He has done it with filler characters that never would have had an official name such as Longo to Rongo. He also ignored discussions for instance like how he moved Jyabara and ignored the talk page. He moved Magura and Dogura to Mogra and Dogra just so he could put that trivia on their pages about their names coming from a novel. SeaTerror 16:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Why the heck is this Jyabura concept kicking in again? I know I have seen Klobis explain himself somewhere about that. As for the Longo/Rongo, it's just a minor pronunciation difference. And I agree with Klobis on that part. First of all, we never have a source to begin with so just flip a coin and decide on what to use for the character's names until we get a confirmation. Also, anyone here have raw Color Walks? If you have scans, I'd like to take a look at them for more information; those books are pretty damn expensive. 23:41, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever read the entirely of a comment? "He also ignored discussions for instance like how he moved Jyabara and ignored the talk page." He moved Rongo without discussion so it was a pointless move. SeaTerror 01:46, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Again, didn't he say something about Jabra in your talkpage? And as I said, Longo to Rongo was probably a minor difference in pronunciation compared to Japanese. I just don't get why in the world Klobis moved Bilka, so I asked him on his talk page and we'll see what he says. 01:56, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you'll be waiting until the sun burns out for that one. SeaTerror 02:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

... Well here you go SeaTerror (and OWH if you have been following along). Klobis has responded in less than a day. Although it is in Japanese for some reason, a quick translation of what he wrote would be:

"The ruins of Birka in Sweden is ビルカ (Biruka) in Japanese. I do not mind if it is Bilka, but since there is a connection with Vikings, I think it is safe to say the name was taken from here. --Klobis"

--In other words, it's not like he is changing these things for no reason. If you ask him properly in a civil way, I guarantee he has some good reason for these changes, guys. I'll tell him to please try to state the reasons in the summary from now on, but problem is solved. And please don't give me the "Birka coming from the ruins in Sweden is a speculation, so that is just stupid" crap because "Birka" is better than "Bilka" which doesn't have any backup support speculation or not, and as Klobis stated, "Koala" and "Aladdin" are speculations as well. Plus, a Viking manga was the inspiration source for Oda writing One Piece, so this is pretty reliable. 20:27, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. That is speculation. Speculation cannot be used to prove something. Speculation is always a no to prove something so yes he did move it for no reason. So don't give us that crap that speculation can be used to prove something. SeaTerror 20:45, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

... 20:50, May 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is indeed not a "proof", but we haven't got any for any alternative. At least, there is something that strongly supports Birka. Klobis should have stated his source before someone had to ask him, though. sff9 (talk) 21:07, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I've reminded him on that account, but something is better than nothing is what I am saying. Never did I say speculations are proof. 21:12, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

---new post---


 * If I can add something on Birka example, I think it's ok to do that, because the the difference between "r" and "l" in Japanese is a minor difference in pronunciation (which it can change with different dialets? Correct me if I am wrong) so to us, choosing between "Birka" and "Bilka" it's pretty much the same and basically we leave it to chance or personal tastes, but if there is "reason" like that one Klobis said then it's acceptable even if it's speculation because we don't write that on the article or anywhere else so we are not "speculating". If you disagree, then think why we should not change "Bilka" or why we chose it in the first place. Taking this case as example for future situations like this, I think the correct pattern to follow is this: if there aren't debates on the name, reanaming -> provide a reason or a source in the talk page/edit comment -> if someone else disagree, discuss it in the talk page -> if the issue isn't solved, community vote in the talk page/forum -> change the name with the agreed one. In this case Klobis should have simply write what he said to JOPie on the edit comment or in the talk page. leviathan_89  09:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think there also should be a note in the article, like, "The name's romanization is currently unconfirmed", and maybe an explanation of the current choice, even if it is speculative, since we cannot avoid speculation on this matter. Having to refer to a talk page to find useful info does not seem logical. sff9 (talk) 09:44, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I said to write possible reasons in the talk page because they're information for us editors and users of the wiki (since they aren't confirmed), but distinguish between confirmed and unconfirmed romanizations is a really good idea... this will avoid misleading the reader. leviathan_89  12:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Speculation does not belong on the wikia at all. SeaTerror 15:17, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep saying the same things but you never actually talk with people... I don't even know why you seem to prefer Bilka over the other possibilities... sff9 (talk) 16:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm talking to people right now considering we are both commenting on a forum. Bilka should be used because Klobis moved it because of speculation. Speculation does not belong anywhere on the wikia. Its that simple. SeaTerror 17:14, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking without listening isn't really talking.
 * Things are not "that simple", considering "Bilka" is as much speculative as "Birka", save nothing supports "Bilka". Maybe what you actually want is "Biruka" (and Koara, Aradin, Nepuchun, Bibi, etc.)? sff9 (talk) 17:29, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

No I don't want speculation and I want everything moved back that was moved because of speculation. There is actually no evidence for Birka. Just because there is a ruin named that does not mean that is what Oda wanted to call Bilkans. SeaTerror 18:55, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing is, like I said, since they're equivalent, Bilka is speculation because the first person to have created that article he had to choose between "Bilka" and "Birka" and since there is no reason to choose one, he chose it "because he thought it was the correct way" or "because he liked it better", in other words he was speculating. If he chose "Birka", we would talking about the same things now too. But the point is that this "speculation" is an editor's choice and we have the rights to do these kind of things, like a "poetic license" for journalists, and we aren't speculating on the actual page (about this, it would be a good idea to distinguish confirmed and not-confirmed romanizations) misleading the reader, so it's not one of those speculations not allowed. Even on Wikipedia they do these kind of things so why do you worry so much? Nobody will blame us! leviathan_89  19:35, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

The original person would have made it because of what fansubbers/scanlators used. The point is nobody has a right to move articles without discussion and proof. If they do not provide any kind of proof then it should be moved back to what it was. SeaTerror 19:46, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

SeaTerror, you are not the only one who dislikes speculations here. We all do. What I am saying is that moving the pages back in this case is a pointless move because the primary name used was already a speculation to begin with. Go ahead and move all the pages back if you want, Klobis said to me he doesn't care whichever is used and that he just changed it according to a "trustable assumption", but it's just a waste of your time. If you allow Koala and all that, does that mean you don't mind articles being named because of a speculation? Also, you probably wouldn't have started arguing like this if the Bilka article was named Birka from the beginning so there isn't much to worry over about so badly anyway. 20:36, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

He also didn't give any reasons for the moves. So they should be moved back. That is the main point. SeaTerror 21:29, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing our point here... plus the main point is supposed to be Renaming without explaining, not moving back those articles. :/ Anyway, I just said you can go on and move them all back if you want to. At least Birka and all the minor stuff that we never voted on. 21:34, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * If he does that, it'll just be "renaming without explanation and supplying evidence"... I propose we discuss the specific case of Birka elsewhere, since it is supposed to be a general forum here. sff9 (talk)

Birka was just an example, I meant all the minor stuff that was changed. Anyway... so are we voting or not? 22:21, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the same for the minor stuff too. As for the vote, let's move to Discussion II. sff9 (talk) 22:40, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

One example is him moving Longo to Rongo a long time ago without explanation. Anyway we should close this discussion and go to Discussion 2. SeaTerror 23:25, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming a short childish argument. However since we all more or less agree discussion needs to take place, if we can all settle down, move onto a vote, it might be easier on us all rather then arguing? I want the end to the moving without explaination, I want it with proof on the page where possible... Not all of us agree on that latter part, however, thats not the thing, we agree the lack of evidence and explaination is ENOUGH to be concerned over. However, I want time for us to really think about this, because this will effect the wikia in a BIG way. Honestly, I think this kind of thing should have been put in force before MF left as admin, but we never had a Klobis before now... And yes, Klobis does explain things on occusions, but there are many occusions where no explaination occurs and thats enough to give the rest of us room to get the explaination we seek whenever something moves. One-Winged Hawk 21:22, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Current preposed polls

 * Currently there is no ruling to prevent anyone from moving a page/file without evidence or explanation, do you agree on there being one?
 * Yes
 * No
 * Neutral


 * In case there exists evidence, should this evidence end up on a page or related page/file to explain the wikia's choice of name?
 * No, that's unneeded.
 * Yes, but only if there's a picture from an acceptable source
 * Yes, this is important information and even a text explanation is enough to save arguments.
 * Neutral


 * In case there exists no evidence for a name currently used on the wiki, should it be mentioned on the page or on a related page/file?
 * No, that's unneeded.
 * Yes, it should be mentioned that the name is unofficial.
 * Yes, it should be mentioned as well as reasons for this choice.
 * Neutral


 * In case there exists no evidence, but only clues, what should be the renaming policy?
 * The rule should be: without evidence, no renaming at all.
 * It should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
 * Discussion is not needed prior to renaming.
 * Neutral


 * Should the wikia prevent a page/file being renamed a certain amount of times a day (this is to prevent edit wars)?
 * Yes
 * No
 * Neutral


 * Should an editor who renames without explanation receive some sort of warning if they do this too often?
 * Yes
 * No
 * Neutral

Edit these polls as you like, I don't think I have the authourity to host a poll, but those are my preposals, this covers pretty much everythign I can think of. Excuse the spelling mistakes. One-Winged Hawk 21:22, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added on, but I think we can just start the votes; I'm pretty sure anyone can create forum polls (since I've created one once as well) 04:09, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added on, but I think we can just start the votes; I'm pretty sure anyone can create forum polls (since I've created one once as well) 04:09, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll start it then tomorrow, I'm busy with another wikia today. That will give another day for any further discussions. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 07:09, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion 2
Might as well start it now. Klobis is still editing the wikia but ignoring this thread. SeaTerror 14:59, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to get Klobis to speak out here and voice an opinion. I get the idea Klobis either has a language barrier or is ignorant. Either way, its not helpful to the wikia or Klobis. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think the second section is too vague, because there are two cases: either there is a proof, or there are only "clues". As it is, the second section seems to concern the first case only. So we should also ask whether people agree to choose the name of an article based only on clues (that is, speculation), and if yes, whether the clues should appear on a related page. I have the feeling it's the main matter here. sff9 (talk) 22:40, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot think how to word that one, I've thought about it all day and have come to just admit defeat. Anyone any idea?  One-Winged Hawk 20:47, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for not saying anything further, I had to get involved in something serious on another wikia I attend. We good to go on the polls, anyone got any last minute updates? I'll run it from tomorrow onwards.One-Winged Hawk 14:18, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to elaborate a little about evidence/clues. What do you think? sff9 (talk) 16:17, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

When will we go to vote? There should be a warning for anything. Such as a person undoing edits for no reason such as what Klobis did recently. SeaTerror 16:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Polls
There are several issues, just put your name underneath the issue in support, registered user names only, you must have a few months experience and at least 300 edits, no signing up just to vote it won't count uinless the wikia has other rules on this. Don't know, but thats the condition ;


 * Currently there is no ruling to prevent anyone from moving a page/file without evidence or explanation, do you agree on there being one?
 * Yes
 * One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror 21:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Panda 22:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * No
 * leviathan_89  22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * 22:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC) (In some cases the reason is pretty obvious like when a vandal changes it to something absurd and you are changing it back.)


 * In case evidence exists, should this evidence end up on a page or related page/file to explain the wikia's choice of name?
 * No, that's unneeded.
 * Yes, but only if there's a picture from an acceptable source
 * Yes, this is important information and even a text explanation is enough to save arguments.
 * One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror 21:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC) *** (see discussion)
 * leviathan_89  22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Yes, but subtile on the talkpage, please.
 * 22:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Panda 22:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral


 * In case no evidence exists for a name currently used on the wiki, should it be mentioned on the page or on a related page/file?
 * No, that's unneeded.
 * Yes, it should be mentioned that the name is unofficial.
 * leviathan_89  22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be mentioned, as well as reasons for this choice.
 * One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror 21:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC) (talkpage)
 * 22:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral
 * Panda 22:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * In case there exists no evidence, but only clues (e.g. Bilka → Birka because the ruins of the Sweden Viking site Birka is ビルカ (Biruka) in Japanese), what should be the renaming policy?
 * The rule should be: without evidence, no renaming at all.
 * SeaTerror 21:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
 * One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * leviathan_89  22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Panda 22:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion is not needed prior to renaming.
 * Neutral


 * Should the wikia prevent a page/file being renamed a certain amount of times a day (this is to prevent edit wars)?
 * Yes
 * One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * No
 * SeaTerror 21:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)Absolutely not. Locking something isn't the idea of a free to edit wikia and should be only done in extreme situations. Not every edit-ping-pong can be called an edit war.
 * Neutral
 * leviathan_89  22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Panda 22:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Should an editor who renames without explanation receive some sort of warning if they do this too often?
 * Yes
 * One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror 21:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Panda 22:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * No
 * Neutral
 * leviathan_89  22:08, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Define warning. But a gentle approach is never wrong.
 * 22:33, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion 3
I voted, everyone else's turn. :-3 One-Winged Hawk 21:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I voted but I disagree with the text one even though I voted for it. If there's an image that can prove it it should be required to be posted on a talk page or the article itself. Also everything should be posted with a reference. Just because somebody says a name was revealed in a databook or something doesn't mean it would be true. SeaTerror 21:57, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you have voted for the second option then? sff9 (talk) 22:09, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

No because there should be BOTH. Also how can anybody seriously vote no on requiring evidence? SeaTerror 22:12, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I think the second includes the third: the second would be "the picture proof MUST be on the page", while the third would be "it is sufficient to state where to find the proof". Obviously if there's a picture proof its source must be stated. At least that's what I think One-Winged Hawk meant. sff9 (talk) 22:19, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Yes but read my third sentence again. Just because somebody says its in something like a Databook does not mean its true. Even if they added a page reference it would be better if they posted the actual scan of the page. SeaTerror 22:23, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I had understood that. That's why I say you should vote option 2, not 3, since option 3 does not require a scan to be posted.
 * I added an example of "clue-based renaming" since Jinbe seems to have not followed the previous Birka discussion. sff9 (talk) 22:29, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sff9 is right, option 2 is "your word doesn't count". I didn't understand a point: "In case no evidence exists for a name currently used on the wiki, should it be mentioned on the page or on a related page/file?" option: "Yes, it should be mentioned, as well as reasons for this choice. " we are talking about letting a reader know because we chose that name or it's something for users only? Because I think the question means that if there is no evidence we write (for example) in the namebox that the name isn't official... so for option 3 we have to explain to a reader why did we choose that name? Where would we do that? leviathan_89  22:45, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

In the edit history. Or adding a reason for moving a page in the move page log. I disagree with JapaneseOPfan's comment that there should be no explaination when something is "obvious". There should ALWAYS be a reason stated. If not then all pages moved and edits should be undone. SeaTerror 22:50, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

I meant like switching a page back if a vandal renames it something like "poop". I don't really mind whatever the outcome is but I'll just change that part anyway. 22:55, May 18, 2011 (UTC)