Talk:Pokémon Mansion journals
This is something I don't understand: Mew was supposedly added to the original games two weeks before their release, and yet there are these diaries that talk about it. Were those diaries also added just before the release of the original games? I find it hard to believe it. --Abcd (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Remember that Tajiri's original idea included "creatures that you won’t necessarily encounter, creatures who will choose not to ally with you, and creatures who you’ll miss the chance to encounter entirely, and thus never be able to catch." and they "designed more than 200 Pokémon for the first games, then whittled them down to 150." glikglak 23:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The journals were planned since they add to the lore of Mewtwo, and Mew wasn't a new thing either. Its inclusion in Red and Green was a secret from Shigeki Morimoto but it didn't last long as such since the earliest official distribution of Mew was made as early as April 1996. SatoMew 00:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The Japanese and (especially) the translations don't really add anything to this page. The only other places we generally have Japanese are for terms/names and lyrics... There's no need whatsoever to give the journals in Japanese here. I propose we simply remove both the Japanese and the translation. The only things that might be worth noting are already stated outside of the tables/signs. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I removed a lot of unnecessary cruft but the comparisons should stay. NOA changed the texts, period. The dub of Origins changed them again, removing references, period. They're not occupying additional vertical space either. SatoMew 21:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- ...Changed the text? 1) Of course they did: they translated it. 2) Beyond that, the content is almost entirely the same. What isn't is, as I said, already noted outside of the current tables. In short...I don't understand what your point is supposed to be?
- I'm also not talking about Origins at all.
- Also: even if they're not taking up vertical space, the uneven tables are still incredibly ugly. (And even making them prettier wouldn't make them any less unnecessary.) If there's no need for them then (in the Games section that is), they can and should just be removed instead. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think she means that the translation is completely different, word by word, from the original Japanese one. It thus changes the tone.
- And Origins does factor into this, since it changed the text again so that it said something completely different, semantics-wise. I think :::it should stay until we get a admin on this...--BlisseyandtheAquaJets (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Translating a text does not imply changing the personal pronouns or the whole contents; that's called localization or censorship, depending on the context. Saying that it's almost entirely the same is being dishonest: the Japanese texts clearly imply that the author is solely responsible while the localizations instead make him some sort of reporter, the guy in charge of recording what his team (which doesn't originally exist) is doing.
And nothing is noted outside of the tables, thus the translations clearly provide a side-by-side comparison of what was exactly changed. Sure, the July 5 text is the same but it's there for the sake of consistency since the other three texts were changed, not just translated. The related Faraway Island text doesn't need a translation either since it says the same thing but there's no problem in keeping the Japanese text to clarify the localization edits.
The tables are needed and should stay. SatoMew 23:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Blissyand[...]: ...as far as I see, most of the translated journals (as currently on the page) are mostly exactly the same as the official English. And only the difference in the last journal comes close to "completely" changing anything... (And as to that, see below.)
- @SatoMew2: ...If I'm being generous, I would assume you think I noticed that you had removed the note about personal pronouns in your cleanup of the "cruft". On the other hand, I don't know why you would assume that when it should be apparent I hadn't... At any rate, the note can easily be readded, and that's really all you need for that. If you want to explain exactly that "the Japanese texts clearly imply that the author is solely responsible while the localizations instead make him some sort of reporter, the guy in charge of recording what his team (which doesn't originally exist) is doing", then do that; but the whole Japanese journals and their translations are not at all necessary.
- Faraway Island is interesting because it leaves words/letters out, so the English and Japanese texts are essentially like pieces of a puzzle (though really, the Japanese is clear enough that it alone would be plenty; but this is an English wiki). No similar incentive really justifies writing out the whole of the Japanese journals here.
- So, if we can accomodate three of the four entries with one note about personal pronouns, that only leaves the last. And really, only the last two lines are at issue there. So we could easily just explain that on its own too, and only present the journals fully in (official) English. And that's exactly what we should do, I say. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Consistency in layout
While I agree that not transcribing all of the Japanese into the article has its merits, the current layout with only one of the four journals translated and the sudden appearance of a table from nowhere, not aligned with the rest of the entries looks very jarring. If this is how it's going to be I'd honestly rather prefer having all four entries there with their Japanese transcriptions and translations. Any thoughts? Blueapple128 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've separated the English portion so it can be like the rest of the entries, and then reserved the table for the Japanese part(s) alone. Perhaps the difference between the unframed quotes and the table for the Japanese is still a little jarring, but I hope/believe this addresses your issue to some extent, at least. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)