Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:List of Steins;Gate episodes

"Okabe" vs. "Rintaro"

I'm about 75% sure that there isn't a standard for English summaries that requires characters to be referred to by their first names in a fictional work. Last names work if that is what a character is most often called in whatever work it is, and it even makes things less confusing sometimes. You get Gatsby in The Great Gatsby as opposed to Jay, or Kane in Citizen Kane as opposed to Charles. And here, we get Okabe, not Rintaro. I don't really understand why we need to follow an English naming convention, especially one that isn't really that strict in the first place. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't really understand why we need to follow an English naming convention, especially one that isn't really that strict in the first place."- Because if Wikipedia wasn't held up to a high standard then the actually quality of entries wouldn't be great at all. The system is actually fairly strict, it's just most English Wikipedians do not realize this due them not knowing about it. The Japanese language typically writes a person's surname before their given name, however this is reversed in western English. I would draw your attention to Japanese name#Japanese names in English which explains this in detail. Generally, it is appropriate on the English Wikipedia to use first names of characters from Japanese media regardless of how they are referred to in said media types. KirtZJ 02:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being of Asian descent (Chinese, not Japanese, but similar standards nonetheless), I am aware of name ordering. And the link you are pointing me too is not a Wikipedia standard but just part of an article detailing how Japanese names are read in the western world. To be fair, I'm not aware of any kind of standard supporting my view, nor will any of the "proof" I bring up be very reliable (since it's just other Wikipedia articles I checked from the Anime WikiProject just to make sure that the edits I was making would be considered acceptable). The closest thing to a Wiki standard I found was this, but I'm not sure if what is said about real-life figures applies to anime characters. (Perhaps you might find something; I only scanned it.) But I don't see how calling them by their given name is more "appropriate." TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the point I wanted to make is that in any article on a work of fiction, the characters should be referred to based on how the reader/viewer gets to know the character. This is true in most of the good articles in Wikipedia on a novel, short story, film, TV show, etc. If you think English naming conventions need to be followed, then I think this is a good time to cite WP:IAR. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With you being of Asian decent I am fully aware that such a naming scheme "family name, given name" would be most natural to you. I am not contesting that fact, nor is the rest of Western society. You must understand, that any version of Wikipedia is meant to be generally standardized for readers unfamiliar with terms. This is the reason you may see tags on articles calling for the rewriting from a general perspective, although this topic is technical in that it is both minor and major depending on which version of wikipedia a reader is familiar with. Nevertheless, for instance, Western readers on this Wikipedia, unfamiliar with Japanese culture would refer to a character as family name, given name with the mid-set that because it was published on again, the English Wikipedia, it is in accepted western form. That would be a mistake on their part. It is also wrong to assume that again for example, since they are on an anime-related page they would understand, since the basis of being an editor is making an article fully understood within the scope of which version of wikipedia it related to. As it relates, this is nicely summed up in the last line of the second link I mentioned previously, "As of 2001 the agency's style sheet recommends using a different naming order style depending upon the context. For instance it advocates using the western order in publications for readers who are not familiar with Japan, such as international conference papers." If you study this section you would see that it would be that the Western Style usually adopted for translation purposes unless otherwise it should be noted, though it is not stated, obviously because of the unspoken reasons I mentioned. As for applicability for anime characters, the section of WP:MOS-JA#Names of modern figures is closest which would also incorporate anime characters of the 20th - 21st centuries which anime became dominant. (Although this would be subject to much technicality since what if an anime character within a particular series is born before the beginning of the Meiji period- although it is mentioned that "for our purposes Western style still be used; the our referring to the English Wikipedia and western readers) For further analysis I would point you to the parent section which already has the translation in both of their Western and original Japanese forms i.e. Rintarō Okabe (岡部 倫太郎 Okabe Rintarō?) which is the point of such mention, thus nullifying this entire discussion, since those with uncertainty would have access to both forms. I hope this clears up any doubts you may have had, as everything is available and must be relatable to the English Wikipedia because of its common user-base, the same as how any other version of Wikipedia must be common to its own, for instance Japanese Wikipedia to Japanese readers and so on and so forth. PS. Haha, ignore all rules, oh so much can be said I haven't got a clue where to begin. KirtZJ 13:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's just a major misunderstanding here. There's no denial that this fictional character's given name is "Rintarō" and his family name is "Okabe" (ignoring the "first name" or "Last name" terminology). What is the issue is how the character is referred to in the prose of this article, which is by his given name rather than his family name. People, living or fictional, in general are referred to by their family names, as it is generally understood that the given name is for more personal situations. I will be modifying the article as such.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the issue I was trying to bring up, thanks for conveying it in much more clearer terms.
And living I understand, but fictional too? I didn't think that using given names in summaries of fictional works would be considered inappropriate. In most cases, yes, you would use a family name, but there are some cases where I feel like it would be, for lack of a better word, more "correct" to use the given name. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's "inappropriate". It just doesn't look formal. There may be instances to use the given name or the nickname, particularly if that is how the characters in the work of fiction are primarily referred. If in Steins;Gate, Itaru Hashida is consistently referred to as "Daru" in the prose, then perhaps this page should use "Daru" rather than "Hashida". As someone who has not read the novels or watched the anime, I simply edited the page to fit what I was fairly certain was a normal style.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I get it now. Thanks. Having just finished up the anime myself, I'll probably see what I can do after this discussion is resolved. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 12:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you both simply skimmed by previous post and have not been able to grasp the broad concept I have put forth, which not only covers this article in question but all of Japanese-related media covered on the English Wikipedia (unless otherwise explicitly stated). It is quite apparent that I am in keeping with using the Western English style of writing (this would incorporate various situational uses encompassing personal and public interactions as well as a horde of others- both within said fictional universes and reality) while Ryulong and The StickMan believe it would be better to keep Japanese-style within an English article of Japanese roots, simply for better translative purposes, although not standardized for general audiences who are unfamiliar with Japanese tradations. Regardless of using, given names and family names in what ever situation arises, the fact of the matter is that this is still in conflict with Japanese vs Western usage. I will not be redundant in repeating myself so I would ask that you both actually read my previous statement, since I have made my case. KirtZJ 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here is my reply: "Nevertheless, for instance, Western readers on this Wikipedia, unfamiliar with Japanese culture would refer to a character as family name, given name with the mid-set that because it was published on again, the English Wikipedia, it is in accepted western form." You are right in saying that we shouldn't assume they would know that the Japanese naming convention, except this isn't related to what Ryulong and me want to do. Which is why I am confused about why this is relevant. Again, the point of my original talk page comment was to ask which name should the characters be referred to, the family name or the given name, so stop with this silliness about Japanese naming conventions vs. American naming conventions. I'm contesting your claim of "us[ing] the English standard of first names" (per your own edit summary), not in what order should the names be given in.
And yeah, maybe my citing of IAR was not the best idea, but in my defense, I didn't really know what else to say since you had missed my point entirely. Plus, I had confused myself a bit, too. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, you're editing the article but you still haven't given an explicit reason. "People, living or fictional, in general are referred to by their family names, as it is generally understood that the given name is for more personal situations. I will be modifying the article as such."- Would that be of Japanese culture or Western style? You still have not responded. I can't accept this until I analyze the different POVs we seem to have then then reach some common ground which is most accurate. KirtZJ 18:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the general style by which you write about anything. I'm not enforcing a "Japanese style" in my writing. On Barack Obama, we do not refer to him as just "Barack" and on A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge is never referred to as just "Ebenezer" (I don't feel like spell checking that name so forgive me).—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The StickMan-"You are right in saying that we shouldn't assume they would know that the Japanese naming convention, except this isn't related to what Ryulong and me want to do."- So you're saying that we should go freelance and write without any kind of restraint on Wikipedia without following any type of standard either set or implied based on precision, because this is exactly what you are implying. With that being said, you fail to see the magnitude of this discussion, even if you had no idea something like it even exists. For Ryulong, That is exactly right, but truth be told, they are both of western origin and we know exactly when it is appropriate to use their family and given names. I also acknowledge the fact you are not enforcing the Japanese style, you're doing what you think is best as an editor. I still believe that in this case it is more appropriate (since this is where it becomes technical- something that The StickMan fails to realize) that for the fictional Japanese media, we should go with their given names since I have already pointed out that on the character section of the main Steins;Gate article their names are written in the western style with appropriate translations. How the characters are referred to in the anime media is irrelevant, because consistency must be kept on Wikipedia. KirtZJ 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about freelance? Who said anything about writing without any restraint? What exactly have I said that so clearly points to me implying those things? These are not rhetorical questions, I have no idea where these ridiculous accusations are coming from and I want to know how I have lead you to believe this. My initial discussion topic was simple: Family name or given name? That's all. And then you blew this discussion up to be a question about "Western style" versus "Japanese style" and the enforcement of Wikipedia standards. I have even provided the same types of arguments that Ryulong used (X article involving these people used family names and not first names), yet somehow my points continue to fly far above your head while he appears to be the rational one who understands the technicalities of whatever you are talking about. The statement from me that you quoted was me agreeing with you and trying to point you in the direction of what I was trying to say, but that clearly did not do any good.
Also: "How the characters are referred to in the anime media is irrelevant, because consistency must be kept on Wikipedia." What consistency? Various articles on fictional media vary between calling certain characters based on their given name or their surname, whether it's a film, a novel, or an anime. And then there's this from Ryulong: "If in Steins;Gate, Itaru Hashida is consistently referred to as 'Daru' in the prose, then perhaps this page should use 'Daru' rather than 'Hashida'." And before you accuse me of it, no, I'm not trying to twist Ryulong's words to paint him as a supporter in my quest to ignore the standards set by Wikipedia. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is that, even when I went out of my way to explicitly state the minutest of technicalities to you (in my fist initial and second response), still eludes your comprehension. You being incredibly defensive about this clearly shows that maybe perhaps you entered into this topic which you so nicely put: Family name or given name? without actually realizing what it covers. I have not "blown" this discussion into something that isn't relevant which would be the varying styles of writing. As far as consistency is concerned, Wikipedia is and will always continue to be a work-in-progress. But the ultimate aim is to achieve consistency in the various sections you mentioned. I am NOT insulting you, nor am I antagonizing you and I humbly apologize as you seem to have somehow gotten this impression after the tone I heard after reading your last response. But you have failed to see my point of view even when I have gotten your point, clear and true and simply presented my case in a manner which would introduce a level or professionalism within the writing in general. KirtZJ 00:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, enlighten me once again about these technicalities you speak of in a clear and simple manner. I suppose arguing over whether or not I got it won't get us anywhere, and if I am wrong, then so be it. I simply fail to see the consistencies that you speak of in which articles on Japanese fictional media require the use of given names to refer to characters. MoS-JA says nothing about how Japanese people should be constantly referred to in-article, just how their full names should be presented (which was why I was reluctant in bringing it up in my first reply to you). The consistency you bring up about using given names simply doesn't exist. Regardless of the type of media (a novel, a film, or a video game) or its language of origin (American, Japanese, or French), the characters are generally referred to based on what they go by in the actual work (again, what Ryulong said). The main thing that still confuses me, however, is why the main Steins;Gate article is the way it is. Regardless, the use of given names or family names varies from article to article, and I am frustrated because I don't think you have fully addressed this point. Unless I have missed yet another minute technicality which does, so again, please tell me once again exactly what these technicalities are supposed to be. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 01:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a new indentation here."The main thing that still confuses me, however, is why the main Steins;Gate article is the way it is."- I think you will understand now. Put as simply as possible, but summarizing all of the technicalities I outlined in my second lengthy response, if you would notice, the main Steins;Gate article is a good article. This probably isn't explicitly written or outlined on any manual on Wikipedia but is generally understood, by those who see it, such as the admins, experienced editors and those such as myself who do work towards it: the aim of wikipedia and the thing all wikipedians are working towards, even most don't realize it, is to get all articles up to the good and even higher standard. What I have proposed is simply a best possible way to achieve this regarding one of the issues of naming schemes out of the horde of others that stand in the way of achieving the aforementioned, and when it comes down to it I will be re-editing this article to suit. KirtZJ 02:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entire naming scheme system is simple, though: What are they called in the work of fiction in question? You would not call Charles Foster Kane "Charles," or Jay Gatsby "Jay". And Steins;Gate may be a good article, but I don't see how that has any meaning towards the naming scheme used in said article. Good article criteria does not take relatively minor details like naming into account. The MoS section on writing about fiction also does not address this, not even in the "The problem with in-universe perspective" section (which I found to be the section most likely to have something to say about this matter). I realize that there should be consistency between this page and the main Steins;Gate article, but honestly, Steins;Gate's status as a good article is irrelevant to this discussion. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely making suggestions on improving this article by--now listen to this--adequately compensating for the Japanese naming schemes into an English western style article, keeping all respect to the Japanese culture as it is. I have already pointed out that the FULL naming styles of both styles are already included in the Main Steins;Gate article. Since you have simply citied media originally developed in the western societies and at the risk of repeating myself, we already know when and how to appropriately refer to those as we are from the west. On the Japanese Wikipedia they would refer to them by their style. Now from a western perspective, take for instance there are more than one characters with the same family name in a Japanese medium. Sure in the media itself, anime, light novels etc they can each be referred to by this because there are visual depictions to tell them apart. Form a written standpoint, we would be forced to find alternatives to tell them apart, this is where the use of given names would be appropriate (across the board) not just in Steins;Gate since there aren't any references to that- just to make my point. And also, as I said before, you may not find the POV I hold written anywhere. It is generally understood by wikipedians, although it would seem that you don't share this concept which baffles me: the concept of making the articles into their good forms by doing everything possible and striving for perfection, which would then tie in the fact that since the Steins;Gate article is already good we should strive to do whatever we can to make any articles connected to it, such as the Anime summaries augment its status by by getting them as high as possible in standard as well KirtZJ 03:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be doing this on a quote-by-quote basis.
"I am merely making suggestions on improving this article by--now listen to this--adequately compensating for the Japanese naming schemes into an English western style article, keeping all respect to the Japanese culture as it is." - This should not be taking other cultures into account, this is just about what people are called in a Wikipedia article. You constantly say that the issue I bring up is much, much more than what I think it is, but it honestly is not.
"Since you have simply citied media originally developed in the western societies ..." - And now I'm beginning to wonder whether or not you really understand my posts, because you handwave the evidence I show as only "media originally developed in the western societies" when I specifically provided two (The video game Persona 4 and the novel Kafka on the Shore) pieces of Japanese media articles which alternate between a given-name basis for some characters and a family-name basis for others.
"Now from a western perspective, take for instance there are more than one characters with the same family name in a Japanese medium. Sure in the media itself, anime, light novels etc they can each be referred to by this because there are visual depictions to tell them apart. Form a written standpoint, we would be forced to find alternatives to tell them apart, this is where the use of given names would be appropriate (across the board) not just in Steins;Gate since there aren't any references to that- just to make my point." - And I agree with this because in nearly all cases this would apply. I'm not lobbying for the use of all family names here, nor am I saying that we should always choose the family name over the given. The thing is, though, your hypothetical situation is not very realistic. In a fictional work, the creator will have already made naming distinctions clear to the viewer/reader/player, which in turn should be reflected in the articles themselves.
"It is generally understood by wikipedians ... the concept of making the articles into their good forms by doing everything possible and striving for perfection, which would then tie in the fact that since the Steins;Gate article is already good we should strive to do whatever we can to make any articles connected to it, such as the Anime summaries augment its status by by getting them as high as possible in standard as well" - Steins;Gate being a good article has absolutely no bearing on this argument. Of course we are all here to improve Wikipedia articles, and there is a system in place to point out articles of outstanding quality. But just because the Steins;Gate article is a good one does not mean you get to draw connections to the use of given-names as a contributor to its quality, especially since such relatively minor details has little effect on how an article's quality is judged. I could point out a featured article that varies in name scheme usage, but it would be of no help to my argument because it is almost totally unrelated to my argument.
Long story short, I am still not convinced that you understand what my position is. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed this discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, the two of us sitting here arguing will probably never result in any sort of consensus, and a third party seems necessary. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit this exploded into something unnecessary. I'm still having problems understanding what your issue is KirtZJ. I still assume this is an argument over "should this fictional character be referred to by their personal name or their family name when we discuss him/her on Wikipedia". As succinctly as possible (no more than 100 words), please tell me what your issue is.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an argument, it is a debate-there's a difference. I have officially withdrawn from this since no one seems to have the time to read and actually understand my responses and also due to the fact that since The StickMan as obviously taken this to be "dispute" and officially filed it as such (which it is not). However, you have already understood what the topic of this debate is about Ryulong by stating "should this fictional character be referred to by their personal name or their family name when we discuss him/her on Wikipedia"--I have presented my rebuttals accordingly. This has not exploded into something irrelevant-I seem to have to keep repeating and re-explaining myself (something that I keep having to mention as I wish I wouldn't have too) simply because the opposing parties are not able to comprehend my level of thought, (my lengthy posts were for me to diffuse this into something more understandable) which was the initial reason I posted this on the other talk page from whence you came Ryulong, so that more people may get involved. Once again, because clearly this is being misunderstood as an argument I must withdraw since I have no wish to be part of something so nonsensical and barbaric other than an intellectual debate, something which, you would have seen from my rebuttals, tried my best in keeping with. I am terribly disappointed that The StickMan feels I have not understood "what his position is" because as on par with the semantics of a debate, I have and simply presented my rebuttals accordingly--something they would know if they had actually realized this had been a debate and NOT and argument/dispute from the very start. And on that note I bid ye farewell. KirtZJ 23:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the fact that it is entirely difficult to have to read through these essays of yours in order to determine what is and is not the issue at hand here. That is why I requested a succinct and terse summary of the problems plaguing the page here. And as far as I am aware there is little functional difference between an argument and a debate, with only semantics in the way. But now that things are resolved I hope we can all move on, and you can put a link to your userpage in your signature because policy says it is lacking.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall humbly compromise. I looked at the changes you made (The StickMan), and can agree with the consistency you established by using first name's (given names) which is what I was going for. Whereas nicknames are concerned, for "Mr. Brawn" i.e. Yūgo Tennōji, since I can agree with using Itaru Hashida's nickname "Daru" being used, as it was coined by Rintarō, it may be appropriate to use Mr. Brawn or simply "Brawn" wherever Tennōji is written. With that being said, as "Okabe" is the name commonly used by all characters and not his nickname "Okarin", maybe next to his full name in the first episode summary something such as--"In the summer of 2010, self-proclaimed mad scientist, Rintarō Okabe (commonly referred to as Okabe), goes to...etc" could be included, as you did something similar for Tennōji. KirtZJ 02:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed most instances of "Tennoji" to "Mr. Braun", although I guess it would be perfectly fine if it was just "Braun." And I don't think a parenthetical letting readers know that Okabe is commonly referred to by that name is necessary, seeing that it's not a nickname. Once they read it in the article, it should become clear enough. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Also, I'm glad we resolved this and happy editing. KirtZJ 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Steins;Gate_episodes