WiKirby talk:Naming policy

Happy New Year, everyone. Recently, there was a proposal to "adjust naming policy to prioritize romanized Japanese names over internal data names". Since I missed it entirely and I think two months is too long to wait, I'm starting an aftermath discussion. I'll be voicing some disagreements and pointing out the issues with its implementation so far.

The first issue is right in the title of the proposal: "romanized" Japanese names. The main issue is that many articles purporting to use the Japanese title are not romanized, but translated. There is a significant difference between the two: one is based on a system to render the Japanese characters into the Roman alphabet, the other is more subjective and open to interpretation. For example, "Sodory" is an acceptable romanization of 「ソドリィ」 (Sodorī); in contrast, 「ウミウシ大魔獣」 (Umiushi Dai Majū) can mean "Great Sea Slug Monster", but one can also translate it as "Ocean-slug Big Demon Beast" or any variation thereof. And then there are transliterations that are less systematic than rōmaji: a typical romanization of 「ワドルディ」 is Wadorudi, but because 「ワドル」 (wadoru) is understood to be an English loanword, it is usually rendered "Waddledee" internally. For that matter, Giant Flotzo is a translation of 「巨大フロッツォ」 (Kyodai Furottso), not a transliteration, and then there are made-up names like Cyborg Flotzo, which comes from a perceived meaning of 「フロッツォボーグ」 (supposed to be a portmanteau like Whispyborg) but not its romanization. The fact is the majority of internal filenames are already romanized or otherwise transliterated for us, and basically serve as renderings official to the developers. In such cases, they are a huge help in avoiding unofficial spellings; for example, we know to use the name "Barbar" solely because of the internal data for it and its variants, not because of the Japanese title, which can be rendered "Baru Baru", or "Val-Val", or other such variations. The only honest thing to do here is to state the title of that article, among others, comes from internal data. As such, I reject the notion that "it is hard to argue that internal names are really official" when the majority is accounted for. I will get to the minority later, but regardless, the inconsistent definition and implementation of "romanized" is a problem.

The second issue is the premise that "internal file names are typically difficult to source, and many of the ones we use here are not sourced properly for that reason." First off, I imagine the most Japanese sourcing the average English wiki user can do is change the system language of their Nintendo Switch, which has very limited applicability to certain recent games. Second, we already don't properly cite the sources for Japanese names: like internal data, a "Japanese title" template is all that suffices. I think this is a very flawed system because often we actually don't know where these names are really coming from. It seems these are originating from Japanese wikis and fansites willy-nilly, which is far from ideal. In fact, this crosses over to the next point about "Japanese names tend to be the only ones available" - those in-game names will most likely be officially translated, making it moot. In terms of official sources, one can easily counterargue that "Japanese names are typically difficult to source, and many of the ones we use here are not sourced properly for that reason." If an article title must resort to Japanese, care should be taken to cite where it was used officially, and frankly many of them come from game guides that are not always accessibly acquired. Heck, even some English names and claims are difficult to source now that Miiverse is no more. I'd go as far to say that, if wikis and fansites did not exist, it would be likelier for an English-speaking fan to be familiar with filenames.

To address some miscellaneous misunderstandings, the developers at HAL certainly pay close attention to the names they use internally for their games. Yes, some placeholders do get in there, but oftentimes they are obvious and hardly do they ever last more than one game. For example, Mamanti was known as "Briterri" in Triple Deluxe, but it was changed to Mamatee in Planet Robobot (which is more closer and actually reflects its UK name); additionally, NESP was known as "Esper" internally in Planet Robobot, but this was soon changed in Star Allies (though Esper is still used when changed to Dutch). There is no reason for developers to do this otherwise. Sometimes, when the deviation is minor, this is really not worth splitting hairs over; for example, Sheld/t. It's still rendered as "Sheld" in multiple games since its inception, yet it was recently changed to "Shelt" due to this proposal (though again, that's not standard romanization). Meet Marx: his name in Japanese is 「マルク」 (Maruku), but he has the same phenomenon where every game since his inception (also thanks to filenames) has rendered his name as "Marx" despite that not quite being an exact translation, because it was a good way to preserve the nuance that his name is off from 「マーク」 (Māku). Indeed, the rub is that most filenames are simply are simply more understandable to English-speakers than Japanese and are not expected to be 1:1 even to Japanese. Which names make more sense to you? Big Chip or Chippurus/Chippurusu? Elebli or Biripper/Birippā? Then take Big Bouncy - the Star Allies filename even matches the English name given on page 34 of the Kirby 64 Prima guide, leaving no doubt that they're the same entity, but the problem is twofold - there is a Japanese name from an unknown source currently marked as unofficial (formerly what the title was based on), and the vague internal data (or Japanese title) template obfuscates citations that would show the name Big Bouncy comes from both. These things must be stricter to avoid a potential "Encyclopedia" situation in the future.

Of the NIWA wikis, I think the Super Mario Wiki has the best application when it comes to this, and hopefully many of the same users feel the same way. This involves a tighter control over citing Japanese and precise romanizations so unofficial titles do not seep through, and allowing the use of internal names on a case-by-case basis if they are suitably English (in my opinion, reuse is more than enough). I also believe an overhaul of the existing "Japanese title" / "internal data" template is in order to better present our sources more openly. It doesn't have to be an exact copy, so I'm open to ideas on crafting this addendum before the time comes to make the proposal. AdieuLain (talk)