Talk:Tetsusaiga Talk:InuYasha#Naming_Conventions
Summary: in the Inuyasha series, a sword is named the "Tessaiga".
The English licensor made a mistake in the translation, calling it "Tetsusaiga".
One person insists that because that is the official English translation, the article *must* be called by the incorrect name; moreover, since we don't have a reliable source for the name being a mistake, we can't even treat it like an incorrect name. (Note that hiragana in Japanese is phonetic and the name lacks ambiguity.)
I can see how the rules can be read that way, but this is clearly being mindlessly literal, secure in the knowledge that the wrong result is In The Rules, so nobody can stop it.
And the same guy has been at it for years; here's one from 2004: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/tessaiga .
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Talk:Tetsusaiga Talk:InuYasha#Naming_Conventions
Summary: in the Inuyasha series, a sword is named the "Tessaiga".
The English licensor made a mistake in the translation, calling it "Tetsusaiga".
One person insists that because that is the official English translation, the article *must* be called by the incorrect name; moreover, since we don't have a reliable source for the name being a mistake, we can't even treat it like an incorrect name. (Note that hiragana in Japanese is phonetic and the name lacks ambiguity.)
I can see how the rules can be read that way, but this is clearly being mindlessly literal, secure in the knowledge that the wrong result is In The Rules, so nobody can stop it.
And the same guy has been at it for years; here's one from 2004: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/tessaiga .
This doesn't seem to be a case of rules literalism; The official article naming convention says put things at their common English language name, not correct name or official name or any of that.
WilyD
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Wily D wrote:
This doesn't seem to be a case of rules literalism; The official article naming convention says put things at their common English language name, not correct name or official name or any of that.
That's not rules literalism? What else does rules literalism mean, other than blindly doing something just because the rule (in this case, the "official article naming convention") says that? Common sense says that we don't perpetuate mistakes. It would be a different argument if the English translator had intentionally changed the name (though even then it's a bit questionable), but this isn't an intentional change; it's a *mistake*.
Besides, you're choosing a very strained interpretation of the rule. I would say that a "common English name" is a word that has become part of the English language, and can be found in dictionaries and similar places. A character or a sword in a manga would have no common English name at all.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Wily D wrote:
This doesn't seem to be a case of rules literalism; The official article naming convention says put things at their common English language name, not correct name or official name or any of that.
That's not rules literalism? What else does rules literalism mean, other than blindly doing something just because the rule (in this case, the "official article naming convention") says that? Common sense says that we don't perpetuate mistakes. It would be a different argument if the English translator had intentionally changed the name (though even then it's a bit questionable), but this isn't an intentional change; it's a *mistake*.
Besides, you're choosing a very strained interpretation of the rule. I would say that a "common English name" is a word that has become part of the English language, and can be found in dictionaries and similar places. A character or a sword in a manga would have no common English name at all.
The point, of course, is that the official article naming convention says no such thing. I would not call "taking a random action, justifying it by rules which do not exist" "rules literalism".
Dictionaries aren't very helpful for words less than ~20 years old. The zeroeth order test favours Tetsusaiga about 3:1 http://www.google.ca/search?q=Tetsusaiga&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf... vs http://www.google.ca/search?q=Tessaiga - other tests may be more instructive. The discussion page in question doesn't present any reason we should believe its either accidental or deliberate, and it doesn't matter anyways. Lots of names are made in error, but go into English as that error.
WilyD
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Wily D wrote:
The discussion page in question doesn't present any reason we should believe its either accidental or deliberate
Is it really a plausible scenario that everything else was just translated except for one word, which was deliberately mistranslated in a way which just happened to correspond to a common Japanese/English translation mistake?
What the discussion page does is more rules abuse: it claims that since we don't have a reliable source claiming it's a mistake, we're not allowed to treat it as one. Reliable sources are not required to make decisions about inclusion and non-inclusion (otherwise everyone would be saying "you can't use a Google test for that unless you have a reliable source stating the result of the Google test).
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Besides, you're choosing a very strained interpretation of the rule. I would say that a "common English name" is a word that has become part of the English language, and can be found in dictionaries and similar places. A character or a sword in a manga would have no common English name at all.
Well, it can also include translated proper names, not just things that have become part of the English language and show up in dictionaries. The "use common names" rule is strongest when something /actually/ has a common English name, though.
In cases where a particular English translation is well established, we use it even if it could be argued that it's somehow "wrong"---for example not everyone is happy with the title [[The Stranger (novel)]] as a translation, but it's so well established as to be obviously the right place to put the article. The same goes for lots of other novels, works of philosophy, etc., that have conventional but in one way or another "wrong" English translations to which a minority of people virulently object. In a different example, we also tend to use Western name order for famous individuals who are conventionally referred to in that order in English media, and use nonstandard transliterations of personal names if they've become standard in English for that person.
In the case of this sword, though, it'd be hard to argue that there's a particularly "common" translation or "standard" English name, so some sort of more systematic/mechanical transliteration is probably best. That's also what we also do with more obscure real people who don't have clearly established English versions of their names.
-Mark
We have the flip side of this in another article, where a firearms enthusiast is going ballistic over usage of the term "clip" as a synonym for "magazine" in firearms. He is technically correct - in the engineering sense, a "clip" is a different type of hardware used for a slightly different thing. But common usage has blurred the line and they're used interchangably by a large portion of people with firearms.
He wants to stand on principle and deprecate "clip" as a synonym, despite its widespread common usage. We keep telling him that that's not how Wikipedia works - we reflect common usage, and report where technically correct terminology differs. But he's riding the line on abusive behavior trying to keep it out.
-george
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Besides, you're choosing a very strained interpretation of the rule. I would say that a "common English name" is a word that has become part of the English language, and can be found in dictionaries and similar places. A character or a sword in a manga would have no common English name at all.
Well, it can also include translated proper names, not just things that have become part of the English language and show up in dictionaries. The "use common names" rule is strongest when something /actually/ has a common English name, though.
In cases where a particular English translation is well established, we use it even if it could be argued that it's somehow "wrong"---for example not everyone is happy with the title [[The Stranger (novel)]] as a translation, but it's so well established as to be obviously the right place to put the article. The same goes for lots of other novels, works of philosophy, etc., that have conventional but in one way or another "wrong" English translations to which a minority of people virulently object. In a different example, we also tend to use Western name order for famous individuals who are conventionally referred to in that order in English media, and use nonstandard transliterations of personal names if they've become standard in English for that person.
In the case of this sword, though, it'd be hard to argue that there's a particularly "common" translation or "standard" English name, so some sort of more systematic/mechanical transliteration is probably best. That's also what we also do with more obscure real people who don't have clearly established English versions of their names.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There are thousands of cases where a mistranslation or mistransliteration has caused the standard English name for a character or book or place or name to be different than in the original. That's why we need a rule, and have one, to avoid arguing over he merits of each individual instance. Once a mistake has been adopted in the english language, there it is. When the standard changes, as it sometimes does, in response to increased knowledge or a desire for increased precision, then we change it here. The point of a manual of style is to avoid these discussion every time or we'd spend all our efforts on this, instead of substantial content.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 1:33 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have the flip side of this in another article, where a firearms enthusiast is going ballistic over usage of the term "clip" as a synonym for "magazine" in firearms. He is technically correct - in the engineering sense, a "clip" is a different type of hardware used for a slightly different thing. But common usage has blurred the line and they're used interchangably by a large portion of people with firearms.
He wants to stand on principle and deprecate "clip" as a synonym, despite its widespread common usage. We keep telling him that that's not how Wikipedia works - we reflect common usage, and report where technically correct terminology differs. But he's riding the line on abusive behavior trying to keep it out.
-george
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Besides, you're choosing a very strained interpretation of the rule. I would say that a "common English name" is a word that has become part of the English language, and can be found in dictionaries and similar places. A character or a sword in a manga would have no common English name at all.
Well, it can also include translated proper names, not just things that have become part of the English language and show up in dictionaries. The "use common names" rule is strongest when something /actually/ has a common English name, though.
In cases where a particular English translation is well established, we use it even if it could be argued that it's somehow "wrong"---for example not everyone is happy with the title [[The Stranger (novel)]] as a translation, but it's so well established as to be obviously the right place to put the article. The same goes for lots of other novels, works of philosophy, etc., that have conventional but in one way or another "wrong" English translations to which a minority of people virulently object. In a different example, we also tend to use Western name order for famous individuals who are conventionally referred to in that order in English media, and use nonstandard transliterations of personal names if they've become standard in English for that person.
In the case of this sword, though, it'd be hard to argue that there's a particularly "common" translation or "standard" English name, so some sort of more systematic/mechanical transliteration is probably best. That's also what we also do with more obscure real people who don't have clearly established English versions of their names.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, David Goodman wrote:
There are thousands of cases where a mistranslation or mistransliteration has caused the standard English name for a character or book or place or name to be different than in the original. That's why we need a rule, and have one, to avoid arguing over he merits of each individual instance. Once a mistake has been adopted in the english language, there it is.
Rules are always subject to IAR and common sense. You should never respond to "that doesn't make sense" with "the rules are there so we don't have to decide whether it makes sense".
The difference between Tetsusaiga and other examples of mistranslations is that the correct name is still fairly widely known and used. The wrong name, since it's published by a corporation, has spread enough to become common, but it's not so common that the correct name is unknown except to scholars. Common sense says that it's not our job to spread misinformation. The fact that a name is wrong should tilt the scale towards not using it, even if other factors sometimes outweigh this. For most mistranslations, the wrong name is *so* exclusively used that the other factors do outweigh this, so it makes sense to use the wrong name. Here, this is not so.
2008/6/25 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
We have the flip side of this in another article, where a firearms enthusiast is going ballistic over usage of the term "clip" as a synonym for "magazine" in firearms. He is technically correct - in the engineering sense, a "clip" is a different type of hardware used for a slightly different thing. But common usage has blurred the line and they're used interchangably by a large portion of people with firearms. He wants to stand on principle and deprecate "clip" as a synonym, despite its widespread common usage. We keep telling him that that's not how Wikipedia works - we reflect common usage, and report where technically correct terminology differs. But he's riding the line on abusive behavior trying to keep it out.
c.f. [[Linux]] being where it is about what it is, with [[GNU/Linux]] being a redirect to it named in the second paragraph.
- d.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
Summary: in the Inuyasha series, a sword is named the "Tessaiga". The English licensor made a mistake in the translation, calling it "Tetsusaiga". One person insists that because that is the official English translation, the article *must* be called by the incorrect name...
I was about to say, "Clearly, the article should be named 'Tessaiga', with a redirect from 'Tetsusaiga'.". But I see the situation is currently the opposite.
One of my fantasies for Wiki software is a way for one article to have two or more names, with absolutely no distinction as to which is the "primary" or "secondary" name, precisely so as to be able to utterly defuse situations like this...
(Yeah, I know, it still wouldn't work; a sufficiently obstreperous editor could edit war to get an allegedly-unofficial duplicate name removed. But it's a pleasant thought...)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
One of my fantasies for Wiki software is a way for one article to have two or more names, with absolutely no distinction as to which is the "primary" or "secondary" name, precisely so as to be able to utterly defuse situations like this...
Kind of like how Ulinbsdix has the distinction between hard links (one file with 2 names) and symbolic links. (a pointer to another file)
2008/6/25 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
Talk:Tetsusaiga Talk:InuYasha#Naming_Conventions
Summary: in the Inuyasha series, a sword is named the "Tessaiga".
The English licensor made a mistake in the translation, calling it "Tetsusaiga".
One person insists that because that is the official English translation, the article *must* be called by the incorrect name; moreover, since we don't have a reliable source for the name being a mistake, we can't even treat it like an incorrect name. (Note that hiragana in Japanese is phonetic and the name lacks ambiguity.)
It's not about 'official' it's about *common* usage.
If you google it for example. I get 115,000 hits for Tetsusaiga, but only 79,000 for Tessaiga, so it looks like the article should be at Tetsusaiga, but with a significant second term Tessaiga mentioned at the top of the article.
It's like dictionaries, they don't *define* a word, they just note common usage. That's all encyclopedias do as well. If the translator had made a mistake, but nobody used it, then it shouldn't be in the wikipedia... but unfortunately...