Transcription is phonetic by its definition. There's actually NO way to "follow transcription rules strictly" because even same language pair may have several different transcription systems each with their own advantages. Go check "si" vs. "shi". And Hepbur is, actually, very bad at being transcription of Japanese to English, so anyone who use it is, actually, ignoring transcription rules, not following them. I don't think that removing mentioning other systems than Hepburn is good either. Actually I have to remind you once again, that old discussions was about replacing Hepburn with wa-puro as much as possible, except for some case that are just in too wide use, because of some Hepburn built-in disatvantages and that idea was pretty much supported by everyone, who worked with japanese at that time. What good reasons you have to come now to replace it with something inferior, saying - "I don't care, I alone know better"? "Non-standard" is not good. Previous conventions ARE stadnard. Just other standard from Hepburn, it is just nobody cared to replace field description or document those when those conventions were reached - everyone who worked on japanese titles knew all this already. "More easily recognized" is not good either - even subbers, who introduce titles to fans seems to mostly use same rules. So what good you want to do with your changes that in part actually conflict even with technical limitations set by exp, like use of macron? --Rowaa[SR13] 23:54, 31 Jul 2005 (CEST)
- You, sir, are a nut. --Pelican 01:32, 1 Aug 2005 (CEST)
- I'm eating greengages at the moment. ...just thought you guys might like to know. Right, point by point:
- Transcription is phonetic by its definition An utterly false assertion. Phonetics ..."is concerned with the actual properties of speech sounds (phones) as well as those of non-speech sounds, and their production, audition and perception, as opposed to phonology, which operates at the level of sound systems and abstract sound units". Transcription need not be phonetically accurate. The IPA system and similar aim to be as detailed as possible, but transcription systems between languages are almost always phonemic, and are in the case of all romanisation schemes used for japanese.
- actually NO way to "follow transcription rules strictly" As in, obey the rules of a particular defined system, as opposed to (as we do in anidb) seletively ignoring some of them. Wikipedia follows the modified hepburn rules strictly, fansubbers almost never do.
- very bad at being transcription of Japanese to English False. In fact, it's a much better transcription system for western readers (ie, those who need the roman script anyway), and loses exactly the same in transliteration as Kunrei-shiki.
- replacing Hepburn with wa-puro as much as possible Don't be silly. Any time you think you should be using waapuro, you might as well be using kana instead.
- "Non-standard" is not good You're option is no more standard than mine. Less so, even.
- in part actually conflict even with technical limitations set by exp, like use of macron This I can only presume you're misunderstanding. Go read the section heading that the macron rule is under again, whydoncha.
- Anyway, you appear to be on the vodka tonight, can we resume the debate tomorrow please? --Rar 02:58, 1 Aug 2005 (CEST)
- It seems to me, Rar, that you are really do not understand difference between "phonetic" and "phonetics"; and "transcription" and "transliteration". If you didn't knew, Hepburn is much more close to transliteration than to transcription. "karaoke" is transliteration, transcription in english would be along lines of "kah-rah-oh-kay". You have 3 tries, try to guess which one is Hepburn. --Rowaa[SR13] 16:03, 1 Aug 2005 (CEST)
- Apparently the vodka has not worn off yet, as you're still talking rubbish. Seriously, unless you have a point here, just be quiet about the definition of terms that you obviously don't understand. In the unlikely event you actually want to take some information in, read a language textbook or something. Hey, just a good english dictionary would do, if you ignore the colloquial usage. --Rar 17:04, 1 Aug 2005 (CEST)