Talk:Orizuru Osen

Requested move 1

 * 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: page move reverted per WP:BRD. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Orizuru O-Sen → The Downfall of Osen – The film was released as The Downfall of Osen at Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive in 1981, Seattle International Film Festival in 2009 and Pickford Cinema in 2010. So it is obviously "the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world" (WP:NCF). 124.85.190.224 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was so surprised to see Elvenscout742 moving The Downfall of Osen to Orizuru O-Sen yesterday, because I can't find any reliable sources referring to the film as Orizuru O-Sen. 124.85.190.224 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, per Kenji Mizoguchi and the Art of Japanese Cinema (p. 13) by Tadao Sato. Update: See also A New History of Japanese Cinema, p. 60. Kauffner (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The nominator's citation of cinema releases are all very obscure, and this ISP nominator appears to have a very specific knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines for someone who has never edited any other articles...
 * Additionally, Kauffner's argument is irrelevant -- we don't name film articles based on reliable sources, let alone obscure translations of Japanese books -- Mr. Satō himself didn't call this film "The Downfall of Osen". That was decided by either the translator (Brij Tankha) or one of the two editors (Aruna Vasudev and Latika Padgaonkar). elvenscout742 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop - Firstly Elvenscout, this is an article move reversion under WP:BRD. Elvenscout, you moved it, the move has been challenged, you should restore and make a case for a RM from the status quo position. I'm sorely tempted to revert it myself, but can't given the ambiguity in WP:RM's current wording.
 * Secondly 124.85.190.224, currently your 3x edits, sorry, qualify as WP:SPA and using IPs in this manner will likely only trigger a WP:SPI. I suggest you find a more sustainable approach to contributing to the encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that recent moves that are challenged get reverted. I just don't know how to revert my own move in this case, and I decided to oppose the suggestion because only two challengers are a brand new IP account and a user who has been going around misrepresenting WP:UE on numerous articles now. I also need to point out that the above statement by the IP that "I can't find any reliable sources referring to the film as Orizuru O-Sen" is ridiculous -- Orizuru O-Sen is the title of the film in its native language. We are not allowed use non-roman text in the titles of articles, so I romanized it. Anyway, feel free to revert, and we can discuss on here about moving it back. I suspect someone is going to dispute my spelling of the character's name as "O-Sen" rather than "Osen" too: it's really a personal style choice, and I don't much mind either way. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see good faith, thanks. Has it redirect-locked itself? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2013 (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.

Requested move 2

 * 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: no consensus.  Mini  apolis  20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Downfall of Osen → Orizuru Osen – As shown above, I tried moving this page myself as per WP:BOLD. I thought this was an uncontroversial move, since the film has never received any wide release outside its native Japan, and the only "official" title is the Japanese one. The request to revert the move was, however, immediately posted by 124.85.190.224, an ISP with with no other edits. I understand that since recent unilateral moves are generally reverted when challenged (although no one has ever shown me the policy that says this, only the essay WP:BRD, which doesn't mention page moves once). However, I opposed the move based on the grounds that the Anon that requested it has made no other edits, and I suspect it of being a sockpuppet of a recently blocked user given the unlikeliness of anyone choosing this as their first edit. If anyone would like to discuss this issue maturely (no name-calling, no making fun of me for being an Irish guy who likes Japanese movies, while at the same time showing that you have not actually seen any of these movies yourself), this is the place. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC) It was pointed out to me after I posted here that the only significant release this film has had outside Japan is actually on DVD under the title "Orizuru Osen". elvenscout742 (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent it. The cover on the DVD says 折り鶴お千 ORIZURU OSEN The Downfall of Osen. Meanwhile, the DVD includes Mizoguchi's another film Tojin Okichi, which doesn't have the English title such as Chinese Woman Okichi or Chinese Girl Okichi on the cover. 125.172.74.117 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? It still gives prominence to the Japanese title of this film, and I don't see your point about the other film -- what does it have to do with anything?? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding to The Downfall of Osen, roman letters ("Orizuru Osen") are just used to show the pronunciation of the native title ("折り鶴お千"). 125.172.74.117 (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that. The native title is given more prominence in what looks like the only mainstream release the film has ever got outside Japan. How does that disprove my argument? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment the discussion of BRD application and speedy moves is located at WT:RM; apparently, any WP:BOLD move may be reverted by an administrator as a WP:BRD upon request, and treated as a speedy move request, even if an RM discussion has been opened, and well attended. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a different romanization from your BOLD move to Orizuru O-Sen at 06:52, 22 January 2013‎ (UTC) ; -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So what? I already stated I don't care which romanization is used. It's a stylistic choice, and both styles are used. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering on why the change in style -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Half of the request to revert my move was based around my choice of romanization for the name お千. I have been partial to the style "O-Whatever" for this kind of name ever since I read Kwaidan (which is probably the single best-known example) in my teens, but I can see why others might prefer "Owhatever". I therefore figured that maybe repeating the same reasoning about "The Downfall of Osen" not being an official name but giving in on the minor style issue would convince the anon who opposed the original move. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although actually, the above statement that no reliable sources could be found for my spelling of the Japanese title shows that not much research was done. A simple Google search brought up numerous books and and other resources that spell the Japanese name this way, and give different translations in English. (The last 3 are not in English, but they appear to be reliable sources, and they spell it "O-Sen"; additionally, we don't need "reliable sources" in English or any other language to romanize Japanese in a way that has been done in countless other works.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If Elvenscout742 moved The Downfall of Osen to Orizuru O-Sen in spite of knowing he had some reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, it is problematic (WP:RM). 125.172.74.117 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I already pointed out in my above nomination that I thought this move would be uncontroversial. I thought this, because the disruptive user who had for a month prior been following me around dozens of Japanese cinema articles and reverting all my edits finally got blocked. He was the only one who would oppose an obvious move like this. However, as soon as he got blocked, a whole bunch of Anon accounts (yourself included) suddenly appeared and started opposing me one way or the other on several different page moves. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you forget your own comment, saying that O-Sen, not Osen, is "a personal style choice"? BTW, if you believe someone is using sock puppets (or meat puppets), you should create a report at Sockpuppet investigations. 125.172.74.117 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly - Elvenscout, sorry to put you through making an RM, but the bigger picture is that we've had so much disruption from undiscussed moves and redirect locks (inadvertent/automatic in most cases, deliberate only in a few) that it's more important to uphold the WP:BRD line in WP:RM and not start restore RMs from the wrong end. Thank you for your good humour in this matter.
 * Secondly  Weak Support - only because of e.g. Isolde Standish A New History of Japanese Cinema 2006 Page 400 "The Downfall of Osen/Osen of the Paper Cranes (Orizuru Osen)". same again David Bordwell Peter B. High The Imperial Screen: Japanese Film Culture 2003 Page 583 has "Orizuru Osen (Osen of the Paper Cranes)" (for comparison Christian Gilles Les écrans nostalgiques du cinéma français 2002 Page 128 has "Orizuru Osen, Osen aux cigognes 1934"). The reason it isn't strong support is that of the two English titles Downfall is more common even though it has no relation to the literal title orizuru, paper crane. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No harm done, and thank you for your good humour in return. I should probably point out here that UE doesn't really apply to obscure foreign films that have never been widely released in English-speaking countries. NCFILM says we should use the title that was used when the film was released in cinemas or on video, but doesn't say anything about cases like this. We can use reliable sources for the translation, but apparently we don't do that in practice, especially when the only title the reliable sources can agree on is Orizuru Osen (or Orizuru O-Sen). elvenscout742 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a difficult balance to achieve. No we often don't do that in practice, but WP:Japan articles are better than many. We should use print sources, but it's no bad thing to cast an eye on retail Amazon.com DVD Orizuru Osen (large type), Downfall of Osen (smaller type below). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "The Downfall of Osen". FWIW, the DVD includes Mizoguchi's another film Tojin Okichi, which doesn't have the English title such as Chinese Woman Okichi or Chinese Girl Okichi on the cover. 125.172.74.117 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Amazon DVD is classified as a Japanese-language item, so the kanji title is the title proper. This version of the title is also larger than either of the Roman-script titles, although type size is merely an artistic choice. Kauffner (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a comment because I already voted above. Thanks for removing the stuff about Ireland from the samurai film articles. I get 124 post-1990 English-language GBook hits for the proposed form, 417 for the current (English language) title. Deghosted, they appear in about 25 books each. In other words, every book mentions both forms at some point, which is hardly surprising. If you look at Kenji Mizoguchi and the Art of Japanese Cinema, A New History of Japanese Cinema, or Patterns of Time: Mizoguchi and the 1930s they give the transliterated form once for reference, but otherwise the English-language form is used. Kauffner (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not samurai films (which articles are you talking about!?), and what I wrote wasn't about Ireland. The UK and Ireland are the two major English-speaking countries where the BFI and Eureka (and Optimum) releases are the best-known versions of those films. Also you are the one who has been arguing that American titles should be given precedence in articles about Japanese movies. Source counts and Google searches don't really mean anything here, since the "English title" is unofficial, it's controversial in that it isn't a literal translation and plenty of sources give alternate translations, and the film has never been released outside Japan. (Obscure film festival showings 70 years after the fact don't count as "releases".) Therefore, none of the various English titles are "the title more commonly recognized by English readers, under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world". elvenscout742 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This confuses the issue of what the title should be with the issue of whether the merits of the various possible titles should be discussed in the lede of the article. With Ugetsu, the North American title was the first thing that popped up when I searched, so I went with that. It did not occur to me to check what title the item might be sold under in Ireland. Kauffner (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not confusing, it is just following NCFILM's requirement to mention all prominent variant titles in the opening paragraph. I wouldn't expect people from outside Ireland to know that in Ireland the main venue for Japanese movies is the British DVD release, but the information is still relevant. With this article though, the film has never been released cinematically anywhere but the Empire of Japan (including Taiwan and the Korean peninsula) and possibly pre-1945 Japanese settlements in China. The most prominent release outside Japan seems to be the (still extremely obscure) DVD release In ictu oculi dug up, and that still gives priority to the Japanese title. The argument that "The Downfall of Osen" is the most recognizable title to English-speaking readers kind of falls flat when one realizes that no title is recognizable to English-speaking readers anyway. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The DVD is a Japanese-language item with a kanji title. See here. Kauffner (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the only widely released version of the film with English subtitles. The film festivals quoted above don't count as "cinematic releases" of the film, since only a very small number of people would know the film primarily from having seen it at those festivals. The most prominent way in which English-speakers could have been made aware of this film is through books either on Mizoguchi or Japanese cinema in general, and the fact is that those books always give the original Japanese, and among those that give translations, several reliable ones give different translations. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I already said above, we must follow WP:NCF. And it is obviously "the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world", because the film was released as The Downfall of Osen at Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive in 1981, Seattle International Film Festival in 2009 and Pickford Cinema in 2010. 125.172.74.117 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you think it having been shown on three screens a total of four times qualifies your claiming that it was "released" under this title. (Also, please explain why you are working under a different ISP number now as you were before. And why you chose to revert a recent move of a very old, obscure film as your first edit to Wikipedia.) One film festival website is essentially as good as one book on Japanese cinema, if even that. The film is not "known" by this title "in the English-speaking world", because it has not been released in cinemas or on video. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Elvenscout, please learn about dynamic IPs before you throw around your accusations. Most unregistered users have no control whatsoever on their IP address, which may change frequently. For the same reason, it was quite possibly not their first edit to Wikipedia because they may have edited from different IP addresses previously. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, actually I already know about dynamic IPs. The accusation of sockpuppetry was that JoshuSasori (who has been banned for being disruptive in the same way as these IPs) is not evading that ban by editing under a dynamic IP. I never intended to imply that there was anything wrong with the IPs all being the same user -- he/she has been completely open about that. The problem is that these IPs suddenly appeared right after JoshuSasori stopped trying in vain to appeal his ban, and less than two days after the ban itself, and started making the exact same ridiculous move requests as the banned user in question. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support (revised from "weak support" above) - the new dynamic-IP user has, in good faith no doubt, missed a very important word from the guideline WP:NCF " this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world." The word "normally" covers that there are exceptions, the most common exception predictably being that minimal showings in art theatres don't overturn use in reliable printed sources, which in this case tend to the Japanese title with English parenthetical translation. In any case as far as Digital Meme has released as "Orizuru Osen (The Downfall of Osen)" and Amazon has Orizuru Osen (The Downfall of Osen). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted," per WP:WIAN. In other words, when you see a title given in the format "Orizuru Osen (The Downfall of Osen)", this implies that "Orizuru Osen" is the Japanese language name and that "The Downfall of Osen" is the English language name. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kauffner, that is true but WP:WIAN is part of Naming conventions (geographic names) and doesn't apply to films.
 * And as mentioned above there are two English titles: Peter B. High The Imperial Screen: Japanese Film Culture 2003 Page 165 has "Orizuru Osen (Osen of the Paper Cranes)", Film reader Northwestern University 1985 Page 48 has "Mizoguchi's Osen of the Paper Cranes (Orizuru Osen), released in January 1935, was shot as a silent film with a music and benshi soundtrack overlaid on the images and intertitles." In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2013 (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.

Requested move 3

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. This was really tough. It's quite clear that relisting yet again wouldn't have an appreciable effect here, but I do find consensus to move. BD2412's assessment of the votes below is mostly accurate, though our legitimate IP had voted oppose and another supporter came in after that assessment. While Film Fan and said IP made cromulent policy-based arguments, it would appear its limited, third-party distribution in English-language markets doesn't rise to WP:NCF's "released" standard. This isn't Run Lola Run or one of the examples cited at NCF, where the film was formally released for English-language markets with a new title. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Downfall of Osen → Orizuru Osen – There is no ideal title for this 1935 silent film. If there was only one English name it could comfortably stay in English, but usage in English is split between the literal translation Osen of the Paper Cranes (generally older book sources) vs. a paraphrase title Downfall of Osen (generally more modern sources, also DVD cover). Paper cranes film. But the word orizuru (paper crane) is not totally unfamiliar to the English speakers, and both the "Osen of the Paper Cranes (Orizuru Osen)" and "Downfall of Osen (Orizuru Osen)" have the Japanese name in English texts anyway, and larger than the English on the DVD cover. Also a 1935 b/w silent Japanese film is not a simple film poster release issue like most WP:NCF foreign films. WP:NCF allows exceptions, so very limited arthouse showings should not supplant use in books. Relisted with conditions. bd2412 T 21:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)  Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if the sources use "Osen of the Paper Cranes" or "(The) Downfall of Osen" then, those seem to be what our choices should be. Considering the romaji title, I would say that would be "Orizuru O-Sen" (my personal preference in "O-Sen", if we are to use a Japanese romaji title); but generally, we have an English market release, and English language titles used in sources, so those seem to be the choices we should choose between. Per WP:UE, we have English usage in the two English titles as found in paper sources, if we follow modern usage, then per your findings, the current title, with or without the definite article "The" would be the choice. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose when I do a Google Book Search, I find that "(The) Downfall of Osen" is the most likely title to come through in English language books, while "Orizuru Osen" is half non-English results. "Osen of the Paper Cranes" is less likely than Downfall, and "Osen" is more common than "O-Sen" -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange, I'm getting a page-out at 16 results on Google Advanced (English Books Only) page 2 for "Downfall of Osen", but getting 40 results for "Orizuru Osen" - why are we getting such different results? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... more Google regionalization of results perhaps? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Regardless of the title of this article, all the variant titles should become redirects. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * redacted sockpuppet comment here
 * I'm not getting hundreds of results in Google Books, I get less than 100 for each of the titles I searched on; and when I click on your links as well. I wonder if this is a Google regionalizaton issue... -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very strange. I just tried from a different PC, set to Google Advanced English only and got 1,090 on the first page, but when clicked paged 2 it shrunk to only the same 16. So few could actually list the titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Orizuru Osen" Standish - 2006
 * Orizuru Osen (Osen of the Paper Cranes) High - 2003
 * Orizuru Osen (Downfall of Osen, 1935) Mazur 2011 + McDonald - 2000
 * "Downfall of Osen" Kirihara - 1992
 * The Downfall of Osen – Orizuru Osen Sato 2008
 * The Downfall of Osen (Orizuru Osen, 1935) Richie 2005 + Phillips 2007 + Sharp 2011
 * Downfall of Osen (Orizuru Osen/Osen of the Paper Cranes) Bordwell - 2012
 * That was Page 1 In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support The last RM actually had a consensus to move, but a single !vote from the sock of a banned user botched the result. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposal violates WP:USEENGLISH principle. 37.9.56.220 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Mind telling us why your first 9 edits to Wikipedia were all !votes in RMs and indicate that you've an above-average knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. Have you been on here for a while? If so, what were your previous IPs? Or did you edit under a named account? If the latter, why aren't you doing so this time? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:EN and WP:NCF.  F i l m F a n  17:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood NCF: it encourages using English titles when the films have been released under those titles in English-speaking markets. This is not the case here. And EN also says we should use the name that is most common in the English language: this is Orizuru Osen, since almost all English sources give this title, while some give Downfall of Osen and some give Osen of the Paper Cranes. Why are you in favour of using the title that would likely be less familiar to English-speaking readers than the actual title of the film that is used in every one of the English-language sources? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All the English-language sources that I've seen use The Downfall of Osen, and it has been released stateside, so I stick to my vote 100%.  F i l m F a n  17:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What English-language sources are you talking about? All the sources cited on this page give Orizuru Osen, and only a few give The Downfall of Osen. You know perfectly well that that DVD has not been released "stateside". It is a Japanese DVD, released by the Japanese company Digital Meme, and just happens to be available in the US through Amazon.com and probably some other import services. The company has as its mission statement to "bring [cultural and artistic legacies from Japan for the first time to global audiences"] -- this is why their DVD has subtitles in English, Chinese and Korean: do most American DVDs of Japanese movies have Korean subtitles but no Spanish, German or French?? Plus, it gives the title as Orizuru Osen, and gives The Downfall of Osen as a subtitle in tiny text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the English-language sources translate this name, so should we. A title that looks like gibberish to most readers is no better than a catalogue number. Ich weiß dass nicht (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Comment by sock of community banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Japanese film, Japanese name.Jionpedia  ✉  08:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This argument puts mindless polynationism ahead of communicating to readers. I doubt many Japanese can read the proposed title. When this RM is closed, you can propose a move to the actual Japanese title, 折鶴お千. 211.20.73.13 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — 211.20.73.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. May I ask how you came across this RM? Anyway, English Wikipedia doesn't use Japanese text in its article titles. It does, however, use romanized Japanese when that is the only common title used in English sources. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Papasrune (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC) — Papasrune (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For the record, this is obviously a sock of either Kauffner or JoshuSasori. There are so many SPAs/previously-unknown IPs voting in the RMs on this page, and it's worth noting that Kauffner had a tendency to vote against IIO any chance he got, and JoshuSasori would do the same to me, both regardless of whether they had any legitimate reasoning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to think every oppose vote is a sock puppet.  F i l m F a n  16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Notice how I didn't accuse you or 70... of being a sockpuppet. Only the ones who have never posted anywhere else before this. Please read WP:AGF before claiming I am making bogus accusations. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, notice the rampant sockpuppetry in the two previous RMs on this page, the sockpuppet who requested that my move be reverted, and the fact that both myself and IIO have had dozens of socks of these two users follow us around over the past few months. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I second Hijiri on this point. Papasrune is almost certainly a sock, and almost certainly controlled by one of those two editors. I'd take this to SPI if I could do better than a 50/50 guess as to the sockmaster. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support change to "Orizuru Osen" This name seems more common than "The Downfall of Osen". "The Downfall of Osen" produces 185 results on Google, "Orizuru Osen" 324 results on Google.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I am relisting this discussion, as there is an unusual presence of new or single-purpose accounts in the discussion thus far. I am therefore semi-protecting the page for the duration of this extended discussion to insure that the views expressed reflect some experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. bd2412 T 12:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What a mess
Okay let's try and sort out something from the above. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Votes/Comments

 * Comment - 70.24.244.158 (real editor, longterm contributor)
 * Oppose - Film Fan (real editor, longterm contributor)
 * Support as nom - In ictu oculi (real editor, longterm contributor)
 * Support - Hijiri88 (real editor, longterm contributor)
 * Support - Jionpedia (real editor, longterm contributor)

I wish there was more participation than this, but as it stands, I see a consensus to move the article. bd2412 T 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no consensus. Making a new list of the votes you personally think hold more weight does not create consensus.  F i l m F a n  19:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The exclusion of apparent SPA and sockpuppet votes is objective, and is well-established policy. Also, I didn't make the above list; I merely agreed with it. bd2412  T 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy according to who? And they're clearly not socks.  F i l m F a n  23:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPA, which stats that "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored causes, which is not allowed". Cheers! bd2412  T 13:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)