Talk:Worker (Trainer class)

Merge

So what if the Japanese name is slightly different, it's the same name in english and it is the same thing as Worker. ミュウ and ミュー are the same thing. --SnorlaxMonster 11:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But ミュー was never used in a game... it was ミュウ even in Red/Green. So technically the Orre workers are considered different here... I guess? I'm not really sure what to think about this. I mean, there's not much to say (Unless someone thinks of a good thing to say otherwise) about the Orre workers. So I support the merge. I mean, the Rocket Grunt Japanese name was changed like fifty billion times (okay three) but we just list the different ones on its page. ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I OPPOSE THIS MERGE! Those are two different, unrelated classes. It's the Japanese name which is PREVALENT, not the English one. Understand that Colosseum has different classes than main games. Only some classes are "borrowed" from the main games but Worker does NOT belong to them. The Colo/XD class appeared first and there is NO REASON to think that the class from DP is somewhat related to it. There are little to no references in the main games to Colo/XD. And similarly appearing class doesn't mean same one. It's like merging Channeler and Medium or Expert and Veteran. We've agreed that those are different classes and dismerged those pages (they did use to be merged, FYI). Those classes just LOOK similar but are unrelated. And it's not the Japanese name which "is slightly different", it's the English name that COINCIDES. But it's nothing more than a coincidence (I believe that Colo/XD translation were not done by Ogasawara). Saying that Colo/XD Worker and DPPt Worker are same class is just like saying that Janine and Charine are different characters. --Maxim 07:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an English wiki, Maxim, of course we're going to go by the English names. If they have the same English name, then they should have the same English article. It is noted that they are named differently in Japanese, but for all intents and purposes they are the same thing in English. The merge lost no information; it is in fact now a fuller article. —darklordtrom 08:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So come start an article on Charine. Name is not what constitutes same or different thing. It's like merging all characters named "Emily" (there are three, aren't there?) into one article. Judging by names is really stupid. "This is the English Pedia" is not an argument. They aren't "same thing" in English. Just same-named thing. --Maxim 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose you'll be making Rockets, Rocket Grunts and Team Rocket Grunt all separate articles because their Japanese names were different? --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 09:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

At your logic we should because the English names are different too (also "Rocket Grunt" and "Team Rocket Grunt" is no different in Japanese, the -dan part is present in both, it's just English version that had limits). But that was only because of the technical limitations. It's obvious that the classes are the same. As for Colo/XD and DP Workers - they have little in common. Just English name (which doesn't consitute on what's same or different thing) and remotely similar appearance. Nothing more. They use different Pokémon and appear in unrelated games (Colo/XD don't relate to main games much canon-wise). The merge was done based SOLELY on the English name which is really nothing to go by. It's just a translation. It's noncanon. --Maxim 13:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the English games, the English name IS cannon. If either the English or Japanese name are the same, we consider it the same article as they were intended to be the same. Both in Colosseum and DP the workers use similar Pokémon. The thing is that there are two cannons here. We use the English as the main cannon. If the English says something, it is cannon. The Japanese version is subcannon, so that if it conflicts with English cannon then it is noncannon, but if it says something that English doesn't and it doesn't conflict then the Japanese version is cannon. Hard to explain, but I hope you understand. --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 00:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit backwards there, Japanese is main canon and English is sub canon because it's made in Japan. The Dark Fiddler - You enter a poorly lit room... 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree'd. Because the games originate in Japan, Japan is the TOP canon, above all. The Pedia might be English, but it's the English translation of a Japanese game. Hence, why Japanese canon trumps English. Every time. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the English name still says that the two were meant to be the same, also possibly saying that the Japanese name was simply revised and changed. --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 04:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

English name means nothing: it must have been a mistranslation. They do that all the time. As with every single other defense we have had since the beginning of Bulbapedia: When the Japanese have intended for it to be different, it is supposed to be different. This is essentially putting two unrelated things on the same page.,..like mixing AG005 with Explosive Birth Lugia. It makes no sense. ^Maverick_Nate 04:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

these two classes are not different. they just had a name change. and its not even a drastic name change, they just dropped the "middle-aged" part. they are the same trainer class, and the merge is staying. -- MAGNEDETH 06:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It IS a complete change. The translation we have is stupid. The Colo/XD name is "Hataraku-no Ojisan" and the DPPt name is "Sagyouin". We just awkwardly translated them but those are totally different words. There is no proof that those classes are supposed to be the same. Okay they are both middle-aged physical workers? And what? They appear in UNRELATED games and train different Pokemon. Colo/XD and main games don't relate that much canon-wise. NONE of the classes originally debuting in Colo/XD made it into main games. It's naive to think that "it's one class from Colosseum which was later used in DPPt". Colo/XD had different developers (Genius Sonority) with their own ideas. We haven't seen GameFreak using ANY of Genius Sonority's ideas (we did see the opposite but that's not the thing). I don't see how an English name can constitute the fact that the class was originally supposed to be the same. It's just a translation - someone's else interpretation, NOT original idea. I don't even think that Nob Ogasawara remembers every Trainer Classes name he translated (it's a forgettable thing, especially those Colo/XD classes - they were so unmemorable and minor). I'm not even sure if that was Nob who made the Colo & XD Translation. Same translation really DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. Especially that Japanese have more words to describe one thing (usually Chinese-borrowed and Native Japanese, as in this case). The Japanese names are remotely different, they train different Pokemon, they appear in unrelated games (Colo/XD Workers were GS's idea, DPPt Workers was GF's idea. Those could develop independently). Really, everything we're excusing this merge with is English name. The English name should not be the criteria for anything. There are many COTDs who share the same name. And does it mean that they're same characters? Of course, Worker classes MAY appear similarly and happen to have same English title. But merging them just because of the similarity is like merging Channeler and Medium or Veteran and Expert. Also, both Bikers and Cyclists are called "Biker" in German. Does that mean that they're same class? Translations sometimes fail. There is no REAL reason for the pages to stay merged. --Maxim 13:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very sad that since I brought up some serious reasons the problem has been completely ignored. Such situations really question Bulbapedia's plausibility as a dependable information source. --Maxim 21:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not merging on similarity only. The name is the exact same in english. On the German wiki, Biker and Cyclist should be (if not are) the same article. The English name is not merely a translation when the entire wiki is based off the English part of the franchise. You say that GF never used GS's ideas, but here is an example of it. They just found "Middle-aged" too specific.

I tried a few different translators, which either did a terrible job translating those two (さぎょういん is "I work clothes", はたらくおじさん is "Uncle works" or "The uncle who works"), or those are not very good Japanese names (I think it the translators' faults, but just bringing it up). I did use 3 different translators, so it may not be the translators fault. --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no they shouldn't be merged because, as others have said, the Japanese name is canon due to being the first country where the games were released. If this were the Mario series, then the English name would be canon because games in the Mario series are released in English-speaking countries first. Because of this, I think they should be split. Also, the translations can vary depending on the sources, even though many of them aren't "worker" or "middle-aged workers".Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the Japanese isn't cannon, it's that English is also cannon. The Japanese version never made it appear that there is any difference between the two other than the name which could be considered a rename, and the English cannon is therefore still valid. The question is, are these classes named the same in languages other than Japanese and English? If a majority are the same, we can almost confirm that the Japanese version renamed it. If a majority are differently named, then we can almost confirm that they are separate. I'm most interested in the other Latin-based languages versions as it would be unlikely for them to include "Middle-aged".--SnorlaxMonster. Help here 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)