Talk:Makoto Kibune

Name
Should we change his name from Kibune to Kifune. Wikipedia corrected it and said it was a mistake on part of their editors, and seeing as how we probably named him Kibune because that's how wikipedia had it. I think we too should change his name to Kifune after all that's how it sounds when they say it in the anime. Any one else think so? WhiteStrike 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any objections to that. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the way a lot of people are used to anyway, since that's how Dattebayo originally translated it as well. Arrancar109 00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there was no objection, I will go ahead and move the article WhiteStrike 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct name is Kibune. Check official Pierot site. Look. Reading of hiragana is obliviously "Kibune Makoto".--Nirrge 04:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above poster. All references in Japanese refer to his name as きぶね in furigana - the second of which 'fu' characte r carries the dakuten to make it a 'bu' sound. I have no idea why people think he was called Kifune in the anime since Kira clearly says Kibune on several occasions, and even his CD release says in english text "Kibune". Kifune came about simply because the second kanji on its own reads as 'fune'- ship. However it is common in compound words in Japanese that the first sound of the second kanji changes. Kifune was simply a mis-translit.Vraie 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kibune Makoto
Additional 24/7/09 but why does this page still say that his name is Kifune? There isn't a single Japanese source which calls him that, ever. In the spoken dialogue he is clearly referred to as Kibune several times by Kira and others, and on the furigana for his name it's written Kibune. Ditto his CD release says, in romaji, "Makoto Kibune".

It confuses me why this has not been edited. Aside from being a pretty elementary Japanese reading error...it makes this site look a bit silly if it can't even get the name of a character right...

Unless of course the original Japanese is considered to be less valid than the opinion of Wikipedia on this one...Vraie 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)