Talk: Rules

Lock

The main rules page has been locked. As they impact every contributor, rules are not something that should be changed regularly, regardless of how small the changes may be. Changes to the rules will only be made after extensive discussion. Feel free to discuss the rules on this talk page, all members are welcome to voice their opinions on either the existing rules, or propose alternative rules. Sylvanelite 13:15, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Rationale

• 1-Naming: Romanisations do not take into account spelling or grammar, or other such context that makes the name correct to an English-speaker. They are simply Japanese words written with English letters, and as such, are unreliable. Unofficial translations are subjective and often contradict one another, and therefore cannot be reliably cited.

This Wiki revolves around the use of many different contributors and users. This is the reason why popularity is a useful and reliable criteria for picking the naming convention.

• 2-Notability: If something is difficult to navigate it becomes difficult to edit and information becomes unreliable (for instance, if an article is unnecessarily long, a new page splitting up the content makes it much easier to check the correctness of). If a new page only contains repeated information, then to edit one page requires a user to edit two pages, obviously reducing the integrity of the wiki. If a new page does not contain information, then if, in future, someone wants to make the same page, they first have to find the old page and bring it to conform with their future page, making edits more difficult, and thus should be avoided (as well as making problems with navigation).
• 3-Speculation cannot be cited, by definition, and therefore cannot be taken as fact. Furthermore, official material is not made to be robust to inferences made by its fans (it is made to be entertaining), and therefore, no matter how common-sense the speculation is, it is unreliable, and should not be used.
• 4-There is no universal fan group for Zoids, so information about fans cannot be cited and is therefore not wiki-worthy (Note that this is distinct from, say, information about the popularity of the franchise, as this can be cited, for instance, by sales data).

Please note that these rules may be subject to change. For the relevant discussion on them, please see This forum topic.

A quick question. What do we do if somthing is implied or hinted, and how would we write that down? (Zoids Fanatic 23:55, June 29, 2010 (UTC))

I kinda want to use the forum to discuss this, and leave this page with naught but the rationale, but until an admin come along and sorts it out, there's no harm done. Anyway, it depends on exactly what it is you're talking about, I can't say without context, because if it is implied but the viewer must make the jump, then don't mention it, but if it is implied outright in-context, then just say that "X was implied by Y". Slax01 01:06, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's hope the relationship sections are fine then. (Zoids Fanatic 01:13, June 30, 2010 (UTC))

What if the only "official" translation is clearly wrong? For example, the box of Elephantus calls it "Elepantus", the Sauro Knights box calls it "Ssauro Knights" and the manual of Airsplitter calls it "Air Spliter". Also, I haven't seen any official translation of Will's name (the hero of Saga Fuzors) - does that mean we should romanize it and call him "Wiru"? In cases like that, I suggest the "unofficial" translation takes priority over the romanization if there is no conflict (i.e. only one "unofficial" translation). Cheironyx 10:00, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

"In the event of two official translations existing, if common sense does not resolve the conflict" I'm pretty sure common sense can be employed here. Besides, most of those that you have listed don't have only one official translation (notwithstanding the fact that most of what you've listed are romanisations and not translations (according to wiki definitions) anyway). Elephantus needs to be checked out (I could only find the one box, according to the wiki it was re-released with a different box, and the one manual I found was too low resolution to read), Sauro knights is spelt that way on the back of the box, Airsplitter (I don't know what this is, but either way) you have implied that the box contradicts the manual- if so, then there isn't only one translation and finally, with "Will" if there's no official romanisation or translation, we are free to use anything we wish. If the official (ie: published) romanisation is "wiru" then yes, we do use that, but I'd want to see the source first. Slax01 11:02, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Elephantus is consistently spelled without an "h" on the original and Memorial Box versions - in fact, every Japanese site calls it "Elepantus" as well. The box of Airsplitter (a limited edition Custom Blox) doesn't have the name in English anywhere, and again, all the Japanese sites call it "Air Spliter". I hadn't looked at the back of the Sauro Knights box, sorry about that. Finally, you might want to change the page to official romanisation > unofficial translation. Even so, there are characters like Störmer and Shuu who do have one official romanisation - "Sheterma" and "Syuw". I really wouldn't want to use those XP

P.S. "Information about fans" may be unreliable, but information about any particular fan or any fan-made game/custom/art can be cited just fine. The fan-made materials might be worth mentioning just to show people that they aren't official (e.g. mention Shield Liger Assault at the bottom of the List of Games page so people won't mistake it for an official game). Cheironyx 01:48, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

@elephantus: I only wonder what the OAR name was (as the article states it was repackaged) but otherwise, if consistent, then the page, indeed, should be changed to "Elepantus". Either way, the name Elepantus should be mentioned in the article.
@Airsplitter, again, if consistent, we use what the official media use.
@Romanisations, I thought I had put in a definition, but I guess they didn't make it off the draft page, so I've updated it accordingly, thanks for pointing that out.
@fan-made, if fan sections are to be made I suggest some things:
1- keep it to a single page, perhaps multiple pages, such as one for websites, one for custom models, etc, but VERY strictly enforce the content being kept on these pages ONLY, so that we don't get a repeat of people inserting nonsense into articles as has happened many times in the past. (and good lord it took alot of work to get rid of). The purpose of these pages would have to be very clear.
2- I am VERY adverse to putting any kind of fan material into existing pages, even with strict rules and sections, for many reasons, not least of which is past experience.
3- I am adverse to putting info about specific people up, as this can invade privacy and/or lead to ego trips/flame wars when people don't get the recognition they deserve, or someone else gets more than themselves. Even statements as simple as "this was done by X" can cause hell to break loose.
4- We can't be sure of who's posting what, so if we post a creation without the right to, many (significant) problems can be created, especially with the possibility of imposters. I'd want disclaimers and stuff, because experience has told me that the Zoids community in particular is quite strict when it comes to these kinds of things.

These are just some of the issues with fanpages. I must note that there are certainly advantages to having them, but I'd just be careful about them that's all. The existing rule was made because we had HUGE amounts of false info in the wiki, but as most of it has been removed, I'm not too opposed to relaxing the rule, provided we take due care with where we tread. Slax01 08:26, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I said "information about any particular fan" I was just trying to make a point - I don't see much reason to actually add that kind of thing to the wiki. For the fan-made stuff, I was thinking of just adding notes about "this is NOT official, so don't add pages about it or ask why it's not on the wiki". Anyway, my main point is that "official" spellings can still be plain wrong - just look at the official Zoids Infinity EX+ site - and there should be some better way of deciding what to use. Sorry about arguing so much ;) Cheironyx 10:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Fan stuff in general lacks notability. For example, if I make a custom Zoid, who's to say it's more or less notable than another fan-made Zoid? There are potentially infinite things we would have to add to the wiki, and every one would need the "this is not official" disclaimer. It would be trivial to drum up more fan-made pages than official ones. In particular, this is a problem with internet forums. While some forums are indeed big, they are certainly not ubiquitous. Right now, this wiki isn't intended to supersede internet forums. The fan-made things can be kept to the fourms. We could add something like that in the future, but I'd suggest talking about that on the help desk. As it stands, the rule it just there to prevent people from claiming notability over other people, which can cause flames.

As for your second point, about the official spellings being wrong. The rules are primarily there disambiguate between various official spellings. That site falls under rule 2 "published Japanese media which uses English letters". Whereas rule number 1 states "published English media". So the site you've listed wouldn't be used unless there was no English version of that character's name.

To try and give an example of the rules in action I'll take some names. The site you've provided states "Brat Hunter". The English release of Zoids Legacy states "Ballad H.", the New Century DVD special features states "Brad Hunter (Ballad Hunter)" and finally, the anime calls him "Brad" (but don't state a surname).

So rule number 1 kicks in "published English media" over "published Japanese media which uses English letters". That leaves "Brad", "Brad Hunter (Ballad Hunter)", "Ballad H." all preferred over "Brat Hunter". But now we have to distinguish between the various english versions. The most popular version is by far the anime, which calls him "Brad", but ommits the surname. So further info is needed, leaving the anime DVD and Zoids Legacy. Now the DVD is less popular than the TV airings of the anime, and Legacy is the only Zoids game to recieve a world-wide release. So popularity can't distinguish between the two. Common sense kicks in, saying Legacy's translation is generally pretty poor, and that the anime DVD is the same as the TV show. This gives us the final name of "Brad Hunter".

That's how the rules work, and they work very well. Part of the reason for the rules was to stop the whole fan-made thing above. In some rare cases (e.g. Zoids Genesis) the names of characters have to be taken from fan-translations. But then it causes problems, why is one person's fan-translation better or worse than another person's translation? In particular, when people start doing "corrections" to Japanese names. For example, take a look at Palty. In the past (before we had these rules) there were two contesting names "Palty" and "Party". One fan thought "Party should be used because that's the correction to the spelling of Palty", another fan thought "Palty should be used because it sounds more foreign, and other anime/games do this (e.g Tales of Symphonia)". Both people here had perfectly valid reasons for supporting their claims, and as it stood, it was impossible to say who's translation was right, and who's was wrong. So the only way to resolve this was to make the rules (as they are now) and lay down the law. That's what is meant by: "Unofficial translations are subjective and often contradict one another, and therefore cannot be reliably cited.". It's only there to stop flame wars.

So, I've blabbed on for a while, but hopefully that gives enough reasons as to why the rules are as they are. They might seem like they are choosing a bad or deliberately wrong name, but we do always try and use the most correct official name possible. I am open to changing the rules, but so far the number of problems it's solved has been far greater than the number it's caused. Sylvanelite 07:13, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the rules work fine how they are. I guess the main idea I'm getting at is that we should have another option for when the fan opinion is overwhelmingly against the official spelling for a justified reason - e.g. Elephantus over Elepantus or Störmer over Sheterma. I'm guessing most fans wouldn't be happy with spelling Raven's name as "Leyvin", even if there was no anime and the Infinity page was all we had. But I don't mind too much if the rules stay as they are. P.S. The OAR Elephantus had no name, unless you want to call it "The Zoid That Has 2 Huge Ears And Is Sturdy And Strong" :P Cheironyx 07:26, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I have said this in the past, and my argument hasn't changed. Here's a brief overview of what it was: Firstly is with respect to "most fans". "Most fans" would have no idea what the Elephantus or Stormer are in the first place, as most fans are spawned from the Nc0 or CC/GF animes (or at least, most english fans, who comprise our audience), and are probably not represented on internet forums (especially given the demographic and years zero/CC were released). This, by default, means people using these names can be assumed to be in a minority. Secondly, if we assume that people read this wiki (admittedly, a tall assumption xD), then any information we have on here *becomes* a popular opinion. Thirdly, "justified" is subjective. If you popularise a name, people will find so-called "justifications" to keep it (examples are plentiful, heck I just did it on the Elephantus talk page). I'm not trying to shoot you down, I appreciate the sentiment, and your point of view makes sense, I'm just playing devil's advocate so that decisions we make here are robust and sound. Slax01 08:13, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

This was written in reply to Cheironyx's edit, not Slax's. I was writing this while Slax posted, so there was a merge conflict.

There are three problems with that.

1) Who measures "overwhelming"? Can you tell me how many Zoids fans there are in the world, and of those, how many use the name "Elephantus"? The answer is no. What you can do is cite forums, but forums are very good at self-promoting wrong information. For example, fans "overwhelmingly" used the name Berserk Führer, which is one reason why the Fury's page initially lived under Führer. Ultimately though, the people that actually knew the name Führer were a small minority of the people who knew the Zoid (almost an insignificant number compared to the people who know the name Fury). It's impossible to measure "overwhelming", so we don't use that as a factor in decision making.

2) It doesn't settle arguments. Like the Palty vs Party thing. If someone comes up with a good reason for an alternative name, there is no way of settling the argument. "Better" is subjective. "Official" is not.

3) "Fan opinion" is self-fulfilling. "Because fans call it Elephantus, it should be Elephantus on the wiki", which in turn means any fans reading the wiki now call it Elephantus, which increases the number of fans calling it "Elephantus". That's circular reasoning, and could be applied to anything.

Making exceptions would defeat the point of having the rules, because the rules are ultimately only there to settle arguments when they arises. We would (actually we do) get thing like "but you made an exception for page XYZ why not ABC as well"? I am open to suggestions, but any changes to the rules have to be able to stop arguments without ambiguity, that's the only real strength to the current rules. Sylvanelite 08:19, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can't argue with that. I really don't want Störmer and Shuu changed, but all I can say in their defence is that I've seen maybe two people spell their names that way and zero people (but one pamphlet) spell them another way :P Cheironyx 12:10, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

New rule

Can I propose a new rule/guideline or two? Firstly, most English-language Zoids material uses American spellings (e.g. Styluarmor over Styluarmour, Customize Parts over Customise Parts), so all Zoids terms (if not entire pages) should use American spelling, with exceptions for OER/Zoids2/NER stuff (since they were mainly in the UK and therefore use British spellings) or if there is solid evidence for the British spelling (e.g. サーベル sabre and セイバー saber are spelled differently in English and in katakana - sabre is used for the OJR Sabretiger and in weapon names from most releases, by the way). Secondly, evidence from memory, second-hand info and similar hard-to-verify sources should be strongly discouraged on almost every page. However, it should be strongly encouraged for discontinued and hard-to-get-at material such as Online Wars and the Fuzors mobile phone game, since it could be the only possible way to get information about them. Cheironyx 00:44, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

"all Zoids terms should use American spelling"

"In the event of two official translations existing, if common sense does not resolve the conflict, use the most popular version." -I believe this sentence adequately resolves the issue, especially considering that your rationale for using American is that it is the most popular (how widespread a term is in official media is a good proxy for popularity).

as for general spelling, american english should be used by default, for consistency. Writing in non-american english is not against the rules though, for the same reason "making typos" is not against the rules.

"... However, it should be strongly encouraged for discontinued and hard-to-get-at material such as Online Wars and the Fuzors mobile phone game, since it could be the only possible way to get information about them."

I disagree with this. If you look at the edit history of many of the video games' character pages, you'll notice that many had a great deal of completely false information inserted (example here). As such, I am against encouraging using hard-to-verify sources- it can easily lead to justified vandalism. I'd rather have no info than incorrect info. That said, the opposite is true, if you object with an article and want it deleted, you need to say why, and in saying why, you need citations, so if someone makes a page without citation, then it can't be removed without citation, so if the page is on an obscure object, which has no citations either way, then that means the page can't be removed at all. Of course, common sense hold here, so this is by no means a blank cheque to make pages. Slax01 05:43, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Changed "most popular" to "most information" as popular can easily change due to fans of the franchise. "Most information" an example would be Bigasauru vs. Giant ZRK, Giant ZRK is more popular because it's the name used in the US and Europe but Bigasauru, while less popular and a #2 catagory name, has way more pertanant information to benefit the article.

I can see why you'd say this but I had thought about it when I wrote these and my reason for using popular is listed at the top of the page: "This Wiki revolves around the use of many different contributors and users. This is the reason why popularity is a useful and reliable criteria for picking the naming convention. "

Information, on the other hand, while it seems like a reliable objective measure, is actually much more subjective than it looks. Popularity can be got from measures like sales, viewership, or proxies thereof. But how do we measure information? Number of pages? Episodes? re-releases? do we take quality of information or just look at quantity? If we do look at quality, how do we define quality? Thus, I went with popularity. I know above I said not to add info about fans of the series, but its not really a contradiction, I could elaborate, but to save creating a wall of text, I won't unless asked.

On the Giant ZRK comment, I do want to change the page to Giant ZRK, in lieu of a citation for an english release under the name "Bigasauru". Slax01 08:24, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Leon what's your problem dude? Undoing my edits and saying "why would you delete it with no explination?". HELLO: I GAVE my explanations already. I can't help it if you are illiterate! I am undoing your (horrible and messy) edits, if you have any sensible comments feel free to post them, but for god's sake stop undoing my edits for no reason!! Slax01 21:49, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

That is an exageration. I do not undo all of your edits. If it seems that way, then you have my apologies. Also, I did not see it last time, sorry about that. I will leave it the way it is now.--Leon35 00:03, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

By most information I meant pertaining the Zoid released, not quantity of the info per say but the version of the Zoid varient we know the most about. This would be the varient with the most pertinant information that visitors/ average fans most easily recognise/be looking for. It would also be the varient/spelling with info that can most easily be cited. Following the trend, in most cases, this would end up being the more popular varient/spelling anyway. Zaber over Saber, Sheild Liger over Shield Tiger, Bear Fighter over Zear and so on.

Maybe something to the extent of the "most known and generally used" would be a better way of putting it. Popularity-wise I'm betting Command Wolf AC out ranks the normal one 'cause it was piloted by Brad (same with CW Irvine) and it enjoyed a release here in the U.S., and there were 2 HMM AC's but we use the simpler name Command Wolf because it can direct to the most varients even though white/normal one never made it to the NAR. Plus, the anime character ussually just call it Command Wolf anyway. Spinosnapper (NAR and anime varient) is likely more popular than Spinosapper but -Sapper has better details. Similar cases include Diablotiger over the Battle Legends Diablo Tiger Alpha, Ultrasaurus over the American Ultra Saurus and the big bad NJR Blox names (Dimetroptera) over the cheaper, way-more-common-on-ebay NAR Z-Builder names (Dimetra Ptera).

I'm actually for keeping Bigasauru believe it or not, only because Bigasauru has stats, Battle Story info, how it fought, what beat it and other nice details. Giant ZRK, well, we know it showed up in the US and Namer named the large powerful machine Giant ZRK in the comics.

@Leon, I never said you undid all my edits. I said "stop undoing my edits" because they were my edits, they were undone and I want you to stop it. Next time you falsely accuse me of lying (or "exaggerating"), please read what I have written first, as it is seriously irritating having to repeat myself, considering how many times this has happened now.

@anon:I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't really answer my questions, ie:

"This would be the varient with the most pertinant information"

But how do we define "most pertinent information"?

"that visitors/ average fans most easily recognise/be looking for"

the recognise part is better achieved via popularity than information (its not the number of books written, its who's read them that makes them recognised or sought after).

"It would also be the varient/spelling with info that can most easily be cited."

same problem again, "ease of citation" is subjective, which is particularly problematic as the only time we need this rule is when we have two equally valid citations which contradict each other.

"Maybe something to the extent of the "most known and generally used" would be a better way of putting it."

Isn't this what popular is?

"Spinosnapper (NAR and anime varient) is likely more popular than Spinosapper but -Sapper has better details."

It is pronounced "sapper" in the anime and given the overwhelming (and unquestionable) popularity of the New Century anime, I'd have to disagree with this conclusion. I would do similar for the other instances, but I don't have my sources handy, so I'd be working off memory and I'd likely make a mistake.

"I'm actually for keeping Bigasauru believe it or not"

Without a citation, I'm not. Point in case: people love writing Furher rather than Fury and without a clear rule to stop them, will fight tooth and nail to get their version used, no matter how little sense it actually makes. This, and only this, is my reason for the rule, and a refusal to let people go by their preferences. A pity, because I'd love to just let people go with what they want, but this community is just way too unreliable (lol I remember at one point we had two totally different pages: one for Rev Raptor one for Rev Rater- go figure xD). Slax01 08:37, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

@anon1: agree with slax. If there is no citations, why should be keep them? Bigasauru will become a page redirect, but the page itself wll become Bigasaur or Giant Zrk, depending on what the community decidesLeon35 14:18, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

If it's Popular to jump off a cliff...

Did I not clarify that this would usually be the more popular varient anyway?

Pertinant, relevant info how about you find a good way of measuring it for me. It's one of the criteria on making new pages.

Yes, "well known/ generally used" can be concieved as very very similar to popular (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/popular) , that's why I suggested to the extent of. My intentions were for a slightly more rigid justification than the plain more "popular" bit in cases of two or more valid names.

Popularity has a nasty habit of changing as do fan-bases, toy company priorities and the favors of television broadcasters. And saying something "is more popular" can hardly be considered a strong source/citation.

A criteria for finding more rigid justification than "popular" or "common sense" may be found through factoring in which Zoid/varient/name has enjoyed the longer release, includes stats (model's box first, then DVD, then games and cards) that are easy to include under the photo, which was more available to buy, which model came first and which name is simplest to direct to multiple versions of a single Zoid.

Now, most of those are model favorable factors. After considering the best Model name then Anime, Comics and Game names can be considered. My logic being, Models are the backbone of the Zoids franchise. Anime is likely the bulk of the Zoids fan-base, yes but not the franchise. Fan-base make the wiki's visitors and contributors, Franchise makes the facts. And, yeah, there can be alot of overlap in there.

Yes, some of these factors may be considered common sense and may indeed lead to the popular Zoid anyway, but there should be something better than simple popularity when considering a name for an entire page containing lots of releases. In a case of two or more valid printed names it seems more logical to first use the whatever varient has stats and battle story used for the page, second which ever was released more/longer, third which single name can be more broadly used to define multiple releases and then consider whatever anime/comic/game/fanbased stuff last.

BTW, -Snapper is what my /Zero pamphlet calls it. I prefer a printed source of U.S. origin over the Canadian translated /Zero anime. Unless you mean the Japanese /Zero. Yes, the anime is very popular. But, how do you source anime info and pronounciation but through what anime fans analyze and perceive as "correct"? As the community (and ultimately the popularity) is "unreliable", there should be some consideration put into finding a more solid source to base the criteria.

A fan can say "Saix is faster than a Storm Sworder" but the models stats say otherwise. If a wave of Anime Saix fans came in saying the model's stats are wrong and prove Saix is faster because Episode X clearly shows Saix outpacing Strom Sworder at exactly 3 minutes into Episode X and Character A stated Saix can go at the much faster speed of B miles per hour, what then? Should we toss out the printed speed of Saix in favor of the more popular Anime speed? The current speed would probably not be changed even though a faster Saix was popular, valid and cited. Anime (the more popular) Zoid sizes (and other stats), creation date, abilities, factions, combat purpose, original creator and length of service in proper ZAC years are not put as the main/overview facts of the Zoid as a whole. Popularity has not dictated the creation of pages either. Why should naming be popularity-based? Especially whan there's better criteria out there.

Long post is long, especially for just a few special case names. tildetildetildesquiggle

Also, "popular" opinion can be completely wrong - for example, the most common spelling I've seen for RBOZ-001 is not Bigasauru or Giant ZRK, it's "Bigasaur", which is not used in any official media. And even with official sources, I'm not entirely convinced about Legacy having higher priority than English spellings in Japanese sources. Cheironyx 23:07, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

The current rules will stand unless someone proposes an UNAMBIGUOUS alternative. I will now go through and address the points raised: Sylvanelite 08:42, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Spinosnapper (NAR and anime varient) is likely more popular than Spinosapper but -Sapper has better details. ... Snapper is what my /Zero pamphlet calls it.

- Ignoring use of the word "better" because that's subjective and ambiguous. These are details which have not been previously known or discussed. They aren't a shortcoming in the rule, because nobody has tried to apply the rule to the Spinosapper's page.

Similar cases include Diablotiger over the Battle Legends Diablo Tiger Alpha, Ultrasaurus over the American Ultra Saurus and the big bad NJR Blox names (Dimetroptera) over the cheaper, way-more-common-on-ebay NAR Z-Builder names (Dimetra Ptera).

- Again, most of these aren't shortcomings in the rules, but are pages where the rules have never been used on. More importantly, there was no proposed solution here as to any alternative rules that would be able to settle these conflicts, while the current rulings will be able to sort them out.

Popularity has a nasty habit of changing as do fan-bases, toy company priorities and the favors of television broadcasters. And saying something "is more popular" can hardly be considered a strong source/citation.

- Popularity can be measured based on sales. So it can be cited. New Century is more popular than Fuzors or Genesis, that is an unambiguous citable fact.

A fan can say "Saix is faster than a Storm Sworder" but the models stats say otherwise.

- This has nothing to do with the previous rulings. Model stats and anime stats are always kept separate, there are model sections and anime sections on every page, so this information can be added without any conflicts at all. The rules never need to be applied in this situation.

Popularity has not dictated the creation of pages either. Why should naming be popularity-based? Especially whan there's better criteria out there.

- Popularity is not the number 1 rule. It only serves when there is a conflict. Page creation is never ambiguous, because the page doesn't exist, so there isn't a conflict, so the rule is never applied. Page moving may sometimes be based on popularity, but not until reasonable amount of citations are given for all sides of the request to move.

In a case of two or more valid printed names it seems more logical to first use the whatever varient has stats and battle story used for the page, second which ever was released more/longer, third which single name can be more broadly used to define multiple releases and then consider whatever anime/comic/game/fanbased stuff last.

- This is an ambiguous alternative. Which battle story? The Japanese one? So now we are stuck using Japanese names as the first point of reference? What happens when the Japanese name is released in both English letters and Japanese characters which should be used? As for the earliest release, why? The earliest release is always the Japanese version, which means the "second" criteria never helps over the ambiguity of the first. The third criteria throws the fanbase in the anime, so now fans are able to use any spelling the like and have it treated equally to the anime? By those rules I could call it "puppy fury" and have it weighted the same as the anime "berserk fury".

And even with official sources, I'm not entirely convinced about Legacy having higher priority than English spellings in Japanese sources.

- Then propose an alternative. Specifically, in the case of Legacy vs Japanese is the Party/Palty argument I mentioned above. Legacy resolves the argument, which is enough reason to use it over Japanese. I've not seen any examples of this working the other way around.

My reply (Slax's) starts here. I'll try keep it concise.

Did I not clarify that this would usually be the more popular varient anyway?

Yes, but as this rule is only ever to be invoked in unusual circumstances, I chose to ignore it.

Pertinant, relevant info how about you find a good way of measuring it for me. It's one of the criteria on making new pages.

This has not answered how the quantity of pertinent information is to be measured.

Yes, "well known/ generally used" can be concieved as very very similar to popular (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/popular) , that's why I suggested to the extent of. My intentions were for a slightly more rigid justification than the plain more "popular" bit in cases of two or more valid names.

Please see my above and below points on how your definition is less rigid.

Popularity has a nasty habit of changing as do fan-bases

Being inflexible and rigid isn't a good thing. Its not like popularity changes rapidly either.

And saying something "is more popular" can hardly be considered a strong source/citation.

is more popular" is backed by a citation, it isn't one in of itself. I am surprised I needed to explain that.

A criteria for finding more rigid justification than "popular" or "common sense" may be found through factoring in which Zoid/varient/name has enjoyed the longer release, includes stats (model's box first, then DVD, then games and cards) that are easy to include under the photo, which was more available to buy, which model came first and which name is simplest to direct to multiple versions of a single Zoid.

The subjective sections in the above include: "easy to include", "which was more available to buy" and "which name is simplest", thus reducing the rigidity of the current rule.

My logic being, Models are the backbone of the Zoids franchise.

Yes, but they are a weak and frail backbone that would collapse under their own weight if not held together by the muscle mass of the anime series.

Franchise makes the facts.

If the franchise DID make the "facts", we wouldn't be in a situation where almost every model kit contradicts almost every other model kit, and we wouldn't need the rule.

it seems more logical to first use the whatever varient has stats and battle story used for the page"

Battle story doesn't have a page. Nuff said really

second which ever was released more/longer

"more" is subjective. Longer I have no issue with, provided it can actually be cited (many releases don't have any reliable dates, and then you've got cross-region releases...)

which single name can be more broadly used.

This is completely subjective and utterly inappropriate for a rule. In fact this is exactly what the rule was designed to stop.

BTW, -Snapper is what my /Zero pamphlet calls it. I prefer a printed source of U.S. origin over the Canadian translated /Zero anime.

This kind of thing is EXACTLY what the rules are here to prevent.

A fan can say "Saix is faster than a Storm Sworder" but the models stats say otherwise.

..So, you haven't read the Saix's talk page I gather?

• next user*

Also, "popular" opinion can be completely wrong - for example, the most common spelling I've seen for RBOZ-001 is not Bigasauru or Giant ZRK, it's "Bigasaur", which is not used in any official media.

I suggest you don't get caught up in trying to win the battle and loose sight of the war- the rule clearly states a citation MUST be provided before ANY consideration is given to popularity, so this is a non-issue.

And even with official sources, I'm not entirely convinced about Legacy having higher priority than English spellings in Japanese sources.

I am more than happy to discuss this. I believe Legacy is adequate as a citation because it is consistent (it has to be, it is the only release), whereas Romanisations aren't, and I have no reason to assume common sense can't resolve any issues arising with Legacy. That said, if you have an amendment to the rules, please post it so I can have a look, pre-emptively shooting in the dark is kinda not helpful. If it works I'll put it up.

Hope that helps Slax01 14:06, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

DUDE just look at what one of your own Admins, Leon is trying to do! He's going with the popular Bigasaur over the already cited Bigasauru and ZRK! Is that not a hint?? tildetildetildesquiggle

And these popular citations are not ambiguous? Take the lovely example of Zaber Fang, Zaber Fang was indeed the American spelling and the popular anime spelling. But is there a source stating that the viewers of the anime (which has NOT aired in years) who recognise the name FANG out number the buyers and fans of ALL the TIGER (model, comic, card and game) releases? Please, I'd like to see these sources.

Heck, why should I even cite a source for Zoids with varients? I could just use the varient name to fit whatever I want.

The title directly relates to the page's content.

That's why I have issue with the Popular name, the TITLE of the page "Zaber Fang" is fine but wrongly putting Zaber in the content where Saber should be is just sloppy. Where on earth is the citation that Fang served under the Zenebas Empire, that fact is flat wrong! Blinding yellow Zaber Fangs NEVER made it to the battle story to start with. Now, Zaber Fang is the name of a specific varient, when switching the term intermittantly you distort which varient is which. Did Rudolph pilot a Gold Zaber Fang, no. Can you cite that the yellow Zaber Fang has an Infa-red laser searcher or Small-Bore Anti-Zoid Laser Machinegun? I'm looking at my Zaber's box right now, those are wrong. The "popular" (which likely an innacurately "popular") Zaber Fang is not an accurate "umbrella" term for the content (NOT TITLE) because it is a specific Yellow varient already.

But, if I were to CORRECT and CITE which content belongs to Saber and which content belongs to Zaber, Zaber would be used ALOT less. I think it would be strange to have a correct page about Sabers titled Zaber so I will let the FALSE information of the yellow Zaber remain where it is.

Having the correct varient for the respective content is important, true?

Now, these just factors about the title's influence on content that I put up to consider. I have nothing against the current rules of regular Title naming. I am only pointing out the influence the "popular" Title name has on the Zoid's content and varients and how the popular title can lead to sloppy misinformation.

@ Slax "This kind of thing is EXACTLY what the rules are here to prevent." Preventing the misuse of Canadian translations or American print? Kinda ironic that the Ocean group's (vancouver) dub is taken as a rule #1 source.

Which battle story? The Japanese one?

...how many other Battle Stories do you know of?

What happens when the Japanese name is released in both English letters and Japanese characters which should be used?

We always use the English lettering, because we have English keyboards. If there isn't an English spelling (e.g. Iceblazer), we translate the Japanese spelling. However, the original Japanese spelling should still appear somewhere on the page for reference.

Yes, but they are a weak and frail backbone that would collapse under their own weight if not held together by the muscle mass of the anime series.

The OJR had no anime and it was the longest-running Zoids series ever. Compare that to the anime-based series such as Fuzors and Genesis that collapsed in under a year :P

If the franchise DID make the "facts", we wouldn't be in a situation where almost every model kit contradicts almost every other model kit, and we wouldn't need the rule.

The model kits and their boxes are largely consistent, it's the various stories built around them (especially the anime and games) that cause contradictions.

Battle story doesn't have a page. Nuff said really

It really needs to. The Battle Story includes a dozen books, two videos, multiple webcomics, over 40 pamphlets, several video games and about three HUNDRED model kit boxes. The entire Fuzors world got about 9 hours of footage and about 30 model kit boxes, plus a couple of video games.

I believe Legacy is adequate as a citation because it is consistent (it has to be, it is the only release), whereas Romanisations aren't

An actual romanisation would be completely consistent. You're talking about the translations in Japanese sources, which are 99% consistent for primary sources (i.e. boxes, anime, manga, games) anyway. And Legacy isn't even consistent WITHIN ITSELF: It spells Steve's last name as Tros, Toros and Totos.

The current rules will stand unless someone proposes an UNAMBIGUOUS alternative.

My personal preference (which will probably get shot down, but I'll put it here anyway) is to use info from NJR/Fuzors/Genesis boxes first, then OJR, then NAR, then OER. That method follows the precedent of about 80% of official sources, such as Saga DS. It also keeps the idea proposed above, because NJR/Fuzors/Genesis has the greatest volume of official information (and that's citable, by the way), followed by the OJR, followed by NAR and so on. Boxes take priority over anime and manga, which take priority over video games. Official spellings in English (which CAN be from a Japanese source) take priority over "unofficial" translated spellings, which take priority over romanisations (because romanisations are just romaji, not translations).

Take the lovely example of Zaber Fang

Exactly what I was about to use. Sabre (Z2) and Saber (TZ) have just one model each. Zabre (OER) has a model and some minor comic appearances. Zaber Fang (NAR) has two models plus an action figure, multiple anime appearances and two video game appearances. Sabretiger (OJR) has one model, multiple Battle Story appearances and at least six video game appearances. But Saber Tiger (NJR) has at least four models, various mini-figures, heaps of Battle Story appearances, and shows up in EVERY anime series, most manga series, every card game and more than twenty video games. THERE is your citation for "more information relevant to X name". Cheironyx 01:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is generating a lot of talk. I'll reply to more points raised. Sorry for the long post: Sylvanelite 04:06, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

DUDE just look at what one of your own Admins, Leon is trying to do! He's going with the popular Bigasaur over the already cited Bigasauru and ZRK! Is that not a hint?? tildetildetildesquiggle

- Am I misreading, or didn't Leon agree with Slax? Also just because a member isn't an admin does nothing to alter their point. You wouldn't like it if I wrote "I'm an Admin. You'r wrong." We don't do that. We listen to the points people raise, be it you, slax, another admin or anyone. Well, at least we try to. Being an admin doesn't make you have an infinite well of knowledge from nowhere.

And these popular citations are not ambiguous?

- Your confusing terms here. Popular citations aren't ambiguous otherwise they wouldn't be a citation.

Take the lovely example of Zaber Fang, Zaber Fang was indeed the American spelling and the popular anime spelling. But is there a source stating that the viewers of the anime (which has NOT aired in years) who recognise the name FANG out number the buyers and fans of ALL the TIGER (model, comic, card and game) releases? Please, I'd like to see these sources.

- Likewise, you can't provide anything saying that the people would recognise Saber Tiger over Zaber Fang. However, the example doesn't end there. The reason the anime is used (when it comes to popularity) is because "Brad" is used in the anime "Ballad" is used in a lot of the other places, Japanese media, english games and even anime DVDs. Your logic for changing to Tiger over Fang would mean that the Brad page would need to be moved to Ballad.

Heck, why should I even cite a source for Zoids with varients? I could just use the varient name to fit whatever I want.

- As a matter of fact, this happens a lot. This wiki does not hide other names for Zoids, the rules just stipulate which page the Zoid should be listed under.

That's why I have issue with the Popular name, the TITLE of the page "Zaber Fang" is fine but wrongly putting Zaber in the content where Saber should be is just sloppy

- Hold up. The anime sections call it Zaber Fang, but the model sections call it: Sabre Tiger, Zabre, Great Sabre, Saber Tiger, etc. We do not wrongly put zoids names into their context. If we do, then it's a mistake and SHOULD BE EDITED.

Where on earth is the citation that Fang served under the Zenebas Empire, that fact is flat wrong!

- If it's wrong, edit it. The wiki is NOT 100% correct. There are many mistakes on the wiki. However, if it's a matter of naming, please read on.

Blinding yellow Zaber Fangs NEVER made it to the battle story to start with.

- Battle story is very difficult for editors to correct. If they state something that is wrong, go add it. The main point of contention with battle story is that most of it (if not all of it) is FAN TRANSLATED. Meaning semantic differences are "lost in translation". If the Zaber Fang page stated "yellow Zaber Fangs" were in battle story, remove the word yellow. However, the names used should be the ones that are used elsewhere. This is because anime names appear in both Battle story and anime (prozen, etc), and it makes no sense to swap to the official anime name and a fan translated name for the characters, so it makes no sense to do it for the Zoids. Unless you have an official English translation for all of battle story, it runs enough parallels with the anime for it to merit using the anime names.

Now, Zaber Fang is the name of a specific varient, when switching the term intermittantly you distort which varient is which.

- And as I mentioned before, the page is fairly consistent with the context of terms used.

Zaber Fang is not an accurate "umbrella" term for the content (NOT TITLE) because it is a specific Yellow varient already.

- And this is exactly what we avoid. The only umbrealla-ing that happens is with battle story, because there is no official translation aside from the anime adoptions. Otherwise, the title of the page is pretty much the only thing that is changed.

But, if I were to CORRECT and CITE which content belongs to Saber and which content belongs to Zaber, Zaber would be used ALOT less.

- This is done already. We try to cite things correctly. But the wiki is huge, and citations are hard to come by.

I think it would be strange to have a correct page about Sabers titled Zaber so I will let the FALSE information of the yellow Zaber remain where it is.

- If you're still talking about battle story, the information on the wiki says nothing about the Zoid being yellow, the name is used because Battle Story shares names with the anime. As such, the Anime names are used because there is no official translation of Battle story. If you have an official translation, PLEASE provide it. Some people (myself included) would be dying to read it all first hand.

...how many other Battle Stories do you know of?

- Exactly, then it's useless as a rule because all of battle story is fan-translated, which as I've said many times leads to arguments about which fan is right.

We always use the English lettering, because we have English keyboards. If there isn't an English spelling (e.g. Iceblazer), we translate the Japanese spelling. However, the original Japanese spelling should still appear somewhere on the page for reference.

- This is pretty much the rules as they are right now.

The OJR had no anime and it was the longest-running Zoids series ever. Compare that to the anime-based series such as Fuzors and Genesis that collapsed in under a year :P

- This works both ways. It's easy to say that Zoids only took off outside of Japan after the release of the first anime (CC/GF and NC0), model kit sales support this. Additionally, the NJR shared many of its Zoids with those that appeared in the anime, so in fact, it would be easy to attribute the success of the OJR to the anime themselves (because our page on the OJR includes many Zoids seen in the anime, so I don't see why you say it "had no anime"). You cite how Fuzors and Genesis anime collapsed, but their model-based sales also collapsed.

The model kits and their boxes are largely consistent, it's the various stories built around them (especially the anime and games) that cause contradictions.

- As with the Zaber Fang mentioned before, there were many different names given to the different models. They are not largely consistent, especially across releases. The ones that are consistent, are usually Zoids that aren't re-released (e.g. Diloforce is very consistent, but that's because there is very little information).

It really needs to. The Battle Story includes a dozen books, two videos, multiple webcomics, over 40 pamphlets, several video games and about three HUNDRED model kit boxes. The entire Fuzors world got about 9 hours of footage and about 30 model kit boxes, plus a couple of video games.

- Just like with Genesis, if it doesn't exist, it won't write itself. If someone has access to all this information, please share it by adding to the wiki.

An actual romanisation would be completely consistent.

- In theory, yes. In practice no. Aside from the obvious (l/r) even Japanese media does not Romanise their own letters accordingly. A very typical example is Mazinger The "ger" come from the Katakana "ガー" which is Romanised to "gaa". Yet in virtually every appearance of ガー it is not translated to "gaa", usually "ger or gar" is used. (as an example of gar: GaoGaiGar). There is no consistency even in direct Romanisation.

And Legacy isn't even consistent WITHIN ITSELF: It spells Steve's last name as Tros, Toros and Totos.

- Fans are far less consistent than Legacy. For example (yet again) Party vs Palty. Using Legacy resolved this argument. Using a Romanisation caused the argument.

My personal preference (which will probably get shot down, but I'll put it here anyway) is to use info from NJR/Fuzors/Genesis boxes first, then OJR, then NAR, then OER. That method follows the precedent of about 80% of official sources, such as Saga DS. It also keeps the idea proposed above, because NJR/Fuzors/Genesis has the greatest volume of official information (and that's citable, by the way), followed by the OJR, followed by NAR and so on. Boxes take priority over anime and manga, which take priority over video games. Official spellings in English (which CAN be from a Japanese source) take priority over "unofficial" translated spellings, which take priority over romanisations (because romanisations are just romaji, not translations).

- As I replied to above, Romanji is ambiguous. Romanji caused the Palty/Party debate. Romanji is the reason the rules were implemented. I am happy to listen to the suggestions raised, but Japanese characters (Katakana, Hiragana, or Kanji) can only be used as the lowest-level rule. Yes I am shooting that change down, because I was the one who had to resolve that argument. I do not want it happening again. The rest of what you've coincides with the current rules.

Exactly what I was about to use. Sabre (Z2) and Saber (TZ) have just one model each. Zabre (OER) has a model and some minor comic appearances. Zaber Fang (NAR) has two models plus an action figure, multiple anime appearances and two video game appearances. Sabretiger (OJR) has one model, multiple Battle Story appearances and at least six video game appearances. But Saber Tiger (NJR) has at least four models, various mini-figures, heaps of Battle Story appearances, and shows up in EVERY anime series, most manga series, every card game and more than twenty video games. THERE is your citation for "more information relevant to X name".

- There is one key problem with that ruling: To support that change would mean to also change Brad's page to Ballad (since brad is almost exclusively called Brad in the spoken anime only), which is the wrong decision. "Brad" appeared in one anime, "Ballad" appeared in the anime (japanese) as well as games. As far as boxes go, that would mean changing his name to "Barad" because that's what appears on his HMM box.

Am I misreading, or didn't Leon agree with Slax?

He means on the Bigasauru talk page, where Leon said to call the page "Bigasaur" despite that being an unofficial name.

Your logic for changing to Tiger over Fang would mean that the Brad page would need to be moved to Ballad.

So? The current rules would mean that Störmer should be moved to Sheterma.

...which is the wrong decision.

Why exactly is it wrong? And don't just use the rules to justify your example to justify the rules :P

The main point of contention with battle story is that most of it (if not all of it) is FAN TRANSLATED. Meaning semantic differences are "lost in translation". If the Zaber Fang page stated "yellow Zaber Fangs" were in battle story, remove the word yellow. However, the names used should be the ones that are used elsewhere. This is because anime names appear in both Battle story and anime (prozen, etc), and it makes no sense to swap to the official anime name and a fan translated name for the characters, so it makes no sense to do it for the Zoids. Unless you have an official English translation for all of battle story, it runs enough parallels with the anime for it to merit using the anime names.

...Well, to begin with, the Battle Story has a lot less parallels with the anime than people think. Only Chaotic Century is remotely similar to the Battle Story, and that's only in setting and a couple of characters, not the general events or backstory. The dubbed anime is also inconsistent with the American models (Gordos vs Gordosaur) and with itself (Gordos is often confused with Godos). As for "using the anime names", I agree - use the ORIGINAL (i.e. Japanese) anime names, which are "the ones that are used elsewhere" in the NJR models, video games, manga, Battle Story and so on. And fan translation may be subjective, but "taigaa" should NEVER translate to "fang". Also, according to Wiktionary... semantic (adj) 3. Petty or trivial; quibbling, niggling. Bwahaha.

If the Zaber Fang page stated "yellow Zaber Fangs" were in battle story, remove the word yellow.

The problem is that "Zaber Fangs" are by definition yellow, except in the (inconsistently) dubbed Chaotic Century and the (unreliable) Legacy and Battle Legends. The ones used by the Zenebas Empire were Sabretigers (OJR), which have a stats difference from Saber Tigers (NJR) and a colour difference from Zaber Fangs (NAR).

This works both ways. It's easy to say that Zoids only took off outside of Japan after the release of the first anime (CC/GF and NC0), model kit sales support this. Additionally, the NJR shared many of its Zoids with those that appeared in the anime, so in fact, it would be easy to attribute the success of the OJR to the anime themselves (because our page on the OJR includes many Zoids seen in the anime, so I don't see why you say it "had no anime"). You cite how Fuzors and Genesis anime collapsed, but their model-based sales also collapsed.

Firstly, the OER did fine without an anime, and the comic series began after the line took off. Secondly, the OJR finished NINE YEARS before Chaotic Century. Chaotic Century had no effect on that line's popularity, unless you think Tomy released a hundred different models and they didn't actually sell until nine years later. :P Thirdly, I meant that the Fuzors and Genesis model lines, the only model lines directly based on an anime series, both collapsed. Which was exactly my point. So much for that paragraph.

There were many different names given to the different models. They are not largely consistent, especially across releases.

Yes, American models often have different names to Japanese models, but why does that support the American names? Notice that the Japanese (NJR) model names stay the same throughout the 4 Japanese anime series, the 30-odd Japanese video games, the 7 Japanese manga series, the piles of Japanese Battle Story material and the various Japanese spin-off products. The American names can't even stay consistent between the models and the 3 video games.

If someone has access to all this information, please share it by adding to the wiki.

I'm working on it ;) But there's a TON of stuff to add, I can't do it all myself.

Aside from the obvious (l/r) even Japanese media does not Romanise their own letters accordingly. A very typical example is Mazinger The "ger" come from the Katakana "ガー" which is Romanised to "gaa". Yet in virtually every appearance of ガー it is not translated to "gaa", usually "ger or gar" is used. (as an example of gar: GaoGaiGar). There is no consistency even in direct Romanisation.

That is NOT romanisation. That is TRANSLATION. That was my whole point in arguing against romanisation. For example, the romanisation of サーベル is "saaberu" or possibly "sa-beru". Nothing else. The TRANSLATION is "sabre" or "saber" (in this case, Zoids media consistently uses "sabre" - "saber" is spelled セイバー). And notice that I gave romaji (not romanji) lowest priority - Party is better than Parutii :P

The rest of what you've coincides with the current rules.

No it doesn't. NJR over NAR is almost the opposite of the current rules. Cheironyx 09:32, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

@ anon:

1. - Leon makes mistakes all the time. This has nothing to do with the rules.
2. - Your claim that Zaber Fangs are yellow is untrue. Non-model =/= non-canon.
3. - you have STILL not provided any way of quantifying information, regardless of what you think about popularity.
4. - the rules clearly state that specific versions of Zoids are to be referred to by their specific name. If you have an issue with the "overview" sections, by all means, raise that in the forum (I believe they should be removed, for precicely the reasons you have listed), but it is irrelevant to the rules page.
5. - your canadian comment misses the mark. The thing the rules are preventing is multiple people saying "I don't like X translation, here, let's use mine instead".

@Cheironyx:

1. - A battle story page would be much appreciated.
2. - your rule fails to give any leeway for future releases. Please revise to have a clause for them and I'll see how it looks.
3. - your Zaber Fang example once again walks right around the question- you have provided an EXAMPLE, not a DEFINITION of how information can be measured. For instance: which Decalto Dragon spelling has the most info? -when creating a rule, you must seek to apply it to the worst examples, not the best.
4. - an extension of 3, your "greatest volume of official information (and that's citable, by the way)" intrinsically assumes that volume of information is a good criteria for measuring information- and that, implicitly, quality has no bearing. In which case, manga should almost always trump battle story, as mangas are longer. See why I'm asking the question?

@Cheironyx's reply to sylvan:

1. am not speaking on Sylvan's behalf, I am simply inserting some comments, take them as you will:
2. - this is the English wiki. We do not cater for Japanese fans, they have their own wiki. Simliarly, we have no information about the names used in the Italian Dub. Not because it is non-canon, but because it is irrelevant.
3. - Inconsistency means one of the uses is wrong, is says nothing about which one. As you are making the positive claim (the dub's use of "Zaber Fang" is incorrect), burden of proof lies with you. (further, I was not aware of any instance of the three guard's Zoids being called anything but a Zaber, two of which are silver)

In advance, I know most of the replies I would usually get are simply attempts to prove my examples wrong. Of course, any attempt to do so would utterly miss the point, so here's hoping no-one is short-sighted enough to set about wasting their breath on doing that. Slax01 11:18, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

your rule fails to give any leeway for future releases. Please revise to have a clause for them and I'll see how it looks.

I guess it depends on the size of the release and amount of supporting material. If there was another NJR-sized release with a similar volume of supporting material, we could update the names of re-released kits (e.g. Stealth Viper over Snakes), but if it was only NER-sized, we would leave names as-is (e.g. Orudios over Evil Pegasus). It's hard to quantify exactly, but I'd say anything above "almost NJR-sized" (including supporting material) gets priority.

you have provided an EXAMPLE, not a DEFINITION of how information can be measured. ...implicitly, quality has no bearing.

Finding a definition for this is even harder, and I'm not really trying right now. Quality is important too - in fact, quality is half the reason for my "order of naming priority" above (the other half being volume of the release and supporting material). In my opinion, NJR/Fuzors/Genesis sources have the highest level of consistency within each world/storyline, followed by OJR, then NAR. The OER is good for consistency, but too small and obscure for naming purposes in most cases (I'm guessing more people use "Garius" than "Tyrannazoid").

this is the English wiki. We do not cater for Japanese fans, they have their own wiki. Simliarly, we have no information about the names used in the Italian Dub. Not because it is non-canon, but because it is irrelevant.

Yes, it's the English wiki, but most Zoids material is Japanese, and the Japanese material is a more reliable source in most cases than the English material. By the way, I think we should mention any major differences in the Italian dub, because Zoids material is relevant to a Zoids wiki no matter what language it's in.

The general point I'm trying to make is that the majority of information on Zoid pages refers to their Japanese versions, and should therefore use their Japanese names, just like the material the information comes from. And there's still problems with using "popularity" as a source - sales/viewing figures only account for how many people know of a certain name. How popular that name is is a different matter. For example, I know of the "Zaber Fang" and "Saber Tiger" variants, and I choose to use Saber Tiger as the umbrella name, but the only citation for that is if I tell you. The name more people prefer is a subjective and hard-to-cite source, while the name more people know is hard to determine - for example, it includes those who saw the model or read the manga without actually buying them, and the Internet means that people can access heaps of Zoids material without leaving data behind. And thanks to Wikipedia and the Zoids wiki, "the name more people know" is influenced by the very websites trying to use it as justification, so we end up with a feedback loop. In my opinion, neither definition of "popular" should be used as a source. Cheironyx 12:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Even though I'm making another long-winded reply. Please take time to read Slax and Cherionyx's replies. I don't want useful discussion lost because I'm burying it. Sylvanelite 13:05, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

So? The current rules would mean that Störmer should be moved to Sheterma.

- This is what gripes me. The rules have never once been applied to the stormer page, so how can you make that judgement? The only time "Sheterma" has ever been mentioned on this wiki is by you on this talk page. Also, your own rules don't say why "Stormer" would be used over Sheterma. if Sheterma is a valid romanisation and Stormer has never been written outside of Japanese characters, then your rules say go with Sheterma. If Stormer has been written outside of characters, then there should be no reason under the current ruling to change it.

Why exactly is it wrong? And don't just use the rules to justify your example to justify the rules :P

- Simple. Nobody has EVER proposed that Brad's article be moved to Ballad. Even vandals. In the other articles mentioned here and there, there has always been some contesting for the "right" name. In Brad's case, nobody has ever, in the history of the wiki, opted to use Ballad over Brad. In fact, the rules were used on Brad's page. Specifically to sort out his last name. But during this (and other) scrutiny, not one member has ever proposed Ballad as being the forefront name. This is opposed to other pages (like the Sormer one) where the page has never been scrutinised. Brad's page has been looked at, and nobody has considered Ballad as the "correct" name.

...Well, to begin with, the Battle Story has a lot less parallels with the anime than people think. Only Chaotic Century is remotely similar to the Battle Story, and that's only in setting and a couple of characters, not the general events or backstory.

- I never said anything about the amount of parallels in battle story. Just that they were there. Consistency is a big deal for wikis. We had major problems (especially with the earlier genesis pages, but even applied to CC, e.g. Reese and Karl) where names for characters changed on a whim from one page to the next. It meant red links because unmanageable and redirect chains pointed to redundant pages. No joke, at one point Van's article was repeated 5 times on the wiki. Choosing consistent names makes it manageable.

And fan translation may be subjective, but "taigaa" should NEVER translate to "fang".

- And "thermal" should never be translated to "sonic". But I've seen that happen in fan translations. Just because it "shouldn't" be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, as far as fan translations go, there was a long time ago, several fans who while translating the boxes for models, added in stats that never appeared on the original text. It took years to correct this, because there was uncertainty on if the stats had been made up, or if there had been other obscure media they had used (translated by themselves). Fans are NOT reliable. Heck, as far as fans go, there are still some made-up stats from MMM lingering on this wiki, even without translations getting involved, we still can't track down these pages. It's no different from vandalism in some cases.

The problem is that "Zaber Fangs" are by definition yellow

- No they aren't. The wiki does not make this definition, nor does it assume it. If you want to make that definition, then your not going with what the article actually states.

The ones used by the Zenebas Empire were Sabretigers (OJR), which have a stats difference from Saber Tigers (NJR) and a colour difference from Zaber Fangs (NAR).

- According to your own logic, the "Zenebas" translation shouldn't be used, because that only exists in the anime. It should be ゼネバス (Zenebasu). While Anime sections should (maybe consider) calling it Zenebas.

Firstly, the OER did fine without an anime, and the comic series began after the line took off. Secondly, the OJR finished NINE YEARS before Chaotic Century. Chaotic Century had no effect on that line's popularity, unless you think Tomy released a hundred different models and they didn't actually sell until nine years later. :P Thirdly, I meant that the Fuzors and Genesis model lines, the only model lines directly based on an anime series, both collapsed. Which was exactly my point. So much for that paragraph.

- So, you'll deny that the anime is popular? Even though the list of "most popular" pages on this wiki are all anime-centric? (and that's after re-naming the Berserk Fury, which caused it to drop off the list)

Yes, American models often have different names to Japanese models, but why does that support the American names? Notice that the Japanese (NJR) model names stay the same throughout the 4 Japanese anime series, the 30-odd Japanese video games, the 7 Japanese manga series, the piles of Japanese Battle Story material and the various Japanese spin-off products. The American names can't even stay consistent between the models and the 3 video games.

- The answer this is very simple. This wiki uses English. So at some point a translation needs to be done. I've said it countless times, and I'll say it countless more. If fans do the translations themselves, there will be arguments. If we use official translations then that is unambiguous.

I'm working on it ;) But there's a TON of stuff to add, I can't do it all myself.

- I saw that, and keep up the good work. Recently it seems more content has been added to talk pages than the actual wiki. (which I guess is a good thing, because it means the wiki pages are hopefully beginning to be credible)

That is NOT romanisation. That is TRANSLATION. That was my whole point in arguing against romanisation. For example, the romanisation of サーベル is "saaberu" or possibly "sa-beru". Nothing else. The TRANSLATION is "sabre" or "saber" (in this case, Zoids media consistently uses "sabre" - "saber" is spelled セイバー). And notice that I gave romaji (not romanji) lowest priority - Party is better than Parutii :P

- Ok, let me quote from the wiki page you linked to: Names can be subject to even more variation, with spellings depending on the individual's preference. For example, the manga artist Yasuhiro Nightow's family name would be more conventionally written in Hepburn romanization as Naitō.

- There are whole sections labelled "Differences among romanizations" and "Kana without standardised forms of romanization".

- If you want to keep spouting that it's 100% unambiguous, go ahead, but even the page you linked to states problems with that approach.

- Finally, your definitions for "romanisation" and "translation" are wrong. If you want my personal opinion on this I will give it to you, but I can say I worked in a linguistics company for a full year, and I was specifically designing software to deal with lexical analysis of languages. A romanisation is ANY version of a word whereby it is written in english characters. That is the ONLY criteria for a romanisation. In the case of Mazinger, that is a valid romanisation, as is Majingā. Both are romanisations, the only difference is the method used to derive the romanisation. A translation captures the meaning of the word, which in this case IS a romanisation, because Mazinger has no meaning in english. If you want to capture the way the word is pronounced correctly, you'll end up writing SAMPA or IPA. That is unambiguous. Other methods of romanisations are ambiguous because they loose sounds that roman scripts can't capture correctly.

No it doesn't. NJR over NAR is almost the opposite of the current rules.

- How many times do I have to say it. The NJR can't reliably be used, if it could, these rules would not exist. Because the NJR can't be reliably used, that part of your proposed changes will not be made. This is based on actual events that actually happened on this wiki. I'm not making this stuff up.

BLARGH PEOPLE KEEP WRITING FASTER THAN I CAN REPLY =(

The general point I'm trying to make is that the majority of information on Zoid pages refers to their Japanese versions, and should therefore use their Japanese names, just like the material the information comes from

- The general point I'm trying to make is that we cannot go writing this wiki in Japanese. Translations need to be made, and the only way to do it without fans getting into arguments is by using official translations.

And there's still problems with using "popularity" as a source - sales/viewing figures only account for how many people know of a certain name.

- And this is the only version of "popular" the rules consider. If it can't be cited, we don't use it.

How popular that name is is a different matter. For example, I know of the "Zaber Fang" and "Saber Tiger" variants, and I choose to use Saber Tiger as the umbrella name, but the only citation for that is if I tell you.

- And this is why our rules don't use this as a measure.

The name more people prefer is a subjective and hard-to-cite source, while the name more people know is hard to determine - for example, it includes those who saw the model or read the manga without actually buying them, and the Internet means that people can access heaps of Zoids material without leaving data behind.

- The rules say nothing about personal preference. Nor does it make assumptions about what people know. The "popularity" referenced to in the rules is simple stuff. Legacy sold less copies than there were viewers of New Century.

And thanks to Wikipedia and the Zoids wiki, "the name more people know" is influenced by the very websites trying to use it as justification, so we end up with a feedback loop. In my opinion, neither definition of "popular" should be used as a source.

- WTF. I posted this EXACT THING before in reply to you:

3) "Fan opinion" is self-fulfilling. "Because fans call it Elephantus, it should be Elephantus on the wiki", which in turn means any fans reading the wiki now call it Elephantus, which increases the number of fans calling it "Elephantus". That's circular reasoning, and could be applied to anything.

- The wiki does NOT use fan-based opinion as a judge.

Okay, seen alot has happened since last night. So far, it looks like Cheironyx has alot more credible citations listed than these mystical sales stats.

As for me:

- Leon makes mistakes all the time. This has nothing to do with the rules.

Considering Admins should be an example for the average contributor (and can reflect what average contributors do) I think this is a valid example of what weaknesses the current rules have.

- Your claim that Zaber Fangs are yellow is untrue. Non-model =/= non-canon.

Uhhh... not sure what =/= means. And, unless I've got a freakish case of sudden color blindness, my Zaber Fang model is blinding yellow, as is the one on the English Battle legends and the one on /Zero. How about your models?

- you have STILL not provided any way of quantifying information, regardless of what you think about popularity.

Skipping over the point that I said (several times) these were just factors to consider... it's not just quantity, it's the available facts in order of use on the Zoids page. Stats, story, pilots, use, molds, dates and so-on. If a page is entirely anime based (ex. characters) then it seems silly to go with the more obscure name. If there's a lot of specific varient/model-related info (Bigasauru) then why go with secondary appearances (ZRK)?

Just take a look at the average Zoid page around here, most have a stats sheet. NAR boxes only have weight, depth, hieght and max speed (or at least the 23 NAR boxes I own, if you have some please take a look) but no weapons, battle story or equipment, and in many cases no actual faction name, just the faction logo. Battle Legends (which isn't a very good source due to the player's ability to upgrade Zoids) has one or two standard weapon names, sure, but most of the other info missing. Without Japanese models and games and battle story this would be an inconsistant anime wiki.

- the rules clearly state that specific versions of Zoids are to be referred to by their specific name. If you have an issue with the "overview" sections, by all means, raise that in the forum (I believe they should be removed, for precicely the reasons you have listed), but it is irrelevant to the rules page.

Yeah man, I read that about specific varients, glad you noticed my whole campaign about how Title can lead getting varients mixed up.

- your canadian comment misses the mark. The thing the rules are preventing is multiple people saying "I don't like X translation, here, let's use mine instead".

And you missed my point about Canadian dubs. It's not a case of personal dislike of translation. Ocean is inconsistant with Hasbro and Tomy simple as that. Ocean is even inconsistant within it's own work, CC and /Zero were both done by the Ocean company (CC under the Blue Water Studios, one of Ocean's Studios) and we've got Saber and Zaber and guess what, the Zaber (the Zoid, not team!!!) are called both Tigers and Fangs by pilots.

Now, looking at Brad vs. Ballad, Brad is what is used to name the tiny figure inside my Command wolf AC action figure (the little toy not Model) and as I said before, I take printed US sources before Canadian translations (English games I'm a bit leary about as stated above) so using Brad vs. Ballad

And who's to say that a voice actor's improv for a name happened to catch on? What if Ocean changed the planned NAR name while writing script or recording? Working in film I know alot of this stuff happens.

The wiki does NOT use fan-based opinion as a judge.

And how might I ask you define popularity (concerning names and rules) if NOT through fan-base? Sales? Those are generally fan-based. Veiwers? Fan-based. Number of Wiki Editors? Unless you work for Tomy Hasbro insert whatever company here, it's most likely Fan-based.

Another thing, there's been alot of harping (mostly by leon) about the citation my edits, that's why I'm making more edits on talk pages. gotta go tildetildetildesquiggle

Me again Sylvanelite 23:07, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh... not sure what =/= means. And, unless I've got a freakish case of sudden color blindness, my Zaber Fang model is blinding yellow, as is the one on the English Battle legends and the one on /Zero. How about your models?

- Usually =/= is "not equals". So Slax would be saying non-model does not mean non-cannon. He also stated that CC calls non-yellow variants Zaber Fangs. Your point would be correct if all versions of "Zaber Fang" were yellow in all media. They are not.

Just take a look at the average Zoid page around here, most have a stats sheet. NAR boxes only have weight, depth, hieght and max speed (or at least the 23 NAR boxes I own, if you have some please take a look) but no weapons, battle story or equipment, and in many cases no actual faction name, just the faction logo.

- The rules only apply when there is conflicting translations. If weapon stats are only available in Japanese, the Japanese names will be used. In the example you've raised, the rules would not mask out information, it only provides a reliable way of translating the information. For example, battle story is Japanese only. Any names that appear in Battle Story, which have an official translation elsewhere, will use the official translation. None of the information from battle story will be removed. In the case of Battle Story, the only two alternatives are fan-translations or using names consistent with other media. Fan translations cause arguments. Official media resolves them.

Battle Legends (which isn't a very good source due to the player's ability to upgrade Zoids) has one or two standard weapon names, sure, but most of the other info missing.

- The stats in the info boxes are from the original Zoid boxes, if the games conflict with this, the game's alternate stats will be listed elsewhere.

Without Japanese models and games and battle story this would be an inconsistant anime wiki.

- Like I said before, anime sections are sections. Models and other media (e.g. games) are sections. The information in one section should not alter the information in another. The only thing the rules do is provide a way of translating Japanese media that avoids arguments.

Now, looking at Brad vs. Ballad, Brad is what is used to name the tiny figure inside my Command wolf AC action figure (the little toy not Model) and as I said before, I take printed US sources before Canadian translations (English games I'm a bit leary about as stated above) so using Brad vs. Ballad

- But why does the name from a tiny figure inside a command wolf AC take priority over: the anime, the games, the HMM model kit, etc.

And who's to say that a voice actor's improv for a name happened to catch on? What if Ocean changed the planned NAR name while writing script or recording? Working in film I know alot of this stuff happens.

- And your saying that if something does catch on, and (for argument's sake) 99% of people know it by the improv name, why should we use a totally different name that only 1% of people know? This is a VERY typical example of an argument. For example, there is Palty vs Party. The argument starts the minutes someone says "the Palty translation in XYZ is wrong because..." In this case, the fan starts to justify why "Party" should be used. They can provide a reasonably good argument for "Party". Then another fan comes along and provides and equally good reason for "Palty". We are now stuck. Nobody can settle the debate, not even admins. (unless admins have a particular bias, but generally we don't). The only way to settle this argument is to simply stop the debate at "the Palty translation in XYZ is wrong because..." with the response of: "The Palty translation is correct because, for whatever reason, it was Palty in official Zoids media". The argument does not break out, because people aren't debating which person improved more or who's improv was more faithful to the original, etc.

And how might I ask you define popularity (concerning names and rules) if NOT through fan-base? Sales? Those are generally fan-based. Veiwers? Fan-based. Number of Wiki Editors? Unless you work for Tomy Hasbro insert whatever company here, it's most likely Fan-based.

- Sales figures and viewership information are not fan-based. For example Zoids Assault American sales data. This is not influenced by how many forums a fan signs up for, or things like that. And as clarification, on other issues like "are the models more popular than the anime", we usually won't use popularity as a measure, because model sales are very hard to come by and misleading (online sales and re-sale through sites like ebay, can constitute the majority of sales of a model). We would use popularity usually for games, since their sales data is more available.

Another thing, there's been alot of harping (mostly by leon) about the citation my edits, that's why I'm making more edits on talk pages. gotta go tildetildetildesquiggle

- We have to now, a while ago there was a huge string of vandalism on the wiki, users inserted totally false information into hard-to-cite pages, which went unchanged because nobody had citations. Using the talk pages as you are is a very good thing, and I strongly encourage the use of talk pages.

Now for the last thing I'll mention here, because I've used it a lot so far. This is what I'm using as a guideline for changes to the rules:

1) Should be able to side with either Party or Palty, unambiguously.

2) The same ruling that decided Party or Palty should side with Brad over Ballad.

The current rules do that, and it is a major strength. A proposed change to the rules should as a minimum meet these two criteria. These criteria are a minimum, not a maximum. If someone has a problem with these criteria, you can read my justifications in the posts above. Sylvanelite 23:07, April 9, 2011 (UTC) (Slax's reply starts here:)

@Cheironyx:

I guess it depends on the size of the release and amount of supporting material.... It's hard to quantify...Finding a definition for this is even harder.. Quality is important too.

I know it is hard, that's why I keep asking it. If it were an easy thing to create, I would have updated the rules already. Until this issues is resolved, I cannot side with the rule being updated.

..and the Japanese material is a more reliable source in most cases than the English material.

Yes, but fantranslations of Japanese sources are not. This rationale is really only valid if we litterly write in Japanese. (btw: yes, if there are Italian names, we should mention them, but the point I was more making is we don't, and never will, use them as a page's Title)

on popularity, there's a burden of proof issue there, if something sold, we know it had market penetration of X. To then say this penetration =/= popularity, would require a citation. Because this citation can't be made (due to the reasons you point out), then sales figures are vaild guages of popularity.

@anon:

Considering Admins

Drop it. This isn't worth starting a flame war over. Leon makes mistakes. Deal with it. I do.

Uhhh... not sure what =/= means.

"not equals"

...How about your models?

Watch Chaotic Century. Also: Zero calls them Saber Tigers in the dubbing.

these were just factors to consider...

This is a re-iteration of the question I just asked you, not an answer. The fact that you are still unable to answer reaffirms to me that the rule is subjective. Again, I propose the Decalto Dragon as a case study.

Without Japanese models and games and battle story this would be an inconsistant anime wiki.

True, but irrelevant. No-one is stating that content should be changed. this referrs to the title.

Yeah man, I read that about specific varients, glad you noticed my whole campaign about how Title can lead getting varients mixed up.

Dude, they were screwed up well before this rule was made. 4chan has a word for this kind of comment: newfag. Obviously, that is an offensive term, so I am trying to give it a context, to make it as not offensive as possible, but really, these kinds of statements reflect a great deal of ignorance on how this wiki was written.

...the Zaber (the Zoid, not team!!!) are called both Tigers and Fangs by pilots.

You do realise that what you've done here is: 1-assumed that Zaber is a specific version of Tiger, 2- use this assumption to say that Zaber =/= Tiger and then 3- use this conclusion to state that the Dub is inconsistent, but the only reason 1 works is because you've excluded the Dub because of 3- see the circular logic? Whereas if you assume that Zaber and tiger are just two names for the same Zoid, then all these inconsistencies vanish. Of course, even without circular logic, the dub is official, and your assumptions are fanmade.

Now, looking at...

Once again proving how your rule is utterly subjective. This is why I keep asking for a definition of how to measure quantity and qulaity of information.

What if Ocean changed the planned NAR name while writing script or recording?

This happens in text as well. What's your point?

And how might I ask you define popularity (concerning names and rules) if NOT through fan-base? Sales? Those are generally fan-based. Veiwers? Fan-based.

No. They are demographic based. there's a difference. demographics are easily cited, "fans" are not, as to be a fan inferr having degree of liking, something which is incredibly difficult to measure. Sales data is most often produced by suppliers of Zoids products. Not the demanders. Slax01 01:53, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

if Sheterma is a valid romanisation and Stormer has never been written outside of Japanese characters, then your rules say go with Sheterma.

I've seen one official source for Sheterma and none for Störmer, so yes, it should be changed. But nobody has argued for "Sheterma" before now, just like nobody has argued for "Ballad" over "Brad" despite more sources for "Ballad".

Just because it "shouldn't" be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, as far as fan translations go, there was a long time ago, several fans who while translating the boxes for models, added in stats that never appeared on the original text.

Then it's not a valid translation. You can claim "seibaa taigaa" translates to "Zaber Fang", but it doesn't. Zaber Fang is a new name, not an actual translation.

According to your own logic, the "Zenebas" translation shouldn't be used, because that only exists in the anime. It should be ゼネバス (Zenebasu).

Wrong.

So, you'll deny that the anime is popular?

No, I was denying what Slax said: "Yes, but they [the models] are a weak and frail backbone that would collapse under their own weight if not held together by the muscle mass of the anime series." The anime is not our number-one source of information on Zoids.

If you want to keep spouting that it's 100% unambiguous, go ahead, but even the page you linked to states problems with that approach. ...A romanisation is ANY version of a word whereby it is written in english characters. ...A translation captures the meaning of the word.

A romanisation is a word using a foreign script, rewritten in English script. Yes, it's ambiguous, but what's on the Japanese boxes is NOT always a romanisation - for example, "Elepantus". Until you can find a word where "pa" is pronounced "fa", "Elepantus" is not a valid romanisation of エレファンタス. More importantly for the rules, the OJR Custmize Sets are written as 改造セット, so the romanisation would be Kaizou Set or kaizou setto. Custmize Set is a (mis)-translation to English. Custmize takes priority over Kaizou. Do you get my point?

The "popularity" referenced to in the rules is simple stuff. Legacy sold less copies than there were viewers of New Century.

But without knowing how many people played Legacy ROMs or hired New Century DVDs, those figures don't necessarily reflect which names people will recognise, which is the only purpose of using the figures. "Which spelling appears more often in official media" is less subjective than "which spelling is more widely recognised by the general public". That's a fact.

The NJR can't reliably be used, if it could, these rules would not exist. ...If fans do the translations themselves, there will be arguments. If we use official translations then that is unambiguous.

Yes, but fantranslations of Japanese sources are not. This rationale is really only valid if we litterly write in Japanese.

You both missed what I'm trying to propose as the rule - use the ENGLISH spellings given in JAPANESE sources, which are in general more consistent than the English spellings used in ENGLISH sources. Basically, my plan swaps the current rules 1 and 2.

The same ruling that decided Party or Palty should side with Brad over Ballad.

Party is not written in English in an official source. Palty is. All rule systems proposed so far choose Palty over Party, unambiguously. As for the Ballad thing, Ballad is written in English in an official source. Therefore, claiming Ballad is absolutely wrong is fan opinion ;)

Cheironyx 08:44, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

My reply: Sylvanelite 11:56, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I've seen one official source for Sheterma and none for Störmer, so yes, it should be changed. But nobody has argued for "Sheterma" before now, just like nobody has argued for "Ballad" over "Brad" despite more sources for "Ballad".

You said "So? The current rules would mean that Störmer should be moved to Sheterma." if that is a criticism of the current rules, and your proposed rules DO NOT address this criticism, then there is not benefit to making the change. Additionally, I already outlined the difference between Stormer and Brad. Stormer has NEVER been scrutinised, Brad's page has been scrutinised MANY TIMES. The reason nobody has argued for "Sheterma" is a DIFFERENT reason to why nobody has argued for Ballad. Nobody has argued for Sheterma because there was no debate. In Brad's case, there was ample debate (surname, surname spelling, age) but Ballad has never been suggested.

Then it's not a valid translation. You can claim "seibaa taigaa" translates to "Zaber Fang", but it doesn't. Zaber Fang is a new name, not an actual translation.

- It is a valid translation because Hasbro (or was it Tomy) ACTUALLY MADE THAT TRANSLATION. They ACTUALLY translated Saber Tiger into Zaber Fang, and is WHY the Zaber Fang name exists.

Wrong.

- Yeah. From that article: ZENEVAS and ZENEBAS. I know you were probably only talking about the pictures, but the text spells it out pretty clearly.

A romanisation is a word using a foreign script, rewritten in English script. Yes, it's ambiguous, but...

- No buts. Ambiguous rules will not be accepted.

"Elepantus" is not a valid romanisation of エレファンタス

- Yes it is actually a romanisation, but it may not be a standard romanisation. Again, the wiki page you linked to spells this out.

Custmize takes priority over Kaizou

- The current rules already make that ruling. If there is no change in ruling, I see no need to change the rules.

But without knowing how many people played Legacy ROMs or hired New Century DVDs, those figures don't necessarily reflect which names people will recognise, which is the only purpose of using the figures.

- The "only purpose" is to be unambiguous. Slax worded it quite well, the data is an indicator of supply not demand.

"Which spelling appears more often in official media" is less subjective than "which spelling is more widely recognised by the general public". That's a fact.

Three things: 1)"more often" results in Ballad over Brad. 2)"more often" is to defy common sense. It means names are used based on who can find more obscure media that support their version. Obscure is the opposite of common. I will not be enforcing rules that defy common sense. 3)"which spelling is more widely recognised by the general public" is not the current ruling.

You both missed what I'm trying to propose as the rule - use the ENGLISH spellings given in JAPANESE sources, which are in general more consistent than the English spellings used in ENGLISH sources. Basically, my plan swaps the current rules 1 and 2.

- And you've missed what I've been saying since the start. This change gives Ballad over Brad.

Party is not written in English in an official source. Palty is. All rule systems proposed so far choose Palty over Party, unambiguously.

- As I said before: The current rules already make that ruling. If there is no change in ruling, I see no need to change the rules.

As for the Ballad thing, Ballad is written in English in an official source.

- So is Brad and Barad. In fact, I already told you Ballad was used in offical English sources, Legacy, the NC0 DVDs. Pointing out something I already said does not counter my points, it enforces them.

Therefore, claiming Ballad is absolutely wrong is fan opinion ;)

- Except that to use Ballad for the Brad page would be to go against common sense. In fact, the point that you've argued this much for Ballad is a clear indicator that Ballad is not the common sense ruling. This is because you've not been arguing for Ballad, but arguing against the rules that support Brad, while the name Brad itself originates from the anime, and all other appearances of that character have been in reference to the anime, which means the anime in the primary source. Your reasoning for your rule changes is that the primary sources for Zoids should be used (the Japanese). So by your own logic, the same reasoning (but not your rules derived from your reasoning) should also give Brad over Ballad (Brad being the original anime, ballad being the derived incorrect name) however, they arrive at Ballad instead, meaning your reasoning does no even support your own rulings.

P.S. I always indent replies. I assume from the summary text that you are using the rich text editor? I don't use it, and the rules suggest turning it off. But I've put this line here to un-indent my text anyway =D (this ends my reply) Sylvanelite 11:56, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

"You both missed"

I wasn't going to reply here, since my concerns were not addressed, but if you're going to assert that I missed the point, than I shall simply point out a few observations you have overlooked, and see if this "missing" claim is true or not.

Premise #1:

"use the ENGLISH spellings given in JAPANESE sources, which are in general"

Missed issue #1: Rules are never applied in general cases.

Premise #2:

"more consistent than the English spellings used in ENGLISH sources."

Missed issue #2- the already mentioned circular logic of Zaber Fang "inconsistency".

Conclusion:

"Basically, my plan swaps the current rules 1 and 2."

Unfortunately a conclusion without any premises is no conclusion at all. Therefore, I never addressed it. And I still don't, because, as you can see, I took a look at your proposal, saw that the premises used to support that proposal had issues, and asked you questions to get you to address those issues. but instead of answers, VOILA! I get accused of missing the point. I am more than happy to implement your rule, but PLEASE address the issues first. (PS: in standard text editor, a simple linebreak will remove indentations. It is for these reasons I have recommend not to use rich text editor)

Slax01 12:57, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep this as short as I can:
1. Sheterma was not an argument for my rules, it was an argument against saying Brad automatically takes priority. As for Palty, I didn't bring the name up or argue it, I just responded to it.

2. Better illustration of what I mean: Pteras -> Ptera Striker. The "Striker" bit was not in the katakana. It was not in the romanisation (translation) on the Japanese box. It is an extra part fabricated by Hasbro. Ptera Striker is therefore NOT a translation of Pteras, it is a new name loosely based on Pteras. Same with Saber Tiger -> Zaber Fang.

3. You seemed to be implying that "Zenebas" was never written in English, so I showed that it was. "Zenevas" is also used, but "Zenebas" is more common.

4. "Use the most popular version" is an ambiguous rule. Sales figures do not directly equal popularity. If nothing else, rewrite the rules page more clearly.

5. The wiki page I linked to, and the various pages it links to, confirm that the romanisation of ファ is "fa". "Pa" is パ only. I don't see anything on the page allowing ファ to be romanised "pa", even in a non-standard system. Therefore, Elepantus is not a romanisation of エレファンタス, just as Zaber Fang is not a translation of Saber Tiger.

6. The current rules say "romanisation". Kaizou -> Custmize is translation, not romanisation. Either the examples or the word "romanisation" needs fixing.

7. Brad is based on the English dub. Ballad is based on the Japanese original. Brad is not a valid romanisation of Ballad. I do indeed say that the primary, original sources should be used. Ultra Saurus had a decent amount of discussion before I moved it to Ultrasaurus, but nobody thought to bring up that the space is only in the NJR name. Plus, multiple English sources and English-speaking fans have used the spelling Ballad over Brad, so it doesn't necessarily "go against common sense" to use Ballad. I think you can guess where I stand on this. (By the way, in terms of personal opinion, I don't care which name gets used. I'm just arguing for Ballad to support my other reasoning.)

8. Thanks for un-indenting ;)

Premise 1: It's the premise that's "in general", not the rule. A major premise for the current rules is that "in general, more fans recognise the English-source spelling over the Japanese-source spelling", resulting in rule number one: "If an English-source spelling exists it should always be used". My system is no less flawed than the current one.

Premise 2: The Zaber Fang is an example, not the entire case. As a better example, English sources use Gordosaur (NAR), Great Gorgon (OER), Gordox (RS), Gordos (anime) and also use Gordos for the Godos. EVERY Japanese source uses Gordos, and only for Gordos. When a Zoid is given a different name in different Japanese sources, it is always due to a model or stats difference (well, except for Mechabonica, which had no stats). Cheironyx 13:34, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

For Shetermer. It's never been scrutinised. It's not like Brad. I have said this multiple times. There is no analogy.

You point number 2 is providing (fan) reasons why (official) translations are "invalid". This logic causes arguments. Let me give you a rundown on why you are wrong about the translation issue. There are always two ways to perform translations, faithful and fluent. Take the phrase "the lord is my shepherd", translating this into a language that doesn't have the word "shepherd" can give either: "the lord is my person who moves sheep" or "the lord is my leader". The first one is faithful, the second one is fluent. Your logic only holds up for faithful translations, and claims fluent translations are invalid. When in fact, they are valid translations. Your logic would use "person who moves sheep" over "leader".

Point 3 and 4 was just showing how your rule prefers finding obscure media over common media, and even then, you haven't reliably shown that Zenebas is used "more" than Zenevas, which would be required under your rules.

Point 5. Let me re-quote the exact text I used before: Names can be subject to even more variation, with spellings depending on the individual's preference. For example, the manga artist Yasuhiro Nightow's family name would be more conventionally written in Hepburn romanization as Naitō.

Point 6 and 7. Your definitions of Romanisation and Translation aren't correct. "published Japanese media which uses English letters" is listed in the rules, and is sufficient. Sylvanelite 21:38, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

@Premise #1: "A major premise for the current rules is that "in general, more fans recognise the English-source spelling over the Japanese-source spelling" -ummm, no, (the main part of) the rationale is at the top of the page: "Romanisations do not take into account spelling or grammar, or other such context that makes the name correct to an English-speaker. They are simply Japanese words written with English letters, and as such, are unreliable."- of course this was just the rationale, more of the discussion can be seen on the forum page (before that, it was on random talk pages)- and again, much of it was about characters in the anime series or video games, and not just models.

@Premise #2: "s a better example, English sources use Gordosaur (NAR), Great Gorgon (OER), Gordox (RS), Gordos (anime) and also use Gordos for the Godos. EVERY Japanese source uses Gordos, and only for Gordos." woah woah woah, hold the boat. You're attacking the example, not the premise. go back and re-read my statement, and you'll see that all you've done is change the example, not fix the problem with the logic that makes the example invalid. Case in point, you've discounted Mechabionica, for having no stats, but included Robostrux, which also has no stats (I believe?).

Slax01 21:48, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Time to simplify my position.

1. Rule 1 says "official translations" and then discounts translations in Japanese sources, which are still translations. In addition, "Hellrunner" is not a translation of "Merda", not even a fluent one. It is a new name. This needs to be fixed.

2. Underneath Rule 1, it says "the most popular version", which by definition is subjective. You have already explained that you mean "the version appearing in media with the highest sales figures", which is not subjective. This needs to be fixed.

3. Rule 2 says "romanisations" and then goes on to describe translations from Japanese sources. "Custmize Set" is not a romanisation of 改造セット. It is a translation. Romanisation converts foreign script to English script, based on pronunciation. Translation converts foreign words to English words, based on meaning (if the word has a meaning, e.g. 改造 = customise) or spelling/pronunciation (e.g. モルガ = Molga). This needs to be fixed.

4. If this wiki uses any unofficial romanisations (e.g. Chuuou Tairiku no Tatakai rather than Battle of the Central Continent) we could add a rule specifying which system to use. This is just a suggestion.

5. Using NJR (then OJR) as priority sources is not 100% consistent, but it is more consistent than using whichever English source is "more popular". If there is a conflict (e.g. Zenebas vs Zenevas) then we could bring in the "more popular"/"higher sales figures" (e.g. Zenevas Memorial Box trumps ad pamphlets). Again, my system is just a suggestion.

Sylvanelite, your only justification so far for why Ballad is definitely wrong is that it hasn't been brought up on his talk page. You are using a lack of information to infer the opinions of certain fans who read this wiki. How exactly does that make it a valid justification? For romanisation vs literal translation vs fluent translation vs new name, see points 1 and 3 above.

Slax, the first two sentences of the rationale justify translation over romanisation. They do not justify English-source translation over Japanese-source translation, which is what Rule 1 and Rule 2 are trying to say (see point 3). This leaves "popularity is a useful and reliable criteria for picking the naming convention" as the only part of the rationale justifying Rule 1 over Rule 2. As for premise two, I said "more consistent", not "100% consistent". I gave an example showing "more consistent". A quick browse of the List of Zoids page confirms "more consistent".

Now I'd like to ask both of you a question. Garius vs Tyrannazoid. Which name would you choose for the page's title, and why? Cheironyx 04:57, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

For point 1, Hellrunner is a fluent translation. What you are saying as a counterexample only applies to faithful translations. (if you want to search more on the topic, I believe it's actually called Fidelity vs Transparency) Essentially, if a word "sounds wrong" is it translated to "sound right" in the host language. This is irrespective of what the word "sounds like" in the original language. Yes, Hellrunner is a "new name", that is because the "new name" preserves the connotations of the old name in the old language. As an example (may not be what actually happened, but I hope it gets the point across) if "Merda" sounds like a native word in Japanese, then the fluency translation is to make it sound like a native word in English, e.g. Hellrunner. If "Merda" was kept, it would begin to sound foreign, which would give it the wrong connotations in translation if it was supposed to sound local.

As for the Ballad thing, the Justification I gave for Brad over Ballad was threefold, not one-fold. These were the points and evidence I raised:

1) Common Sense - evidence: (don't really need evidence for common sense, but I have some none the less): The English spelling "Ballad" is only found in obscure sources. Obscure by definition is to go against common. (the only source that received an international English release is Zoids Legacy, which has major errors in it's dialogue). 2) Primary source vs derived source - Brad is the primary name in the English-Language anime. evidence: the anime. 3) The lack of support for Ballad in discussions of his naming - Brad's page has been scrutinised many times and Ballad has not been proposed as an alternative, this is unique to Brad's page. evidence: the talk page and trivia on Brad's page.

Note that I raised these points, so to say "my only point..." is missing the other points I raised. As for: "You are using a lack of information to infer the opinions of certain fans who read this wiki". No, I am using "the unanimous opinion of wiki contributors while engaged in debate of proposed naming changes, or otherwise". To drop that last bit is to ignore what I wrote three times:

- But during this (and other) scrutiny, not one member has ever proposed Ballad as being the forefront name.

- Brad's page has been scrutinised MANY TIMES.

- It's never been scrutinised. It's not like Brad.

So not only is your reply only addressing one of the points I raised, it even gets that one point wrong.

As for the rest of you post. I agree with some of the things said. I'm not here to say "no" all the time. Sylvanelite 08:07, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

to shorten the amount of text, I have excluded anything that would cause me to repeat myself.

Underneath Rule 1, it says "the most popular version", which by definition is subjective.

No it isn't. To use your link: "1- Widely liked or appreciated" can be objectively cited. 2- is irrelevant in context, "3. carried on by the people at large" can be cited objectively ("representing" is obviously irrelevant), "4. Fit for, [or] adapted to, ... the taste of the people at large" can be cited objectively ("reflecting" is irrelevant), "5. Accepted by or prevalent among the people in general", accepted requires statistical inference to objectively cite, but it can be done), and prevalent is certainly not subjective. 6 and 7 I see no relevance in this context. Similarly, each of 1,2 and 3 of the next definition can be cited objectively. 4 is irrelevant. under the thesaurus, it goes with well-liked. this is subjective, but the second, mass-market is not. I could go on, but I think it is suffice to say that most people don't have a good understanding of how statistics work. I do. "popular", given context, is not a subjective measure, provided citations are given.

You have already explained that you mean "the version appearing in media with the highest sales figures", which is not subjective. This needs to be fixed.

No that is a citation for popular, not the definition of popular, once again, you have mistaken the example for the premise. Sales data is but one measure of popularity. Any measure can be used, provided it can be cited.

4. If this wiki uses any unofficial romanisations (e.g. Chuuou Tairiku no Tatakai rather than Battle of the Central Continent) we could add a rule specifying which system to use. This is just a suggestion.

currently as per the Zoids Genesis articles, the only direction is to try to be consistent. If you are following a romaji system, that is sufficient for consistency, but it isn't necesscary. Forcing people, who may simply want to add one line or so, to look up and understand a romaji system or be accused of breaking the rules, seems a bit harsh. Especially if you consider how common copy-pasting second-hand tranlsations (where the original japanese is unavailable) is.

5. Using NJR (then OJR) as priority sources... Is there an NJR or OJR citation for "Van"? (no honestly, I don't know), either way, I feel the need to point out this is NOT a model-only rule. If it were, it would be completely different. 1....2.... 3... Slax, the first two sentences of the rationale justify translation over romanisation.They do not justify English-source translation over Japanese-source translation,

I think you are getting confused by what "japanese media" means. If it is translated (doesn't matter by whom) then it is an English media. That's the definition of a translation, right? Unless you thought I meant "English" the country, but obviously, that would exclude America, which would be a silly mistake to make, right? It's not like I used "Western", right? Oh, and if you are tying to trap me into a Loki's wager on how to distinguish a romanisation from a translation, please don't, there is already a rule on the page that covers this avenue of attack, and I don't want both of our time to be wasted.

I also note you still try to use "consistency" and still are using circular logic to prove yourself right. And unfortunately, I don't fall for fallacies. Pity too, because repition is also a fallacy, so repeating your claim but changing your example for a (what? fourth time now?) is also not going to work. Yes, this is getting more condecending, I apopolgise, this is just how I write, I mean no offense.

Slax01 09:41, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Sylvanelite: Hellrunner is not a fluent translation. Merda has no meaning in Japanese. マーダ does not meaningfully approximate any word in Japanese. The only meaning of Merda in any language (as far as I can tell) is a swear word meaning "excrement". Hellrunner does not preserve any connotations of Merda, it creates its own connotations. In the same way, Zark and Rado do not preserve any connotations of Pteras. They are new names, not translations. My point stands.

The English spelling "Ballad" appears in Legacy and Battle Legends. The English spelling "Brad" appears on an action figure box and maybe some DVD cases. "Brad" is pronounced in the English-dubbed anime, yes, but "Ballad" is pronounced in the Japanese original (the primary source). As for the talk-page thing, I'll update my statement: You are using a lack of information to infer the opinions of every fan who reads Brad's page on this wiki. This lack of information is despite three wiki users debating his last name on the talk page, making it a somewhat more reliable indicator of opinion. Also, you probably know this already, but note that I am not arguing that "Ballad" is 100% right. I am arguing that it is not 100% wrong.

Slax: What people like, appreciate, accept or hold in good taste is an opinion. I'll admit that it can be objectively cited, but it can also change, rendering the citation invalid. Also, sales figures do not measure opinions on names, they measure knowledge of names. So does "popular" mean "popular with fans" (in which case sales figures are irrelevant) or "appears in popular sources" (in which case it should be re-written more clearly)?

As for the translation vs romanisation thing, the page currently defines Japanese boxes as "romanisations". "Custmize Set" comes from a Japanese box, but Custmize Set is a translation and not a romanisation (I assume you and Sylvanelite accept that, since you haven't argued against it). The page also excludes Japanese boxes (and therefore English text on the Japanese boxes) from the "translations" category. This is a problem and needs fixing. If either of you disagree, please explain exactly what is wrong with this paragraph.

About "consistency", please point out exactly where the circle in my logic is, so that I can fix it. I honestly do not know exactly where the circle is. Finally, I notice that neither of you responded to the "Garius vs Tyrannazoid" question. This is important for me to fully understand your justifications of the current rules. (P.S. I understand about the condescending thing, hopefully I don't do it too much myself.) Cheironyx 12:04, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to keep my posts short. "Merda has no meaning in Japanese" only applies to faithfulness. Still does not address fluency. Your other comments also fall short. Unless you know the decision-making process Hasbro or Tomy used when making the Hellrunner name, you can't argue against the fluency of their translation.

As for Brad, you provided evidence that I already used in my points. I posted you've posted there. That enforces my point, not deny it. Japanese anime was only aired in Japan, english anime was aired in UK, USA, Austraia and New Zealand (at least) and was given repeats. There was no fansub at the time of english release.

Only 3 people? That was the talk page, yes. Search on the wiki, you'll find that all 4 admins, Tilly, Imperial Dragon and some anon members participated in the discussion. That's at least 9 members. In addition, these post have been going on for 3 years.

Finally, it's become obvious that you think I said Ballad was wrong. This is not true. I said using Ballad over Brad was the wrong decision, not that there was anything wrong with Ballad itself. To quote myself:

To support that change would mean to also change Brad's page to Ballad (since brad is almost exclusively called Brad in the spoken anime only), which is the wrong decision.

You can see I was referring to the decision being wrong, not Ballad itself. Sylvanelite 15:12, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Whew, you all are quite long-winded... I just breezed through all of this argument, but I don't really see that it's going anywhere. I also re-read the entire set of rules, and with a small exception that isn't even germane to the current argument, believe they stand well worded and correct in what they intend to do. I'll bring up my qualm with the current set of rules later when this is resolved.--Azimuth727 20:39, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

" it can also change, rendering the citation invalid."

So update the citation.

"Also, sales figures do not measure opinions on names, they measure knowledge of names."

I have already addressed this. they are a relevant proxy in lieu of evidence to the contrary.

So does "popular" mean...

It means any version of popular that can be cited.

I assume you accept that since you haven't argued against it

"published Japanese media which uses English letters" I didn't argue because you're using definitions not used on the page, so are irrelevant.

The page also excludes Japanese boxes (as translations) 1-No, it doesn't 2- see above. About "consistency", please point out exactly where the circle in my logic is, so that I can fix it. I honestly do not know exactly where the circle is

essentially, you compare release to release for consistency, but give no reason why this comparison is valid in the first place. Why is Robostrux (I assume an english-based release?) comparable to the NJR?

Garius is probably more popular than Tyrannazoid, considering how long it has been on this wiki (2008, and I assume wikipedia before that- WELL before the rules were created). Part of the reason why we need the rules, to be honest. Slax01 21:45, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

The current rules page refers to "published English media" as "official translations". What about Gorilla Tron? Gorilla Tron came out a year before Ray Kong, making it the original name, not a translation. If the UK comic was translated into French, for instance, the English version would not be a translation. Legz is not a translation of Tarantulon, because they both appear in English-speaking countries and are based on English words. The "definition" on the page works well, but the words it defines should be fixed.

For the use of popular, Sylvanelite mentioned a while back that "this [how many people know of a certain name] is the only version of "popular" the rules consider." As I was trying to point out, "popular" generally refers to opinion about something, not knowledge of it, so the use of the word "popular" to mean "widely-known" is confusing. Yes, "popular" can mean "widely-known", but this is not mentioned on the main page, and "widely-known" is a less ambiguous term than "popular". The rules page (rather than the talk page) should make it clear that "widely-known", not "widely-liked", is the criterion being used.

Rule 2 refers to "Japanese media which uses English letters" (including "Japanese boxes") as "official romanisations". I have already pointed out that Custmize is not a romanisation of 改造. Another issue is that romanisation is a type of translation, so giving "translations" priority over "romanisations" is meaningless. Slax said earlier that "If it is translated (doesn't matter by whom) then it is an English media." If this is the case, the entire category 2 is meaningless, since it will always fall into category 1. Again, the "definition" is usable but the "romanisations" part is not. I am indeed "using definitions not used on the page" because the definitions on the page are wrong. If the page defined 4 as 1+1, I still wouldn't use 1+1 as my definition of 4.

For Brad vs Ballad, even if 50 people debated his name, it would not prove that nobody wants to change the page name to Ballad. By the current rules, if Ballad is used in "published English media", then it is not 100% "the wrong decision", it is a valid option, just one that few people would argue for. I guess the current rules would make it about 98% "the wrong decision". ...I've basically proven my point and yours at the same time. Does that mean we both win that argument? :P

As for "consistency", I think different releases are comparable. English spellings in Robo Strux are (as far as I know) 100% consistent within the release and its supporting material. English spellings in various NJR sources are somewhere between 80% and 95% consistent. The releases and their supporting material can be defined and then compared. Why don't I use Robo Strux over NJR? Because my justification also factors in size (harder to define, but a large enough difference will be obvious, just like colours), and my system uses "published Japanese media using English letters" over "published English media". More importantly, my justification so far has been more about showing superiority to the current rules than providing a completely unambiguous system (sorry about that). Both systems distinguish between all "published English media" and all "published Japanese media using English letters". The sum total of all "published Japanese media using English letters" is more consistent (and therefore less ambiguous as a rule) than the total of all "published English media", so it makes more sense (not total sense) to use "published Japanese media using English letters" over "published English media". Finally, for Garius/Tyrannazoid, I want to know which name you think we should use. If you are saying that you would choose "Garius", then you are going against the "English media over Japanese media" rule system. Cheironyx 03:48, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

For the Brad thing, "by the current rules...", well the current rules say common sense should resolve conflicts. Unless you actually want to propose moving Brad's page to Ballad, I don't see any reason to continue arguing that point. Sylvanelite 04:25, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

"The "definition" on the page works well, but the words it defines should be fixed. "

Just so you know, I'm not replying to this paragraph because I don't care. If you do, provide an alternative wording. If it is better than the current one, it will be used.

""popular" to mean "widely-known"

width of knowledge is much more specific and difficult to cite than popularity. Despite your quotation "width" was not present in Sylvan's post.

"Another issue is that romanisation is a type of translation"

Only according to you. Not the page. Nowhere on the page does it say a romanisation is a type of translation. More importantly; it is a fallacy to assume that something that comprises part of the process is a substitute for the whole process.

Even your source is clear that a translation should "render in another language"- using english letters is NOT sufficient to write in english. Point in case: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

"If the page defined 4 as 1+1, I still wouldn't use 1+1 as my definition of 4. "

If I feel murder is justified, that doesn't mean I won't go to jail for it if I get caught. We don't stop vandals, we just make rules agains them.

"I think different releases are comparable"

You still didn't say why.

"More importantly, my justification so far has been more about showing"

You aren't showing anything, just constantly reiteraing your opinions. I KNOW what you want to achieve, I am trying to get you to create a case for it.

"If you are saying that you would choose "Garius"

good thing I'd not say that then.

Slax01 09:21, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't care. If you do, provide an alternative wording. If it is better than the current one, it will be used.

"Spellings used in official English [or English-language, if you want to make the meaning absolutely clear] sources." This fits the examples better than the current wording. "English" does not necessarily equal "translation", and "published" does not necessarily equal "official" (bootlegs being an obvious example). For rule 2, "English spellings used in official Japanese [or Japanese-language] sources". "English-language text on Japanese boxes" does not necessarily equal "romanisation". If you don't think these are better than the current wording, please explain why.

width of knowledge is much more specific and difficult to cite than popularity.

Well, what would you say sales figures measure? Be more specific than "popularity", please.

using english letters is NOT sufficient to write in english. Point in case: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

Do English speakers call it "St Mary's Church in the hollow of the white hazel near the rapid whirlpool and the church of St Tysilio by the red cave"? No, they call it Llanfairpwll... (I'm not writing the whole thing again). So Llanfairpwll... is the English spelling. Sorry about saying "romanisation is a type of translation", I should have put "romanisation overlaps with translation". Sylvanelite said earlier "A translation captures the meaning of the word, which in this case IS a romanisation". Rules (actually, Categories is probably more accurate) 1 and 2 should not overlap.

We don't stop vandals, we just make rules agains them.

I was defending my ability to use "definitions not used on the page" to claim definitions used on the page were incorrect. It's hard to provide a counterexample if you're only allowed to use the original example. :P

You still didn't say why. ...I am trying to get you to create a case for it.

Robostrux vs NJR can be compared. Will the comparison provide a meaningful result? Perhaps not, which is why size is used as the large-scale justification for my system, and consistency is used as the small-scale justification as soon as "size" becomes ambiguous. Comparing the NAR and OJR for consistency is more likely to give a meaningful result. If you think the NAR and OJR are not comparable, please explain exactly why so that I can improve the justification. I'm trying to create a case, I'm just not great at it, so if you keep pointing out problems and I keep trying to fix them, we might eventually get somewhere ;)

Garius vs Tyrannazoid. Which name would you choose for the page's title, and why?

Could you and/or Sylvanelite please answer this? I want to know your reasoning. Cheironyx 11:18, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Garius of course. Battlestory is more important than the OER storyLeon35 19:48, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Spellings used in official English sources. English spellings used in official Japanese sources.

This does not take into account anything verbal.

Sorry about saying...

Apology accepted. The "overlapping" comment, once again, employs the parts to the whole fallacy. They only overlap if you remove all connotations of context, as your above proposaled alternatives do.

I was defending my ability to..

Yes, but as technical definitions are NOT employed, to do so is to employ a straw man fallacy- substituting definitions on the page with other defintitions that are not on the page and then arguing against them does not weaken the page.

Robostrux vs NJR can be compared.

Still no reason WHY. If all you've got is an opinion, then that alone is enough to dismiss the comparison.

...Will the comparison provide a meaningful result? Perhaps not

The fact that this is subjective is why these comparisons are inadequate rationale for a rule. As an example, despite now admitting the comparison is invalid, you DID comaprare RS to NJR.

If you think the NAR and OJR are not comparable

I don't think that, your claim was that japanese is more consistent than english, then compared NJR to ORJ and NAR to RS and claimed the comparisons were valid. You should now be able to see the problem with this.

"I want to know your reasoning."'

Tyrannazoid, my reasoning is plastered all over this page.

@Leon: Yet the UK comic has a page and the battle story does not. Slax01 21:50, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

actualy, I have been curious why we don have a battlestory page...I guess we could recruit Tilly, if she is willing.

Tyrannazoid is specific to only the OER comic, while Garius stretches from Mechabonica, to the OAR, to Starzeta, to the OJR, and to the TDP Memorial Box. Plus, if we did use Tyrannazoid, what about its Red Mutant version? Why use Tyrannazoid over that name? Garius is overall a better choice and that is how it will stay.

Why are we focusing on the Garius pageanyway? there are more signifigant things to be changing, like Spinosapper vs Spinosnapper, as discussed above.

Leon35 22:08, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

In response to:Could you and/or Sylvanelite please answer this? I want to know your reasoning. From my talk page: I do not own many Zoids models or games, because of the relative difficulty to get these in Australia, but you'll find me editing a lot of the anime-related articles. And as I posted before: Being an admin doesn't make you have an infinite well of knowledge from nowhere. I only post about pages I have specific knowledge on. Hence why I used Brad vs Ballad and Palty vs Party, and the Zaber Fangs (that's one of the few models I do own). I don't own a Garius, I've never even seen one. If you have a problem with a specific page, as I've said before, go post on that talk page. Most likely the rules have not been applied to that article. The current members haven't gone looking through the various releases/appearances of that Zoid because nobody has raised it as an issue. If you want me to voice opinion on Garius, I can't do it by reading the fragmented information posted on this page.

As for: "Sylvanelite said earlier "A translation captures the meaning of the word, which in this case IS a romanisation"." Please don't quote me where I say "in this case", and remove the context. In fact, that quote specifically started with the words: "... your definitions for "romanisation" and "translation" are wrong". Sylvanelite 23:50, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

This does not take into account anything verbal.

As anon explains below, verbal sources are not a citation for spelling. We have no citation from the anime itself that "Brad" in the anime was not actually spelled "Bradd". In cases like Jack Cisco/Sisco, apparently his last name appears on a leaderboard in one episode, so we can use the spelling given in the anime. For cases like Brad, all we have is supporting material (e.g. the DVD features and action figure) and fan transcription. If you like, you can add "fan transcription" as a rule/category, but don't put it above official spellings. Does anyone have any other reasons not to use my wordings?

substituting definitions on the page with other defintitions that are not on the page and then arguing against them does not weaken the page.

If the page defined 4 as 1+1 and I was only allowed to use that definition to argue against that definition, how am I supposed to show 4 is not 1+1? It ends up becoming "4 is/isn't 1+1 because I say so".

Robostrux vs NJR can be compared.

It is within the bounds of possibility to compare the two. Proof: I did it before. I'm not saying Robostrux and NJR are necessarily worthy of comparison. I'm trying to avoid an attack based on the meaning of "comparable". Yes, I'm a hypocrite. :P

then compared NJR to ORJ and NAR to RS and claimed the comparisons were valid.

No, I compared NJR plus OJR to NAR plus RS and claimed the comparison was valid. If it isn't, explain why.

If you want me to voice opinion on Garius, I can't do it by reading the fragmented information posted on this page.

Use the information on the Garius page, it's correct as far as I know. I have almost zero first-hand experience with most Zoids material, that doesn't stop me from knowing/learning about it.

Please don't quote me where I say "in this case", and remove the context.

If a translation and a romanisation overlap in any case, then they overlap. I should have mentioned that "in this case" referred to Mazinger, and I apologise. But the Mazinger case is roughly equivalent to, for instance, Geruder. Neither word has a meaning in any language (as far as I can tell), therefore (by your definitions/reasoning in the Mazinger paragraph) the translation and romanisation overlap in a specific Zoids-related case. Cheironyx 05:10, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Well, to say Mazinger has no meaning in Japanese isn't quite true. Ma means demon, Jin means god. So it does have a basis in Japanese. (It's a reference to how someone with a super robot essentially has the power to be a god or a demon). Sylvanelite 06:54, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

1. Spellings used in official English-language sources

2. English spellings used in official Japanese-language sources

3. English spellings used in other official sources (e.g. Spanish, Italian)

4. Unofficial English transcriptions (i.e. names used in English-language audio but with no clear spelling)

5. Unofficial translations and unofficial romanisations

In the event of multiple names of the same priority level existing, if common sense does not resolve the conflict, use the most popular version.

This is a valid, workable, unambiguous (except for the disambiguation sentence) rule system. We cannot be 100% certain of the spellings used in audio sources (e.g. the voices in the anime) unless that audio specifically spells it out (e.g. X-E-M-N-A-S). We can be 100% certain in 100% of cases of spellings used in text sources. Therefore text sources take priority over audio sources. The "most popular version" needs a less ambiguous wording, but I don't see any way in which this rule system is inferior to the current system, and it is less ambiguous than the current system (therefore superior to it in at least one way). If nobody points out an inferiority within a reasonable time (maybe two weeks at most), this rule system should be used. Any problems? Cheironyx 13:30, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

But if something is clearly different (Jimmy vs Jaime, Snapper vs sapper), then there is no legitimate reason to disregard the audio. It's not like Jamie isn't a commonly-spelt and uncontentious English name. And it certainly isn't "Jimmy".

I already gave my rationale. There's no proof in the audio that his name is spelled Jamie, and not, for instance, Jamey. Spellings in text will always provide proof of spelling. We don't have to disregard the audio entirely - if Jamie is used in any English source (which it is), we can then bring in "common sense" and "popularity" to justify it over the more commonly-used "Jimmy". Finally, if you can show that the audio provides solid evidence for a single spelling... it falls into the "spelling" category.

I knew Ray Gregg as Rei

Your romanisation, or do you have an actual official spelling of his name? o_o

English spellings used in other official sources (e.g. Spanish, Italian) ...'and unofficial romanisations

If I throw in these bits, the categories should now be mutually exclusive and (I think) add up to the sum total of all citable English spellings. They also use dictionary definitions (good luck finding a dictionary that defines "translation" as "published English media") and, as mentioned earlier, are therefore less ambiguous/confusing than the current categories. Looks like a superior system to me. Cheironyx 01:39, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

@ Cheironyx, Rei is FMC's spelling. Even after learning about Ray Gregg, I thought Rei and Ray were different characters until seeing some battlestory pics matched his FMC picture. tildetildetildesquiggle

@ Cheironyx:

There's no proof in the audio that his name is spelled Jamie, and not, for instance, Jamey.

I already told you, the lack of a citation that it isn't is the citation. Basically, in English, we normally spell it Jamie, and, as there is no citation for Jamey, we have no reason to assume it correct- which is what we would have to do if we were to use it. In other words, as Jamey is the least plausible wording, it requires the most proof. As no proof exists either way, it is logical to use Jamie is superior, as it is the least unlikely name. Either way, it is clearly not Jimmy, so to use Jimmy is to overlook a valid citation. Of course, in many cases choosing the "least unlikely" name is difficult- but in many cases it is not, and in these cases, there is no good reason to automatically dismiss the audio. Given this, I see no need to automatically dismiss or include audio based on a predefined rule, as it seems much more appropriate to utilise citations and context to resolve the issue on a case-by-case basis, given the obvious diversity of audio.

(I know the citation for Jaime exists but, for argument's sake, the above is written as if it didn't, because what is important is the thought process, not the example.)

Spanish or other languages have had absolutely no meaningful discussion on this wiki so I feel it is premature to include them on the rules. How to deal with them would be better addressed on a separate page, as there are wider and more important formatting issues that would need to be addressed as well.

Slax01 10:47, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Given this, I see no need to automatically dismiss or include audio based on a predefined rule, as it seems much more appropriate to utilise citations and context to resolve the issue on a case-by-case basis, given the obvious diversity of audio.

As I tried to explain earlier, if you can show that the audio supports a certain spelling, then it falls under rule/category 1. If you can't, then the audio source is less reliable than any text source (and also an "unofficial" source of spelling) and so falls into rule/category 4.

Spanish or other languages have had absolutely no meaningful discussion on this wiki so I feel it is premature to include them on the rules.

I added them for completion's sake and in case we ever need a rule about them (e.g. for Tyrannazoid vs Garius vs Starzeta-I). Their usage, rationale etc. is pretty much the same as rule/category 2. If you or the admins don't want them as a category, go ahead and remove them. Cheironyx 12:54, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

"As I tried to explain earlier, if you can show that the audio supports a certain spelling, then it falls under rule/category 1. "

yet you clearly state above that "verbal sources are not a citation for spelling". -if the goal is to be unambiguous, and even the writer is getting confused, then I don't think it has succeeded. Secondly, the question still remains: even if the English has no clear spelling, if it is clearly different to the Japanese, then why does the Japanese automatically take priority? Say, Schubaltz for example. It is clearly not Schwarz but there is no clear english spelling for "Schubaltz" either (again, for argument's sake, assume no english citations exist either way)

Slax01 21:35, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

yet you clearly state above that "verbal sources are not a citation for spelling".

I don't/didn't believe that audio sources provide a sufficient citation for a single spelling. You seem to be arguing that they do, in some cases. I modified my argument based on this viewpoint. If you can show that an audio source clearly supports a particular spelling (case by case, since this won't always be true) then you have proven me wrong (nothing new there) but the rules still cover it.

even if the English has no clear spelling, if it is clearly different to the Japanese, then why does the Japanese automatically take priority? ...(again, for argument's sake, assume no english citations exist either way) If the English has no clear spelling and no written citations, using the English name anyway would mean using an unofficial spelling (of an official pronunciation). If there is an "English spelling in an official Japanese-language source", that is an official spelling. My rule system gives official spellings priority over unofficial spellings. This is a text-based site, so spellings are more important (and usable) than pronunciations here. Do I need to justify it any further? Cheironyx 08:12, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't/didn't believe... I modified my argument

This is why I don't like the rule: because I was able to argue for my spelling, and the rules were unable to provide a black-and white ruling either supporting or rejecting my argument they are not adequate, as the only purpose of the rules is to stop people constructing subjective arguments on talk pages (obviously, other than this one).

This is a text-based site, so spellings are more important (and usable) than pronunciations here.

Usable, yes. Important, no. Models are not text-based. Videos are not text-based. Battle story is. Games are (mostly), but the amount of text-based content that is actually on this wiki is the in vast minority of total information. We describe models using text, but obviously, the text is not more important than the model itself. Yes, the wiki is text-based, but the Zoids franchise is not.

Slax01 10:03, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

the amount of text-based content that is actually on this wiki is the in vast minority of total information.

I said more important than pronunciations. By "important", I meant more citable (since we don't use phonetics) and more suitable for use on a text-based wiki... yeah, I probably should have just said "usable"... :P

the only purpose of the rules is to stop people constructing subjective arguments on talk pages

I thought the purpose of the rules was to decide what name (and spelling of name) to use as an umbrella term. Either way, I might as well go back to the black-and-white "no audio in category 1 ever" idea. The only problem with that system is the whole "audio gets stuck below official text" thing, which only causes issues when official spellings do exist but none of them match the anime pronunciation. I'm still looking for a case where this actually occurs - if I find one, I'll let you know. (Well, there is "Gairyuki" vs "Guy-ricky", but does that really hurt my argument? :P ) Cheironyx 03:28, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the rules was to decide what name (and spelling of name) to use as an umbrella term.

but why do we need to do that? Because if we don't, people argue. The use of an umbrella rule is a means to an end, not an end in of itself.

Either way, I might as well go back to the black-and-white "no audio in category 1 ever" idea...which only causes issues when official spellings do exist but none of them match the anime pronunciation.

I don't understand, as far as I can tell, you mean one of two things, either:

to use audio to cite text, and not the other way around (as is currently used), or

to use text regardless of audio.

For illustration of why I don't think this is a good system, take the following example:

Firstly, assume no english text is available for "Leena", and assume all Japanese text is in characters (not letters) except in the following two instances: "Rinon" on Harry's parachute in New Century and "Leena" on the HMM box.

under the first of my understanding, we would cite "leena" from the HMM box and then use the audio to back up this spelling, rather than use the box to back up the dub. This has obvious problems. It is 1- unintuitive and 2- if we had referenced prior to the box art becoming public, we would have been forced to use "Rinon" for years, despite it obviously not being "leena", and then suddenly changing it to "Leena" when the box came out- even though it would have saved alot of effort to just do this in the first place.

under the second understanding, we would use "rinon" and then, when the HMM box came out, would be at a complete loss as to which is to be used because citing the relative popularity of two ridiculously obscure media (one a momentary shot in the anime, the other an incredibly new, niche-market, model) is incredibly difficult.

In either interpretation, I have illustrated how the proposed alternative significantly reduces the integrity of the rules, because by excluding the most popular citation, you remove the reliability of the popularity clause to settle arguments. And the importance of the popularity clause should not be understated.

Further, no answer as to which interpretation is correct can be obtained from the current rules, so they should be revised for clarity.

Slax01 08:39, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Only one quick question from me: Is there an example where the proposed changes actually rule something different to the current rules? Like I mentioned previously, unless there is a need for the rules to change, I don't want to change them. Sylvanelite 10:32, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

unless there is a need for the rules to change, I don't want to change them.

The current rules have various problems, some (but not all) of which can be fixed with a simple edit. I think that's a decent reason to change them. Plus, the current rules are inconclusive for Gusak, as explained below.

Problem: French/Italian/Spanish names (e.g. Starzeta-I) are not covered by the current rules at all.
Solution: Add an "other languages" category, probably underneath the Japanese category.

Problem: The current rules refer to "published" media, which would include bootlegs, doujinshi, and (if you count web media like the Web Comic as published) every single fansite.
Solution: Change "published" to "official". If "official" needs defining, I would say "approved by TakaraTomy or another Zoids copyright holder".

Problem: The current rules do not use dictionary definitions of "translation" and "romanisation", leading to possible confusion. Not all "English media" is a translation, and not all "English spellings in Japanese media" are romanisations.
Solution: Remove the "official translations" and "official romanisations" parts and just use the definitions as the categories.

Problem: The common sense/popularity clause is required at any level, but is placed under level 1.
Solution: Move it to below the list and reword it to refer to "two or more names at the same level".

Problem: "Most popular" is ambiguous - does it mean "most known", "most used", "most liked" or "appears in most official media"? (And don't say "all of them", because they sometimes result in different names.)
Solution: Replace "popular" with the exact meaning intended. Also, "common sense" can be subjective and hard to define, but I don't have a better alternative for it yet.

Problem: Audio does not always provide a sufficient citation for spelling, and this can cause insufficiencies in the current rules - a major example being "Gusak" (NAR and NPR) vs "Guysack" (NER and Japanese) vs "Guysak" (Legacy). The anime name is pronounced something like "guy-zakk", which doesn't distinguish between "Guysack" and "Guysak", making the "most popular" spelling dubious. "Common sense" could say "use Gusak because it's the model name and is completely unoffensive" or "use Guysak because it fits the anime (and therefore popular) pronunciation and is fairly unoffensive". So what do we do?
Solution: I don't know... Slax objected to all my text-over-audio proposals.

Problem: The current rules give "Tyrannazoid" priority over "Garius", despite Garius being more popular in every (citable) sense and a more reliable, faithful and fluent translation of ガリウス (and Tyrannazoid isn't even accurate to its source). The rationale for Tyrannazoid mostly comes down to "this is the English wiki so we should use English names", which is almost as hard to argue against as "1+1=4 because I say so" :P
Solution: Again, I don't know. We can't really do much about this without changing the rules massively.

Problem: The current rules support "Strum Fury", which is clearly a typo.
Solution: No idea. Maybe email Hasbro so they can use "Sturm Fury" in an "official" reply? :P

Cheironyx 08:04, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Problem: French/Italian/Spanish names (e.g. Starzeta-I) are not covered by the current rules at all.

This isn't a problem. We aren't a Spanish wiki, so there is NO reason to use Spanish (or any other) name as the TITLE of the page. Remember, the section in question has nothing to do with CONTENT, that's a different issue.

Problem: The current rules refer to "published" media, which would include bootlegs, doujinshi, and (if you count web media like the Web Comic as published) every single fansite.
Solution: Change "published" to "official". If "official" needs defining, I would say "approved by TakaraTomy or another Zoids copyright holder".

1- you've taken this out of context, "i.e." means it is an illustrative term. Illustration need not be strictly correct. The "eg" and the like give sufficient context either way.

2- "official" is already used in the name, so putting "official, ie: official" is redundant and not illustrative.

Problem: The current rules do not use dictionary definitions of "translation" and "romanisation", leading to possible confusion.

"possible confusion" but not "probable confusion", so, frankly, I don't care. Anyone who's smart enough to know the dictionary definition should be smart enough to get the meaning of the page. If they aren't, the shouldn't be editing.

Not all "English media" is a translation, and not all "English spellings in Japanese media" are romanisations.

This is irrelevant, all necessary context is given on the page, to ignore it, as you are repeatedly doing, is the user's choice, and not a fault with the rules.

Problem: The common sense/popularity clause is required at any level, but is placed under level 1. Solution: Move it to below the list and reword it to refer to "two or more names at the same level".

As soon as this discussion is over, I'll send a list of changes to admins to be enacted. This will be one of them.

Problem: "Most popular" is ambiguous - does it mean "most known", "most used", "most liked" or "appears in most official media"? (And don't say "all of them", because they sometimes result in different names.)

It means whatever can be cited. Ambiguity here is useful and intentional. This rends the "solution" inappropriate.

Also, "common sense" can be subjective and hard to define, but I don't have a better alternative for it yet.

If it is subjective and hard to define, then it isn't common sense. "can be" is not a useful way to think of these things as you tend to loose sight of context.

Problem: Audio does not always provide a sufficient citation for spelling, and this can cause insufficiencies in the current rules

I have seen no case where this has happened.

- a major example being "Gusak" (NAR and NPR) vs "Guysack" (NER and Japanese) vs "Guysak" (Legacy). The anime name is pronounced something like "guy-zakk", which doesn't distinguish between "Guysack" and "Guysak", making the "most popular" spelling dubious. "Common sense" could say "use Gusak because it's the model name and is completely unoffensive" or "use Guysak because it fits the anime (and therefore popular) pronunciation and is fairly unoffensive". So what do we do?
Solution: I don't know... Slax objected to all my text-over-audio proposals.

I'll have to have a look at this, it'll be on the relevant talk page. I don't think any issues are raised if the rules are actually applied.

Problem: The current rules give "Tyrannazoid" priority over "Garius"

It does not. It only does on the current citations, which are incomplete. Once I get the full info, I will go over and post some more on that page.

Problem: The current rules support "Strum Fury", which is clearly a typo.
Solution: No idea. Maybe email Hasbro so they can use "Sturm Fury" in an "official" reply? :P

Again, this is a citaion issue. The berserk fury page, before half of it was killed, was an absolute dog's breakfast. citations are VERY lacking on that page.

Slax01 11:29, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

We aren't a Spanish wiki, so there is NO reason to use Spanish (or any other) name as the TITLE of the page.

Then put the Spanish name as lowest priority. The rules should cover any citable name, not just popular ones.

"i.e." means it is an illustrative term. Illustration need not be strictly correct. ...putting "official, ie: official" is redundant and not illustrative.

"i.e." means "in other words" - i.e. a definition. "Official translations" and "published English media" are two different categories which happen to overlap in some cases, so using "published English media" as a definition, illustration or example of "official translations" is inappropriate. Also, using the next "solution" removes any "official i.e. official" redundancy.

As soon as this discussion is over, I'll send a list of changes to admins to be enacted.

Actually, would you mind sharing them now? Might as well get any changes done all at once.

It means whatever can be cited. Ambiguity here is useful and intentional. This rends the "solution" inappropriate.

"Most used by fans in general" can be cited, and would give us "Berserk Fury". "Appears in most official media" can be cited, and would give "Berserk Führer". The popularity clause is meant to resolve arguments, but intentional ambiguity is unhelpful. The "solution" is more appropriate than the current system.

If it is subjective and hard to define, then it isn't common sense.

...Common sense is subjective. Google says so ;)

It does not. It only does on the current citations, which are incomplete.

The rules aren't meant to be applied based on "every official Zoids source ever", they are meant to be applied based on the information and citations we currently have available. The "I don't have all the citations yet" argument is not helpful - in arguments based on citations, I generally try to provide all the citations I know of, not just the ones that support my view.

This isn't a problem.

Whether my "problems" fit into your definition of problem doesn't really matter. If the "solution" is a simple improvement that won't cause major changes, we should use it, just like typos should be fixed even though we can tell what the words were meant to be. If my solutions (obviously ignoring the "I don't know" ones) are not a simple improvement, tell me why not and I'll try to improve them. If they are, they should be used.

P.S. The rules could also mention "avoid offensive names where possible", since that was a major part of the Guysak rationale (why Guysak was used over Guysack despite Guysak being Legacy-only). Cheironyx 13:42, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

"Then put the Spanish name as lowest priority."

READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRITING. You are repeating yourself- please address my points, being a broken record doesn't make your unjustified points somehow justified. SPANISH NAMES DO NOT BELONG ON AN ENGLISH WIKI. IF YOU WANT SPANISH NAMES, BRING UP THIS DISCUSSION ELSEWHERE AND HAVE IT THERE FIRST. IT DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE.

"The rules should cover any citable name, not just popular ones."

The rules can be altered when this actually happens.

""i.e." means "in other words" - i.e. a definition"

No it doesn't. "in other words" =/= a definition. In other words is simply that- another way of saying something- it has nothing to do with definitions, though a definition can be an "ie". The main difference is that an "ie" need not be exhausitve- a definition must be.

"so using...is inappropriate"

stop ignoring context. Seriously. I've had to say this like a million times now. Your inability to read a full paragraph is severly hindering your argument.

"Actually, would you mind sharing them now?"

Yes, I would.

"Might as well get any changes done all at once."

This is why I am waiting till the end of the discussion. Seriously though, many of your sentences seem to outright contradict themselves, you really need to read more than one word at a time.

"Most used by fans in general" "Appears in most official media"

1- the latter cannot be cited, as it involves a subjective decision, which I have already explianed to you in great detail, if you would be so kind as to read it.

2- the former is a luaghable "citation"- as that search returns less hits than a search for "berserk furher" -which in of itself is a laughable citation.

3- in making this argment, you have assumed the given measures are proxies for popularity, which, as per the above sentece #1, is a flawed assumption.

So yeah, there's nothing wrong with the rules- you're just using bad citations.

"Common sense is subjective."

I don't know which is worse- that you've used a ridiculously biased search- that you've googled the noun, when it is used here as a verb- that you've completly failed to take context into account- or that you seem to honestly believe what your saying somehow constitutes a strong- or even remotely relevant argument.

I'll say it more clearly- the act of using common sense cannot be subjective, or else it was not common sense that was employed in the first place. The act of defining common sense as a term is subjective, but this is NOT what the rules require to be enforced.

"The rules aren't meant to be applied based on "every official Zoids source ever""

Actually, they are.

"If the "solution" is a simple improvement"

No really, we shouldn't be using non-english names on an english wiki. eg: We never write in characters in a page's title- so why should we write in spanish? DO NOT answer this question- it does NOT belong on this page. Feel free to make a new page and discuss at your lesiure.

"If my solutions are not a simple improvement, tell me why not and I'll try to improve them."

I HAVE, you are NOT listening. Seriously, the amount of times I've repeated myself is RIDICULOUS.

"The rules could also mention "avoid offensive names where possible"

"The above list only contains details specific to the Zoids Wikia, but all standard Wikia rules (such as vandalism and copyright) also apply. These are considered common sense rules and as such aren't listed,"

The self-censorship of offensive and age-inappropriate material is a general wikia rule.

I'm getting narky, but seriously, I've discussed this for ages, and am simply finding myself repeating myself with you absolutely refusing- either out of choice or lack of ability- to address any of the issues I am raising, and instead are just re-iterating something you've already said. My replies will now rapidly degenerate and will probably cease to be polite. This is not intended to start a flame war, simply that I believe this is the only way we will make any actual progress toward a conclusion. Apologies in advance, Slax01 14:52, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Just as a clarification, I was asking for examples, not for reasoning. It's been shown that ample reasoning can be given for both sides of the rules. Until there is an example of the current rules failing, and the proposed rules catching this, I don't want to change the current rules. I will probably revise the wording, yes, but so far an change to the rules doesn't seem needed.

I'll just reply to the examples listed:

French/Italian/Spanish names (e.g. Starzeta-I) are not covered by the current rules at all.

The current rules do cover these cases. Specifically: "When deciding on which variant of a name to use, the following order should be considered;". In the case of Starzeta (the release) there was no conflicting name, so the rules resolve this quite nicely. In the case of Starzeta (the Zoids) the rules say: "published English media, e.g. American boxes,..." which also works. As far as I'm aware, your rules would also give the same result?

"Gusak" (NAR and NPR) vs "Guysack" (NER and Japanese) vs "Guysak" (Legacy).

The proposed rules don't address this issue. As for "So what do we do?"; we look at everything and weigh up the alternatives, exactly as was done with Altile. The answer is there, we just need to do a lot of digging to find it.

"Tyrannazoid" priority over "Garius"

If it was a problem, the proposed solution isn't there. (note, this is based on the assumption that the current rules do side with Tyrannazoid, which Slax has indicated they do not). All of the reasons you gave for Garius being used are, essentially, fan reasons. If these reasons were used, they would defeat the whole point of the rules in the first place.

The current rules support "Strum Fury", which is clearly a typo.

The evidence isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be. For starters, Legacy's "typo" not only includes the name strum, but also includes changes to the stats of the Zoid (as opposed to the box). Subsequent releases of Saga games used Legacy's stats, and not the ones on the box. So I don't really see how legacy is "clearly" a typo (since if it was a typo, it wouldn't be retained later). Additionally, There is a box saying "Storm", while the article claims the Japanese box was "Sturm". In which case, it would imply there was an english release under the name "Storm", which the current rules can side with. The main problem with this Zoid, is simply finding good info about it. There is so much conflicting information out there, which Slax alluded to in his post. I personally have faith that the current rules would get the correct decision on this Zoid, should all the evidence be gathered. And as was mentioned, the proposed rules don't address this issue anyway.

And could people please stop with the definitions? I want this to be as simple as possible. Show me an example of the current rules failing, and propose an alternative that will resolve this. The above was starkly devoid of examples, but people are finding place to write up about the definition of the letters "i.e."? Keep this simple and to the point. I am not going to change anything if we end up debating every piece of punctuation in the rules. You have to remember, it's quite possible that a lot of the editors here would have never even read the rules in first place. Sylvanelite 14:48, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Starzeta (the Zoids) the rules say: "published English media, e.g. American boxes,..." which also works. ...SPANISH NAMES DO NOT BELONG ON AN ENGLISH WIKI.

As I understand the rules, category 1 refers to names in English-language media and category 2 refers to names in Japanese-language media. "Starzeta-I" is used only in Spanish-language media (the Starzeta boxes) and is therefore not covered by the current rules. The rules should give "Tyrannazoid" priority over "Starzeta-I", not ignore "Starzeta-I" entirely. Spanish names belong on an English wiki just as much as Japanese names do. If Japanese sources are covered, Spanish sources should be covered too. Sorry about repeating myself, but your responses didn't really address what I was trying to say.

"ie" need not be exhausitve- a definition must be.

Yes, "i.e." doesn't need to be exhaustive, but in "A i.e. B", B should at least refer to a subset of A. "Dogs i.e. Chihuahuas" is a valid use of "i.e.", but "Dogs i.e. brown objects" is not. As I understand it (although I could be wrong), category 1 is intended to refer to "names used in official English-language media", which is not properly described by "official translations" or "published English media" or even the overlap between them.

you have assumed the given measures are proxies for popularity

So what exactly do you see as valid citations/proxies for popularity (in all its citable definitions)? Apart from sales figures, since you've already made that very clear.

the act of using common sense cannot be subjective, or else it was not common sense that was employed in the first place.

If "what constitutes common sense" is subjective, then "whether common sense was used in X case" will be subjective. Anyway, that link was intended as a joke, and I didn't even propose a change to the use of the phrase "common sense" on the rules page, so we should probably drop this now.

This is why I am waiting till the end of the discussion. Seriously though, many of your sentences seem to outright contradict themselves

Posting your proposals now would allow others (read: me) to spot any hints of overlap with their proposals, and also subjects your proposals to the same level of critique as those of people (me again) who post them before sending them to the admins. Why does "posting your proposals now" contradict "all changes made at once"? Anyway, I don't really mind if you don't post them, so again, I'll drop this now.

The rules aren't meant to be applied based on "every official Zoids source ever"... Actually, they are.

Well darn, that means the rules are useless, since we don't have access to every official Zoids source ever and probably never will. :P

the article claims the Japanese box was "Sturm". In which case, it would imply there was an english release under the name "Storm"

The Japanese box (of the Storm Unit - there was never a single Storm Führer kit besides Sturm Tyrann) says "Storm" in English script and "シュトゥルム" in katakana. シュトゥルム romanises to "Sturm" rather than "Storm" in the same way that フューラー romanises to "Führer" rather than "Fury". The Storm Unit never even saw a hint of a Western release. As far as I know, both Legacy and Battle Legends refer to it as "Strum", which I (and others) believe is a typo/translation error, mainly due to the meanings of sturm and strum. Sadly, I see no simple, unsubjective way to give "sturm" priority. :(

I will probably revise the wording, yes, but so far an change to the rules doesn't seem needed.

The "solutions" I gave aren't changing the meaning of the rules (as I understand them), just the wording. I haven't given examples of changes because nothing much would change. My proposals at the moment come down to "add a foreign languages category", "reword categories 1 and 2" (I don't see how my wording is any worse than the current wording), "move the popularity clause" (which even Slax agrees with) and "use more specific wording than popular". Cheironyx 12:03, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the rules, category 1 refers to names in English-language media and category 2 refers to names in Japanese-language media. "Starzeta-I" is used only in Spanish-language media (the Starzeta boxes) and is therefore not covered by the current rules. The rules should give "Tyrannazoid" priority over "Starzeta-I", not ignore "Starzeta-I" entirely. Spanish names belong on an English wiki just as much as Japanese names do. If Japanese sources are covered, Spanish sources should be covered too. Sorry about repeating myself, but your responses didn't really address what I was trying to say.

I don't understand this paragraph. If you say ""Starzeta-I" is used only in Spanish-language media" then how can you reach the conclusion "and is therefore not covered by the current rules". The current rules clearly state: "When deciding on which variant of a name to use..." If you say Starzeta is used only once, then there is no variance, so it is perfectly covered by the current rules.

You then say "The rules should give "Tyrannazoid" priority over "Starzeta-I", not ignore "Starzeta-I" entirely." Which again, is totally not what the current rules say. The current rules clearly state:

"Please note that this applies for articles in general, when referring to a specific release or version, use that release's name".

The current rules would side with "Tyrannazoid", since the variants are either "Starzeta-I" or "Tyrannazoid", and "Tyrannazoid" is the "published English media". There is no problem here.

I thought the rules were pretty clear. If it was only ever called Starzeta. Then we call it Starzeta. If the Starzeta-I Zoid was released under the English name Tyrannazoid, we use Tyrannazoid. Sylvanelite 15:01, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

"SPANISH NAMES DO NOT BELONG ON AN ENGLISH WIKI.IF YOU WANT SPANISH NAMES, BRING UP THIS DISCUSSION ELSEWHERE AND HAVE IT THERE FIRST. IT DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE. "

"Spanish names belong on an English wiki just as much as Japanese names do."

Sheesh, I even capitalised it for emphasis. Are you seriously that bad at reading?

"is not properly described by "official translations"

earlier: "The current rules do not use dictionary definitions of "translation" and "romanisation", leading to possible confusion."

right round,baby right round,like a record baby,right round round round... I already replied to this. If you can't read, I shan't elaborate. Repost:

"possible confusion" but not "probable confusion", so, frankly, I don't care. Anyone who's smart enough to know the dictionary definition should be smart enough to get the meaning of the page. If they aren't, the shouldn't be editing."

"So what 'exactly do you see as"

repost: "Ambiguity here is useful and intentional"

that aside, a citation simply needs to be anything that is factual. I am not going to lecture you on metaphysics, so don't ask "what is factual".

"If "what constitutes common sense" is subjective, then "whether common sense was used in X case" will be subjective."

No. It won't. And don't misquote me: "whether common sense was used in X case" is NOT "the act of using common sense".

"Posting your proposals"

...It was YOUR proposal.

"Why does "posting your proposals now" contradict "all changes made at once"

from me: "As soon as this discussion is over, I'll send a list of changes to admins to be enacted."

"sharing them now" would mean the list is incomplete- as discussion on your proposals has not been finalised. Enacting them now, then doing it again later on when the discussion is over, is clearly NOT going to be all at once.

"Well darn, that means the rules are useless"

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

seriously, if you want to continue to prove you have absolutely zero understanding of context, go ahead, but I'm just going to keep laughing at you.

"Sadly, I see no simple, unsubjective way to give "sturm" priority"

I think Sylvan's main point was that there's no way to even know the various releases are even talking about the same Zoid- ie: (with respect to storm unit model vs legacy) "it was called the Strum Fury (presumably a typo of Sturm), but more notably, its stats are quite different to the ones listed on the box. Its length is 22.7m, as opposed to 23.4, its weight is 134 tons, as opposed to 140, and its top speed is 360 km/h, as oppsed to 450" and the Sturm Tyrann is different again. Furthermore, the "berserk tyrann" is currently mentioned in articles, though I have no citation for where that came from.

So yes, this is a serious problem area. If you actually want to contribute to the wiki, cleaning up these pages by providing citations (currently GREATLY lacking) would be very much appreciated. Application of the rules cannot take place until these issues are sorted through, but we can't exactly delete the sections either.

"The "solutions" I gave aren't changing the meaning of the rules (as I understand them)"

It is little wonder that your don't understand, because every time someone tells you that you ARE changing the meaning of the rules, you don't listen to them.

seriously, I had a great deal of respect for your ability to gather info on Zoids material, especially stuff we didn't have, but really, your campaign to alter the rules via repetition and selective hearing appears to be a gross misuse of your time and effort.

Slax01 01:14, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

New user is totally lost now. Okay, questions about English name heirarchy for the first rule for Zoids.

1. English sources include American and European boxes (OAR, Techno Zoids, Robostrux, OER, NAR, Zoids2, Hasbro toys, Z-builders, NER and some Hasbro leftovers in the Pacific), dubbed Anime (/Zero, CC and Fuzors), English commercials (animes, NAR, Hasbro toys, Robostrux, Z-builders) translated games (Battle Legends, Assault, maybe Battle Begins and Legacy* to a varying extent), English comics (Spiderman and Zoids, Viz graphic novels) English "prints" (pamphlets, ad posters, catalogues, product lists, mail-in offers) and official English websites (Hasbro, Atlus, Atari, Toys 'R' Us don't know if Ocean has a site) correct? (1.A. All of those count for rule #1 right? 1.B. Are there anymore rule #1 sources?)

2. Spelling of the Zoid's anime name, do we have to reference the DVD or can we spell it phonetically? 2.A. If the anime's DVD does not have the spelling of a Zoid's name listed (and by default, we use the phonetic spelling), do we have to list which anime(s) and the episode(s) as a reference? 2.B. Do we use anime phonetic spellings over printed names? 2.C. Since the English Genesis Anime is a rule #2 source but Genesis models and Full Metal Crash are rule #2 sources (has English-lettered names) do we use the Anime ("popular") or Model and FMC names? 2.D. Does an anime ("popular") name that is specific take priority over other English names? 2.E. If a Zoid only appears breifly (one episode or less, defining number used by TV producers not me) or few times (shown in < 25% of the season's episodes, defining percent also producers') in the anime, is that name used over other English names?

3. When we have Zoids with English names only appearing in games, which game do we use first if at all? 3.A. If it seems the Zoids English game name is erroneous (common sense) can we jump to the #2 sources? 3.B. If the English game name conflicts with the (better-) known or more "popular" English-lettered Japanese name(s) do we use the Japanese (#2 but popular) or English (#1) name?

3.C.* The following text pertains to information sourced from the game Zoids Legacy. This game used a translation format that differs from the one used by the Zoids Wiki. It also contains grammatical and typographical errors.... 'If Legacy is the only English source available for a Zoid's name but is incorrect, should we use the typo as the English name, or mention the incorrect name in the games (or trivia) section? 3.D. If the only English name is in Legacy and Legacy uses two different names/spellings for the same Zoid, should both names be used, mentioned or discarded? 3.E. If a Legacy name is different than an English model name, do we use the Legacy ("popular" as it was a world wide release) name or the model (common sense) name? 3.E. If the Legacy and English model name are similar phonetically but vary in spelling, which do we use?

4. Do unreleased English Zoids names count for rule #1 source? 4.A. If the unreleased English name conflicts with the released Japanese name should the unreleased (rule #1) or the released (#2 but common sense) be used? 4.B. If there is a released Zoid with an English name (rule #1) that was produced in limited numbers do we use the less-produced (rule #1) name or the Japanese (#2 but common sense) name? 4.C. If a Zoid varient with one English name is less-produced but consistantly fetches higher prices (number produced<number wanted) than a second, more available English named Zoid that sold/sells poorely (number produced>number wanted), how do we judge which is more "popular"?

5. Do English website names (#1) take priority over English-lettered Japanese names (#2) if the English website conflicts with "popularity" and common sense?

Yeah, that's about half the questions. Answers with the numbers would be cool, and reasoning would be an awsome bonus but that's a good chunk of text to tackle. tildetildetildesquiggle

Point 1 I believe is correct.

Point 2, referencing a spelling is usually preferable to phonetically trying to spell a word. As per Altile's talk page trying to phonetically get a word right can be hard. In that case, the DVD was used because it's generally more reliable than Legacy. I believe in that case those were the only 2 alternatives. If you can spell it phonetically without ambiguity, I see no problem with it. Though it usually takes another source to stamp out ambiguity.

Point 2.A, Zoids are different from characters. An Anime DVD is pretty reliable for anime characters, but for Zoids generally more information is needed, such as from the boxes. Usually in the case that a translation conflict occurs, we'll try use common sense to sort it out. There is no one (English) source that takes automatic priority over other (English) sources. Usually, an amalgamation of different sources are used to come up with the final name.

Point 2.B, A phonetic spelling can be counted as a fan translation. Unless the written version is obviously different, we would go with the written version. In the case they are obviously different, again, we would look to other sources and common sense to resolve the conflict.

Point 2.C, I'm not sure what you mean when you say English Genesis Anime. Right now, Genesis is fan-translated, as such those translations are the lowest priority ruling. With Genesis in particular, we try and be consistent more than correct, since there is a lot of stuff that only featured in the anime. There is no English Genesis right now, although one may be released in the future. Generally in this situation we should go with the games, but Genesis alone is treated differently, there is a disclaimer on the pages explaining this.

Point 2.D, An anime name would take priority over other English names when talking about characters. This does not apply to Zoids, though.

Point 2.E, No, the anime would not take automatic priority. We would have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Point 3, Depends on the situation. No one game takes automatic priority.

Point 3.A, How do I answer this? ... I'll use Legacy as an example: IF Legacy's translation was erroneous we can jump to the number 2 translation. However, to SHOW Legacy's translation being erroneous is very difficult. If the game is the only English source, then it's actually impossible to show that the translation is erroneous. Under this situation, it would need to be taken case-by-case. The Sturm Fury is an example here. But ALL the sources need to be considered before a conclusion can be reached. Fan reasons for a translation being erroneous are not considered here.

Point 3.B, The English name. Popularity is only used when sorting out conflicts between alternative English spellings. We are the Egnlish Wiki, English names should be used.

Point 3.C, Again, showing Legacy is a typo is very hard. All alternatives should be mentioned in trivia. The Typo would generally be used, but what I said in 3.A holds here. IF Legacy can be shown wrong, then it will not be used. But that's a big if.

Point 3.D, common sense should decide on a name, but both names should get a mention. Neither should be discarded.

Point 3.E, The model name. Legacy is pretty much the "only if nothing else" fall back. Here we have something else, so we use it.

Point 3.E (F?), The model name. Same reason as above.

Point 4, It depends on the particular case. The only example I know of where we haven't used the English name would be for Genesis (where a trailer exists for the Egnlish anime, but the actual anime hasn't been released). However, as I said before, Genesis is an exception and has disclaimers.

Point 4.A, Again, here it depends very much on the case. Your saying "unreleased" which would imply that the official name wasn't made official. But it could well be that there is official media official, prior to a release that was cancelled. Depending on the specifics, the rules apply differently. But if the official English name was released, (and the Zoid was not) I see no reason to ignore that release.

Point 4.B, The English name. Two main reasons, 1) we are the English wiki. 2) how "limited" is "limited"? That kind of distinction is too specific and too hard to measure, (what if a Zoid sells less in it's full release than a limited version? etc) and doesn't really give any benefit to ignore the limited version.

Point 4.C, I doubt we could determine which is more popular. Other information would be needed to make a choice.

Point 5, Yes. The official website would take priority. If it conflicts with popularity and common sense, the we would have to look at why it conflicts. Quite often the reason for this conflict is not very justifiable. e.g. If a popular Zoids forum goes around spreading rumours about a Zoid (using it's Japanese name) the Japanese name becomes popular. They might say "It can beat 100 Liger Zeros", and even if that bit doesn't make it into our wiki, we shouldn't really by swapping to the Japanese name just to appease some fans on fringe cases. Consistency is a major goal on this wiki. Sylvanelite 04:45, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

As anon explains below, verbal sources are not a citation for spelling. We have no citation from the anime itself that "Brad" in the anime was not actually spelled "Bradd".

yes we do, it’s called common sense. Your ‘’lack of a citation to the contrary’’ is the citation. In advance, yes this IS a logically valid (and non-fallacious) way to construct a premise.

‘’If the page defined 4 as 1+1 and I was only allowed to use that definition to argue against that definition, how am I supposed to show 4 is not 1+1? It ends up becoming "4 is/isn't 1+1 because I say so".’’

yes. This is exactly true. That’s the point of providing a definition- to remove ambiguities. If, in advance, you are brining this up to assert that I am shutting down arguments, then you are looking at it from the wrong angle- the argument is there to be had, but this line of argument isn’t a valid one.

‘’No, I compared NJR plus OJR to NAR plus RS and claimed the comparison was valid.”

Doesn’t matter, the same logic is employed. The fact that you are comparing ANYTHING means ‘’’you’’’ (not me) ‘’are asserting the comparisons are valid’’ (not that I am asserting they are invalid). You have already admitted using RS may not be appropriate. Given this, it is also possible for others to say “exclude OER”, “exclude Legacy”, “exclude... “so on and so forth. Once that has happened, “consistency” becomes whatever the user ‘’wants it to become’’, and then there is ‘’no way to objectively enforce the rules’’, as there is no objective measure of consistency. I will not give examples on how the comparisons are invalid because you are consistently attacking the examples and not the arguments, so to provide an example will serve only to derail the argument.

• next user

‘’1. English sources include ... are there anymore rule #1 sources?)’’

I never complied an exhaustive list because it seemed too easy to get wrong- for instance, instruction manuals can be added to the above list, as can the profiles used as extras in DVD’s, etc. This is why they were described, not listed. If you are incapable of understanding the description given, then say so.

‘’2. Spelling of the Zoid's anime name, do we have to reference the DVD or can we spell it phonetically? ‘’

I don’t understand the question. Firstly, anime does not have to be on DVD. I also don’t know what you mean by “phonetic spelling” (as there are more than one ways to phonetically spell something). Thirdly, you only need to reference something if it requires a reference. No-one should ask you to reference which CC episode contained the word “blade liger”.

‘’2.A. If the anime's DVD does not have the spelling of a Zoid's name listed (and by default, we use the phonetic spelling), do we have to list which anime(s) and the episode(s) as a reference? ‘’

In general you won’t have to, but you might be asked to if it is especially controversial or episode-specific. Common sense is usually the best rule.

‘’2.B. Do we use anime phonetic spellings over printed names? ‘’

’’’If’’’ both are in the same category of translation, there is no inherent preference. Use common sense and then popularity to determine on a case-by-case basis.

‘’2.C. Since the English Genesis Anime is a rule #2’’

”English Genesis Anime” does not exist.

‘’... Genesis models and Full Metal Crash are rule #2 sources (has English-lettered names) do we use the Anime ("popular") or Model and FMC names?’’

The disambiguation clause from rule one is adequate to resolve inconsistencies in the Japanese as well. (this could be edited into the page- to an admin, move the clause to below rule #3 and change “official translations” to “translations of the same class” (or some wording thereof).)

‘’ 2.D. Does an anime ("popular") name that is specific take priority over other English names? 2.E. If a Zoid only appears breifly (one episode or less, defining number used by TV producers not me) or few times (shown in < 25% of the season's episodes, defining percent also producers') in the anime, is that name used over other English names?’’

apply the disambiguation clause as it is written. The rules specifically avoid using general statements like this. Use citations in their appropriate context.

‘’3. When we have Zoids with English names only appearing in games, which game do we use first if at all?’’

again, the disambiguation clause is there for a reason.

‘’ 3.A. If it seems the Zoids English game name is erroneous (common sense) can we jump to the #2 sources?’’

I’ve not yet encountered any source where this would have to be applied, either because “erroneous” is too subjective or because alternative citations exist.

‘’ 3.B. If the English game name conflicts with the (better-) known or more "popular" English-lettered Japanese name(s) do we use the Japanese (#2 but popular) or English (#1) name?’’

The rules are structured the way they are on purpose.

‘’3.C.* The following text pertains to information sourced from the game Zoids Legacy. This game used a translation format that differs from the one used by the Zoids Wiki. It also contains grammatical and typographical errors.... 'If Legacy is the only English source available for a Zoid's name but is incorrect, should we use the typo as the English name, or mention the incorrect name in the games (or trivia) section?’’

Again, I have never encountered this. I’d have to see the example, but no, the rules are to be applied as they are written. If the rules are inadequate, they can be changed, but only ‘’after’’ they are shown to be inadequate.

‘’ 3.D. If the only English name is in Legacy and Legacy uses two different names/spellings for the same Zoid, should both names be used, mentioned or discarded?’’

Mentioned. Treat two legacy names the same as you’d treat two official translations.

‘’ 3.E. If a Legacy name is different than an English model name, do we use the Legacy ("popular" as it was a world wide release) name or the model (common sense) name?’’

Common sense takes priority over popularity. This is clearly written on the page. The model is not always the common sense option, but I am not arguing this point as it does not address your question (ditto wide release =/= popular).

‘’ 3.E. If the Legacy and English model name are similar phonetically but vary in spelling, which do we use?’’

again, do exactly what the rules say.

‘’4. Do unreleased English Zoids names count for rule #1 source?’’

Only if they can be objectively cited. As much of this paragraph depends too much on the specific citation used, there is no point answering it, as general answers cannot be constructed for specific cases. Everything must be cited before any renaming is to be undertaken. These concerns can be addressed when these citations are given.

5. Do English website names (#1) take priority over English-lettered Japanese names (#2) if the English website conflicts with "popularity" and common sense?

firstly, not all websites are equal. For instance, I’d not use Vizmedia’s Genesis site as they have never actually published the anime they advertise, and their translations are too different from the Japanese to assume they would be used ‘’if’’ the anime were to be published (of course, this is in lieu of an argument to the contrary, and is based on the information I have at this point in time, and is by no means set in stone). In other words, a citation (including Japanese releases) can be used to show how a citation may not be official, but if known to be official, then no, the Japanese does not take priority.

In future, I will not be answering questions that can be answered by reading the page. If someone is illiterate, they should not be editing a text-base media. If they aren’t, then they have no excuse for not reading the rules. Wasting time to get a point across is not constructive, so I shan’t partake in it. This time was only out of courtesy because the above user is obviously upset that I have reverted their edits and are therefore trying to make my edits look as bad as possible, and are phrasing arguments as questions to try and trick me into giving an answer that will elicit a negative response from the rest of the userbase. I can understand that, hence I have, out of respect, answered the questions, but I shan’t be doing it in future as it isn’t going to get the response they want and in no helpful way contributes to constructing an alternate set of rules, so is a waste of time. Slax01 12:04, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

@ Sylvanelite, thanks for the info. 2.C. Asked because I knew Ruuji as Luge (FMC) until watching the show! Luge should go in the games or trivia section right? 3.B. I guess it would be Lezarl over Lezard and Proto Zaber over Proto Saber then?

And, Spino -snapper or -sapper? I know I brought it up earlier but if there's an anwser, I can't find it.

@Slax, see your reasoning but you don't have to throw 'time-saving' red herrings and 'illiterate' snob appeals if you don't like my questions; just ignore 'em or give a hearty lol at the confused new user. These were citation-based questions of heirarchy as most of my resources (and the bulk of my Zoids collection) seem to be more obscure. I knew Ray Gregg as Rei, Battle Cougar as Storm Tiger, Rhimos as Red Horn, and Spiderman and Zoids as the largest English Zoids story for a long time, so bear with me if my common sense isn't so... common!

@Slax "Leon makes misakes all the time"

...wow. You are allowed to like me or hate me, cause frankly i could care less, but was that comment really necisary? Everybody makes mistakes bro. Me, you, kids, adults, everybody. For the most part, I have stayed out of this conversation b/c i was away when this was started, and so I am not 100% familiar with of all of your arguments yet. I have yet to form an overall opinion based on everyones comments and my own thoughts, so please leave me out of this until I do so. Regardless of whatever your opinion is of me Slax, please know that I have the upmost respect for you and without you, we wouldnt have the improved wiki formatting we do now.

Also, Sylvanelite, I would like to thank you as well. From what I have read, your posts are the most logical and well explained, as well as far better than what I could explain here. You have my thanks

Leon35 18:51, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

@Cheironyx: Therefore text sources take priority over audio sources.

But if something is clearly different (Jimmy vs Jaime, Snapper vs sapper), then there is no legitimate reason to disregard the audio. It's not like Jamie isn't a commonly-spelt and uncontentious English name. And it certainly isn't "Jimmy".

@Anon: you don't have to throw

And you don't have to read my replies.

I knew...

this is why I had the "snob appeal" in my post, you are clearly trying to get answers that would rub other users the wrong way (I find it very difficult to believe you are actually a new user), but simply put, this is not the appropriate page to discuss such things. Go to the pages in question, get the citations, apply the rules. Don't bypass the conversations that should be had by trying to get answers out of me when the citations haven't been provided. I don't randomly rename pages, I always ask for citations first. This is why. PS: don't accuse me of fallacies lightly. I did not employ a red herring in the above post.

pino -snapper or -sapper

The page appears to have been butchered somewhere along the line and the history has been deleted without the Talk page moved. see:Talk:Spino_Sapper for more. In light of the context Tilly provided on that page, I believe the dub is the best source. (the talk should be moved later on as well)

@Leon;

I only said it because the anon seemed hell-bent on repeating it. As far as I am concerned, you make mistakes, we all do, it's no big deal. I was just trying to get them to stop constantly repeating the statement when it was as obviously irrelevant to the discussion as it is (something you are right to point out).

Slax01 21:43, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I am sorry for the accusation. (hence why i stayed out of this. need to keep reading it)

Leon35 21:53, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Nah don't be, I get where you're coming from so it's cool. Slax01 10:47, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Part 2

I am creating a new header now, in order to make navigation easier. continue the discussion here, but lets continue to keep it peaceful =)

Leon35 21:53, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm on holidays, and don't have much access to the net. Anyway, for Luge, Lezarl, Proto Zaber, and Sapper, etc, bring up the changes on their talk pages. Sylvanelite 10:23, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

_________

(ok wtf? i edited this page yesterday and i even saw the page refresh, so where is the change i made??? Ugh I guess I will have to type it agian...)

At this point, it is hard to tell who is saying what in the conversation, so I am sorry that these comment are out of place.

1)Spanish names are just as important as other names for Zoids. However, most Zoids either do not; have spanish names, have spanish names that are insignifigant in difference from thier english names, and/or have major signifigance. At best, Spanish names can be redirects for pages, nothing more (ex. Starzeta 1 redirects to Garius)

2) We can not use OER names over OJR because there is more information relevant to the OJR than OER, the OJR predates OER, and many OER Zoids have either switched factions from thier OJR counterparts as well as dual faction zoids. By naming Zoids after the OER, many inconsistances would arise.

3) All further conversation on this talk page will go under this header. Furthermore, do not talk about specific pages or problems on this talk page, unless you are referencing an example to make a point. Discuas specifc issues on that page's talk page. Violation may/may not result in the temporary lock of this page. Thank you.

Leon35 10:49, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

We can not use OER names over OJR

I agree that we should use OJR names over OER, but sadly, the current rules don't, and I've given up arguing this point for now.

...It was YOUR proposal.

Okay, somehow I got the impression that your "list of changes" would include some proposals of your own, so I wanted to know what they were and whether they overlapped with mine. Clearly I was wrong, so you can ignore everything I said about "posting your proposals".

The rules aren't meant to be applied based on "every official Zoids source ever"

The rules are designed for wiki users, not God. Unless some wiki user kept a copy of all the nested Flash files (including the Quad Liger profile) from Tomy's dead webcomic site, wiki users will never have access to "every official Zoids source ever". That's what I meant by that sentence. This is not exactly the most important point to be debating anyway :P

Ambiguity here is useful and intentional

Yes, but could you provide examples rather than a definition? I'm obviously no good at using your definition to find valid examples :P

SPANISH NAMES DO NOT BELONG ON AN ENGLISH WIKI

As Leon just said, "Spanish names are just as important as other names for Zoids." But that is not the point I'm trying to make. If the rules themselves do not cover Spanish names, then the rules themselves do not justify excluding Spanish names. Repeating "this is the English wiki" does not address that point.

The current rules would side with "Tyrannazoid", since the variants are either "Starzeta-I" or "Tyrannazoid", and "Tyrannazoid" is the "published English media".

Yes, "Tyrannazoid" falls into category one. What category does "Starzeta-I" fall into? If it doesn't have a category, then the rules themselves are not giving Tyrannazoid priority over Starzeta-I. Even a category of "4. Anything else" would fix this. Whether "Starzeta-I" is covered or not brings me to the next point...

It is little wonder that your don't understand... you ARE changing the meaning of the rules

Okay, time to work out EXACTLY what the rules are intended to refer to. I could interpret the current category 1 in various ways. These are using dictionary definitions, and don't attack me for taking things out of context, because I'm trying to show that the context makes little sense.

• "Official translations" - includes most NAR boxes, the Italian anime dub, and Raykong (Gorilla Tron was released first, making it the original and Raykong a translation.)

• "Published English media" - includes NAR boxes, the UK comic, and English fansites.

• The intersection: "published official English translations" - includes most NAR boxes and the English dub, but excludes foreign sources and sources that were originally English.

• The union: "official translations and/or published English media" - includes everything listed above.

• My interpretation: "official English media" - this seems like a reasonable interpretation, but if it's "changing the meaning of the rules" then it must be the wrong interpretation.

• Something else? - if so, please try to explain it without using the wording of the current rules if possible.

Note: I'm assuming that "English" here means "English-language". "English-script" would cover Spanish and Italian sources but still not Korean or Chinese ones, and it's clearly not meant to be "English-nationality" :P Cheironyx 05:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "Tyrannazoid" falls into category one. What category does "Starzeta-I" fall into?

It doesn't matter. If Tyrannazoid is the highest priority, then Starzeta-I is covered by default, and does not need to be explicitly covered.

If it doesn't have a category, then the rules themselves are not giving Tyrannazoid priority over Starzeta-I.

This is incorrect. If I have the highest mark in the class, and someone else says "does anyone have a higher mark than me?" do I need to know their mark?

Okay, time to work out EXACTLY what the rules are intended to refer to.

Stop, please. I've said it before, stop arguing definitions to such an extent. No matter how definitive you want the rules to be, we cannot make them 100% foolproof. In fact, the more foolproof we make them, the more likely the rules will make the wrong decision. If someone doesn't understand the rules, it's easy to ask for clarification. Just raise the citation in question, on a talk page (as per the rules) and someone will address it. Arguing definitions thus far has got us nowhere, and there is no sign of it getting us anywhere either. Sylvanelite 10:06, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

1st up: a reply to Leon:

• "there is more information relevant to the OJR than OER" - this has already been convered- I have said that it is not a suitable criteria for rules to use as it is a very subjective measure. What one person considers info is not what another does. I will show examples on some relevant talk pages whenever this discussion is over. Thus far no-one has offered any form of counter to this statement.
• "the OJR predates OER" - why is this a useful criteria? That could equally means it is more obscure. old =/= good (actually, often the reverse)
• "and many OER Zoids have either switched factions from thier OJR counterparts as well as dual faction zoids" - ...So? No anime ever had the Zenebas empire- and Fuzors didn't have factions at all- does that mean we shouldn't use them? I see no relevance between this point and a way to choose the page's title.

@Cheironyx:

Yes, but could you provide examples rather than a definition? I'm obviously no good at using your definition to find valid examples :P

As an illustrative example, off the top of my head, something like: "the anime was released in X countries with Y reruns. It is clearly called a [insert name here]. The Manga uses a different name, but was circulated in only A countries (less than X), and was sold, not broadcast. Given that there is no additional reason to assume the manga was more popular than the anime, we use the anime."

"then the rules themselves do not justify excluding Spanish names"

The rules have NEVER CONSIDERED Spanish names, they have not EXCLUDED OR INCLUDED them. THEY PURPOSEFULLY IGNORE THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION HAS NOT BEEN HAD ON THIS WIKI. I HAVE SAID THIS ALREADY:

"Spanish or other languages have had absolutely no meaningful discussion on this wiki so I feel it is premature to include them on the rules."

NEXT TIME YOU REPLY TO ME, READ WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

Yes, "Tyrannazoid" falls into category one. What category does "Starzeta-I" fall into?

it is not considered. Further, no reason (keyword) thus far has been given to consider it.

Even a category of "4. Anything else" would fix this.

with this it would STILL never be considered.

Further, this is a point in case of how bad the current garius article is- no mention of "Starzeta" whatsoever. Still wondering why I said that page had insufficient citations or are you still going to go on about how we need "god users" on this wiki (or perhaps you are now catching on to why I laughed so hard at your folly before? I can only hope).

and don't attack me for taking things out of context,

I'm sorry but "don't attack me for using fallacies" and then using a fallacy still means your argument is rubbish.

An illustration of exactly what fallacy you are using:

This raft flaots, but it can't move forward.

This engine can make the raft move forward, but can't float.

There is therefore no way to make the raft move forward.

Solution: we must..... BUILD A FLOATING ENGINE!!!!!

Clearly, this is flawed logic- a boat with an engine WORKS, simply deconstructing the parts and highlighting their individual flaws is IRRELEVANT AND A FALLACY.

• My interpretation: "official English media" - this seems like a reasonable interpretation, but if it's "changing the meaning of the rules" then it must be the wrong interpretation.

Yes, it is changing the rules, because it is removing the "ie" and "eg" and is therefore less explanitory. Further, the way they are currently structured makes the tiering obvious to those who aren't familiar with translations- i.e.: it highlights the fact that romanisations aren't translations. This meaning is lost under your definition. The use of non-translations (under your definition, as there is no objective definition of "translation", as much as you pretend there is) is currently explained by the "ie" and "eg" sections, which should not be read independently.

Sure, it may not change the definition of the rules. But that doesn't mean it doesn't change their meaning.

Also, "Published English media" does NOT include "English fansites". If you honestly think it does, then I can think of no way to reply to you without calling you stupid. So I won't. But seriously. Stop doing it.

to all users:

CAN WE PLEASE GET THE DISCUSSION OF OTHER LANGUAGES OFF THIS PAGE?? It does not belong here- it is a discussion that should be had on its own page so that people who don't care about the rules can still get the chance to input, and the topic get the discussion it deserves. I have quite a few issues I want to raise, and having the discussion here would only serve to kill both topics.

Slax01 10:31, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________

This is just a personal request, but it would be nice if on this page a _____ would be put at the end of everyone's post to avoid the confusion of who said what. (as i did above) it is very hard to keep up with this page.

that name will become a redirect for the

I will add this to the rules most likely today. Regarding names in other languages; There only purpose on this wiki for names in other languages is the following

• The Zoids name itself is derived from another language (e.x. Liger Zero Schnieder is German)

• The Zoid has an alternative, less used name in another anguage (e.x. spanish, the Starzeta Zoids) and that name will be used as a redirect for its english counterpart

Leon35 11:48, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________

There only purpose on this wiki for names in other languages is the following

I assume you're not including Japanese in "other languages", otherwise we would have to use the extremely obscure "Cannon Caesar" over the much less obscure "Godkaizer". :P

If Tyrannazoid is the highest priority, then Starzeta-I is covered by default

I guess I've been shown wrong again :( But in theory, does that mean if official Spanish names aren't covered by categories 1, 2 and 3, they have lower priority than category 3, despite being official? For example, take dialogue in deleted anime scenes - English fansubs would get higher priority than the Italian and Latino dubs. Anyway, I'll probably drop this point for now, because as far as I know right now, nothing on the wiki would be affected by this and it's not an actual hole in the rules.

are you still going to go on about how we need "god users" on this wiki

I never implied we needed "god users", I said we do not and will not have "god users" so the rules are not (and should not be) aimed at "god users". We base decisions on the information we have, not the information that exists/existed somewhere. I agree that many pages need citations, and I have occasionally given some, but I'm not going to go through every single wiki page :P If you want citations for something specific, just ask and I'll do my best to find some.

and don't attack me for taking things out of context

The irony here is that you removed the "context" of the end of that sentence - "because I'm trying to show that the context makes little sense." You cannot disprove a statement if you accept that statement as a premise to begin with. My argument is about the context, so accepting the context would just cause a logic loop.

it is removing the "ie" and "eg" and is therefore less explanitory

I already pointed out that "i.e." is used incorrectly in the rules. And if the categories are clear enough, they should not need an "i.e." or "e.g." afterwards, although they could be provided anyway.

it highlights the fact that romanisations aren't translations.

Except as Sylvanelite already agreed, romanisations can be translations. And before you say anything about "not by the definitions on the page", think about this: you could call category 1 "apples" and category 2 "oranges", but that doesn't mean most users will consider a Chaotic Century episode to be an apple. :P

currently explained by the "ie" and "eg" sections

If I can obtain contradictory results from the "i.e." and "e.g" sections and the main definition, then it's not doing a very good job of "explaining". Since the "i.e." section ("published English media") is not a subset of the main definition ("official translations"), "i.e." can't mean what it usually means and I have to guess whether the intended category is the intersection or the union of those two, or just whatever you feel like at the time.

"Published English media" does NOT include "English fansites"

I explained this before. If "published Japanese media" includes official web media such as the Web Comic, then it includes unofficial web media such as Japanese fansites. And if it doesn't... well, doujinshi and bootlegs definitely count as published but unofficial. Just replace "English fansites" with "English bootlegs" or something. Cheironyx 13:02, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________________

sorry for the split edit.

@Cheryonyx-By other languages i did not include Japanese, as the names for all of our pages are either englih or japanese.

@Slax: I will be more specific as to why we cannot use OER names. here are points with examples. Specific pages are only named to be used as my examples.

• Why would we use title of "Mammoth the Destroyer" over "Mammoth"?It makes little to no sense.

• Zoids like Mammoth are one of the many Zoids that had thier main factions switched durring the OER. (Repiblic to Empire following this specific example) Why make an entire page after one specofc variant when you could cover all of them by naming it after the original name.

• In the OER, certain zoids were found in both factions. The blue gaurdian and red mutant version of these certain zoids had different names. The OER Spiderzoid and OER Tarantulon are examples of these. The color scheme and faction of Spiderzoid is the most common with all of the Gargantula variants. (keep in mind that the Tarantula also comes with a clampshell canopy instead of a white head, which is not seen woth most Gargantulas) And who is to say that Spiderzoid is more popular than Tarantula? Both are well known in relevance to the OER. It makes much more sense to use "Gargantula" a name that covers all of the releases.

• The OER line was brief. Emphesis on brief. Meanwhile the OJR story line transends both the new and old release, making it the "most popular"

That is another thing I would like to address. Rather than do this all by "popularity" why not "relevance" Information wise it woupd suit much better and applying 1 solitary rule for naming seems to just mess up alot of pages who dont fit the rule. In the rules, we should mention that relevance would be decided based on the amount of information, that way there is no inconsistancy. It is basicly a loophile to "popularity" as different regions have different general likes and dislikes. (the classic NCZ vs CC debate)

Leon35 19:50, May 5, 2011 (UTC) ____________________________________________

I never implied we needed "god users",

emphasis added.

I said we do not and will not have "god users" so the rules are not (and should not be) aimed at "god users".

so if we DID have god users, the rules would be OK. Implication? We need god users. So yes, you DID imply that. Apology accepted.

more importantly, the point stands that your attempt at getting a verdict on "tyrannazoid" was premature and lacked citations. No amount of dodging and dancing will address this issue.

You cannot disprove a statement if you accept that statement as a premise to begin with. My argument is about the context, so accepting the context would just cause a logic loop.

this is a fallacy- a straw man. You've subsitituted my counterargument (that you were using a "part to the whole fallacy") with another, different, argument- "that you cannot accept something as true and then argue against it".

the exact fallacy here is that my argument had NOTHING TO DO with your assumptions or the truth of your premises. Your above statement is SOLELY about your assumptions and the truth of your premises. Substituting the two is COMPLETLY inappropriate.

further, ontop of being fallacious, it is also false. "You cannot disprove a statement if you accept that statement as a premise to begin with" is not true. If you accept something as true and then go on to prove it results in a contradiction, then you have concluded it is false, despite accepting it as a true premise- this is argument by contradiction and is a perfectly sound way of constructing an argument.

I already pointed out that "i.e." is used incorrectly in the rules.

Considering that you have already illustrated that you don't know what "i.e." means, I disregard this sentence.

Except as Sylvanelite already agreed, romanisations can be translations.

Quoting Sylvan doesn't offset me in any way. A romaisation is insufficient for a translation- but a tranlsation can be sufficient for a romanisation. You cannot run in a walking race, but you can walk in a running race.

If I can obtain contradictory results from the "i.e." and "e.g" sections and the main definition, then it's not doing a very good job of "explaining".

If the sky is made of lemons, our astronaughts should be making lemonade. But since that isn't the case, then no-one cares. Ditto the above setntece. It isn't true so no-one cares.

Since the "i.e." section ("published English media") is not a subset of the main definition ("official translations")

Once again proof you don't know what "i.e." means. (it means "in other words" or "that is to say" or anything along those lines, and I can find NO definitions that use it in ANY other way).

re-written: "official translations, in other words, published english media" is not incorrect- we can use EITHER published english media or official translations. In this context- that's the WHOLE POINT of using "i.e.". Of course, the way it is written gives informal preferance to translations, which was intentional, but it by no means discounts english media that aren't translations.

If "published Japanese media" includes official web media such as the Web Comic, then it includes unofficial web media such as Japanese fansites.

I warned you. You are now going to be called stupid. Here's why:

"published english media" obviously referrs to "published english Zoids media" - we are NOT interested in any material unrelated to Zoids, we are a Zoids wiki after all.

as a further example, "american boxes" obviously does not refer to "american Lego boxes" or "american Barbie boxes" or "american washing machine boxes". Given that, why on earth would anyone think that "published media" referrs to anything BUT published Zoids media? the ONLY answer I can think of is that they are really stupid.

"published english Zoids media" is NOT "published english Zoids fan media". A fansite, by definition, is the latter, not the former. Anyone who thinks fanmedia is EXACTLY THE SAME as official media must be really stupid.

so either you think we refer to "published english media" as all published english media, Zoids-related or otherwise, or that you think "Zoids fan media" is the same as "Zoids media". Either way, this makes you look pretty slow.

I do not like insulting users, so hopefully, you'll stop reiterating this comment now. All I have to say is that CONTEXT is important. VERY important. To completly ignore it and look up a dictionary for every word, as you have been doing, is NEVER going to get an even remotely correct result.

In this post, not one single new complaint or topic has been raised. I will therefore not reply to anything further.

@Leon: 1st up, I do not understand your above proposed rule changes and as there has been no discussion on them, I do not think you should act on your own.

2nd up, a reply to your comments:

• Why would we use title of "Mammoth the Destroyer" over "Mammoth"?It makes little to no sense.

Mammoth is used in the comic and is a perfectly valid name, so I don't understand this sentence.

• Zoids like Mammoth are one of the many Zoids that had thier main factions switched durring the OER.

Factions have nothing to do with naming.

• Why make an entire page after one specofc variant when you could cover all of them by naming it after the original name.

The original name is ALSO referring to a specific variant.

• who is to say that Spiderzoid is more popular than Tarantula?

I don't see this as being a problem, but I'll have to get the specific citations before I can be sure.

• It makes much more sense to use "Gurantula" a name that covers all of the releases.

All releases? Leaving aside "spiderzoid" "Gurantula" does not cover "Tarantulon", Robostrux or Zoids 2.

• The OER line was brief.

true, but in many cases, we aren't considering the OER in isolation.

• Meanwhile the OJR story line transends both the new and old release, making it the "most popular"

except that most zoids in question were never re-released in the NJR, so although this may be true, it is irrelevant given context.

• Rather than do this all by "popularity"

Popularity is only to be used on two names of the same tier. OJR and OER are not on the same tier, so "most popular" is not used.

• why not "relevance"

I already told you, relevance is subjective an cannot be objectively applied.

• pages who dont fit the rule.

they do fit the rule. The only reason they do not is because you are being biased toward the things you are familiar with. OER names are valid names, whether you personally like them or not.

• ...as different regions have different general likes and dislikes.

Once again, we only use citable popularity. Not opinion. There has been no problem so far, and I cannot see any instance where there will ever be one.

Slax01 10:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________

so if we DID have god users, the rules would be OK. Implication? We need god users.

Um... what? Not being aimed at "god users" is a positive feature, not a flaw. The rules can be OK without "god users" and having "god users" would not make the rules OK - in fact, if we had "god users", we probably wouldn't need the rules, as the "god users" would already know the best name for the page and the best way to stop any arguments. Anyway, this has become completely irrelevant and I'm going to drop it.

your attempt at getting a verdict on "tyrannazoid" was premature and lacked citations.

I was using Tyrannazoid as an example, not trying to get a specific verdict. I already know that the current rules give "Tyrannazoid". If you want citations, here's the OAR, OER, OJR, TDP, Starzeta and Mechabonica boxes plus some UK comics material. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head that gives a name (or notable lack of name) in English script for the critter. And what relevance does this have?

A romaisation is insufficient for a translation- but a tranlsation can be sufficient for a romanisation.

...what? Are you saying that romanisations cannot be translations? So "Iguan", being a direct romanisation of "イグアン", cannot be a translation? Also, since "Custmize" is a translation of 改造, either it belongs in category 1 (despite being a Japanese box) or category 2 includes translations. So much for the current rules highlighting that "romanisations aren't translations".

If I can obtain contradictory results from the "i.e." and "e.g" sections and the main definition... It isn't true so no-one cares.

"Official translations" excludes Gravity Ptera. "Published English media" and "American boxes" include Gravity Ptera.

"published english media" obviously referrs to "published english Zoids media" ...you think we refer to "published english media" as all published english media, Zoids-related or otherwise

It refers to any English media that mentions Zoids. If an English toy store catalogue mentions "Gojulas Giga", then it falls into category 1. If a source does not mention Zoids, it does not provide a citation for a Zoids-related name and therefore has no relevance to the rules. Unofficial sources are relevant to the rules (hence category 3) so "published English media" includes "published unofficial English media" unless otherwise specified. If category 1 covers "EITHER published english media or official translations", it covers "published unofficial English media".

you don't know what "i.e." means. (it means "in other words" or "that is to say" or anything along those lines, and I can find NO definitions that use it in ANY other way).

Exactly. Have some sources. Dogs i.e. Canis lupus is correct usage. Dogs i.e. Chihuahuas is correct usage. Dogs i.e. brown objects is NOT correct usage. "Brown objects" is not a clarification, simplification, explanation, example or precise description of "dogs". "Dogs i.e. brown objects" leaves me confused as to whether it includes dogs and brown objects or only brown dogs, or possibly any dogs.

we can use EITHER published english media or official translations

Then use "or" or maybe "and/or". It would be clearer than "i.e." Or do you have some reason for "and/or" not being an improvement? Also, unless you specifically want to include non-English translations as first priority (which I highly doubt, given your previous comments), why not just use "official English media" or "official published English media" as the category name? Cheironyx 08:32, May 7, 2011 (UTC) _____________________________________ Um... what? ... (talks about something other than the quoted reply)

"woosh" is the sound of my sentence going right over your head. You don't understand, I'm not going to spell it out for you. I tried that too many times already. Waste of breath.

I was using ... (talks about their example, not my reply to the sentence that resulted in that example)

way to completly miss the point.

...what? Are you saying that romanisations cannot be translations?

that's not what my quote said. Either of them.

Also, since "Custmize" is a translation of 改造, either it belongs in category 1 (despite being a Japanese box) or category 2 includes translations.

already covered, won't be repeated.

So much for the current rules highlighting that "romanisations aren't translations".

if this were baseball, you'd be well and truly out by now.

"Official translations" excludes Gravity Ptera. "Published English media" and "American boxes" include Gravity Ptera.

already convered, won't be repeated.

Unofficial sources are relevant to the rules (hence category 3)

only for translations. Wow. for someone so caught up on dictionary definition, you think you'd realise something so obvious. You have a really serious case of MASSIVE selective blindness. this is why the "i.e." or "e.g." in that section does NOT expand the definition of translation.

"so "published English media" includes "published unofficial English media" unless otherwise specified.

already covered, won't be repeated.

Dogs i.e. brown objects is NOT correct usage.

already covered, won't be repeated.

or maybe "and/or".

Once again proof you don't understand what "i.e." means. One thing written another way =/= two separate things that you choose from.

why not just use "official English media" or "official published English media" as the category name?

already covered, won't be repeated.

Slax01 23:08, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

____________________________________

talks about something other than the quoted reply

From 'quoted reply': "so if we DID have god users, the rules would be OK." From my paragraph: "having 'god users' would not make the rules OK." I'm getting the impression you just can't admit to being wrong.

"Official translations" excludes Gravity Ptera. "Published English media" and "American boxes" include Gravity Ptera. ...already convered, won't be repeated.

Unless you can actually prove this wrong, "it isn't true so no-one cares" is no defence against my earlier point.

"official translations, in other words, published english media" is not incorrect- we can use EITHER published english media or official translations. ...One thing written another way =/= two separate things that you choose from.

You are proving my point here. "Official translations" and "published English media" are not the same thing. If we can use "EITHER published english media or official translations", then "and/or" is suitable and "i.e." is not.

Dogs i.e. brown objects is NOT correct usage. ...already covered, won't be repeated.

Apart from saying I don't understand what "i.e." means (despite me providing sources that show "official translations, in other words, published english media" is indeed incorrect), the closest you have come to addressing this point is saying "frankly, I don't care". As far as I know, you do not have the power to edit a locked page, so you not caring is irrelevant. I am trying to convince at least one admin to care about correct use of English. If (non-quoted) text on the wiki uses incorrect English, it should be fixed, regardless of whether people can understand what it means or whether editors care about it - the only difference on the rules page is that only admins can edit it. Cheironyx 13:16, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________

I'm officially beyond the point of understanding what people are talking about here. I asked (twice) for people to stop arguing definitions like "i.e.", but apparently people don't want to heed my requests. So I'll just post my proposed changes and see what comes of it:

---

---

Rules

Naming Consistency

When deciding on which variant of a name to use, the following order should be considered;

• 1:Official English Translations/published English media (American boxes, English-dubbed anime, etc)
  
• 2:Official Romanisations/published Japanese media which uses English letters (Japanese boxes, Japanese games, etc)
  
• 3:Unofficial translations (Fansubbed anime, unofficial game walkthroughs, etc)
  

In the event of two official translations or two official romanisations existing, if common sense does not resolve the conflict, use the most popular version. Popularity can be cited by viewership information or sales figures.

Please note that this applies to articles in general only. When referring to a specific release or version, use the release's specific name. For example, on the Zaber Fang page, use Zaber Fang if referring to the Zoid in general, but if referring to the New Japanese Release of the Zoid, use "Saber Tiger" (a note regarding the name change should always be present).

---

---

Changes:

Removing i.e. and e.g. because apparently it causes arguments. I replaced them with slashes instead, as I feel that's the most appropriate thing to do.

Added "English" to "official translations", because I changed i.e. to a slash.

Added how to cite popularity, and moved it below the list.

Notes:

Other languages are still not explicitly mentioned. I can't think of a situation where they would need to be mentioned. Every Zoid is released in Japanese. English should take priority where it exists. Foreign languages lack variants, since any article about a foreign release is context-specific, and the rules only apply to "articles in general only" not the "specific release". If someone wants this to be added, please provide me an example so I can consider it specifically.

Audio is not explicitly mentioned, as it falls under common sense. Again, if there is a case of this, post it specifically. The above examples posted by slax and cheironyx were sufficient to show that umbrella ruling with audio won't get the right outcome.

The other sections will be left as-is. Although I feel the bit about talk pages could be expanded slightly.

Feel free to comment. I'll wait about 24 hours before putting up these "new" rules. The changes are only semantic, what I've proposed here will not alter any current rulings, nor will it alter any rulings currently under discussion. Even once I put them up, feel free to request a rollback, and I will do this. Sylvanelite 11:52, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Just a couple of tweaks to the popularity clause: you might want to use "two or more" or "multiple" rather than "two" for the popularity clause, and something along the lines of "names at the same priority level" instead of specific levels (since it applies to category 3 as well). Otherwise, your proposed changes look fine to me :) Cheironyx 13:33, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

@Slax

1st up, I do not understand your above proposed rule changes and as there has been no discussion on them, I do not think you should act on your own.

Sorry that was ment to be a suggestion. My bad.

Mammoth is used in the comic and is a perfectly valid name, so I don't understand this sentence.

What I am saying is that evry single release has the word "Mammoth" in it. OJR, OAR and even OER. But the OER adds in the, "The Destroyer" part. By naimg the article that, it implies that it is the most used version of that name, which it is not. Not to get to specific, but wouldnt the current rules favor the OAR name rather than the OER, which is still just "Mammoth"?

Factions have nothing to do with naming.

Point taken, but shouldn't we use a name with a faction with more relevance to the article as a whole? OAR Mammoth-Helic. OJR Mammoth-Helic. Re-release Mammoth-Helic. OER Mammoth-Empire (i will make points about relevance and why not to use OER in a moment)

The original name is ALSO referring to a specific variant.

Think of it this way; All "Mammoth the Destroyer's" are "Mammoth's" but not all "Mammoth's" are Mammoth the Destroyer's" (Square's and Rhombus' anology)

I don't see this as being a problem, but I'll have to get the specific citations before I can be sure.

As cited before, there are 2 OER Garantulas. SpiderZoid and Tarantula. It is impossible to determine which name is more suited, as that version of popularity would involve opinions and is open to bias

All releases? Leaving aside "spiderzoid" "Gurantula" does not cover "Tarantulon", Robostrux or Zoids 2.

Another valid point, but what makes "Spiderzoid" more suitable of a name than "Garantula" exactly? Simply because Spiderzoid was OER and Garantula was OJR? (while I am using this as an example think more generaly in terms of OJR vs OER when responding to this though the use of the same examples will help to communicate it better. I am only saying this so that we dont get to specific)

true, but in many cases, we aren't considering the OER in isolation.

My quote "Meanwhile the OJR story line transends both the new and old release, making it the "most popular" answers this. And your response below....

except that most zoids in question were never re-released in the NJR, so although this may be true, it is irrelevant given context.

Not true. Are you forgetting the TDP projects? Specificly the memorial sets in which the same zoids we are discussing here use there OJR names. To add, Mammoth Core Box, Zoids Monthly Graphic Novels, and the Rebirth Century line

Popularity is only to be used on two names of the same tier. OJR and OER are not on the same tier, so "most popular" is not used.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. In that case, what allows OER to be used over OJR? It simply being English? As easy as it is, we do need a better reason than that. Technicaly, the OJR names arent really in a language at all. they are written in English lettering yes, but these arent actual words. and many languages use similar or identical alphebets to that of english. Also, you cannot find "Garius" in a japanese word dictionary, (same also applies for all other releases and thier zoids' names) though I do understand what the rules mean by "English" I am just not sure if others will.

Also keep in mind that "English" names are not necisarily English. Liger Zero's CAS armors are all German words (Schnieder, Jaeger, and Panzer) so how do the rules apply there? Transalting them would be stupid)

I already told you, relevance is subjective an cannot be objectively applied.

But cant the same be said for popularity? If you ask a Zoids fan in Europe if they prefer "Garius" or "Tyrannaoid" chances are they will pick the latter. Same would go for Japan, but the answer would most likely be "Garius"

When I refer to the term relevance, I refer to the article as a whole. (this is the point I said I would make earlier) Lets say I have a Zoid and I am making an article for that Zoid. (his next part is all purley example) This saw a release in the OJR, OER and NJR. In the OJR and NJR it was consistantly named "Zoid-A" but in the OER it was called "Zoid-B". More regions can identify the Zoid as "Zoid-A" rather than "Zoid-B" In addition, the NJR and OJR version was assosiated with "Faction 1" where as the OER was affiliated with "Faction 2". In the end when I look over everything there is to know about the Zoid, wouldn't it make more sense to use the name that has the most information? (I am not saying that OER should never be used for naming, it should in some cases, but agian, this is merly an example)

Perahps "Relevance" isnt the correct word to describe what I am suggesting. Does anyone have a better word to better show what I am trying to say? i do agree that if we followed pure relevance that would not be good.

they do fit the rule. The only reason they do not is because you are being biased toward the things you are familiar with. OER names are valid names, whether you personally like them or not.

Never said OER was not valid. If it sounded like that I didnt mean it. I am just saying there is more about the japanese releases than the European ones. The Japanese side of Zoids has been/is the core of the franchise since the OJR line took off (even if the OAR came 1st. that is just how it worked out)

I am trying to avoid bias as much as possible. I only want what is best for the wiki. If the name "apple" was considered for a Zoid page, as long as it had some form of signifigance to anything, i would consider it.

Once again, we only use citable popularity. Not opinion. There has been no problem so far, and I cannot see any instance where there will ever be one.

For the most part I agree, but what do you define as "citable popularity"? I mean, unless we have a set standard of what that is, it is subject to opinion just like regular popularity, which defeats the purpose.

Leon35 21:19, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

@Sylvanelite

Every Zoid is released in Japanese. English should take priority where it exists. Foreign languages lack variants, since any article about a foreign release is context-specific, and the rules only apply to "articles in general only" not the "specific release".

While I think I understand what you are saying here, could you explain that stamement a little more please, only so that I dont misinturpet it. Thanks

Leon35 21:24, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________

@Cheironyx, I used "two" to be explicit. Because if I write: "In the event of multiple official translations or multiple official romanisations existing" it sounds like popularity overwrites the 3 existing points. Which it doesn't. I did consider writing multiple, but the other thought was that any multiple can always be broken down into pairwise groups. E.g. if there is "Brad", "Ballad" and "Barad" all in one group, it can be done: Brad vs Ballad, Brad vs Barad, Ballad vs Barad.

@Leon, it means not using "ストライクレーザークロ" as the title of an article. It also means not using "Sutoraikurezakuro" as a title. It means using "Strike Laser Claw".

_______________________________________________________________________________ 1st up, @ Sylvan:

"Popularity can be cited by viewership information, sales figures or other evidence-based approaches."

I feel the above revised quote is better so as to avoid getting too narrow (I feel it is perfectly valid to simply show (valid) proxies for sales figures, rather than necessarily provide actual figures). As "/" has the same meaning as "i.e." does, I see no reason to object with that alteration.

@ Leon What I am saying is that evry single release has the word "Mammoth" in it. OJR, OAR and even OER. But the OER adds in the, "The Destroyer" part.

this is an argument against that specific release, not the OER in general. As shown below, "mammoth" on its own is a valid english name.

By naimg the article that, it implies that it is the most used version of that name, which it is not.

But it also implies that's the English name. Which it is. Also, again, I must point out that "most used" is subjective.

Not to get to specific, but wouldnt the current rules favor the OAR name rather than the OER, which is still just "Mammoth"?

OAR uses Mammoth, as does the UK comic. It is a perfectly valid name, and a discussion would have to be had on the topic. I do not have enough citations to make a decision either way at this point in time.

Point taken, but shouldn't we use a name with a faction with more relevance to the article as a whole?

I see this as a problem with the article, not the rules. The article's UK section should be expanded.

OAR Mammoth-Helic.

side Question: does OAR Mammoth have a battle story?

OJR Mammoth-Helic. Re-release Mammoth-Helic. OER Mammoth-Empire (i will make points about relevance and why not to use OER in a moment)

A valid point, so I see no reason not to use the OAR name. But again, this is a specific example, where a valid alternative to the OER exists, and not something detracting fromt the OER in general.

Think of it this way; All "Mammoth the Destroyer's" are "Mammoth's" but not all "Mammoth's" are Mammoth the Destroyer's" (Square's and Rhombus' anology)

This is a subjective assertion, not a fact. As far as I see it, they are either separate (on account of the different backstories) or the exact same (or account of the name being interchangeable in official media). I see no instance where one would be a subset of the other.

As cited before, there are 2 OER Garantulas. SpiderZoid and Tarantula. It is impossible to determine which name is more suited, as that version of popularity would involve opinions and is open to bias

I do not believe the second sentence but I lack the citations to contiune the discussion further. Further, bias is not inherentaly unacceptable, so long as the rules are relatively consistent in outcome and objective in reasoning, they are adequate for conflict resolution, biased or otherwise.

Another valid point, but what makes "Spiderzoid" more suitable of a name than "Garantula" exactly? Simply because Spiderzoid was OER and Garantula was OJR?

Yes, it is as simple as that- because the OER was english and the OJR was Japanese, and we are an english wiki, so there is an inherent value in using english names in lieu of any reason to the contrary.

Not true. Are you forgetting the TDP projects? Specificly the memorial sets in which the same zoids we are discussing here use there OJR names.

Yes, I am. Why? Because they were re-released under the TDP in 06. You stated the NJR finished in 05. This is why I removed it from the NJR page, and one of the MANY reasons why the fan-based releases pages are terrible.

To add, Mammoth Core Box, Zoids Monthly Graphic Novels, and the Rebirth Century line

Why are these not mentioned on the page?

Thank you for clarifying that for me. In that case, what allows OER to be used over OJR? It simply being English?

yes, because using untrasnlated names on a wiki that relies almost 100% on translations doesn't make sense. Remember these rules were made to cover ALL zoids media, not the OER or OJR specifically. The OER being given higher priority than the OJR is simply a by-product of having the rule, not the desired result.

As an example, Bang is inferior to Van for no reason other than Van being the English name.

As easy as it is, we do need a better reason than that.

Why? In addition, what reason would you use as an alternative?

Technicaly, the OJR names arent really in a language at all. they are written in English lettering yes, but these arent actual words.

proper nouns are part of any language. More below.

Also keep in mind that "English" names are not necisarily English. Liger Zero's CAS armors are all German words (Schnieder, Jaeger, and Panzer) so how do the rules apply there? Transalting them would be stupid)

To use the New Century Dub specifically as an example, all spoken lines were translated from Japanese to English. This includes propoer nouns. "Rinon" was translated to "Leena". "Ballard" to "Brad". Likewise, the choice not to translate is also part of the translation process. "Schneider" was "Schneider" in Japanese, and was "Schneider" in enlgish, so "Schneider" is still the translated name, even though it is a German word.

But cant the same be said for popularity?

Not if you use good citations.

If you ask a Zoids fan in Europe if they prefer "Garius" or "Tyrannaoid" chances are they will pick the latter. Same would go for Japan, but the answer would most likely be "Garius"

Yes, but Japanese use the Japanese wiki. Why this is relevant? Well, because they would be likely to answer "ガリウス" not "Garius", and we aren't going to use ガリウス as the page title.

...wouldn't it make more sense to use the name that has the most information?

Of course it would. But this only works because in the example you have assumed "More regions can identify the Zoid as "Zoid-A" rather than "Zoid-B""- an assumption that ends all arguments.

No such convienent assumption holds in real life, so I just see this criteria leading to arguments, with no way to resolve them.

I am just saying there is more about the japanese releases than the European ones.

I doubt this sentence, but I lack the citations to further develop the case at this point in time. Though it is important to note that the Zoids in question have limited info no matter which release we use.

For the most part I agree, but what do you define as "citable popularity"?

I can't define as it is taken on a case-by-case approach. Sales data and viewership figures are the usual examples.

PS: If (when) this discussion is over, I will purge this page and add a summary of the discussion, because it is WAY too long. Slax01 21:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

@Slax In these responses I will do my best to close up the more specific arguments.

Slax: this is an argument against that specific release, not the OER in general. As shown below, "mammoth" on its own is a valid english name.

Me: By naimg the article that, it implies that it is the most used version of that name, which it is not.

Slax: But it also implies that's the English name. Which it is. Also, again, I must point out that "most used" is subjective.

In reponse to the 1st italizied quote, since mammoth is an english name already, why not use that?

Agian I still cannot find the correct word or phrase for this. Every single release for the Mammoth is just called Mammoth except for the OER which adds on the Destroyer part. The OER name doesnt cover all the releases, as they all dont have "the destroyer" in them but every single release has the word "mammoth" in it airgo making "Mammoth" a more suitable title.

OAR uses Mammoth, as does the UK comic. It is a perfectl part of Zoids at the same time. It iave to be had on the topic. I do not have enough citations to make a decision either way at this point in time.

(See the point directly above as the response to this quote) I agree on the fact that if we want to continue discussing mammoth, we should do it on its talk page.

I see this as a problem with the article, not the rules. The article's UK section should be expanded.

The OER is a big, and yet small portion of the Zoids universe at the same time. It is technicaly a seperate universe from the rest of zoids media, so it follows its own story, zoids, characters, terminology, etc. Despite this, the OER line is a whole bunch of mystery as the line and comic was canceled long before the series was even close to being done. as a result, many details and important information surronding the OER are a mystery and will likely remain that way forever. Therefore, expanding the UK sections would require not only previous knowlage of the line but also information that most likely is just speculation or cannot be proven. The next chapter in the OER comics, Ultrasaurus Red and Deathsaurus Blue, the Ghost Zoids, all things that just turned into legends and rarities. it is sad but true.

side Question: does OAR Mammoth have a battle story?

While not technicaly, it is the only OAR Zoid (other than Giant Zrk) to not have pre-dated thier OJR counterpart. Regardless, all versions of Mammoth (excluding OER) contain the Helic Republic logos, so even if OAR's didnt have am official faction, every single OAR zoid is technicaly considered to be a part of what is now known as the Helic Republic (or Blue Guardians) even Tank, technicaly the very 1st empire zoid. Also, Please note that there was a French "green" Mammoth that is technicaly OER and a OER Blue Mammoth that have been released identicaly to the OJR/OAR version. In addition, I believe there is a rare OER Mammoth the Destroyer that while colored like a red mutant, has gold pilots and helic logos. (although i need to find the citation for that) There is also a OJR mammoth that has silver pilots and empire logos (the French mammoth)

A valid point, so I see no reason not to use the OAR name. But again, this is a specific example, where a valid alternative to the OER exists, and not something detracting fromt the OER in general.

fair enough. We can discuss the rest of the OER vs OJR cases elsewhere

Slax: This is a subjective assertion, not a fact. As far as I see it, they are either separate (on account of the different backstories) or the exact same (or account of the name being interchangeable in official media). I see no instance where one would be a subset of the other.

I restated my original anology above in this reponse, to make it a little more clear, however, you are absolutely right.

To everyone:All my other points about mammoth were stated above, and there is no reason for me to repeat them anymore, especialy since now we are getting to specific.

I do not believe the second sentence but I lack the citations to contiune the discussion further. Further, bias is not inherentaly unacceptable, so long as the rules are relatively consistent in outcome and objective in reasoning, they are adequate for conflict resolution, biased or otherwise.

A matter i think we should settle on the Gargantula page (if anyone even cares enough, which frankly i dont, as this was just for another example) Moving back into a more general discusion, i get what you are saying here, with the whole "consistant outcome and objective" and "conflict resolution" but there are definatly better ways that reduce the bias while still reaching a goal, we just need to tweak it a bit.

Yes, it is as simple as that- because the OER was english and the OJR was Japanese, and we are an english wiki, so there is an inherent value in using english names in lieu of any reason to the contrary.

In addition to my Spiderzoid tarantulon argument, I would like to return to an argument used in the mammoth example, the use of relevance, speicificaly, the use of Garantula in both the OJR, TDP and RCZ versions, although we both statedd are arguments so there is no need to repeat them.

Yes, I am. Why? Because they were re-released under the TDP in 06. You stated the NJR finished in 05. This is why I removed it from the NJR page, and one of the MANY reasons why the fan-based releases pages are terrible.

Cant argue there. The timelines do need work. Although that may/may not be relevant to the example

Why are these not mentioned on the page?

I think i am missing your point, but my point was that these releases re-use the OJR names

yes, because using untrasnlated names on a wiki that relies almost 100% on translations doesn't make sense. Remember these rules were made to cover ALL zoids media, not the OER or OJR specifically. The OER being given higher priority than the OJR is simply a by-product of having the rule, not the desired result. As an example, Bang is inferior to Van for no reason other than Van being the English name.

Names of characters are not actualy translated so much as they are changed. Bang wasn't translated to Van, but changed to it for the US viewers. The same goes for name changes between lines of zoids kits.

Why? In addition, what reason would you use as an alternative?

I really cannot express what I mean into words at the momment. I want to say "this" but I cant find the right words. Give me a while (sorry)

proper nouns are part of any language. More below.

To use the New Century Dub specifically as an example, all spoken lines were translated from Japanese to English. This includes propoer nouns. "Rinon" was translated to "Leena". "Ballard" to "Brad". Likewise, the choice not to translate is also part of the translation process. "Schneider" was "Schneider" in Japanese, and was "Schneider" in enlgish, so "Schneider" is still the translated name, even though it is a German word.

Point taken

Not if you use good citations.

Still would like to know how one does that, but i understand that it is hard to explain

Yes, but Japanese use the Japanese wiki. Why this is relevant? Well, because they would be likely to answer "ガリウス" not "Garius", and we aren't going to use ガリウス as the page title.

But we dont use the japanese writting anyway, so why not just use the english writting of the japanese name?

Of course it would. But this only works because in the example you have assumed "More regions can identify the Zoid as "Zoid-A" rather than "Zoid-B""- an assumption that ends all arguments.

No such convienent assumption holds in real life, so I just see this criteria leading to arguments, with no way to resolve them.

Can't popularity present a similar problem? Both ideas have pros and cons although popularity has appealed to me slightly more after this discussion.

I doubt this sentence, but I lack the citations to further develop the case at this point in time. Though it is important to note that the Zoids in question have limited info no matter which release we use.

Trust me when I say that the info on european releases is limited when compared to what is known on the other releases.

I can't define as it is taken on a case-by-case approach. Sales data and viewership figures are the usual 'examples.

That answers what i asked before, but sales data and viewership figures on zoids arent exactly easy to find

PS: If (when) this discussion is over, I will purge this page and add a summary of the discussion, because it is WAY too long.

That would be great. I agree.

Leon35 23:14, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________ @Leon

since mammoth is an english name already, why not use that?

Although again, I must state I don't know all the citations, I have no issues with the "mammoth" name at this point in time and do not foresee any arising any time soon.

...Therefore, expanding the UK sections would require not only previous knowlage of the line but also information that most likely is just speculation or cannot be proven.

Oh, I just meant adding in more info, like pictures.

While not technicaly...

cool, I was just wondering since I've never seen this Mammoth box, thanks

A matter i think we should settle on the Gargantula page (if anyone even cares enough, which frankly i dont, as this was just for another example)

I do care but only because I want to overhaul the UK Zoids comic to make it more in line with the other media pages (ie, character pages, chapter pages, proper nav tempatles, etc), but since this is a long way off at best, it is by no means an immediate issue and as such, I'll deal with it dealt with later.

Cant argue there. The timelines do need work. Although that may/may not be relevant to the example

Oh, yes what I said was irrelevant to the example, just pointing it out to show that the mammoth page could do with cleanup and expansion

I think i am missing your point, but my point was that these releases re-use the OJR name

see above, just noting the possibility for expansion on the Mammoth page.

Bang wasn't translated to Van, but changed to it for the US viewers.

addressed in the Schneider example. As far as I'm concerned, if it's changed as part of a translation, then it is translated.

Still would like to know how one does that, but i understand that it is hard to explain

To use a simple example, New century was re-run several times before being taken off the air. Fuzors was cancelled halfway through its first run.

This is a citation that says New is more popular than Fuzors, and it is in no way subjective. (although most people would still try to argue it, without providing similar citations, these arguments are likely invalid)

But we dont use the japanese writting anyway, so why not just use the english writting of the japanese name?

But that's the issue- if we aren't catering for the Japanese, (using characters), why should we use the Japanese name? Doesn't it just make more sense to just go for the English name where one exists?

Can't popularity present a similar problem?

Popularity is less open to debate. Information is subject to debates about length (do you count words? chapters? number of releases?), quality (how do you measure?), relevance (number of releases? popularity of release?), etc, each of which are highly subjective. popularity, while by no means perfect, is (practically) not open to debate.

Trust me when I say that the info on european releases is limited when compared to what is known on the other releases.

True, but the point I'm making is that zoids like the Mammoth make up a very small % of overall Zoids media, OER, OJR or otherwise.

That answers what i asked before, but sales data and viewership figures on zoids arent exactly easy to find

This is why I mostly use proxies, for instance, number of times a show was re-run, how long before something was discontinued, etc- these are usually much easier to find.

Slax01 21:33, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

____________________

@Slax:I feel that this is wraping up quite nicely. I now fully understand and for the most part agree with all of the points you have made Slax. This was a very productive topic. I would just like your opinion on the following:

• Article titles should be changed only if a debate is brought up regarding the rules on that page's talk page and when the discussion favors a name chnage

•With regards to model kits only, I think it would be a good idea to establish a guideline of sorts for naming and which names take precedence over others. This is a suggestion that would allow people to use the names of certain zoids in certain lines over others. A very basic example using non specific titles is shown below;

(ex) In naming Zoid A,t he name of the zoid in Zoids Release 1 takes precedence over Zoids Release 2, which takes precendence over Zoids Release 3...Zoids Release 4, 5 and so on and so forth.

Feel free to express your opinions evryone. They are obviously not perdect and can be altered or ignored as needed.

Leon35 02:27, May 13, 2011 (UTC) ______________

Why not say "bring it up on the Zoid's talk page" or somethin' after the common sense clause. Tad easier/more open (and slightly less unnerving, imo) than hard to find sales stats. ______________

@Leon • Article titles should be changed only if a debate is brought up regarding the rules on that page's talk page and when the discussion favors a name chnage

True.

•With regards to model kits only, I think it would be a good idea to establish a guideline of sorts for naming and which names take precedence over others.

If you want to do this you'd have to show me the result of your proposal (in full) so that I know how it would work. This includes characters (ie: will we have separate rules for characters vs models- do characters who appear on models use their anime names?) Also, so I know how it treats specific cases (eg: Do we use Furher over fury? etc.)

@anon

Why not say "bring it up on the Zoid's talk page" or somethin' after the common sense clause. Tad easier/more open (and slightly less unnerving, imo) than hard to find sales stats.

Yeah, sure, why not? This is the current practise. Also, the more I think about it, the better it would be to simply put a "for examples of popularity, see the talk page" rather than list them on the actual page.

The revised rules would be changed from "... use the most popular version. Popularity can be cited by viewership information or sales figures." to "... use the most popular version. For examples on how to cite popularity, see the talk page."

and somewhere at the end put "Please note that all name changes should be discussed on their relevant talk pages first."

Slax01 21:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

New Proposal: Precedance/Priority

NOTE: This topic branches off of Sylvan's topic (the one before this one). Please continue to adhere to the rule of putting lines at the beggining and end of your edits in order to avoid confusion between editors and readers alike, and as always, do not forget to sign your posts with either the sig button avaliable at the editing menu or the input of four tildes (four ~). Also, keep in mind that this specific topic mostly refers to the model kit Zoids pages with several different zoids releases, with that Zoid having atleast more than 1 name to choose from as the title of it's article. A topic for a rule for other types of pages, like character pages, will be established afterwords when this discussion reaches some form of general agreement or disagreement. Said discussion will be based on the outcome of this topic to a certain degree.

The following in italics is quoted from the last topic.

Leon35(me): Article titles should be changed only if a debate is brought up regarding the rules on that page's talk page and when the discussion favors a name chnage

Slax01: True.

Leon35(me): With regards to model kits only, I think it would be a good idea to establish a guideline of sorts for naming and which names take precedence over others.

Slax01: If you want to do this you'd have to show me the result of your proposal (in full) so that I know how it would work. This includes characters (ie: will we have separate rules for characters vs models- do characters who appear on models use their anime names?) Also, so I know how it treats specific cases (eg: Do we use Furher over fury? etc.)"

As requested, I will explain my proposition as clearly as possible.

There has been much discusion over the rules, the most contraversy being over the naming of articles. If you have been following the discussion and can make out the extreme clutter of words in the several different discussions above (Azimuth must teach me how to archive things, if he ever comes back on that is) then you realize at this point that the argument has settled down to deciding between 2 types of rules; popularity and relevance. However, niether idea is perfect and in the end, both ideas would end up causing some contraversy on article talk pages and many article page names would still be inconsistant, just as they are now. However, in this new proposal, I would like to present a comprimise between the 2 ideas that would only benifit the wiki. I am calling it Precedance or Priority for the time being.

This new rule would replace the current popularity rule in place. It would eliminate the relevance idea as well. However, both the popularity and relevance clause's influence this new proposal I am making.

The original popularity rule is that whichever name is most "popular" is the name of that article. This rule also has several sub rules, for example, the use of English names over any other name avaliable (ex Garius vs Tyrannazoid) However, as stated in the above discussions, many flaws are present with this idea and many pages would have exceptions based on that article's situation. Inconsistancies would develop based on how that Zoid was released. For example, Zoid A released in the OJR, OER and NAR takes on the NAR name but Zoid B released in the OJR and OER only takes on the OER name. The relevance idea is the same way in that it has flaws similar to this. Combining the two is the key.

Rather than go around and pick which name out of a Zoid article with 2 or more names for every single article, we should set a standard. Basicly, which Zoid releases take precedance over others. The community would decide which Zoid releases take precedance over other Zoid releases (forgive me for using the title in the definition several times)

Here is another example; Zoid C was released in the 1,2,3,4,5 releases and Zoid D was released in the 2,3,4,5 zoid releases. In this example, Zoids Release 1 has the highest priority as decided by the community, and 5 has the least. (I am using numbers in order to convey my idea better and avoid specifics, and new letters in order to avoid confusion with past examples) In a perfect world, all zoids articles would be named after Release 1, like Zoid C, as it has the highest priority, but not all Zoids were a part of Release 1, like Zoid D. When this happens, the Zoids article name will be whatever release has the next highest priority. In this case, since the name from Zoids Release 1 cannot be used with Zoid D, as it wasn't in Zoids Release 1 and thus doesn't have a name for it, Zoid D's article will take the name of Zoids Release 2, which in this example has the next highest priority.

Now for the tricky part; deciding which zoids releases take precedance or priority over others. Now unless this proposal is even agreed upon, which i am not saying it will, we will save this for later. I will say that the decesion making would be decided based on the popularity and relevance ideas (hence why this is a comprimise) However, unlike the 2 original ideas, they will be altered in order to address each release as a whole, rather than each individual zoid.

No idea is perfect, and with any proposal like this, there are bound to be exceptions regardless of what any of us say or do. I will say right off the bat that inapropriete names such as "Guysack" or "Wardick" will never be used outside of redirects for pages. If we even get around to making this idea a reality, then part of the job will be to ensure that measures will be taken to allow us to avoid those names as much as possible. We are also bound to hit other types if roud bumps along the way, but will handel them one at a time, if/when the time comes to address them.

That is another thing, redirects. I can assure you all that no matter what a page is called, all of that pages alterante names will be mentioned somewhere throughout the article and/or as redirects for that page. After all, a wiki must hold any and all information relevant to its topic.

Finnaly, just remember that now matter what rules are put in place, or what proposals are made, a page name may only be changed if a thourough discussion is made on that pages's talk page, and there is signifigant evidence to show that the change adheres to the current version of the Zoids Wikia rules and that the community agrees and is in favor of that change.

I gratefuly welcome any and all questions, comments, or ideas, opinions, etc. Please, respond away!

Leon35 01:35, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Although I'm a little busier outside of summer, I'm around if you need me. Honestly I haven't been able to keep up with this rather extended conversation / argument / debate / whatever. (You're all a little too long winded just to breeze through all of this)

Anyway, about your proposal. It's a good idea if you're looking for a hard line to draw for naming pages. Personally, however, I think it is too much red tape. I believe that the most common prevalent name within the English-speaking Zoids community should take precedence. The correct name shouldn't be too hard to identify... I think.

About the redirects, I think I took some time a while ago and created redirects for all the different names for every Zoid given on the list, so we shouldn't have to worry about creating any of those.

--Azimuth727 01:24, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

---

Although I'm a little busier outside of summer, I'm around if you need me. Honestly I haven't been able to keep up with this rather extended conversation / argument / debate / whatever. (You're all a little too long winded just to breeze through all of this)

Anyway, about your proposal. It's a good idea if you're looking for a hard line to draw for naming pages. Personally, however, I think it is too much red tape. I believe that the most common prevalent name within the English-speaking Zoids community should take precedence. The correct name shouldn't be too hard to identify... I think.

About the redirects, I think I took some time a while ago and created redirects for all the different names for every Zoid given on the list, so we shouldn't have to worry about creating any of those.

--Azimuth727 01:24, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

---

Hello Azimuth. It's been a while. What's up?

I joined the conversation half way through myself (i was away for a bit) It was/is a hard thing to keep up with for sure

About your opinion about the proposal, I would have liked it that way originaly, but after the discussion that occured here, it is clear that several members would like a set rule, and I will do what will benift the wiki and the zoid community.

I remember all the redirects you made. I cannot thank you enough for that =)

I have a favor to ask you; can you re-teach me how to archive talk pages? I would like to get rid off most of this clutter without deleting it. Much appreciatedLeon35 04:05, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________