Talk:Akatsuki (Naruto)/Archive 13

message: In both translations that I have read his name is spelled Pain. Is there some overriding authority as to the correct translation somewhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.33.90 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no official spelling. "Pein" is merely the more popular choice. ~SnapperTo 03:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going by Japanese spelling, it's "Pein"... "ei" in Japanese is pronounced like "ay" in English. Jazz Band Member 11:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling it phonetically, you'd get Payeen. –Gunslinger47 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, it's obvious that Nagato chose his name because he said, and I quote "... I just wanna keep them safe, no matter what kind of PAIN I go through." end quote. Doesn't that explain it? Although, i agree with those who might say this is a speculation since pain is an english word, so why would the author choose it in a japanese manga.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.214.41 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason he chose "Rock Lee" and "Might Guy".  I'm very much in favor of changing it to Pain, especially after 373.HisshouBuraiKen 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it looks like 374 even further reinforces this through continued references to "growing strong through pain." 69.19.14.44 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to start changing it whenever I see it. HisshouBuraiKen 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with that. I just went about reverting all of it. Its Pein here, deal with it people--TheUltimate3 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Here"?  this isn't some little forum community, this is supposed to be about accurate information.  All the recent translations use "Pain", the consensus on this page is "Pain", it should be "Pain."  If the fan translations are the primary source of info, then Wikipedia should stay accurate to them. HisshouBuraiKen 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with HisshouBuraiKen.  TheUltimate3 pretty much said, I'm changing it back to "Pein" because that's the way I like it.  Wikipedia isn't the place for fanfiction. Hyuugamoto 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A more active discussion can be found below. A translator such as yourself would do well to contribute his two cents there. ~SnapperTo 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pein or Pain? 

message: What happened to the individual pictures of the Akatsuki? I remember there used to be a few, but they haven't been there for a while. Tristan Uchiha 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FAIRUSE concerns. Having one for every member just doesn't work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, we know that the group picture at the top doesn't show Pein and Konan's faces. We've been arguing the stupidity of this for weeks. Basically, if you haven't read the manga, you can only guess at what they look like. Wikipedia at its finest, right here folks... 214.13.209.200 09:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it is.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we've seen all six of his bodies, then I'll suggest someone put images of the bodies together into a single image (like Bleach (manga) did to Grand Fisher). Konan and Kakuzu will have to deal with having bad shots, and Sasori not being there at all. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If noone minds, I could go ahead and upload a temporary picture of Pein's face from the manga until we get all six in one shot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.47.180 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Akatsuki member pictures 

message: :What does Itachi need to do to have his article? I mean he has abilities(apart from mangekyo) 2 personalities(first the good bro and then the bastard) other media(too much) and etc.
Tintor2 16:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:FICT we need reliable Secondary sources. IIRC the main problem is all if not most of the sources we had for him were from the manga etc and that is a primary source. --69.156.205.23 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's see.  there's the databook, the name reference, and i don't know.  Can someone who does NOT have to do college-level homework just go out and find us a secondary source, or is that too much to ask.  I'd do it myself, but I am in college, so I rarely get time to do this. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like i said before since it was a merge I can't link the conversation (besides it was way long and I doubt you have the time to read it) nothing has changed since the merge disscussion and until then what you';re saying now is no different than what was said before and I don't real like argueing something that has alreay been disscussed.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested. most of it is here. Talk:Itachi Uchiha. There is a little bit more near the end of the first archive from the article Talk:Itachi Uchiha/Archive 1#Second merge attempt. It is long but if you want a good idea of why the page was merged this is the best place to go. --67.68.154.6 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's still here, wow I had no clue, thanks pal. Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: I think we should make main articles for Deidara, Pein, Konan, Itachi, and Kisame.
:Who ever you are, read the discussion from above.
Tintor2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it have to do with anything?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzapalot (talk • contribs) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic above directly discussed the Itachi Uchia article and talked about why it was merged. There is no need to two topics to discuss creating article in a row. --67.68.154.6 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so this is still going on.  It's not like Sam is really going to let up on this, so if you want to see his reasoning, here's the link: Talk:Itachi Uchiha/Archive 1#Second merge attempt. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not going on, that was the point of the two discussions until we can find 3rd/2nd party sources and he does a little more non-Akatsuki stuff then why bring up something that was discussed, argued on, agreed upon, and then carried out.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're linking the wrong one, I won't say what I think about you linking "that particular one" but you should just use the one where we all agreed (for the most part).Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 14:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We need second- and third-party sources because they show that the article's subject has some sort of relevance or notability in the real world (as in, outside of its own fictional universe).—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Articles 

message: I've closed the AFD as Snowball keep per perceptible consensus produced. Happy editing. @pple complain 08:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as was revealed in the AFD, it CAN be improved, but the problem is that most significant out-of-universe information are on Japanese websites, and being in primarily English-speaking nations it is very unlikely we can dig it out quickly. Once Akatsuki plays a larger role in the English series, however, than we'll begin to see out-of-universe info on this article. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD result

message: Someone's just said on Pein's article that Pein is Naruto's father, it should be removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssummerdays (talk • contribs) 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism, I reverted it. σмgнgσмg 10:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pein is not Naruto's father! 

message: Itachi had his own article for a while there, but it up and disappeared. Why is that? Obviously because thy decided it isn't necessary, but WHY did they decide that?--76.116.185.196 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In universe, not enough appearances, and not enough of his information centered more around himself than others (Sasuke, Orochimaru, Deidara, etc.). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep everything Artist said and this.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Itachi Article 

message: Well? and dont bother telling me to sign my post, cuz i cant figure out how
Edit: nvm, its back -.-
:For future reference, if you see a stupid edit like a character's section vanishing or crappy information being added, it's probably just the work of some loser trying to be a pain. No reason to make a topic about it. By the way, signing is easy. In newbie language, just hold shift and press the key with the accent mark on the upper, far-right side of your keyboard right under the Escape button. Intellect Ninja 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: u mean left side. left. --24.214.236.85 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the Hell is Kisame's Section? 

message: I know we didn't really get a good look at it, but when he summoned it, minus the tubes and Rinnegan eyes, it seemed like it was one of Garra's barrier Techniques, when he summons the image of the Shukaku that looks like the stuffed toy. Shouldn't this be mentioned? 209.209.199.102 06:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah it was just an animal summon, a stone panda, just like his hydra-cerberus, and his fly-chamelion. What's more interesting is his other active bodies. It seemed like the skinny one was Taijutsu oriented and the big one was more interested in absorbing chakra, farther enforcing the 'each body does something different' thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.46 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In short, no.70.138.167.143 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Budism reincarnation cycle, there are six realms of potential reincarnation, ten, gaki, ashura, naraku, human, and animal. Pein has six bodies, and from what I can tell, one for each reincarnation possibility. His summoning body may reference 'animal', while his fat body probably represents 'gaki' or 'hungry ghost'. This is merely theory at this point, but the relationship (similar to Itachi's similarity to a Tengu, Kisame's similarity to Isonade, and Deidara's minor references to Garuda) cannot be completely ignored forever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.129.119 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pein/Pain's Guard 

message: In the article it is said that Zetsu 'serves as a sort of superior to other members', what evidence there is to support this? Just because the other members report to him doesnt mean he is a superior member. Survival705 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the "sort of" qualifier. ~SnapperTo 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zetsu 

message: I'd like this part changed, please: Pein can summon bodies he is not currently using and remotely control them in battle, sharing what they see to protect one another from attack. Reasons: It hasn't been, even vaugly, hinted that he's remotely controlling the bodies, or even that he only occupies one body at a time... Sounds like madness? Well, if the rinnengan is truthfully derived from the samsara legend (the six ways of life and death and all that funny stuff), I see no reason why Pein should not be able to split his soul in six and occupy six bodies at once. So, some changes, please? 81.228.148.16 (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We go by what we know. What we do know is this: Currently the "main" Pein is the one he showed up in, and the Summons are currently just summons all with the Rinnegan. There is no mention of him splitting his soul and all we know is that he gave his summons those eyes. --TheUltimate3 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think 81.228 was talking about putting the shared souls bit in the text. he's just talking about removing the "remote control" reference. also, we don't know that the bodies he summoned are the ones not in use. we haven't seen the faces of the other bodies that were in the casks. how about something like: Pein can summon bodies endowed with Rinnegan which share visual information seamlessly with one another. Pein is able to coordinate attacking and defending with these summons as if they were a single entity. --24.214.236.85 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My god you people are pathetic. This stuff is blatantly obvious to any two-year old, especially but not only after the newest chapter. Jiraiya even said in 378 that he was sure they were sharing eyesights. It was explained by one of the toads as well. Wikipedia at its finest, right here, folks.Muramasa itachi (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pein which started the fight with Jiraiya was adept at summoning, that was his "thing" so to speak, so I'm assuming he just summoned other bodies but is not CONTROLLING them, per se. Ring Finger (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Pein 

message: Why is it Itachi doesn't have his own page? By reading this article, you would never fully understand what a prominent role he's played. [[user:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the total of what 4 times he has actually appeared IN the show/manga that WASN'T a flashback? Anyway its been discussed before, look it up.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ultimate 3 is right you know.  Even if we take the number one rule of Naruto (Flashbacks are the longest part of the series) into account, he's still not notable enough to have his own article yet.  KEYWORD BEING YET!!! Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactaly, yet is the correct word but as of now there's no point to disscuss this, again.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zomg, you people gangbang when it comes to the topic of Itachi getting his own article. It's sorta scary x.x AnimeNikkaJamal (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, AnimeNikkaJamal's right, you just sort of dogpiled on the guy.  SxeFluff is right though; Itachi is Sasuke's main motivator for the majority of his actions in the series, including the huge (almost the singular motivating factor) part he played in Sasuke's leaving Konoha and pursuing more power, even temporarily allying with Orochimaru.  He was also the first link to the now main story-focus Akatsuki, and whose mention is always notable among the dialogue of the characters.  I'd recommend a separate Itachi page, as his role is rather unique in Naruto, and is more notable than almost all other "supporting" characters or "second-party characters".  Even if it's not a full-length page, it could have a defining picture (of the apparent third-last Uchiha), and some info on his role, his background, his motivations, his appearance in important flashbacks, his actions and apparent reason, and a synopsis of his role throughout specific important parts of the series.-TAz69x (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF  

message: I don' read the manga so did he really die? If so an expansion on how should be put in and a thing about how Suigetsu killed him on Suigetsu's page. All it says now is "Killed by suigetsu" BioYu-Gi! (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Kisame nor Suigetsu hasn't appeared in the manga in weeks its safe to say this never happened.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kisame's Death 

message: Because Pein has 6 different bodies(7 if you include Nagato) shouldn't he have an individual picture for his section in the article? If so, there is a panel in ch 379 that depicts his six bodies.Lastbetrayal (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What speculations were added (to the article)? In this talk, I was just pointing out that what Pain refers to as the Pain Rikudou (a direct referance to the buddhist Samsara theology involving the six realms / six paths of suffering) may be further expanded into what is known as the ten realms in the same theologies, and that we shouldn't assume that he only has six bodies, or that Nagato isn't amongst them. I worded the article to state more accurately that he has at least six bodies, which can be confirmed, whereas it can't be confirmed that he has a set number of six bodies. We also do know Pein is using summons, as Jiraiya stated it several times, and that he summoned the other two bodies, and must've summoned the other thee before he (Jiraiya) was able to determine the hidden locations (when he was trying to track down the invisible Pain). Jiraiya may be disproven, but at this point, all indications are that they were summoned. At this time, I don't believe that anything in Pain's article oversteps the boundaries into speculative information, though I agree completely that Tobi is the subject of far too much. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm positive "Rokudou" should be translated to Paths, and not Realms. I went ahead and changed it so that it calls them paths while still linking to "six realms," but go ahead and change it back if I'm wrong. Now please tell me we're not arguing over whether or not the Rokudou are his bodies. That would make me quite angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.Muramasa itachi (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rokudou/Rikudou (Rikudou is actually used in the manga, I realize) is specifically the Japanese term for the Buddhist principal of the "six realms", but I do agree with you, as the kanji used would more literally be translated as "six paths", and though the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, it also draws a closer parallel with the "six paths of suffering" (another name for the "six realms"), which serves to better highlight Pain's own beliefs. And no, we aren't arguing whether the Pain Rikudō are his bodies (at least I'm not, as I believe this to clearly be the case). I'm only pointing out that the appearance of six bodies in the manga doesn't preclude the possiblity of additional "bodies" which could include the form of "Nagato", and that the article shouldn't specify there being a set number of bodies at this point, as it did previously. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pein 

message: Since the Pein v Pain debate has gone past the point that I care to read the discussion, and since Wikipedia is founded upon consensus, why not just put the matter to a vote? Does the dude with orange hair and six bodies go by  or ? Leave your opinion below citing whatever policies/guidelines/opinions/workings of the universe you feel are applicable. Whenever one spelling seems to hold majority opinion so will the discussion endith. ~SnapperTo 04:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Someone will inevitably be unhappy, as such is the nature of consensus here. That said, this discussion isn't really a straw poll, considering that people are placing rather detailed arguments allowing with their !vote. Given the evidence to support the use of "A'" is rather overwhelming, WP:IAR safely applies. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: comment any kanji to english guide u find won't make pein or pain official. the reason pein has been used in the first place is b/c wikipedia already employs a popular kanji-english system. ur guide doesn't close the discussion at all, and it doesn't even further ur point any. everyone already agrees that w/o extenuating circumstances it would be spelled pein b/c thats what wiki policy nominally supports. it's that there is strong circumstantial evidence to spell it differently that is the issue. --Wongba (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment ペイン is katakana, not kanji. Katakana is most prominently used in Japanese to "sound out" foreign names and words, and is a purely phonetic, with no deeper meaning to individual characters than how they are pronounced (unlike kanji, where each character has a specific definition, or multiple definitions). For example, the English word "rock", as in Rock Lee, is rendered in Japanese katakana as ロック (rokku), just as the English word "pain" would be rendered into katakana as ペイン (pein). ペイン has no signifigance as a word in Japanese, and in fact, there are no actual Japanese words that even begin with the sound "pe". The only way to extract any meaning from the word is to render it as a foreign word or name, and a great deal of evidence points to the English word "Pain". This vote is essentially trying to discern a translation, and would be comprable to deciding between "Rokku Rii" and "Rock Lee". WtW-Suzaku (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had printed, verifiable sources for the spelling of Rock Lee and Might Guy at the time when the switch was made. –Gunslinger47 02:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just an example. But, was there even a "switch"? I'm pretty sure their names were printed in English in the first Character Official Data Book, circa 2002. The Naruto wikipedia article wasn't even created until 2003. Besides, Rock Lee was widely (if not completely) accepted in the community from his first appearance in the original Toriyama's World scanlations, which were the only ones around back then (likewise, this is why Maito Gai is still so widely used, as that's how TW translated it). WtW-Suzaku (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy used to be called Gai at some point on Wikipedia. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He was "Gai" in the first databook and "Guy" in the second. Lee was "Lee" in both books. ~SnapperTo 07:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he was ガイ in the first databook, because the first one didn't have any romanizations at all.  Yet at that point, Lee was still "Rock Lee" because that's what the fansubbers used.  The opening comment is basically the first, last, and only argument for "E", and it's nothing we haven't heard before.HisshouBuraiKen (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanizations of first names (or in Guy/Lee's case, last name) appear in the background of the first databook. Example. ~SnapperTo 04:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, what's the databook say about pein? Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two databooks only cover material up to chapter 244. Pein debuts in chapter 363. If there had been an official spelling of his name, there would have been no reason to be having this discussion. ~SnapperTo 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the "A"'s have it.  How much longer should this be left open?HisshouBuraiKen (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A week-long "debate" should suffice. ~SnapperTo 04:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it does give you a good view on the opinions: Seven people basically say, "It would benefit the article to ignore the original research and verifiability policies in favor of common sense as per WP:IGNORE and WP:SENSE, and and here are several reasons why," versus three people blindly following WP:OR and WP:V, despite generally admitting that Pain is the common sense translation. :/ WtW-Suzaku (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and common sense and all that jazz was given and stomped on in the afd of the Akatsuki Members page. So how does a vote work here and failed there?--TheUltimate3 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is quite different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members, largely because this is a discussion about a character's name rather than the notability of an article. Notability is taken very seriously, and whatever argument you placed, it wasn't going to change the fact that the article was not really notable, and was going to be merged or deleted no matter what happened. Conversely, content discussions naturally have much more space in which to operate in. WP:IAR and WP:SENSE carry much more weight here than in a deletion argument, where the aforementioned arguments are widely frowned upon, and disregarded by most closing administrators unless there is a significant set of reasoning behind the said argument. In any case, being bold and changing it is fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As to the straw poll being conducted here, straw polls are indeed rarely considered an outright consensus, and are more for simply testing the waters on an issue. Given that people are indeed stating arguments, however, this notion can be disregarded, as this is a discussion rather than any simple vote. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed on all other pages.  Glad to see that common sense prevailed in this debate.HisshouBuraiKen 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: if we aren't who we are, then who are we? and if wikipedia isn't a website, how are u viewing and editing this page? and the entire argument here is that the original japanese doesn't provide a clear transliteration unless u rigidly accept hepburn romanization. try coming up w/ a coherent argument in order to advanced ur point. --Wongba 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He means that Wikipedia isn't a fan site but an encyclopedia. Pain is technically fan cruft, while Pein is the direct translation. Wikipedia is entirely against fan cruft altogether, thus, unless VIZ directly states they will use Pain or something else, we should recognize no official translation exists as of yet. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, "Pein" is a transliteration, not a translation. The former of the two is merely a rendering, according to an arbitrary system of transcription, of a word in a character system typically not used to write the word being transliterated. The latter takes a word, phrase, etc from one language and attempts to render it using pre-established words in a target language, words which are also likely to have no particular etymological connection to speak of. Two, "fancruft", or rather the exclusion of such, is not an explicitly key part of Wikipedia policy (it's more so a rhetorical term), nor is there any significant objective ground to label "Pain" as being more so "fancruft" than "Pein". Three, a coherent case has be made as to why WP:IAR and other related guidelines should be applied in this case, so please, instead of merely attempting to label "Pain" with rhetorical neologisms, I would request that you attempt to provide an argument as to why strict application of WP:OR, etc is an important/beneficial in this situation (preferably with an understanding that any translation/transliteration/romanization without an officially citable source, "Pein" included, is technically at odds with WP:OR). 24.20.172.130 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style guidelines suggest the use of revised Hepburn romanization in this situation, making it the default.  Reasons should be given when diverging from guidelines, and this appears to be what happened. –Gunslinger47 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ペイン is certainly not applicable to a category of "names of modern figures" and it is also clearly not a Japanese name (in terms of having native-Japanese/Sino-Japanese origins). Also, reasons for the diversion from guidelines, WP:OR and WP:V clearly being most relevant here, *have* been given, along with constant citation of WP:IAR. 24.20.172.130 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a name.  It is written in the Japanese language.  It is applicable to the MOS-JA. :) –Gunslinger47 22:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOS-JA does not have any prescriptive content that specifically applies the debate here (i.e. they don't tell us exactly what to do, in absence of an official romanization, for the name of a manga character which is quite probably derived from an English word). More importantly, perhaps, even if there was something that did specifically apply to this situation, WP:IAR is still higher up on the guideline foodchain. I again invite you to, please, provide an argument refuting the IAR-based argument that does more than merely cite a Wikipedia guideline. Remember, IAR establishes that it is the spirit behind the rules, not specific wording of the rules themselves, that should be considered. WP:OR, WP:V and all other guidelines exist for a reason and it is important to consider whether their application is truly serving the purpose for their existence. 24.20.172.130 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I have invited WP:V to give an opinion on this matter. Don't let whatever opinion given (dis/en)courage you from expressing your own opinion, however. I have only did it because most users here are under the belief that illegal manga translations (Saiyan Island, for example) are official. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: did u not read any of the debate above? pein is a direct transliteration only according to hepburn romanization. the argument for spelling it differently doesn't assume fan translations are official in the least. everyone knows thats unofficial and doesn't provide reason to change the spelling. also, i wasn't telling nanners not to express an opinion but to express it coherently. --Wongba 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Attacking the translation sites is a red herring at this point. Trying to refute why WP:IAR should not be applied in this situation is the relevant part of the argument that you should be addressing, which involves focusing on the nature of the translation posted above. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paeinful, 2007 

message: Comment I just used a kanji to english guide and as it turns out ペ=pe, イ=i, and ン=n so I think this discussion is over and it's Pein.  I can give you the source material if you need it. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment any kanji to english guide u find won't make pein or pain official. the reason pein has been used in the first place is b/c wikipedia already employs a popular kanji-english system. ur guide doesn't close the discussion at all, and it doesn't even further ur point any. everyone already agrees that w/o extenuating circumstances it would be spelled pein b/c thats what wiki policy nominally supports. it's that there is strong circumstantial evidence to spell it differently that is the issue. --Wongba (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment ペイン is katakana, not kanji. Katakana is most prominently used in Japanese to "sound out" foreign names and words, and is a purely phonetic, with no deeper meaning to individual characters than how they are pronounced (unlike kanji, where each character has a specific definition, or multiple definitions). For example, the English word "rock", as in Rock Lee, is rendered in Japanese katakana as ロック (rokku), just as the English word "pain" would be rendered into katakana as ペイン (pein). ペイン has no signifigance as a word in Japanese, and in fact, there are no actual Japanese words that even begin with the sound "pe". The only way to extract any meaning from the word is to render it as a foreign word or name, and a great deal of evidence points to the English word "Pain". This vote is essentially trying to discern a translation, and would be comprable to deciding between "Rokku Rii" and "Rock Lee". WtW-Suzaku (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had printed, verifiable sources for the spelling of Rock Lee and Might Guy at the time when the switch was made. –Gunslinger47 02:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just an example. But, was there even a "switch"? I'm pretty sure their names were printed in English in the first Character Official Data Book, circa 2002. The Naruto wikipedia article wasn't even created until 2003. Besides, Rock Lee was widely (if not completely) accepted in the community from his first appearance in the original Toriyama's World scanlations, which were the only ones around back then (likewise, this is why Maito Gai is still so widely used, as that's how TW translated it). WtW-Suzaku (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy used to be called Gai at some point on Wikipedia. –Gunslinger47 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He was "Gai" in the first databook and "Guy" in the second. Lee was "Lee" in both books. ~SnapperTo 07:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he was ガイ in the first databook, because the first one didn't have any romanizations at all.  Yet at that point, Lee was still "Rock Lee" because that's what the fansubbers used.  The opening comment is basically the first, last, and only argument for "E", and it's nothing we haven't heard before.HisshouBuraiKen (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanizations of first names (or in Guy/Lee's case, last name) appear in the background of the first databook. Example. ~SnapperTo 04:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, what's the databook say about pein? Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two databooks only cover material up to chapter 244. Pein debuts in chapter 363. If there had been an official spelling of his name, there would have been no reason to be having this discussion. ~SnapperTo 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the "A"'s have it.  How much longer should this be left open?HisshouBuraiKen (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A week-long "debate" should suffice. ~SnapperTo 04:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it does give you a good view on the opinions: Seven people basically say, "It would benefit the article to ignore the original research and verifiability policies in favor of common sense as per WP:IGNORE and WP:SENSE, and and here are several reasons why," versus three people blindly following WP:OR and WP:V, despite generally admitting that Pain is the common sense translation. :/ WtW-Suzaku (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and common sense and all that jazz was given and stomped on in the afd of the Akatsuki Members page. So how does a vote work here and failed there?--TheUltimate3 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is quite different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Akatsuki members, largely because this is a discussion about a character's name rather than the notability of an article. Notability is taken very seriously, and whatever argument you placed, it wasn't going to change the fact that the article was not really notable, and was going to be merged or deleted no matter what happened. Conversely, content discussions naturally have much more space in which to operate in. WP:IAR and WP:SENSE carry much more weight here than in a deletion argument, where the aforementioned arguments are widely frowned upon, and disregarded by most closing administrators unless there is a significant set of reasoning behind the said argument. In any case, being bold and changing it is fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As to the straw poll being conducted here, straw polls are indeed rarely considered an outright consensus, and are more for simply testing the waters on an issue. Given that people are indeed stating arguments, however, this notion can be disregarded, as this is a discussion rather than any simple vote. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed on all other pages.  Glad to see that common sense prevailed in this debate.HisshouBuraiKen 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: if we aren't who we are, then who are we? and if wikipedia isn't a website, how are u viewing and editing this page? and the entire argument here is that the original japanese doesn't provide a clear transliteration unless u rigidly accept hepburn romanization. try coming up w/ a coherent argument in order to advanced ur point. --Wongba 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He means that Wikipedia isn't a fan site but an encyclopedia. Pain is technically fan cruft, while Pein is the direct translation. Wikipedia is entirely against fan cruft altogether, thus, unless VIZ directly states they will use Pain or something else, we should recognize no official translation exists as of yet. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One, "Pein" is a transliteration, not a translation. The former of the two is merely a rendering, according to an arbitrary system of transcription, of a word in a character system typically not used to write the word being transliterated. The latter takes a word, phrase, etc from one language and attempts to render it using pre-established words in a target language, words which are also likely to have no particular etymological connection to speak of. Two, "fancruft", or rather the exclusion of such, is not an explicitly key part of Wikipedia policy (it's more so a rhetorical term), nor is there any significant objective ground to label "Pain" as being more so "fancruft" than "Pein". Three, a coherent case has be made as to why WP:IAR and other related guidelines should be applied in this case, so please, instead of merely attempting to label "Pain" with rhetorical neologisms, I would request that you attempt to provide an argument as to why strict application of WP:OR, etc is an important/beneficial in this situation (preferably with an understanding that any translation/transliteration/romanization without an officially citable source, "Pein" included, is technically at odds with WP:OR). 24.20.172.130 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual of style guidelines suggest the use of revised Hepburn romanization in this situation, making it the default.  Reasons should be given when diverging from guidelines, and this appears to be what happened. –Gunslinger47 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ペイン is certainly not applicable to a category of "names of modern figures" and it is also clearly not a Japanese name (in terms of having native-Japanese/Sino-Japanese origins). Also, reasons for the diversion from guidelines, WP:OR and WP:V clearly being most relevant here, *have* been given, along with constant citation of WP:IAR. 24.20.172.130 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a name.  It is written in the Japanese language.  It is applicable to the MOS-JA. :) –Gunslinger47 22:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOS-JA does not have any prescriptive content that specifically applies the debate here (i.e. they don't tell us exactly what to do, in absence of an official romanization, for the name of a manga character which is quite probably derived from an English word). More importantly, perhaps, even if there was something that did specifically apply to this situation, WP:IAR is still higher up on the guideline foodchain. I again invite you to, please, provide an argument refuting the IAR-based argument that does more than merely cite a Wikipedia guideline. Remember, IAR establishes that it is the spirit behind the rules, not specific wording of the rules themselves, that should be considered. WP:OR, WP:V and all other guidelines exist for a reason and it is important to consider whether their application is truly serving the purpose for their existence. 24.20.172.130 22:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I have invited WP:V to give an opinion on this matter. Don't let whatever opinion given (dis/en)courage you from expressing your own opinion, however. I have only did it because most users here are under the belief that illegal manga translations (Saiyan Island, for example) are official. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: did u not read any of the debate above? pein is a direct transliteration only according to hepburn romanization. the argument for spelling it differently doesn't assume fan translations are official in the least. everyone knows thats unofficial and doesn't provide reason to change the spelling. also, i wasn't telling nanners not to express an opinion but to express it coherently. --Wongba 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Attacking the translation sites is a red herring at this point. Trying to refute why WP:IAR should not be applied in this situation is the relevant part of the argument that you should be addressing, which involves focusing on the nature of the translation posted above. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: why isnt there a picture for Sasori?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, he isn't included with the other guys. There are a couple color pictures of him from the manga (one of the volume covers and one of the character polls), though it's too bad there aren't any depicting him alongside Hiruko. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well i think we need a picture of him anyway even if its just him and not him in his puppet--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always merge the pic.--Tosta mista (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sasori 

message: -will use Pein for the sake of this talk- I noticed a few times that the Pein that resembles Deidara has a ring on his left thumb. First Pein we saw had a ring on his right thumb. Now, my eyesight isn't the best, so I can't make out the kanji, but a good picture is chapter 379, page 13, last panel (not sure if I'm allowed to link directly to OneManga). Although it might not be the Deidara look alike Pein in that panel, there's still one that has a ring on his left thumb. DarkRyan75 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could have been nothing more than author error.  Happens quite frequently.  The fact is that Pain has one ring and its on his right thumb.  Like I said before, it was probably nothing more than author error. Sasuke9031 18:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To further specify, he has one ring and it's on the right thumb of his first body (that is, both the one which appeared first and got in the pod numbered 壱, "one"). WtW-Suzaku 08:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pein/Pain- More than one ring? 

message: It refer's to Yahiko.
"Of the six bodies, none resemble the former Nagato, though Jiraiya notes that the first body Pain appeared as (third from the right) is noted by Jiraiya to be that of Yahiko."
Really crappy grammar. The author of this line has stated Jiraiya has noted it's Yahiko twice before stating it's Yahiko. It should read "appeared as (brackets)" then either "Yahiko" or "that of Yahiko." The way it is now is just someone pretending to have good control of sentetnce structure. Really, too many draw outs will make the wikipedia document worse than Bleach's filler arc. Stop it, someone edit it please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.227.71 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you be bold and edit it yourself. WtW-Suzaku 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed it after the first IP mentioned it. IPs cannot currently edit the article, thus why it was brought up here in the first place. ~SnapperTo 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senetnce structure of Pein's last line.