Talk:PureBoys

Naming convention
All Japanese names in Wikipedia are represent in western format, as per: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Do not revert names of modern figures to Japanese format. Inviolata (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PureBOYS → PureBoys — As per Naming conventions, Naming conventions (abbreviations), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) and Manual of Style (trademarks). All capitalized "BOYS" in this case is a trademark style choice, not an acronym, thus should be lowercased and have the capitalized name redirect to the properly named article (eg. D-BOYS, NEWS, TOKIO. —Inviolata (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support, per nom. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because there is no way of telling whether it should be PureBoys or Pureboys, and we can't invent a spelling. Timeineurope (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm suggesting "PureBoys" because they're clearly supposed to be two words mashed together and differentiated by the alternate capitalization, not one run-on word as "Pureboys" would make it (see graphic in the bottom at pureboys.jp). In either case, nothing says Pureboys can't redirect to PureBoys too or vice-versa - the important is whether it be "boys" or "Boys", neither one makes "BOYS" the correct capitalization to use on Wikipedia. Inviolata (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that whether we use PureBoys or Pureboys, we would be violating WP:OR, which is why we are forced to keep the article at PureBOYS. In cases like that of TIME magazine, there is only one way to write it without using all-caps, namely Time, so original research doesn't come into it. However, with PureBOYS it's not obvious what the de-capped version would be, so a decision would have to be made, and such a decision would violate WP:OR. If we decide to use the spelling PureBoys, it would be original research, because, as you admit, Pureboys would also be a valid possibility. And if we decide to use the spelling Pureboys, that too would, as our decision, violate WP:OR. Arbitrarily deciding which way to de-cap a name is original research. It's against Wikipedia policy. Timeineurope (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The official typeset, as well as the graphic pointed out by Inviolata clearly convey a composite of two semantically distinct words, the second being rendered in all-caps. Normalizing that part, resulting in a CamelCase rendering is well in line with WP:MOSJP. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To draw a conclusion from this evidence is a violation of WP:OR. Timeineurope (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, of course. Completely within "policy" to follow standard English instead of cowtowing to a Japanese graphic designer's whims. Tigeron (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is within policy to 'follow standard English', it is not within policy to arbitrarily decide on one of the two spellings PureBoys and Pureboys. Timeineurope (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and WP's conventions. Nothing arbitrary about camelcasing the word, since the logo pointed out above, as well as items on the News section of the home page (Especially, DVD titles like "Pure BOYS Back Stage") make it obvious that Pure and Boys are separate words; even if the inclusion of a space seems to be somewhat erratic.  Simple logic like that is WP:NOTOR.  In fact, NOTOR gives a pretty fair rein for capitalization and spelling, to bring an article in line with our standards. Neier (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per everybody except Timeineurope and his interpretation of OR. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.