Talk:No. 50: Black Ship of Corn (manga)
|
This is the talk page for discussing the page, No. 50: Black Ship of Corn (manga). | |
|---|---|
|
Please try to
|
Renaming[edit]
About renaming the manga articles for the Number cards. Uh, Viz is extremely inconsistent. They call the same monster by three different names inside a same volume. Since the overall most used name in the manga is "No. XX: (name)", I think we should stick to that for the manga cards for consistency's sake. In some instances they call a card by one name in the card and by another name in the speech bubble, so I don't think we should have all the work of renaming the card articles because of details like those. I think we should pick one nomenclature and keep them all with that same nomenclature. Trying to follow Viz's inconsistency is madness, the case of the 5D's manga names, with them using a translation in one volume and the TCG name in the very following one was confusing enough already. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 18:44, November 27, 2016 (UTC)
- I think the proper way to handle it is to go by what is printed on the cards themselves, when we have that. If there are inconsistencies in that, we really should upload all instances as separate files. Any other inconsistent references can be listed as "Other names". It's worth noting that the majority of the card images we have use "No. XX - (name)" rather than "No. XX: (name)". --SnorlaxMonster 18:49, November 27, 2016 (UTC)
- However, with Viz's extreme inconsistency (and clear lack of caring about it), I think at least /we/ should have some consistency here. I think details like "No. XX: (name)" vs "No. XX - (name)" are too small to go through the work of renaming everything and replacing all links and the such. Besides, many cards are called by 2~3 different names, so it's unreasonable for us to rename them each time with each name, mostly because of simply Viz not giving a damn (I mean, if they were important/relevant renames like the TCG's "Hero" → "HERO", that'd be a different case). I'm still under the opinion of deciding one nomenclature and sticking to it with all Numbers, like we're doing right now. We don't have to /always/ stick to Viz's wrong nomenclatures. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 13:32, November 28, 2016 (UTC)
- Usually, procedure is to use "the most recent name". This creates numerous problems in terms of archetypes though, so its difficult to apply that here. The fact that the name can regularly differ even within one chapter is ridiculous, so I agree with LAU - we should try to maintain some consistency, even if just for archetype purposes. Listing all the other names under "alt_names" should certainly be done as well though. Cheesedude (talk • contribs) 01:17, November 29, 2016 (UTC)
- So, does anyone still believe that we should rename all articles? If no one does, I'll remove the rename templates. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 14:18, December 2, 2016 (UTC)
- I still believe that we should be using what is printed on the card image itself is what we should be aiming for. Are there instances where that even changes within chapters, or only the name characters use to describe it? There's no necessity for the formatting of the quotes of characters to match the strict card names (as printed on the cards themselves in the manga). And if we do want to go with the most common format, based on uploaded images "No. XX - (name)" seems to be the most common.
- I can understand the concern with regards to archetypes, but it really isn't that important when it's the manga rather than TCG (so nobody is actually playing the game), and we already tag archetypes on the pages themselves. --SnorlaxMonster 01:47, December 3, 2016 (UTC)
- So, does anyone still believe that we should rename all articles? If no one does, I'll remove the rename templates. LegendaryAsariUgetsu (talk • contribs) 14:18, December 2, 2016 (UTC)
