Talk:Takezo Kensei

Do we need to sic the "Kensai" spelling in the quote? Since they're both Anglicised, either is correct, but I can see how it might dissuade people from "correcting" the spelling.--Hardvice (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• Maybe we can remove it for now, and if there's a problem we can put it back? --Fcphantom 13:40, 24 January 2007 (EST)
• Given the flexible nature of the English spelling, I'd make one name a redirect to the other, specify that both spellings are valid in the introduction, and drop the sic. --Ted C 14:39, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • I say drop the "sic" and add a note. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2007 (EST)

Formal Name

Out of curiosity, what's the source we use to identify Takezo Kensei as Miyamoto Musashi? --Ted C 14:40, 24 January 2007 (EST)

• I'm not the one who added it, but from my research at wikipedia, this assumption seems valid. Disney42 19:46, 24 January 2007 (EST)
  • I added it. Searching for Takezo Kensei (and Kensai) on Wikipedia yields the article on Miyamoto Musashi. The article on Musashi has info that seems consistent with what Hiro says about Kensei, but there's not much to go on from Hiro's monologue. I don't have any other sources, but I'd say that Wikipedia usually has correct info. If anybody can find more info on it, I'd appreciate it. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2007 (EST)
    • I was the one that posted the redirect for Kensei (which btw is an incorrect spelling and most probably a production error) to Musashi's page on Wikipedia. I also linked the Takezo Kensai character to Miyamoto Musashi on Wikipedia's Godsend page. In the talk page I discussed and gave some good points about why Takezo Kensai are one of the same. Here's my quote:
      Just a follow up on Miyamoto Musashi. I noticed in Godsend, when Hiro sees the sword on the armour for the first time, the scene changes to a placard with: Takezo Kensei (1584- [sic]. Note two things, one is that the name is misspelt as Kensei. I assume this is a production error because later on, subtitles correctly spell it as Takezo Kensai. However, the important part is the birth year 1584. Miyamoto's birth year is also 1584. I don't think that's just a coincidence.
      --Takagawa-kun 07:14, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Character?

Should he be in the character categories? ---- 19:08, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I don't think so. Heroe 19:19, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I put him in the character category because he's the original owner of the sword. Afterall, he is (was) a person. I think he's also a reference, since he's a figure from history. I'd keep him as both. As for the portals, I don't really care how that's taken care of. Personally, I think it should be in both. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I agree. Mr. Petrelli's a character and he's dead, too. Ditto Shanti Suresh. They're people who are important to the story.--Hardvice (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2007 (EST)

However, I disagree. This guy is more of a legend than someone who could directly influence the story, other than his sword. ---- 00:09, 25 January 2007 (EST)

...so far.--Hardvice (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Really, the only differences between Takezo and the others Hardvice listed are that Takezo is much older, and that he's a figure from history. However, I don't think age should matter, and we're not even sure he's really a real person. He's may be Miyamoto Musashi, but even historians can't be sure. (In fact, maybe that's why the writers chose him, so they can be ambiguous about the character's past.) I say that the original owner of a major plot point like the sword is definitely a character - especially in a show where time travel is possible. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2007 (EST)