Talk:Gintama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Gintama is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Clearing up jargon

there are a few words in the Gintama articles that haven't been explained for people who haven't read the manga (ziyo, bakufu, etc.), could someone please clear this up?--Spyderchan 21:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gintama vs. Gin Tama

Should be moved to match official U.S. title ("Gin Tama"). As that already exists as a redirect, I have no idea how to go about this short of blanking and pasting it in place of the redirect page. I have a feeling this is not standard procedure; could someone more knowledgable take care of this for me? -SA- 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)-SA-

• The correct name is in fact Gintama. No spaces. DJLarZ 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the "correct name" is Gintama, why does VIZ Media use "Gin Tama"? WhisperToMe 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct romanization is in fact GinTama (more commonly used as Gintama), with no space. Under Wikipedia Guidelines, the correct title for the article would be Gintama, though it should give a special mention to Viz's title Gin Tama.

Viz often doesn't go with the direct romanization of Japanese titles, usually changing the titles into something they would find more befitting for American audiences.

Although, the Wikipedia title for the Gintama article is up for bids ^_^. Meaning, majority wins: If the American title is what the people want, it's what they get (I'm not about to change something that'll get changed back >.<). DarkAngel007 07:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, why do you say "Gintama" is correct? Also, if 銀魂 is silver soul (and therefore two separate words), why do "Gin" and "Tama" have to be "together?" WhisperToMe 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the title is a pun on the word kintama, or balls. Viz is probably worried that people will assume Gintama is the main character's name, which is why they've separated the two; the difference is largely cosmetic. Doceirias 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think that has any bearing on how it can be capitalized, as two words at once can still be a pun for one word, and vice versa. I.E. "Tess Tickles" (if that is the name of a character) could be a pun for "testicles," but that doesn't mean "Tess" and "Tickles" have to be together. WhisperToMe 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said it was cosmetic. Grammatically speaking, "silver souls" would be Gin-iro no tamashii, so this has made a new compound word. This is another reason why people have been spelling it as Gintama so far, but it doesn't mean Viz's choice of spelling is any less valid. Doceirias 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the correct romanization is Gintama. Only VIZ uses Gin Tama, I've never heard of the series referred to as such anywhere else, and many people don't even read VIZ's translations. In any case, VIZ only holds the license in US and Canada, but the usage of English wikipedia is not limited to these two countries, so I don't see why VIZ's romanization should be used as the official wikipedia romanization. Also, as Doceirias pointed out, 銀魂 is a pun on 金玉 (kintama), and if you would have it, the direct translation of 金玉 would be golden balls, which are technically two English words, but 金玉 is in fact a single noun in Japanese. As a case in point, 黒船 (black ships) is romanized as kurofune. And lastly, aside from the article title and the first mention, the entire article refers to the series as Gintama, so for the sake of consistency, I'm moving the article back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gintama, unless anyone is up to the job of changing every single mention to "Gin Tama". --Lareine 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the move, I must point out that 金玉 being "a single noun" is a tad debatable. If it was truly a single noun, it would be "kindama". Not sure if you understand how dakuten work, but it all ties in with that. --SeizureDog 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But if publication increases under the Gin Tama name, I.E. if the UK and Singapore get the title under that name, or if the anime is commercially released, then the move MUST happen. WhisperToMe 11:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the dakuten would apply here. To my knowledge there is no rule necessitating the use of a dakuten after ん in a single noun. Examples are: 勤怠 (kintai; diligence) and 深潭 (shintan; abyss), both of which are single nouns (although the concept of single nouns is itself ambiguous). As for 金玉, it has two pronunciations, kintama (testicles) and kingyoku (gold and jewels/precious object) - would kingyoku be considered a 'single noun' or a 'double noun'? I believe the definition, if there is one, would concern the meaning more than the pronunciation. My original interpretation was that even if a noun can be translated to an adjective and a noun in English (銀魂, silver soul), it can still be a 'single noun' in Japanese. --Lareine 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You threw me off there for a minute, but I was able to find an example to the contrary: 善玉 (ぜんだま, Zendama^?, good person).--SeizureDog 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, examples to the contrary do not in any way disprove anything Lareine said. Doceirias 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying the dakuten makes the whole thing a word. Gin and tama are fully capable of standing on their own; a dama however, is not, as it is only found as part of a word. This is not to say that Gintama isn't one word, it's just saying that it's not worded in a way that it couldn't be anything but one word, so the claim is debatable. Of course, it's not like I'm an expert on where to seperate words when writing Japanese as romaji, but whatever.--SeizureDog 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point regarding how the dakuten it makes the whole thing a word. Either way, the entire concept's fairly ambiguous, so if another debate regarding the title arises in the future, I suppose the justifications will have to be based on other reasons. --Lareine 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)