Actually Ken I didn't say "you need a source to show it's a mistake", but others have.
What I said was, originally, that you didn't cite any source for any part of your complaint.
Of course now you've cited a table.
However, reviewing the talk log you pointed at, I see that some editors believe there is an issue with the transliteration. That is, there are people, using the transliteration-table, who are on the exact opposite side of the question. It's not quite so cut-and-dry as you first made it appear.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
2008/7/19 WJhonson@aol.com:
Actually Ken I didn't say "you need a source to show it's a mistake", but others have.
What I said was, originally, that you didn't cite any source for any part of your complaint.
Of course now you've cited a table.
It's still OR; he's taken the original japanese, the table and synthesised a new spelling.
The only way to prove it's not OR is if he cites a reliable source that did it before.
Will Johnson
2008/7/19 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com:
2008/7/19 WJhonson@aol.com:
Of course now you've cited a table.
It's still OR; he's taken the original japanese, the table and synthesised a new spelling.
The only way to prove it's not OR is if he cites a reliable source that did it before.
Just out of curiosity: why do you need to cite a reliable source for every transliteration? This is a one-to-one transformation without interpretation, isn't it?
Michel Vuijlsteke
2008/7/19 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org:
2008/7/19 Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com: Just out of curiosity: why do you need to cite a reliable source for every transliteration? This is a one-to-one transformation without interpretation, isn't it?
I don't know, is it? It's OR to make that determination. You'd have find another source and apply that as well.
The rules are there for a good reason.
To change an article name like this, in the face of common usage, he needs a one-stop cite.
A lot of people just don't get this. The English language is chock-a-block full of mistakes that were kept; most of it is ill-translated French.
And the wikipedia is about verfiability, not truth. I expect he's right. But we don't have an acknowledged expert that has verified it.
Michel Vuijlsteke