Talk:Kozuki Family

Name
So once again Oda seems to have changed names midway through. Are we going with Kozuki or Kogetsu?

15:11, February 25, 2016 (UTC)

The current one, obviously.

It's been confirmed that the name changed in the raw by sandman, from AP. No one knows why, though, but it appears Kozuki and Kogetsu mean the same thing (shining moon). KingCannon (talk) 15:15, February 25, 2016 (UTC)

Just keep to the current one, we'll see next chapter how it will go 16:21, February 25, 2016 (UTC)

So why'd you get rid of the kanji? It's still the same. 18:06, February 25, 2016 (UTC)

Name Placement
I'm not trying to start any arguments here, there's just something that's been bugging me. When Momonosuke was introduced with his full name, do we know if the order in the raw was the same for Momo's full name as it was for Sanji's or anyone with a last name? If you notice, Sanji was referred to as Vinsmoke Sanji, following the traditional family name preceding the first name. Yet, in chapter 817, Momo was called Momonosuke Kozuki in his infobox. I feel like Oda intentionally pulled a cultural inversion with Momo's name and the other characters' names by putting his family name second, which is opposite the norm. I just want to make sure of this before saying anything about it. 05:21, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

Mangastream being mangastream. Kozuki's first. And Sanji was never called Vinsmoke Sanji, just "Sanji of the Vinsmoke family" or words to that effect. 104.238.32.42 08:48, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for appeasing my paranoia and curiosity. 09:30, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

Retainers Question
Is there any particular reason why Kiku is being included under "Allies and Affiliation" rather than "Retainers?"

58.89.146.212 13:48, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention Jibu’emon, who worked for Momonosuke’s grandfather. I get that sometimes everyone wants to hear something with a tone of confirmation, but if it’s explicitly shown, then what’s the point for waiting?Observer Supreme 13:51, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Kiku was never confirmed to be a retainer, and Jibuemon didn't say which shogun. Rhavkin (talk) 17:02, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Except you know she is a samurai who has been both textually and visually grouped with the other Retainers. It would be logical inference to include her as a retainer as well. Hell, I'd say there's more evidence to include her as a retainer than to include Jinbe as a member of the SHs, yet he is still included all the same. --Ddog892 (talk) 18:28, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Still speculation. Rhavkin (talk) 18:35, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Jibuemon is definitely a servant for the Kozuki Family, considering that he refers to the family members with honorifics. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 23:03, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

Based on context, there is, as Ddog892 said, just as much "evidence" to include Kiku as a retainer as there is to include Jinbe as a member of the Strawhats. She is consistently shown in the flashbacks to be with the other retainers and to react to events the same way a retainer would, crying alongside Kinemon and Momonosuke when remembering the attack on the castle. Barring confirmation to the contrary, I believe that she should be included among the retainers. 58.89.146.212 01:48, October 7, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying their not affiliated with them, I'm just saying they aren't retainers. I keep changing Kiku's infobox occupation from "retainer" to "servant" so I don't mind calling both of them as such. Rhavkin (talk) 04:22, October 7, 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a samurai "servant." Those are mutually exclusive categories. If Kiku is a samurai, then she is a retainer. In Japanese history, servants and menials would be of different social backgrounds than samurai, save for page boys and sandal boys. Wano Country is clearly based on Edo Japan, when social differentiations were more starkly regulated than other eras. The only reason to question whether or not Kiku is a retainer would be based on questioning whether or not she is a samurai, but she was wearing samurai clothes in the flashbacks, and her claim of status has yet to be contradicted by Kinemon or Momonosuke.

If you would still like to wait for clearer confirmation, I am just a visitor to the wiki, so that's fine. I just wanted to state my position on the matter. 58.89.146.212 05:03, October 7, 2018 (UTC)

Romanization
It was romanized as "Kouzuki" in the Vivre Card. Nobyz (talk) 23:44, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

See Klobis' post here. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:00, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

Vivre Card uses Wapuro when romanizing kanji while One Piece wiki uses Hepburn romanization. 11:57, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

That's not a good argument not to use it. By that logic we have to move Hyouzou to Hyozo even though it was spelled like that in the manga. A form of romanization is not a mistake. It literally cannot be a mistake. SeaTerror (talk) 16:35, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

Except Hyouzou is written in katakana and not kanji, which was the base of Klobis' argument Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 16:39, April 21, 2019 (UTC)

Romanization, part 2
In the Vivre Card databook, the names of all Kozuki Family residents are romanized as "Kouzuki". I'm not aware of any alternate romanizations, so if there are none, I propose we switch to that romanization as well.

In a forum from 2019, Klobis brought up an issue with Kozuki/Kouzuki and the way long o's written in kanji are romanized. However, I would argue that the "standard" Japanese romanization system shouldn't override what we've been presented with. It wouldn't be the only name using a non-standard romanization ("Luffy-tarou", for example), or even using a "mistaken" romanization ("Holed'em", for example). We're not attempting to romanize "real" aspects of language, we're looking at fictional names that somebody decided on, and that they can therefore decide the romanization for.

I think it's also relevant to consider the fact that official English translations of "Kozuki" released after the Vivre Card (OPCG) used "Kouzuki" instead, though I don't think it should define our stance. Walrsu (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly copying what I said from another talk page: I'm not familiar with kanji romanization having different rules than katakana. I would have to defer to Klobis since my Japanese knowledge is basic, but I think he might have just been talking about the standard way Japanese is romanized in general (Hepburn), and not referring to kanji specifically. I know for a fact Japanese names with "おう" in them CAN be romanized in a variety of ways, even when written in kanji ("o"/"ou"/"oh"/"oo"), depending on the romanization system used. Either way, like Walrsu said, there are other names written in kanji that have been officially romanized with an "ou" spelling that the Wiki already uses (Luffy-tarou, Zoro-juurou) and we already use other romanizations with "mistakes" if they're the only romanizations we have. So what's "standard" doesn't really matter.

The only examples of "Kozuki" I can find are the URLs on Oden, Toki, Hiyori and Sukiyaki's pages on the official website, but that's hardly authoritative especially because Momonosuke's page spells his name "Kouduki". Their names are also all spelled "Kouzuki" in this video on the official YouTube channel.

I don't see a good reason why we shouldn't use "Kouzuki" if it's the only real romanization we have. DewClamChum (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been waiting for other people to respond, but given it's been two and a half weeks since the last reply, that doesn't seem likely to happen. There don't seem to be any disagreements to changing the romanization, so I'd like to implement it if more time passes without any disagreements - due to the amount of changes that would need to be made, I think waiting until November 10th (another two weeks) makes sense. If somebody disagrees with the new romanization or the waiting period, please respond below. Walrsu (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I am completely against the change unless the spelling is provided by Oda himself. --Klobis (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why you're against it, or is it the same as the forum linked above? I still don't see how the fact that it was decided that way in a canon source wouldn't override the "expected" romanization. Walrsu (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)