Forum:Consistency in Translation

So here's an issue we have on this wiki. There's no consistency on what gets translated and what doesn't. No matter which side you're on (translated or direct), you have to agree that every article should match. We use "Kairoseki" instead of "Seastone". We use "no Mi" instead of "Fruit". We say "Santoryu Ogi: Rokudo no Tsuji" instead of "Three Swords Style Secret Technique: Crossing of Six Paths". On the other hand, we have "Devil Fruit" and not "Akuma no Mi". We have "Fishman" instead of "Gyojin". We use "Thousand-Year Trees" instead of "Sen'nen Boku". If we're going to translate some of them, we can't be selective. We have to translate them all. If we're not going to, then put the others back into Romanized Japanese. Now, I'm personally for translation, but I'm just here to open discussion for now. 23:45, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I support translating everything except for the Devil Fruits, since those are more debatable (would we change Gomu to Gum or Rubber?) and keeping the "no mi" is consistent with the name itself. The term "Devil Fruit" isn't really as difficult to translate, so it stays as Devil Fruit. I think there was a topic on this not too long ago.

But everything else? Yeah, those can be English. Why the hell do we have Kairoseki? I don't even think the weeaboos use that. 01:05, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Ryu said one or the other therefore if something is untranslated then he wants it all translated or everything untranslated. Attack names are also the same situation with Devil Fruits anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 01:18, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I said that I wanted to open discussion. I'm not pushing for anything other than acknowledgement that we do, in fact, have inconsistency on the wiki. Specific cases can be fought over (Should Whitebeard be Shirohige? Should Akainu be Red Dog?), but for now, let's look at the big picture. Do we want to translate or not? 01:51, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

In general, I support translating. Stuff like Kairoseki definitely needs to go. I disagree with Nada on the fruit names (that was my forum, btw). However, I think it might be best to leave technique names untranslated, because they tend to include so many foreign words. If we translate the Japanese, then why not the French? And the parts that were originally in English won't stand out anymore if we translate everything.

I'd like to bring up two highly debated cases, though: Yonko and Shichibukai. Now, Yonko has a pretty simple translation, so I might support translating it. But Shichibukai - Would we use the inexact but appealing "Seven Warlords of the Sea" or the literal but awkward "Seven Military Seas"? 02:19, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I also think that the way we handle techniques right now is best. A lot of them are puns, too, which would be lost if we translated them. I'm still on the fence, though, about fighting styles. Santoryu or three-sword style?

I think I would prefer "Seven Warlords of the Sea", but I don't have a good argument for it other than it sounds better. 02:56, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

It seems there's also some inconsistency when it comes to translating fighting styles: Rokushiki, Hasshoken, Santoryu etc. aren't translated, but Black Leg Style, Life Return, Art of Weather etc. are. 03:21, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I brought this issue up in the past, but apparently it was passively forgotten eventually. I agree, we need to completely revamp the naming process. All Devil Fruit names are in pure Japanese, so why not half the fighting styles? Or better yet, reverse the entire process, turning it all into Gum Gum Fruit, Three Swords Style, etc. since this is an English website. 03:48, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

* shrug * I think it's fine the way it is. From what I can tell, the only articles left with untranslated titles are the ones about things or concepts of strictly One Piece-original naming (Like in Japanese, you wouldn't really see the word Yonko, Shichibukai, or Kairoseki outside of One Piece context, ever). I do the same thing when I'm trying to translate SBS pen names; I translate the ones that make sense in and out of context and I leave the totally made up ones that I can't decipher. It's like "Sushi" haha, there is no suitable translation so we just use the Japanese name. The only exception I see here is Santoryu; it exists out of One Piece context and makes perfect sense to even non OP fans, so I would change that to Three-Swords Style. 04:37, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

So, JOP, how do you feel about World Noble, Pirate King, and Brownbeard? 04:43, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure fighting with three swords like that is original Oda. SeaTerror (talk) 04:51, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

World Noble (Sekai Kizoku): Both Sekai (world) and Kizoku (noble) exist separately and can stand on their own (as opposed to Rokushiki for example, where although Roku (6) can stand on its own, Shiki doesn't really work by itself) so it should be fine as is (translated)

Pirate King (same deal as above, Kaizoku (Pirate) Ou (King) both can stand alone and mean something so translated is fine)

Brownbeard: Now this one is kind of tricky, I don't exactly have strong feelings for either side but since it's basically the same as Blackbeard (kurohige) which is an existing concept but only Black replaced with Brown, I say translated is fine for this as well. 05:00, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

And to ST: I dunno, maybe it is @@ but going from the brownbeard stuff^ I'd say Santoryu isn't a new concept either, only inspired (Two Sword Style [Nitoryu] definitely exists elsewhere hence Santoryu makes sense out of context) 05:02, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to say that we don't have to choose consistency everywhere. What we can choose is to strive for greater consistency than what we have now. But perfect consistency is practically unattainable. We can (and have) chosen inconsistency for years. Most manga/anime culture revolves around some level of inconsistency with translations. I think things like Kairosekai should be translated to English, because it smoothly translates. The ease of translating things like Attack names vary, so I understand why we have one rule that forces us to leave all untranslated. I think case-by-case decisions is acceptable for this, we just have a few cases now that need reevaluation. 06:33, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Being english i sometimes have trouble finding the article i want because they are in Japanese but it really isn't too hard. The only thing that i would say is just redirect the english names to the Japanese titled article. Most of them seem like they do already so i really don't see that big of a problem.ASL Pirates (talk) 13:41, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

If attacks and techniques are left untranslated then you can't translate Santoryu either. The article title would say three sword style while the rest of it would be untranslated for each attack. SeaTerror (talk) 20:14, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Kairoseki doesn't really smoothly translate because the literal meaning is different from the commonly known term (Seastone vs Kai 海 Sea Ro 楼 Watchtower Seki 石 Stone). And to ST: why can't the title be translated and its contents partially "untranslated"? The literal translations are right next to the attack names in articles anyway. I agree with ASL, redirects should do the job. 22:11, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to use literal translations every time. And we don't; Celestial Dragons would literally be "Heavenly Dragon Folk", but we use the simpler term. There was a poll about leaving it untranslated recently, but "Celestial Dragon" won 12-1. Similarly, we don't have to leave Kairoseki untranslated nor call it "Sea Watchtower Stone". We can just call it Seastone - It's simple and it works. 22:53, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Because that's doing half translations. Which is exactly why so many people were against translating the Devil Fruit names. SeaTerror (talk) 00:16, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'm mostly against translation and, if we had to pick between "all translated" and "all romanized," I would prefer reversion of all terms to their romanized versions. Let's look at this from a real-life standpoint. There are plenty of terms from foreign languages that we don't bother translating. For example, taichichuan (or taiqiquan, whichever romanization you prefer). The individual Chinese characters for it have their own meanings, yet we don't go around calling it "supreme ultimate fist." This would also apply to objects (we don't translate katana) or titles without an English equivalent (we translate the Chinese Huang Di to Emperor, but we don't translate Shogun). Treating the world of One Piece as another country, I feel as though we should also not translate terms specific to it. Kairouseki, Shichibukai, Santouryu. We're not finding these things in real life, so we should treat them as foreign terms. Having a note on the page providing the closest English equivalent would be fine. MizuakiYume (talk) 05:45, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

^agree 15:50, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Too bad we don't all know Japanese like you two. 16:59, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Kage, even if you don't know japanese, you know what people mean when they say "sushi", "ninja", "samurai" or "karate", right? 18:09, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But those are terms that relate to aspects of the Japanese culture and have been borrowed into other languages decades ago. "Kairoseki", "Santoryu", "Yonko" etc. aren't part of the Japanese culture, they're part of the fantasy world of One Piece. And they're formed from words that have clear English equivalents. 18:44, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

If you support Yonkou being translated then you have to support Shichibukai being translated since they are both titles. SeaTerror (talk) 19:04, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Yonko translates to "Four Emperor(s)" and Shichibukai translates to something like "Seven Military Armed Sea(s)". The former has a simple literal translation, while the latter just doesn't sound right if you translate it literally. 19:58, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

They're both titles therefore they have to be treated exactly the same. SeaTerror (talk) 20:42, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Not really. We should just translate on a case by case basis. This all depends on how well the term in question translates. Four Emperors sounds just fine in English but Seven Military Armed Seas makes no sense in English and sounds like word salad. 21:21, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Ok. So as long as we create all necessary redirects and mention the most popular english translations in the first couple of words of the article as we already mostly do, I still don't see a problem with the untranslated article titles. Same goes with attack names. See my arguments above. The real problem I'm seeing here is the term (original or translated- and if so, which?) we want to use when we refer to the object/technique/place/idea in  other articles. Now there, I can see a problem for English-only speakers. Though they'll probably be able to find out what the word means as soon as they enter the term into our search bar (or even just click the already provided link), this is mostly a matter of convenience. We can go about this several ways:


 * 1) Leave all the terms untranslated. Let the readers do the work of finding out what they mean if they're interested enough.
 * 2) Still use original terms, but note the meaning of the word when first used in any given article. (I imagine this can cause a clutter.)
 * 3) Use the most popular or widely known translation.
 * 4) It depends on the situation.

Personally, I don't really mind the use of translations when referring the the word in other articles, but as others have pointed out, there are just some words out there (i.e. Devil Fruit names, etc.) that'll take some getting used to, while for other terms, it will definitely be hard to find a good, solid translation that we can be confident in consistantly using. 21:29, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear. This is no problem with untranslated article titles. There is also no problem with translated article titles. This is entirely an issue of preference, and it's obvious that the community is split. 22:44, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Bahhh. Are we talking about article titles or the usage of original vs translated terms on the wiki in general? @@ 22:53, March 6, 2015 (UTC)