Talk:Eitaro Ozawa

`

Move about 36 pages?

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move all. I am not personally capable of moving them and I leave that to others, but consensus is clear here to revert the mass movings. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

---

• And about 35 more pages where the requested move is removing macrons from Romaji Japanese names.

  (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Macrons in Japanese names)

• Here is a permanent link to the section called 'Macrons in Japanese names' which depends on the decision made here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments stated are:-

---

• Note, that non of the above need a discussion to move them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:RM/TR states: "The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle applies to uncontroversial moves (see Wikipedia:Be bold) and reverts of undiscussed moves. The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. ... If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below." I'm requesting to revert because I think these undiscussed moves are controversial per MOS:JAPAN#Romanization and WP:JATITLE. 122.17.204.124 (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

---

• But to save some admin the labor of perhaps having to move about 36 pages and then back again, if someone does raise a controversy, best discuss it here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Move all. None of the moves was discussed, so they should all be reverted unless reliable sources can be provided indicating that the names are commonly written with macrons in English-language references. --DAJF (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per procedure/WP:BRD - although really I can't see how indicating a long vowel in the title hurts anyone. This is a MOS/consensus issue, checking i sources won't help, since sources have their own MOS. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but only for reasons of procedure (mass moves should have been cleared with the relevant WikiProject, etc.). I agree with In ictu oculi that in the end this is a MOS/consensus issue. People have been banned arguing over this, but I still don't think that whether a macron is to be used or not is a question of common usage, since that is often an issue of the MOS of other publications and their technological capacity (whether they can do macrons), not of whether some consensus about the name/title has been achieved beyond those MOS/technological problems. Returning to this discussion, I request that of the 36, Taburakashi: Daikō Joyūgyō Maki be separated out of this discussion because it is not an issue solely of adding a macron or not: it is one of romanization and common usage. WikiProject Japan's MOS requires modified Hepburn, which "Daikou Joyuugyou" is not. The exception is common usage, but it is debatable whether "Daikou Joyuugyou Maki" is common usage. That should be debated in a separate discussion. Michitaro (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The request at WP:RMTR called 'Macrons in Japanese names' is no longer appropriate for a standard technical move, so I'm closing that request. The understanding is that the outcome of the discussion here will decide whether to perform those moves. I have added a permanent link to the list of 36 affected files at the head of this move discussion so the information is not lost. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Note (A not-banned user's smartphone, here. Can't log in for technical reasons.) The original technical request was made by a sock IP of one of three banned users (LittleBenW, JoshuSasori or Kauffner), all of whom have made unilateral moves in the other direction. Kauffner has also been posting on User talk:Michitaro. 182.249.5.70 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Hjr88

That's a reasonable suspicion, but there's absolutely no evidence for it. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I don't see either version as inherently better. There was nothing wrong with the initial moves, so there needs to be evidence that the old names were preferable beyond just appealing to WP:BRD. We haven't seen any, and the word of a sock of a banned editor is not particularly convincing to me.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I'm pretty sure no admin wants to go through all of these. I see consensus for moves, at least by BRD, so why don't we just close it as such and leave the individual moves up to whoever's interested in performing them. Let's leave off Taburakashi: Daikō Joyūgyō Maki, however, on Michitaro's objection. That one should be treated as controversial and discussed separately before being moved. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer we not move all these articles back. If some move is desired it should be discussed individually (or in much smaller bundles) with evidence for why it's desired. I just don't think this warrants reverting 36 moves because a sockpuppet doesn't like them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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.