Talk:Beyond the Labyrinth

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 July 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Requested move 1

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 per request. As noted, where there is a common English language version of a title we use that. All of the sources in the article use Beyond the Labyrinth and a news archive search lends strong support as well. Because of the move warring evident, move protection will be placed. If there is a convincing argument for a subsequent move, please make it in a formal request and gain consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth no Kanata → Beyond the Labyrinth – Article moved again without discussion; won't revert, instead starting a RM. WP:ENGLISH : "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language"; WP:TITLE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage.." WP:VG/GL: "In general, use the official English title when available." MOS:JAPAN:"You should generally honor the current anglicization used officially by that party as it will often be the form in common usage in English-language reliable sources." The English sources use "Beyond the Labryinth". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while not being particularly impressed by the (apparently controversial given edit summary) moves without discussion, it does appear that this is a Japanese entertainment product with Japanese menus and dialogue and no English version? Is that the case? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way, yes. I'm not sure it's relevant though, we still base the decision on English sources. I'm unaware of any policy/guideline that asks to name the article following the language used in the product. I'll further quote the VG/GL and MOS:JAPAN guidelines in the nom (but they just say the same thing). WP:VG/JP and common English-title naming practice is how this has been dealt before. This might be controversial if there were few sources, or they used different titles, but they all use English version. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Labyrinth → Labyrinth no Kanata – There is no "Beyond the Labyrinth"! It is not a thing that exists. The phrase "Beyond the Labyrinth" has absolutely no connection with the game known as "ラビリンスの彼方". All of those guidelines mean nothing because they do not talk about these situations ever. Do not let fake sources make up titles when we already have perfectly good ones! It doesn't even have anything to do with the "language in the product" or whatever, it has to do with there being ONE title only: "ラビリンスの彼方". Why don't people understand this? Despatche (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, "ラビリンスの彼方" says "Rabirinsu no Kanata". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons in previous move request. As AA already pointed out, if we strictly wanted to do an untranslated title, it'd be with Labyrinth untranslated as well. Arguing "the sources are wrong we should ignore them" is not an argument that is going to get anywhere any time soon. SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH. I worked on this article back in 2011 when it was nominated for deletion, and even then, in English language sources, it was primarily referred to as "Beyond the Labryinth". Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. Unless there was no other English title in any form, we'd go with "Rabirinsu no Kanata" or "Labyrinth no Kanata". But there is. So we're using "Beyond the Labyrinth". If we truly had to, though, the original title would have to be romanized from Japanese to English for this site, right? —017Bluefield (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same argument as in the request before, common name as decided by sources. I do not see the merit of the rationale that guidelines mean nothing or sources are fake. It's not shown why the guidelines shouldn't matter in this case or why the otherwise fine sources are unusable here. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Against Redirect/Deletion

So, it looks like over a week has passed, so it may not be an issue anymore, but an editor attempted to redirect the article, and then was challenged, and the redirect was undone. I'm strongly against the redirect, there are plenty of third party sources present, and more that can be found. Just giving my two cents, in hopes that, if it comes up again, I will be pinged, or a general discussion will occur, as there is visibly present opposition present now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what was the redirect intended to go to? —017Bluefield (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tri-Ace page, which I apparently also said 4 years ago, isn't a great idea considering how short and bare that article is. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Interesting. —017Bluefield (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

The article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) --210.10.133.132 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources/Further Research

Feel free to use these to aid further research or to improve the article

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying all these sources are reliable or super relevant, probably more digging needs to be done, I just mean that these are rabbit-holes people can go into)