Talk:Dragon Ruler
|
This is the talk page for discussing the page, Dragon Ruler. | |
|---|---|
|
Please try to
|
Contents
Name[edit]
So, is there a reason why we're going with Supressor? I think it doesn't do the name justice. 征 seems to refer to conquering, subjugation, military conquest, et al. Basically these guys are more "The guys who reign over/control these things". --NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 04:07, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Looking through the cards, "Suppressor Dragon" makes no sense in context. They're not suppressing that element, they support that element. What would you call them instead? As for why, here's a quote from a page move of one of them: "I can't think of anything else 'sei' could mean". So it seems to be a matter of "there is nothing else we know of that this could mean". Obviously that's wrong. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 10:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Dot dot dot. And uh. Hrm. That's again where I run into trouble 征 means one who subjugate, reigns, controls, dominates, et al. They're basically saying these guys rule over and control Waterfalls, Storms, Flames and Rocks. Waterfall-Ruling Dragon? Waterfall Dragonlord? `-`a The main problem is the word they used is extremely clunky to put in, but works if you think visually. If you're looking for a less clunky word than Waterfall, Cascade or Torrent, thouuugh Torrent is a bit more flowery and less literal than some like.
- But, anyways, the main issue is making Tidal sound non retarded. And that's where I run into a wall. -- NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 10:55, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Of course that you find this suspense, but it's better to wait until Konami printed those cards in TCG then we can process on the names. As usually. But I don't disagree or support anyone in here, included you, Neo. I respect to what you were thinking, Neo. But for now, it's just best suit name for those dragons. --iFredCat 10:59, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Suppressing is wrong though. It gives off the wrong image. The dragons don't suppress. They're the masters of Waterfalls, Rocks, Flames, Storms, Water and Earth. You don't suppress the elemental force you basically are in charge of. :V --NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 11:02, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- That's because there's two Level 4 Seiryuus confirmed to be coming coming out early this month that are "The Dragon who rules over Earth" and "The Dragon who rules over Water", that are basically child forms of Redox and Tidal. --NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 11:09, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought 'suppress' was a synonym for 'subjugate', and it sounded cooler than the latter, so I went with that. Also, there's no way in hell something will be translated as Dragonlord, ever. MadRest 15:39, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, shriek says "Suppressor". Is this the same stupid discussion like it was done with "Number 92: Heart-eartH Dragon when you have argued about Fake-Body God instead of False Skeletal God? C'mon guys.--TheGallisMan 17:14, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I know, that shriek is copying wikia but there's no reason to change the card names every time. Suppressor or Subjugating is still an unofficial name. Please wait with it 'til it becomes official in TCG! Please, guys.--TheGallisMan 17:45, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- It's to prevent bad name spreading and Shriek is really really bad with translating. If you feel this way that it should be left alone, then you should make the articles have the Archetype/Series names in Romanji for non Katakana words. :V
- Also Subjugating still strikes me as bad. It implies they're keeping the elements under their thumbs when these Dragons are, from as near as the art and effects seem to imply, manipulating and using the elements to their whim. Not oppressing, they're more reigning over, controlling or governing. Think of it like the 8 Dragons from Final Fantasy VI.
- That's why I suggested Dragonlord. These guys are the masters of their elements. -- NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 17:49, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Subjugating means to take something under your control. Also, somewhat metaphorically, it implies manipulating something at your own will. Since we're talking about the elements of nature, manipulating them suits best. Like I said, just because manipulating or controlling are something done by a lord or master, it doesn't make it right to translate it as 'lord' or 'master'. 'Sei' simply means to rule over, or to subjugate. And 'Subjugating' is aesthetically a hundred times more valuable than 'lord'. MadRest 18:00, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going over this with some people and apparently this whole thing draws back to the 征龙 (Zhenglong), some obscure chinese reference drawing back to Chinese Taoism and Mysticism. Apparently related to same source material for the Dragon Cards from the original manga. Looking further into it. -- NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 18:28, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently the sovreignity angle is wrong. `-`a The dragons are more likely going for the "We embody the element". Very old weird Kanji apparently going back a long long ways. Anyways, from what I understand... The Zhenglong were apparently elemental dragon spirits of nature in Taoism that represented the classic elements of Earth, Fire, Water, Wood and Metal. If you guys are trying to go after something, go for Elemental/Avatar. -- NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm prefer "Ruling Dragon" over the current title, but I staunchly oppose "Dragonlord". Are others fine with this? --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 16:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, going to note the above. Really, I think you guys would be best served rendering this as Zhenglong, and just leave shit alone. :x If you need to translate it, go for something combining Dragon + Incarnation/Embodiment/Avatar, et al. -- NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 16:19, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, misread your last message. Since the "Zhenglong" is what they're being based on, might as well keep it simple and go with that for the time being, since a lot of people seem against "Subjugating" on other sites. --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 16:39, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- It'd be literally accurate (since that's what they're precisely referring to here.) And before anyone asks why the Kanji I posted is 征龙 and the cards are 征竜. Chinese vs Japanese. 征龙 (Zhenglong) is Chinese. 征竜 (Seiryuu) is Japanese. Etc. etc. --NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 16:43, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- What would be accurate? 'Ruling' is basically the same as 'Subjugating'. There is no official name for the Zhenglong. (I doubt they're even based on that.) Anyway, I can't find anything about them through Google, so maybe you could post a link. I don't like 'Ruling'; 'Subjugating' sounds more cool. And we still don't have any dragons associated with wood or metal, so the idea seems a bit far-fetched right now. MadRest 16:55, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- The concepts of Metal, Wood, Water, Earth, and Fire are the Taoist classical elements of Chinese philosophy. They are, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the 4 Empedoclean classical elements of Greek philosophy. And the basic concept behind classical elements in any philosophy is a group of primordial elements that make up the entirety of the cosmos. The Zhenglong, are an application of animism to that concept. The fact that they have 5 members in traditional Chinese mythology is simply a result of Taoist classical elements differing. Had China used Empedocles' classical elements, there would've been four and the basic concept would've remained the same in both meaning and in application. Not to mention Japan has a tendency to adapt all sorts of things in a variety of ways. Kahunyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- And no offense, but you're not the one to be making calls on concepts. Granted, neither are we, but we're at least trying to track down the context under which this stuff is made, and this is the closest we've gotten. And if ANYTHING has been proven over 10+ years of YGO, it's that YGO creators in general are a bunch of history/mythology/philosophy otaku(and other otaku in general) who'll shove in references to anything and everything. The probability of something with a fancy title in Han characters not being a pun or being an obscure reference to something are close to zero. Unless you can provide us with a better lead, I'd suggest not using trivialities to support your arguments. Kahunyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Han characters and elitist Chinese/Japanese/Korean philosopher types and their fancy metaphysics use all sorts of characters in bizarre context. You'll see the character for Jade/Jewel used as a substitute for "perfection" in some phrases. I spent 6 years of torture having to read Han literature in school, and from my experience, dictionaries only go so far. Once you step into history, mythology, and philosophy, the characters themselves need to be combined with context. And those pricks are REALLY metaphorical and super-vague with their references/meanings. Consider it everything you've ever had to go through in High School or college with western literature and then crank it up 10 times. Metaphors + Poetry in everything. EVERYTHING. @_@ Kahunyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Going back to the names themselves, dragons of Eastern philosophy and mythology are usually the ruling entities of their realms, and embodiments of major natural locations or phenomena. They are Emperors/Kings/Gods. Seeing all of that, context-wise our dragons here are essentially animism at its finest. They're rulers of their elements, but from a philosophical standpoint are a metaphor for the classical elements themselves, and to be more precise they're a metaphor for mother nature and whatever laws of the universe are in place. So they aren't subjugating/conquering things in the literal sense here. Forgive the long posts. New to this interface. Kahunyu (talk • contribs) 19:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- ... Or we could go with the best translation the Org gives us with regards to keeping to the spirit of the translation. Could you reiterate what the names should be? --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 19:23, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- [Name] the [First Kanji] Zhenglong would suffice. Like Tidal the Waterfall/Surging/Cascade Zhenglong. --NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 12:39, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if there were an official English translation for the Zheng Long (which there isn't, since I can't find anything about them on the Internet), we should go with that. And I said that 'subjugating' isn't completely literal; it's slightly metaphorical in a sense that they manipulate/wield the elements. Using 'Ruling' would be exactly the same, but 'Ruling' doesn't sound nearly as awesome as 'Subjugating'. 'Conquering' should work, too. MadRest 20:52, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
- You do know not everything is in English and not everything is on the internet but terms still exist, right? :U -- NeoArkadia (talk • contribs) 12:39, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary break[edit]
(Indent Reset) So this is kinda like the "Gyaku-Gire Panda" scenario then? Ya, I think that should be proof enough for the final name change (until the TCG gives us their names). --UltimateKuriboh (talk • contribs) 16:35, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
- We no longer live in an age where "stuff isn't on the Internet." Besides, if there's no official translation for them, what's the point in changing it?! MadRest 17:23, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
- No, this certainly is still the age of "stuff isn't on the Internet". There is still an absolutely, mind-bogglingly massive quantity of information which has not yet been digitized, and an equally astonishing quantity which is digital, but is locked behind paywalls or in databases inaccessible from the public internet. For casual purposes, there is indeed nothing worth knowing that's not on the internet, but the very instant you step beyond casual purposes - as in the case of translation of literary/philosophical/etc. works - this ceases to be true, and will not be true for at least the next decade and likely even longer. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:05, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Because these are names suggested by the Organization, whose translations we're using from now on (and really should've been using already for some time). At this point, if you want this changed again (regardless of whether that change is back to your preferred names or to something else), you'll need to convince the Organization that it's appropriate, though I wouldn't expect much since you've already been trying to do exactly that with a few members here, unsuccessfully. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:45, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I was more in favor of their "[Name] the [X] Zhenglong" and "[Name] the Draconian Embodiment of [X]" suggestions, with this page being named "Zhenglong" or "Draconian Embodiment". --Golden Key (talk • contribs) 18:52, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't care; we're not using them anymore after this abomination. How in hell did you think it was okay to completely erase the 'dragon' part? Any sane idiot who knows Japanese can tell you that there's a 100% chance these are called dragons. First of all, it was never completely decided if they were based on Zheng Long, and even if they were, this discussion is about how 'sei' should be translated. It's already decided, without any kind of discussion, that 'ryu' means 'dragon'. And you didn't think anything was wrong when you inexplicably eliminated 'dragon' and renamed them to 'incarnate'? Basically, what they did was make up a whole new name. That is something we let the TCG do; we only translate the names; we don't get to decide, "Nah, I don't like to call them dragons; let's call them Incarnates instead; that's way cooler." Yes, the Zheng Long may metaphorically be incarnates of the elements (still not provable, though, since no record exists of them); however, there is no 'incarnate' in the names. If they're making up their own translations, then they're not credible. I thought that each of them was supposed to provide an opinion of how to translate a card's name, not completely reinvent it. When I first saw it, I was completely and utterly disappointed as to who would be stupid enough to not notice that they were called dragons. MadRest 19:07, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Ark gave a list of possible translations. I asked him which he would suggest, and he basically said "pick one", so I did. If you have a problem with how Ark and the rest of the Organization operate, you'll need to take your party of one and address your grievances with them, because their translations are the ones used by most of the English-speaking fanbase currently. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:57, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, he is a part of this discussion. And, no, his word isn't absolute. We're not going to go with whatever they say, even when it's wrong. Why did you think it was a good idea to change the name without consulting the discussion party? You're not the one that chooses. You should've posted the list of choices here, and if any of them are correct, people can vote on them. Only if they're correct. And couldn't he mean 'incarnate' for only the 'sei' part? MadRest 20:07, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd much sooner take the word of a group of individuals, most of whom actually have firsthand knowledge of the language, over one person who relies on online translators/dictionaries. And we are going to "go with whatever they say" because it's been discussed right here on the wiki and this is the consensus that was reached. I can promise you that you'll have a much better time of things if you simply introduce yourself to the Organization as a group and work with them in the future instead of unilaterally declaring that you, and by extension the entire wiki (because apparently you speak for the whole wiki now or something), are going to ignore their expertise in favor of the One True Most Holy Way. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:26, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- According to NeoArkadia, the way he put it, it seems you only talked to him. So what "group of individuals" are you talking about? And why are you so stubbornly ignoring the fact that there is 'dragon' in the cards' names? Forget everything else we're talking about! I don't know how much of a Japanese speaker you are, but you can definitely tell that 'ryu' means 'dragon', yet it is absent in the translated name. Also, I didn't use online dictionaries to tell you that 'ryu' means 'dragon'. Just because you're so obviously in the wrong that you can't form a sensible reason for why it was translated that way, don't use that as your go-to excuse that I'm wrong! MadRest 20:37, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Translations of names get discussed by the Organization. This is no exception; the translation of these names would have been discussed when the cards were first unveiled/spoiled/leaked/whatever. Ark would therefore have only presented those translations that passed snuff in the discussion.
- I'm not a Japanese speaker. My only familiarity with the language is from watching a fair amount of subtitled anime and what little I've managed to teach myself beyond that. However, I know the limits of my knowledge and thus when to turn to others for help.
- "竜" being translatable as "dragon" is certainly something I know, though if I were to see the kanji randomly, I couldn't point to it and say "that's normally read as 'ryū' and translated as 'dragon'"; I have memorized excruciatingly few kanji and that's not one of them. That being said, I am not blind to the fact that the series' Japanese name contains the kanji for "dragon"; this should be evidenced by the fact that I preserved the term when renaming this page. As for why I dropped it when renaming the individual card articles, though, I cannot provide a good reason beyond "it wasn't in the name template Ark provided": the options he posted were "[Name] the [X] Zhenglong", "Elemental Dragons" (which is, needless to say, what I grabbed for the series name), "[Name] the [x] Incarnate", and "[Name] the (Draconian) Embodiment of [X]" (and before you accuse me of taking liberties here, these are directly copy-pasted from his comment). I chose "Incarnate" because I like how it sounds more than "Zhenglong" and it's somewhat more compact than "Embodiment". Assuming he and the rest of the Organization has no problem with it, I would not actually mind going with the slightly more verbose "-Incarnate Dragon" form you proposed on his talk page. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:53, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to go with it, too, since it doesn't actually miss the arbitrary 'dragon' part. Also, it doesn't seem like they discussed this. I visited DuelistGroundz's Lord of the Tachyon Galaxy page, and they were either missing the 'sei' part, or were left untranslated. MadRest 20:57, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Because it was, like, 3 in the morning when I chose the names and renamed everything. If we rename the monsters, we should probably also rename this to something like "Element-Incarnate Dragon". 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:53, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
- They haven't finished their collaborative consensus on all the names for LTGY yet, that's what its not on that page. In lieu of that, it was decided we'd simply ask a few of them what they would go with. The articles may be moved again if their collaborative consensus ends up not being the same as what Ark and kahu came up with it. That said, I'd rather include "Dragon" in the card name as well and "Incarnate Dragon" sounds fine to me. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:06, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
Incarnate Dragon[edit]
Can somebody unlock the page and move it to "Incarnate Dragon"? Also, the 4600 sum of ATK & DEF, Level, and other shared effects don't apply on Reactan and Stream. MadRest 02:15, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
Name change again?[edit]
I know there was a lot of debate going on about the translated name of these guys but what caused them to be changed again? I'm not complaining about the name change it just seems like every week or so the name is changed. Has this name actually been confirmed?(Diclonus (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 23, 2013 (UTC))
- The current name is a localization. It is a fan name, so it's not confirmed. Their actual name is something akin to Ruling/Subjugating/Conquering Dragons. MadRest 18:42, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Trivia Question.[edit]
Not sure if this is mentioned before, but is it a big coincidence that this series could be similar to Kamen Rider Wizard? 70.79.84.236 (talk) 04:34, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
- just wondering. didn't say i was going to include it. 70.79.84.236 (talk) 05:07, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
"and only once that turn"[edit]
Sorry for nitpicking, but why do people keep taking out the "and only once that turn" bit out of the shared effect part? It clearly says that on all four of the adult Elemental Dragons' effects. ChaosGallade (talk • contribs) 14:31, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
- They were just been butthurt about it. It is believing that it's a Condition. --iFredCat 14:35, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
name[edit]
you know, i was going to change the series member category to Dragon Ruler. I already started with only Blaster and was on my way to Tidal, but a user claims that the collector tins are fake. Does someone have a suggestion? i mean, this page is already called Dragon Ruler. 135.0.164.25 (talk) 22:17, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
Translated names format[edit]
Are we treating the format of the English TCG names, i.e. "Name, Dragon Ruler of Aspect", as legitimate translations of the Japanese names? Meaning some cards will have the same English and Japanese translated names, while others such as "Stream, Dragon Ruler of Droplets", will have the same format, but change the "Aspect". -- Deltaneos (talk) 13:43, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. I've checked with the Org, "Dragon Ruler" is perfectly valid. I haven't asked about changing the aspect for the others, but that seems fine too. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 16:28, May 14, 2013 (UTC)
