Her name should probably be read Ukitsu, not Ame + Tachibana. The tag and TLs should prob be updated accordingly.
I've had a discussion with some translators in danbooru whether we should change the name to Ukitsu Misaki. I questioned whether we should change it into "Amebashi Misaki" or "Ukitsu Misaki".
My first was response was from kinsei who said...
kinsei said:
Minus forgetting to delineate one of the list points and a capitalization error, it looks... fine to me. Except for the family name. I'm not the best at name readings and I'm pretty sure there's a number of ways you could conceivably read 雨橋, to the point that I'm not 100% sure what the intended reading was, but I think "Amebashi" from post #7591890 is more accurate than what was there before and what's there now (I imagine it was a case of mistaken kanji on both counts).
I've latter replied it could be eighter one of them and kinsei disagreed to it being ukitsu.
kinsei said:
I'm... still not convinced the latter is correct. "U" is a valid reading for "雨", but "kitsu" for "橋" is not. Which is why I think they're misreading the kanji there.
another joined in and we had proposing "ukyou"
ultraHF300-3 — Could be "Ukyou" Maybe they were thinking of that when they ended up with Ukitsu? Kinsei — Aaaah. You're right. It could be "Ukyou", and I find that a far more likely reading.
But was latter turned down upon with more evidence. That being the grave stone which was pointed out by ultraHF300-3 where her surname ends with an "i".
Hence making Amehashi/Amebashi more evident.
I then latter proposed an External translation from mangadex The translator seemed to chose Amebashi. So in the end we decided to go with "Amebashi Misaki" with all the evidence spoken within the topic.
I am curious if images such as this should have the 1boy tag or some type of tag to denote a disembodied arm/hand. I feel like it is not reflected in the currently available tags. Thoughts?
That is obviously intended to be a male's hand, that's why it's shaped and colored just like a generic male hand. It's not an assumption when it's visually identifiable.
That is obviously intended to be a male's hand, that's why it's shaped and colored just like a generic male hand. It's not an assumption when it's visually identifiable.
Basically what I was thinking, but wanted a second opinion on it.
