Jump to content

Talk:Ojamajo Doremi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MizuAmina (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 11 November 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shouldn't we have a seperate page for the English dub? It's very different from the original, and I just can't find a place in the article to put a section on the English dub. (anon)

Not a separate page.. Maybe we can describe the characteristics of the dub in a section, but this must be written with the names of the characters in the dub as this is the English Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 12:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Must we have the ghastly English dub names? And can't this article be under the correct title Ojamajo Doremi? I disagree that because this is English wikipedia we should have the vile bowdlerized dub terms predominating. A *lot* of anime fans in the west (ie:me) know this series through fansubs in its original vastly superior original Japanese form. And besides, the (spit) English dub is a totally rewritten and mutilated shadow of the original. In short, a totally different entity.

Ojamajo Doremi forever! (spit!)Mutilated 4kids dross never!

-irritated anime fan who wanted to read about the *real* Doremi thankyou very much.

I agree. We should be using the original names and the original title. After all, some of the characters don't even have a dub name yet. I really think we should change the overall entry and refer to the characters actual original names instead of the dub ones. If you'll let me, I'm going to change the names in the paragraphs describing the characters to their original names. After all, before this was edited, the names had been the original ones. Amina 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why would this be a good idea? Sorry, but most people who speak English know of the dub. WhisperToMe 15:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in actuality most people that speak English that come to Wikipedia know of the original. Besides, it looks so messy the way you've made it. I sincerely think we should change it back to how it was. Anyway, I think we should have a vote to settle this matter. Whatever side has the most votes by the end of the month wins and the article is changed or kept the same accordingly. Besides, look at all the complaints about it. Everyone should have a valid opinion in this matter, not just you. Amina 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are reading about it. :) You JUST DON'T KNOW IT! (Ever noticed how there are constant comparisons?) WhisperToMe 02:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doremi rocks my socks!

Doremi rocks my socks!

- Ho Yan Chan


Dub Name Musings

After reading up some on the dub Doremi I am wondering how much 4Kids knows about Doremi. It's just that the girls and the fairies have a name pattern now (Dorie - Dodo, Reanne - ReaRea, Mirabelle - MiMi) so I don't know if they relised that Pop (Caitlyn) becomes a witch later in the show with a fairy called FaFa so wouldn't it be better to call her name begining with Fa? Like Faith, Fay, or perhaps Farrah? That said Lala's name was changed to Lorelei and Majorika's to Patina and they don't match (also Lorelei doesn't have the octave pun in her name) but it will be silly if Caitlyn ends up with a fairy named CaCa. (Yes I also posted this over at http://mmpu.smuncensored.com/forums/) GracieLizzie 16:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment to Original Terms

It is confusing that both parenthesized original terms and bare original terms exist in one article. Isn't there improvement method? --Kasuga 11:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Use Original or Dub Names and Titles

Please see the debates above for more info, then vote. Votes will be counted by the end of the month and then the article will be changed or kept the same accordingly.

For Dub Names and Titles:

For Original Names and Titles:

  1. Amina 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]