WiKirby talk:Naming policy

Regarding recent change to naming priority

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)

StrawberryChan's response

This isn't going to be a super clean-cut response, but I will do some minor point-by-point comments here while it's on my brain. Mostly I agree with you, but this is kind of an issue where you have to get into the weeds about it, and I agree that there isn't really a one-size-fits-all solution here.

• For starters, "translated" instead of "romanized" is definitely the proper terminology to use here, and the general approach we take when going with all Japanese content (see the song pages I've made, such as "Four-Headed Guardian Angel: Landia" and "Fly! Kirby of the Stars"). This makes things easier for an English-speaker, but it ultimately comes down to personal opinion as to what the best approach is. I think it's agreeable, at least, that "Great Sea Slug Monster" is an acceptable translation of Umiushi Dai Majū and preferable as an article name. For loanwords, I agree things like Cyborg Flotzo should be moved to the direct translation, like Flotzoborg. I've stated my preference to use filenames as reference for translation of Japanese names as long as they match, with Grandy being a good example (it's technically "Grand Dee" in the same way as "Waddle Dee", but "Grandy" is how the filenames write it). But they shouldn't be used in my opinion if there is an obvious mismatch with the Japanese name. Something like "Big Chip" is clearly a placeholder, whereas "Chippurus" is a distinct name; not all filenames are placeholders, but the ones that are make themselves apparent, like Mamatee as you've brought up.
• The point about sourcing filenames and sourcing Japanese names, I don't really care either way. Difficulty or ease of access shouldn't be a factor. The filenames require breaking into the game's code, while Japanese names require sources from guides or videos or other wikis if all else fails; both need about the same amount of effort. Filenames aren't ever intended to be seen by players in the first place, which gives the point in favor of Japanese names that have been officially used outside of the game files.
• I already talked about placeholder mismatches and English understandability, so skipping that... "Marx" is written as such in the Japanese version of the game (The Arena lists all enemy names in English), so that point is moot. Filenames are generally not meant to be official and, from the examples you've given, are only renamed after they've been given official Japanese names; in other words, the current policy right now. I would definitely like tighter citations, since the "Mario Encyclopedia" situation was definitely a mess, and Mario Wiki's enhanced naming policy is the best approach I've seen; perhaps it would be more appropriate to leave Japanese names romanized/untranslated. Big Bouncy, failing an official Japanese name, is fine to use the internal filename with a proper source, but if we use Japanese names we should provide sources for them as well, whether they be from official guides or other sources. This is what I do for music pages already.

To sum it up in general, I prefer translated Japanese names that get the original meaning across as closely as possible, including loanwords. Filenames can be used as reference, but shouldn't take priority over translated Japanese names if they do not match. It doesn't matter which is more easily accessible; the idea is to use the most official name at all times, and filenames are often placeholders not intended to be seen by players, whereas Japanese official names are consistently used. We should more carefully cite our sources whether using Japanese names or filenames. StrawberryChan (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Samwell's response

Okay. I've had a look through what you've written here, and before I attempt to respond to it, let me post a summary of your points, just to make sure I've not mistaken you:

• Point 1: Some Japanese titles on the wiki have been translated inconsistently, and internal names should be used to guide the proper translation.

• Point 2: Many Japanese names on WiKirby are not properly sourced either, and internal data names are often easier to cite.

• Point 3: HAL takes care to give appropriate internal names to entities most of the time. We should take care to make sure our translated names are proper too in order to avoid publications taking incorrect names from us.

• Point 4: WiKirby's naming standards should be adjusted to be more like that of Super Mario Wiki. The ForeignTitle and DataTitle templates should also be changed to allow for better sourcing.

Responding to point 1, I agree that translations can be iffy, and not all of them may have been done correctly. To that extent, I think the current naming policy does go a way to address this when it says the following regarding internal names: "However, these may be used as additional sources to back up names from above points." (above points referring to higher priority names, in this case Japanese names) It should be noted that this is not always possible, particularly with the example you used of the Great Sea Slug Monster, as there is no internal data accessible to us that can help clarify its name, so a subjective translation is necessary if we don't just want to use the basic transliteration to refer to it.

Regarding point 2, I agree that we could do a better job sourcing the names we've been using, and it may not always be possible to track down the official name, Japanese or otherwise. In that case, policy would suggest that the name we've been using is conjectural, and therefore does not take precedence over an internal data title. I think all articles that use the ForeignTitle template should be properly sourced, and an internal data title can be supplemented if a source cannot be found for an official name.

Regarding point 3, perhaps there is a little misunderstanding regarding the use of the word "official" in the policy. Typically when that word is used, it is referring specifically to names used by HAL or Nintendo in published material that is readily available to the public. Internal data names can be argued to be official in the sense that they are names provided by HAL, but since they were not meant to be seen by the consumer, they should not be given as much or more weight as an official publication. It should be noted again that these internal names are still considered to be non-conjectural, but only to be used as a last priority in the event that a more official name cannot be found.

Lastly, regarding point 4, I agree that the ForeignTitle and DataTitle templates are outdated and could be adjusted to better explain the title's origin (if not flat out discarded in place of citations or other cliffnotes). We can discuss specifics of the naming policy further down the line, but at this moment, I do believe that the spirit of the policy is still in the right place.

To conclude, I believe based on what you've written that most of your issues with the wiki come from mistakes in implementation, rather than the policy itself. Up to now, WiKirby has not exactly been a "professional" encyclopedia, and I think most people understand that those who contribute here are volunteers who are not getting paid for their work and do not (usually) commit full time hours to the task. I mention that not to excuse the mistakes that happen here, but to explain that this has been a very messy process, and that basically none of us are world-class encyclopediaticians. We can work to improve the way we do things around here, but there's only so much we can do at a time, and help would definitely be appreciated. We do not have the talent pool that larger wikis like Super Mario Wiki do, and we are open for help with citations and the like. Perhaps you could assist by finding sources to link to pages that need them, so we can move things to more proper names. I'll leave that up to you. --Samwell (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

YoshiFlutterJump's response

Suppose that, being the EiC, I should probably comment on this. You bring up some good points, but ultimately I agree with StrawberryChan and Samwell on virtually every account here. Yes, we need to fix our issues with name sourcing, and yes, translations are often subjective. But as Samwell said, I don't feel internal data names can qualify as official considering they were never meant to be seen by the public. You're free to make a new proposal about this once the 8-week cooldown period ends, but otherwise I think the new policy should stay. As for the issue of translation versus transliteration, that's a discussion for a new proposal entirely. --YFJ (talk · edits) 19:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)