Talk:Colonel Sanders statue lost in 1985 recovered from river in Japan

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Title[edit]

Title is POV and speculative. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The title was changed from "Dotonbori releases Colonel Sanders statue, is curse lifted?" to "Colonel Sanders statue lost in 1985, recovered from river in Japan" by DragonFire1024. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, "Dotonbori releases..." sounded nice to me, but I think the new title is modest, moderate in good meaning. This one seems to be the best. Thanks. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Category Food[edit]

We'd better avoid risk of playing a role of an advertiser. Categorizing this article into Food may result in leading visitors (who hope to read food-related news) in vain and offering them commercial for KFC instead.

This news article doesn't say anything about food. The fact that a food company was involved by accident is not enough. If the news were about food poisoning, it would be natural to categorize the article into Food, though. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes no difference. KFC is a restaurant, which serves chicken, which is a food. Where in the caregory food does it advertise anything about KFC? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've not yet got an answer to my question: why this article is categorized into Food while it says nothing about food itself? Categorization needs a real connection. News on a farmer sowing his corn is not to be categorized into Temple or Dog just because of a nursery rhyme.
Advertisement doesn't need a direct mention on goods or services a company provides. (If it does, a subliminal advertising is impossible). When a visitor finds this article in Category Food, the visitor is thinking about food. Reading this article, the visitor may feel KFC Japan is a nice company and think it must be providing nice food. That's an advertising effect. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotation[edit]

Dear Dragon, I understand why you modified a direct quote part I edited before. Also my first choice was "Hanshin." But.... Generally, word-to-word transcription is not always the best way to convey what a person means. This time I preferred "the Tigers" because:

What he meant to say was 'Sanders must back the team up because Sanders is a gentleman.'
No other part referred to this team by name without using "Tigers."
"Hanshin" is ambiguous. This Japanese word is used to mean a wide area under various definitions, and appears in names of the team, the stadium, the team owner company.

Maybe indirect quotation is better for this part. This part must have been spoken and was written down in Japanese. The source reporter (of Mainichi) may have abbreviated or changed words. And, I confess I had a problem when translated "honrai" into a single English phrase. (His "honrai" sounds like "truly" but not emphasizes it's a truth, sounds like "by nature" but not implies 'from birth.') Being fairly close to the original might be an impossible task for Wikinews editor, except for the case of Original Report. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A quote is a quote. What someone says cannot be changed because it does not sound right. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You'd better read another opinion carefully. I never changed this part because his words sounded wrong to me. As to quotation, both you and I consider that 'what someone really said' is important. Don't stick to the impression that another guy must be mistaken.
I repeat. Copying a quote from a source is not always the best and only way to convey what someone said. Thoughtless copying may result in no sense especially when languages differ. If someone says in Japanese that something is iroha of baseball, and we convey it in English, we have no choice but replace "iroha" by an English phrase (e.g. "ABC"). "Ukiyo-e" can not be replaced in a direct quote, but this "iroha" should. Such replacement is desirable also when a loan word can mean another thing in English: a five-story "mansion" -->> a five-story apartment house. A rule of literal no-change is sometimes not convincing.
Back to the article, using "Hansin" here in accordance with the source (as my first choice) is not a must. In Japanese, people often call a professional baseball team by the name of the home place or of the owner company: Yokohama, Hanshin, etc. In English, MLB for example, place names are shorten in acronyms (e.g. TB, NYY), but calling a team only by a place name is not an established custom. BOS is called Red Sox more often than Boston, isn't it? "The Tigers" is nothing to be discarded here.--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Review[edit]