Talk:List of Phantasy Star IV characters

Moved to gaming wiki as tagged

If anyone wants to edit this page it was moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia right here Please make an account and add in the missing character pics deleted from wikipedia. --Cs california 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging vs. Separate Article

The reason I think this article needs to remain separate is that there is quite a bit of information about the characters - too much for the main game page, which should be brief. As for this page looking like a manual, so what? This is Wikipedia - it's a massive archive of information of all sorts, relevant (which is relaTIVE) and extraneous. Nothing is hurt by this page being here, it takes away from the clutter of the main page, and serves Wikipedia's main purpose - to provide information. It's been here for years with no argument, and so it should stay. Period. Godheval 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Since this is the English language' version of Wikipedia, the English language names of the characters should be used. Keep the otaku Japanese purist nonsense off of these pages. Besides, why would anyone change the character names to their Japanese versions, but not the names of spells, monsters, places, etc? If you feel the need to "preserve" the original Japanese, then by all means, start or edit the Japanese article at http://ja.wikipedia.org. For this page, though, the English names will be used. Thank you. Godheval 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It boils down to this: the original release is always canon. Thus, Japanese names must come first here. If it was the other way around -- an article in the Japanese Wikipedia about an American game that had character names changed for the Japanese release, the American names would come first as well, localized version second.

Here's an example. The characters Syfo Dias and Count Dooku had their names slightly changed in the Brazilian release of the Star Wars movies (to avoid certain vulgar puns). But the Portuguese Wikipedia has their original names first, and the changed names as unimportant trivia. - Stormwatch 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no official English release, you are correct that the original is "canon" rather than any fan-translations. However, an official translation wins because this is the English language encyclopedia, and therefore that is the name it will generally be known by from English audiences. There has been a wide consensus in favor of this. Yes, there are exceptions, and most of them probably shouldn't be exceptions. The rare times that the "originals" are used are when the official translation is widely ignored or minor, which isn't the case here. SnowFire 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The translations of the Phantasy Star series are regarded by fans as a massively inconsistent mess. That's another point for holding the original as canon. Not that it's necessary anyway. See, the original is always canon. Here's why: since a game (like any piece of fiction) is an alternate reality, the members of the developement team are the "gods" of this reality (like a book's writer, or a film's director). What they create is the "one true reality" of the game's fictional world.

A translator's job is to make it so those who can not speak the original's language have access to that fictional world. Anyone who deviates from that mission and makes changes beyond the strictly needed is but a corruptor of the original work. - Stormwatch 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I see that you're a purist. Unfortunately, "corrupting" the original is precisely the job that needs to be done. A deadly strict translation is quite frankly impossible since words have different senses in two languages, different connotations are rolled up into words, and so on. A strict translation for content may totally destroy puns and leave incomprehensible cultural references. More to the point, the English versions of Japanese names often don't necessarily have any closer bearing to reality. There have been many well-known times where the Japanese have screwed up writing the English names or terms they intended, or generally used stuff that sounds ridiculous in English (but fine to Japanese audiences). Let's face it: when you "translate" something, you are really writing your own new work based on the old work. There's just no way around it, though obviously there are degrees as to how far from the original you stray, but there's no such thing as a "perfect" translation. Call it a "localization" if you will. I'd recommend reading some Douglas Hofstadter, who is currently translating poetry right now and dealing with issues precisely like this.

Anyway. That was a side note on the general issue. The more pertinent issue as far as Wikipedia is concerned is that most English-speaking readers will know the localization's names and not know the Japanese version's names, regardless of whether the translation was bad or not. That's the real issue at stake, and flows from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (use common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Though it's intended for article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conflict is instructive: when tiebreaking for names, the criteria is what's in common use (the English names), the official names (again, the official translation), and the self-identification used (unknown what Sega prefers). So that would be 2-0 for English. If you really persist in this, can I recommend taking this to the talk page at WP:CVG and bringing it up there? SnowFire 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, to be sure, adding the Japanese names at all is certainly good for the article. More information is always nice, so it's not like it's a defeat or something... people can still see the Japanese names, it's not like we're in favor of removing them. SnowFire 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I said: changing beyond the strictly needed. A literal translation won't work well. I know it, I have worked as a translator (nothing published, just Portuguese/English communications for the CCF). But again, when you change things that you don't have to change, the translator is corrupting the original work.

In this game, for example, it's acceptable to change Freyna to Demi, because there was a technical limitation (4-letter character names maximum). But it's just stupid to change Lyla to Alys. Not only there was no reason, it caused confusion too: people wondered if Alys was the Alis of the first Phantasy Star (actually Alisa, same 4-letter limit).

Rule of thumb, ask: why?. If there is no good reason for a change -- if the translator simply "felt like" giving characters new names, or if content was censored to change age ratings -- the localization is flawed. And still, no matter what, only the original release is canon -- unless following titles or remakes retcon the original. And no, translators can not retcon! - Stormwatch 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the English names should be the ones used here. The translation was official and immediate. The Japanese language version of Wikipedia should have the Japanese names. The English language version should have the English names. If the translation came 2 decades later(like FFIII), then I could understand it, but not on a game like this. The English version is far more well known in English speaking countries. I'm changing it. If you want to change it back, cite more than a Brazilian Star Wars page, cite an official Wikipedia policy. This article is about Phantasy Star IV, and the name alone means it's the English version. --Visual77 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the correct name is Phantasy Star: The End of the Millennium (as it appears in the title screen), not Phantasy Star IV (the name in the box). - Stormwatch 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one who has ever made the edits to the Japanese name, when we have 3 in favor of English names. Go check Wikipedia's policies and find out how you are in the wrong. In the meantime, I'm alerting the admins. --Visual77 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not yet any cause for administrative intervention. --InShaneee 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images and cleanup.

Noticed this revert war while randomly going through old contributions. First, TTN, while I can see wanting to merge this page... you didn't actually merge it to the main PSIV article, which is currently horrible. Unilaterally deleting it rather than merging seems a bad idea; not to mention that the game guide material is actually pretty well laid out, hence the suggestion for a transwiki.

Second... the images should probably be given better fair use rationales, and the ones that got improperly orphan-deleted requested undeleted at DRV (well, except for the really minor characters who shouldn't have had them in the first place). Also... truth be told, TTN has a point that maybe the non-game guide parts of this article could be merged back into the main PSIV article. If this article is kept as a whole, there should be some work on more out of universe info. SnowFire 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I wanted was a discussion of the matter, rather than unilateral merging. Especially since a lot of the information from this article was left out. Personally, though, I see no problem with the "game guide" parts of this article being here. Information is information, and it doesn't hurt anyone for it to be listed here. Quite the contrary, it creates a single source for people to get ALL relevant information on these characters, without going to a separate wiki to find the guide information. I could see if it was bogging down the article and making it too long, but that's not the case. I suppose I'm also a little biased, being the creator of this page and all. :) Godheval 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game-guide material should go, wikipedia is not a game-guide or manual. In my opinion non game guide material can be integrated into the main article, game guide material can be saved for a Phantasy Star wiki for example, but it has no place here. --Fogeltje 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we disagree. But seeing as though there is a template about this kind of thing, I won't argue the point anymore. It still seems stupid to have to source ANOTHER wiki, when we have the means right here to provide the information. Linking to non-wiki references makes sense, but not to other wikis. That's just my take on it. Godheval (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to you it does. Personally, I find Memory Alpha to be a tremendously wonderful place to get lost reading articles all day, but I sure as hell don't want every piece of random incidental Star Trek trivia on it to be included here because it's useful. Same with gaming wikis - I'd love a comprehensive resource for every part of PS4, but this evidently isn't the right place for that level of detail. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]