Talk:Baro (Prime)

Untitled

Wouldn't "Burrow" make more sense, what with him being a drill? Or even "Burro", like the proposed name for the redeco of Mol? --Sabrblade 09:53, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Name

What reason was given for changing this name to "Bulo"? There's no official romanization that I've seen, and the kana used in Japan specifically denote him as "Baro"/"Balo". Nor is "Bulo" really any closer to the Japanese pronunciation. What gives?

Shortening of "buffalo" (バッファロー). —Interrobang 02:16, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

You misunderstand. I understand where the name "Baro" came from - I'm just not clear on why you chose to alter the name on the wiki from the correct romanization to one that's incorrect from a pronunciation standpoint. Was there a discussion somewhere where this was decided to be "better"? --BraveMax 02:35, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

So we have links for "Bulo", which lead to a page for "Balo", which is listed as being pronounced "Baro". I think we should just pick one and go with it. I'd vote for "Baro" across the board. -- Shellspark 01:37, 21 April 2012 (EDT)

But then we utterly lose the intent of the name, which is completely unnecessary when "ro" can be romanized as "lo" or "ro" in Japanese. - Chris McFeely

Considering that the "Bu" in buffalo is pronounced using the "ba" kana (as is true for many "bu-" words, I don't really see the truth of the "that's not how it's pronounced" claim. It's how you would approximate ˈbʌ.loʊˈ in Japanese. I think we can communicate the intent of the name better with Bulo, and just have a note on that it is pronounced with an ʌ, rather than an ʊ. Besides, he's a bull buffalo, so "Bulo" would strengthen that implication as well.KrytenKoro 18:44, 31 July 2013 (EDT)

Moves

Any comments before I move all of the inconsistent AM articles to straight romanizations? Saix (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2016 (EST)

... read above...? --ItsWalky (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2016 (EST)

How about you don't? Christ. --M Sipher (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2016 (EST)

You mean a discussion from three years ago? Look, there's zero consistency with how those names are being romanized here:

• Baro - Bulo (but is instead at Balo because)
• Baru - Bal
• Bido - Bid
• Dado - Dud
• Dai - Di
• Gobu - Gob
• Gora - Golla
• Gura - Gra
• Guru - Gle (Gul)
• Jigu - Zhig
• Zado - Zad

So, which one is it? Either we try to bash the names into English-based spellings or don't bother because it's too based in Japanese wordplay. Or we can just leave snide comments instead of discussing. That always works. Saix (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Then let's discuss who fucking cares? No, really, what the fuck does it matter? This is precisely the kind of hyper-pedantry that doesn't mean a goddamn thing, helps absolutely no-one, and wastes time. This is not productive. This is furniture-shuffling, and frankly I'm about to start handing time-outs over this shit. AT BEST any of this warrants a Note at the end remarking on the vagueness that comes from these Japanglish manglings, and I'm pretty sure most pages already cover that.

You want to do something actually productive? There's lots of fiction sections missing material. There's god knows how many toy writeups that need accessory listings, general writeup filling and Anchor tags so someone seeing "this toy was also used to make Mirage" doesn't suddenly find themselves at the top of a forty-screen long page instead of at the toy you'd think the link would have led to. Do something USEFUL, aka "not this". --M Sipher (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (EST)

"Who cares about character name spellings that people will use because the wiki spells it that way"? Really? I've contributed plenty to this wiki, from content to organization, so cut this fucking bullshit about how I'm just a furniture-shuffler. If you don't actually care about the name spellings themselves, then why are you being aggressive about this like with seemingly everything else? How does it affect you or your ability to contribute to this wiki? (Answer: It doesn't.) Editors can prioritize different things because it's all ultimately a volunteer effort about toy robots. Saix (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2016 (EST)

There isn't a consistency because "consistency" is probably a terrible way to translate stuff, since generally "understanding" is more important, one would think. Like Siph said, this is not something we need done. --ItsWalky (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Neither system is really conductive to understanding. Saix (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2016 (EST)