Misplaced Pages

66.222.198.50 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Oops, sorry about that. That last vote was mine VelocityEX 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - As far as I can tell we use the FUNimation name for all of like two other articles, and are in the process of trying to have those changed. Every other article uses the original name or the Viz name. Articles that use the viz name are in the case when the name can be translated (i.e. Kiwi, the names of the Ginyu). We don't use altered names. We don' call Saibamen "Cultivars," call Pui Pui "Pocus," call Majin Buu "Djinn Boo," or Vegetto "Vegerott." Therefore there is no logic or consistent trend to actually use Hercule. Heck, the above examples at least had reason (trying to translate within the pun, or the last one to reconcile the name "Kakarott"). Hercule is just plain wrong, a case of censorship. Why, when we don't give primary focus to the other Viz names, or any FUNi names, is "Hercule" being treated like the holy grail? Also, there is no guideline for the romanization of the name that applies. Such would be an issue for a "Krillin" debate. Mr. Satan does not romanize to Hercule. Mr. Satan is already nice and romanized for us. Onikage725 07:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Refer to above comments by Takuthehedgehog. CurlyJ 08:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Bendono 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Note: By the way, folks, see WP:Sock#Meatpuppets - I.E. (for those of us on both sides) do not tell your non-Wikipedian friends on the forums that they should join Misplaced Pages just to influence the outcome of this decision. That act would be called "Meatpuppeting" WhisperToMe 02:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nemu, wait three months before making another move request. This issue has been decided. It's not good form to make a new move request like that. WhisperToMe 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• There was one that just concluded already. Please, wait. As Whisper said, it is not a good idea to ask for the same move request if it failed not too long ago. User:Zscout370 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets just do this. This whole thing has been confusing and rushed. This should just settle it once and for all. Nemu 02:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been two weeks. At least wait until 2007 hits (it's only about 5 weeks away). User:Zscout370 02:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If this was regular, I would agree. But this is just a bloated, confusing (just look at all the chatter and crap in the archive), and ongoing thing. By the time 2007 comes, there will already be at least 40 kb worth of discussion if the current rate keeps up. It's going to keep going, so if we reach a nice, clear consensus (hopefully), we can just end this. I'm sure everybody involved will shut up after the result of this. Nemu 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all the more reason to wait five weeks. Continuing it now, TTN/Nemu, won't resolve anything. WhisperToMe 02:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as ZScout pointed out, we will get more people looking at the page by January 1, 2007 WhisperToMe 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If we can't resolve it now, how will it ever be resolved? Waiting five weeks will just fuel the annoyance of some people rather than cool them down as it's supposed to. I'm thinking this should do better than past discussion as we can make sure everything is read, and every point is througly discussed. In the archives, points are thrown around everywhere, but they are never addressed. How will it be any different if we just randomly discuss it and constantly make new sections without actually looking at the previous ones like we have been? If we actually try to bring it together, it should be easy to reach a consensus. Nemu 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It will and can be resolved, but use this 5 weeks to figure out what everyone's main points are and try to put it in a way that makes sense to everyone. Plus, as I seen on other move requests: if someone starts a new request for something that recently passed or failed, it is usually shot down because the vote is commencing too early since the last one. Five weeks should be plenty. User:Zscout370 03:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to use this five weeks to determine which names are used in the DBZ Uncut dub. And in which contexts :) WhisperToMe 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I could tell you right now, but (again) that has nothing to do with what the page should be called. This is the most asinine thing I've ever seen. First there was a vote in which Mr. Satan won, but someone decided it wasn't a consensus. Then there was a discussion that concluded with a consensus to use Mr. Satan, and the page was moved. Now the page was moved back to Hercule. This is against a vote, against a consensus, and against Misplaced Pages guidelines. The page is being moved back now.

If you think that the page should be under Hercule that strongly, bring up a move request to move it there. I'm all for moving it to Hercule if there's (1) a vote in Hercule's favour, or (2) a consensus to move it there, or (3) some Misplaced Pages guideline to back up such a move. Until any one of those three is met, the article stays at Mr. Satan.

-- DesireCampbell 03:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, and now it's move protected. You know what? Fine. If Mr. Satan wins again can we keep it there? -- DesireCampbell 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Consenus =/ Majority - See WP:Consensus WhisperToMe 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus = 'everyone but you'. I've already shown that there's no reason at all for using Hercule. You continue to think that you are the final word on it. You're both wrong, and a dick. -- DesireCampbell 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Where have the other move requested been debated about before. Plus, as a warning to all, please be calm and civil. User:Zscout370 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Hercule_(Dragon_Ball)/Archive_2 is the other move request WhisperToMe 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Consesnus =/ Majority" There's more votes in favor of it anyways. 5 - 2.(No surprise that you're one of them)

VelocityEX 05:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Either way it can't be moved right now (not that I supported the move)--SUIT 06:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I still want to know Whisper's definition of "decided." Whipser, you told us that you were more representative of the we on Misplaced Pages than the rest of us, and also that "the issue was decided." You claim that 64% in favor of Mr. Satan is not a consesnus, yet somehow 36% for Hercule is? You say no move request should go til January. Please point me to the policy that says there is a time limit. It seems like you're less interested in working with your fellow editors and determining the majority opinion, and more interested in keeping things your way, to the point of flat-out ignoring logical points and a majority vote. Onikage725 07:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here's mine, Onikage: Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball)/Archive 2 - The move request failed. Because it failed, the page stays right where it is, Onikage. WhisperToMe 07:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. When an issue is brought up, you point to the poll that had majority against your position, yet apparently wasn't enough to satisfy "consensus" and say "the issue has been decided." Clearly it hasn't been, because here we are, and again seeing more support for Mr. Satan. But instead of working with your fellow editors to resolve the problem or adress any concerns brought up, you wave claim that your 36% nays were sufficient and act as if anyone who doesn't share your POV on the matter is wasting your time. Seriously, a number of us have brought up solid points, and your replies of late have been stating over and over that "this is English wiki" and point to the vote that you lost yet somehow won. Onikage725 08:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I counting wrong? It looks like the vote succeeded 8 to 4 in favor of moving to Mr. Satan. I suppose you could say that 2/3s is not a consensus, but that is certainly not a mandate for Hercule.

As for myself, I truly believe that this is covered by WP:MoS#National varieties of English, which states that, in absence of a clear consensus on what name to use of several equally valid choices, stick with whatever was used by the first significant contributor. According to the first diff, that was Hercule. -Anþony (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This tally is 4 (Oppose) to 6 (Favor) - That's not Consensus. See WP:Consensus WhisperToMe 09:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

2. The previous tally was 5 to 4 - 3 votes were disqualified...

a. One poster voted after the poll closed

b. Another used an anonymous IP address

c. Another used a seldom-used account of less than 50 posts WhisperToMe 09:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading too fast, but I haven't been able to find those rules on who can weigh in that I keep seeing mentioned. Everything I've found has said that such things are guidelines, not policies, that aren't binding and are useful in obtaining the general public opinion on the matter. Obviously the first person you mentioned doesn't count for the poll, as it was closed. But the 2nd two being "disqualified" basically implies that only long-term registered users with an extensive update history have a say in the affairs of an article. Anyone can click the edit button and make a change, or discuss their opinion on the talk page. Anyone can also quickly and easily make a (free) account at any time. Assuming good faith aslo directly calls for us to not exclude or look down upon newer editors. I understand we have to watch out for sockpuppets. Believe me, I've run afoul of Taracka. Im just saying that a user not logged in and a user's account being semi-active doesn't automatically mean cheating. Onikage725 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.