Talk:ojo

RFV — moved to RFD

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Is the Japanese section necessary? I mean we don't need non-Hepburn romanisations do we?--50 Xylophone Players 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think inclusion criteria should be based not on what kind of Romanization it is, but on whether it's used. With anime as popular as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if this and/or oujo are used. One thing about Hepburn is that it wasn't created with keyboards in mind. I've always had a pet peeve with romanization systems that use difficult to type characters like ō. If we have to go out of our way to type the damn romanized word, we may as well just use the original Japanese! Language Lover 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, all over the web, people use a common variation of Hepburn where ō is ou and similarly with uu. It's not just a matter of difficulty to type, but also that many websites don't support the umlaut crap, certainly not in usernames, where Japanese influence is common. Hepburn is a perfect example where the prescriptivists tell us one thing but actual real life observation tells us something else entirely. Language Lover 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but I don't think we need ojo because let's just presume for a sec that Hepburn was the standard romanisation system. If you put ojo as Hepburn it's the same but oujo becomes ōjo. Also ōjo(or oujo as I need to type in hiragana) will convert to 王女 which is the correct kanji for "princess" and ojo won't. Compare this with 人魚(ningyo)& 人形(ningyō) Two similar sounding words that are pretty much unrelated.--50 Xylophone Players 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll also see now that I Rfv'd yokai for the same reason; youkai and yōkai are not the same as yokai.--50 Xylophone Players talk 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed last year and at that time it was decided that it would be better not to have the macrons in the article name, since they are a problem to type, and since the romaji entries are purely for the convenience of those of us who cannot type Japanese. So we put the Japanese romaji article at sayonara, with sayōnara as a redirect. —Stephen 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is so completely ass-backwards I hardly know where to begin.

We do not have rōmaji entries "for the convenience of those who cannot type Japanese". Just like we don't have romanized entries for those who can't "type Russian".

We have rōmaji entries because rōmaji is a script used to write Japanese. The language is frequently written in rōmaji in chats, emails, and quite a number of other places. If this were not so, the rōmaji forms would entirely fail CFI, just as a Russian word written in Latin script would. (But not a Serbian word.)

"sayōnara" should be at sayōnara, the redirect is wrong (just as other redirects between spelling/form variants are always wrong) In this particular case, having an entry at sayonara is probably also valid, as it is familiar in English (i.e. like nyet, which we have, although quite oddly labelled English; while certainly not having romanizations of all the other words in Russian!)

The Japanese entry at ojo should be at ōjo, ojō, and ōjō, and not at "ojo", per nom. Robert Ullmann 18:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There was never a discussion about having romaji entries because Japanese is written in romaji. The only discussions we had were as I described above, that is, for the convenience of those who can’t type Japanese. For my money it a good policy and I think it’s the best policy. Similar arguments might have been made for Russian, but they weren’t, for reasons that should be obvious. —Stephen 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Rfd since this discussion is dead.--50 Xylophone Players talk 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

ojo

I put this up for rfv a while back but I didn't get much satisfaction. IMO we don't need this at all. Also if this "passes" rfd then please see to the deletion of youkoso(which is only a redirect) and youkai. Discuss--50 Xylophone Players talk 11:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep. We certainly need the entry page for the Spanish definition if nothing else. Angr 13:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

PalkiaX50 is referring specifically to the Japanese section. Don't worry, no one's going to delete the entry as a whole, just possibly remove the Japanese section. —Ruakh_TALK 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese looks very good to me, very useful, and makes finding the correct meaning and kanji easy. As discussed previously, it should be kept. —Stephen 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

*sighs* But is this not just something like (N.B. this is hypothetical) if you were to put troop at troupe (if troupe wasn't a word)--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about Japanese, and nothing about how it's Romanized, but if accent marks are necessary, then why shouldn't this be deleted (and replaced with {{also}})?—msh210℠ 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I'm pretty iffy on the concept of keeping romanizations in general, but this in particular — romaji with no indication of vowel length — seems to be what you might call a "common misromanization". —Ruakh_TALK 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted - This is what {{also}} was designed for. --Jackofclubs 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)