Welcome to Bulbapedia, Satorukun0530!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  --ZestyCactus 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)  
 

Changes

Perhaps you understand this already, but when every page we have does a thing, like these translations, please try to recognize these established patterns and respect them, don't just remove a part of it outright. You're more than welcome to ask about it on a talk page; we're always happy to answer questions if you think something can be done better. Please try to be more considerate of this sort of thing in the future. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still making my way around. But it!s my understanding, based on the pages I've read, that the translations should only be different from the official English name if the official English name is not a literal translation. See Alola Route 1 for instance: it doesn't begin "Route 1 (Japanese: １番道路 No. 1 Road)" just for the hell of it. It doesn't appear to be the case that "every page we have does a thing"; pages do different things based on their content, in this case whether the official English name is in some way different from how a literal translation of the Japanese would be. If you have some argument to make that "After You" is less accurate as a translation than "Go Ahead" then you should present it. Is it convention to keep some in-line record of the original fan-made translation from before the English versions of Black and White were released, as was apparently the case with that article? Satorukun0530 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
You're talking about something completely different from what I am.
You removed the translation of the Japanese. That is not correct. All of our pages include that, even if it's the same as the official name. (Route 1 is, in fact, a perfect example of just that.)
That's all I'm saying. I've not made any comment about the suitability of any translation for After You's Japanese name over any other translation; I'm only saying: removing it completely is not correct. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
But I didn't remove the translation of the Japanese. I removed one of the two translations of the Japanese, because I thought it was redundant.
I can agree with the logic of providing a literal translation in addition to the English name in those cases where the English name is not already a literal translation (i.e., not the After You article), and I can even work with a convention I don't agree with (i.e., writing the English name twice in such cases, or preserving preliminary fan translations after the official English name is known), but if there is such a convention you should just say that, and preferably tell me where I can find out about how that convention was decided upon. Bulbapedia:Romanization is the closest I can find, and from what I can tell it was pieced together unilaterally by a non-admin back in 2011.
Satorukun0530 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. Didn't notice that you already had answered my question regarding the difference between After You and Alola Route 1. Thank you! Satorukun0530 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Bulbapedia:Manual of style/Romanization, note that it was created by the former Editor-in-Chief of Bulbapedia TTEchidna at the time he was Editor-in-Chief (and in 2009—I don't know where you got the idea it was created in 2011). He is no longer staff, however.
The reason it's important to have the translation even if it's the same as the English name is that omitting it gives no indication that is the case. In fact, omitting carries the implication that the translation is unknown, not that it is the same as the English name. --SnorlaxMonster 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. My mistake. I had in my head that it was created by someone who hadn't edited since 2011, and somehow that turned into "it was created in 2011". But it having been written in 2009 is even worse; it definitely needs to be updated to accurately and comprehensively reflect current practice, regardless of the status of the editor who wrote it at the time they wrote it. And it still contains factual inaccuracies (use of official English spelling referred to as "romanization", Hepburn not being widely used within Japan, etc.).
Regarding why it's important to have a translation: Well, that's your opinion. I personally think giving the Japanese and not giving a specific translation after it implies that the main English title is an accurate translation. Giving the English, followed by the Japanese, followed by an old fan-translation that differs from the English and was apparently used on Bulbapedia in the short term while the official English name was unknown is also not a good idea, but I can see from the fact that my latest edit hasn't been reverted yet that this was just an accident of history and that we are in basic agreement on this point. Giving any translation in italics is problematic because it gives the impression that it is romanized Japanese and that the Japanese name is just English written in katakana (Magic Guard has this problem). It also looks very much like a phenomenon I've observed on Wikipedia where the Nihongo template is not formatted correctly so that the translation text appears in the parameter that's meant to be for romanized Japanese text.
None of this is currently outlined or explained in the MOS. On Wikipedia I would present a proposal for an amendment on the relevant talk page (actually on Wikipedia I would make the amendment myself and only discuss if someone challenged the amendment), but is it really standard practice to contact a member of the Editorial Board here? The talk page for MOS has been edited only 25 times in three years, so I can't imagine a rogue comment by me would be noticed, and even if it was it would lead to any kind of spirited discussion of the merits and demerits of italicization. (Again, I don't want to request that the page be amended to say something I don't think it should say; currently, if it were descriptive, it would say what you two have told me and that the translation should be in italics, but I'm in a tough spot if I want to amend it to say something different when it doesn't currently say anything.)
Satorukun0530 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there does not seem to currently be any policy page outlining the usage of Japanese names on Bulbapedia pages. There is this proposed policy that essentially outlines the current conventions (even though the conventions seem to have not been written down anywhere).
Regarding the Romanization policy page, I would recommend leaving a message on the talk page, but I'll address both of your concerns. Your correction of the false implication that Hepburn isn't used in Japan has been kept on the page (although it was only an implication and never an explicitly false statement). Romanization doesn't necessarily mean a systematic romanization, so the way official Japanese media renders Japanese names in Latin letters can be accurately described as romanization. --SnorlaxMonster 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd just kind of like to emphasize, yes, please do use the talk page. Refraining from using a talk page out of fear that it won't be noticed is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Try it first. They're an easy place for any/everyone to respond, as opposed to users' talk pages where it's usually polite to try to let that person respond. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
https://m.bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Satorukun0530&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile
m.bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
33198
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:64TY6LBIIG5FXBRMKRIR2H7QXSYIKRL7
<urn:uuid:0b425740-2b57-4cc9-8146-7ecddbe3e888>
2021-08-04T18:57:28Z
172.67.75.96
text/html
sha1:DKSJTPVETW45UKLAPHJK2GWRBNCD2CC2
<urn:uuid:052c1b5d-14cd-43ff-a1e3-9093ecf53a41>
https://m.bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Satorukun0530&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile
response
<urn:uuid:b7c0eabe-a5b2-4fa7-8776-2cdec3a56528>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-169.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/