Talk:Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten

Name

According to policy, the article title shouldn't be Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia (which, since there doesn't appear to be any other edition, would probably be better translated without "of the" in the name), but rather Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

Indeed, but let's start with the reasons of the name.

First, in the English translation I added the of the because of two reasons:

1. Having a more fluent title
2. Most importantly, if you lok at the Template:Media link, you'll see that indeed the Perfect Ban part is put aside from the main title and is referred to the book as a whole, thus to the Daijiten. The idea was probably stating that the book covers all the characters of the time, without using names too similar to those used by Shogakukan before, such as Template:Media link. Since in the Template:Media link it is stated that Perfect Ban is part of the full name of the book, I added the of the to clarify the actual meaning of Perfect Ban as reported in the cover of the book

When it comes to the translated name being used instead of the romanized name, I was told from admins of an higher rank to use the translated name. I can understand why this would be suggested, as even if it is not covered by the policy, using the translated name, along with the actual name written in Japanese which is added in the introdcution or in the description of the uplosded images, helps readers of the wiki who don't know Japanese to immediately recognize the content and scope of the book. With that being said, if you think it is better to enforce the policy, I won't prevent nor stop you from doing so.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (EDT)

Since romanizations are supposed to be used as the title, it does stand out among most of the foreign names in the category. That said, the translation should be easily visible in the introductory paragraph and as a redirect. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

I'd honestly prefer it stayed as it is, it's more understandable to our readers and is already a bit of a cluster to type and link to, it doesn't need to be any more convoluted. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

What makes this title deserve special treatment over others? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

Because this one's already a cluster enough in English, without having to remember which letters have dashes over them. I wouldn't be able to link images to it ever again. Besides, given that the name a description of what it is in this case, rather than just a name, it's easier to have the description. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

It will be the top search result when searching for the word "Perfect" and there are trickier titles out there (this one also happens to lack those dreaded macrons). If it comes down to personal preference, that's not a good enough reason to make an exception. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Except it won't be a search result until the entire title is typed out if it becomes a redirect. And remember, the title is basically a pile of descriptors, which would function better for the wiki if in English. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

Effectively, a revision of the policy to take into account both Western readers' interest and correctness toward the source material might be the way to go. At the moment there is an ongoing proposal on naming so we'll have to wait, but I was thinking about three possible solutions:

1. Adding the possibility of using the translated name even as the main page's title, provided that in said main page the actual Japanese name is given;
2. Enforcing the current rule only for the main page's title, allowing elsewhere the use of the translated title and the use of the romanized name, depending on which is deemed the most useful;
3. Strictly enforcing the current rule.

In all cases the current romanized titles won't be touched, thus not mandating additional work. If you have other ideas we can discuss them, since we have time to do so.--Mister Wu (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2017 (EDT)