User talk:YamiWheeler

Welcome to YamiWheeler's Talk Page Please remember to use a header and to sign your posts. To leave a message, click here.

Admin Noticeboard
Thank you for point it out - he's getting on my last nervous and I was holding it longer... I only wish for him to "stop" there. That's all I can say here. For now, I am backing off. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:42, August 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just stop replying. I don't really even understand why this argument is still going on... I hope to God this isn't what I've been like in the past.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, sir. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:49, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Number 53
Er, I saw an anon undid your edit. If you think that is too long, what do you propose to shorten it? E n e r g y X ∞ 23:23, August 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it's too long. I think it's unnecessary trivia that has no substance behind it.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 23:26, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Number 53 Part 2
There, the two conversations are separated. --Rocket.knight.777 (talk • contribs) 21:42, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. That's fine.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 21:43, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Official Rulings
Good thing I questioned him in his own talk page... Doubt he will listen. This article is also under his affection - which was what bring me to "questioning" him if it was alright for him to change it. You're welcome to fix it back. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  12:23, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any edits made by that user in that page's history.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, just realized that he edited one EB article, not two. So be sure to inform him on his own talk page. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  12:27, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I told him to talk to you first... but no, he went back to square 1. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  13:17, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Incorrect Rulings
This Ruling was not incorrect. It was saying "half its DEF". I fixed its source. By the way, for any "wrong Rulings", ect, you can add the [sic] tag and a note explaining why it is wrong. The rulings must be worded exactly as they have been posted by Konami though. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 14:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought, thanks.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 14:58, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exact like I told that user as he tried to changing - he just not understand what I mean after all. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  15:02, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Apposition of Cards
Let's take this as an example. The Armor Ninja translated names have Fire, Aqua, etc. at the end of the name, while the TCG names are at the front. Even like this, there is no difference between the translated and TCG names, yet the different order of the apposition is still referenced in the translated name. The only reason you're ignoring this now is because one part of the name is in kanji, and the other part is in kana. The TCG has a preference to put the kana part in front of the name, and vice-versa for the OCG. This has to be acknowledged in the translated name. And I don't get what you're talking about; a title?! Captain in Captain Wing is also a title. There is no rule that says that the title has to be after the name. If the whole name wasn't in kanji, only in kana, for example: Abataa obu Marisu Urobonus, would you still translate it as Urobonus, the Avatar of Malice? This is the same case, only Abataa obu Marisu is written in kanji. Mad Rest 17:31, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, "Captain" is not a title. In the case of "Captain Wing", the meaning changes depending on the order of the words, because the whole name is made up of only two words. It either becomes "Wing Captain", i.e. a winged captain, or a captain of wings, or "Captain Wing", which could be a captain named Wing. The meaning changes which makes it relevant to list. In the case of "Urubonus, the Avatar of Malice", the meaning DOES NOT change, because the English name is a direct translation of the Japanese name, regardless of what order they've placed it in. If, for example, they had changed the name to "Bonusuru, the Avatar of Malice", then it would be worth noting, but as it stands, there is no change in meaning, and therefore it does not need to be listed. You still haven't given me an example of why this particular card's name is important in both orders, so don't go and revert my edit like your explanation suffices beyond all doubt, because it does not.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 17:38, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's like your name - "Master D" or "D of the Master", "D Master", "Sénior M", "Sensei D", "Doctor D", "D!", whatever. So those ninjas didn't give a damn about titles. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  17:35, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I only took that as an example, because I can't find a better one. I believe that the order of the apposition needs to be referenced if it's different than the English name, while you do not. Like I said, what if the whole name of Urobonus was written in kana like I pointed out; would you still translate it the same way? Mad Rest 17:42, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about translating a name. We're talking about you thinking that the order is somehow an important enough difference to note, and I'm asking you why it is important in this scenario. You still haven't answered me.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 17:48, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm talking that you also care about the order, but only if it's in kana. If a card's phonetic name is Abataa obu Marisu Urubonusu, how would you translate it? This is the same as with Captain Wing. If the English name would be 'Wing, the Captain', while its Japanese name 'Senchou Uingu', you'd of course say that the order is unimportant because the title is in kanji. This is the same case as with Urobonus:
 * Avatar of Malice is in front of the Japanese name.
 * Captain is in front of the Japanese name.
 * Both of their English names have the title reversed.


 * Only one of them should be acknowledged as different, based on your logic. Explain this to me! The same with the Armor Ninja. You think it'd be okay to delete their translated names just because the order is the different?! Mad Rest 17:54, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop making up hypothetical situations and answer me, what difference do the orders bring to be noted in this case? Also, I never even used the kanji/kana argument, you started that, you're arguing against your own argument. My stance is entirely that the meaning is unchanged regardless of order, and therefore there is no need to list it. The way the "Armor Ninja" cards are listed is different, because it comes across like "エアー" and "アクア" could be their names, as opposed to the English version which is more akin to "Armor Ninja of Air/Water." I don't see your argument at all. You haven't made a good case for why the order makes a difference in this scenario, you just keep changing the issue.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:04, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * The order itself is important. I don't know how to explain this to you. It's not in this case only. In all cases, the order of the apposition is important. I don't know why you would think it's unimportant. You just don't understand me, and don't see any problem in it because, like I said, the title is in kanji. Junen no Keshin means Avatar of Malice. Urubonus is after the latter. To simply and accurately translate it, it would be Avatar of Malice, Urubonus. I can't remember any cards now, but what if this card's name was completely written in kana? What if Junen no Keshin was Abataa obu Marisu? Most on this wiki would translate it as Avatar of Malice, Urubonus. I'm making up this hypothesis to point out that just because if it would've already been spelled out in kana, like my hypothesis, even you, if I'm not wrong, would translate it my way. But you've deluded yourself that, because it's in kanji, you've been given the freedom to alter the order of the apposition. That's why I made up this hypothetical situation. Because you don't understand how important apposition is unless if it would've been written in kana. Mad Rest 18:16, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the problem is you don't know how to explain it, because there is no real explanation besides "Master D says so." So, this is yet another one of Master D's exclusive rules of Japanese, which have previously included, Rule #1) Portmanteaus are incorrect unless they follow your specific method of construction and Rule #2) Onomatopoeias cannot be translated. I'd rather someone who doesn't make-up their own rules look into this instead, because in virtually all instances of a scenario similar to this occurring on this Wiki, you have been the one to make the edit. I'll consult Ryusui and some of the others about this and we'll see if you're correct or not.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:26, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with Butlerusk is that it can't be the translated name because it doesn't fit with the phonetic name. The only counterargument offered was, "It sounds better as Butlerusk". The argument was going nowhere, so I decided to abandon it. You can morph onomatopoeia into your own language, but it's still wrong because it ruins the pun. I'm just saying that if a card with the same naming pattern as the one we're talking about is created (or still exists, but I can't remember), but the whole name is in kana, it will be translated as closely as possible, following the original apposition. The only reason you don't want to do it now is because it's in kanji. Mad Rest 18:34, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pretty simple: the only situation in which the order of terms in a Japanese name is important is if changing the order changes the meaning, as in the example of "Captain Wing". If a Japanese name uses an apposition to indicate order, then a translation that shows that order may be technically more correct than one which does not, but any such extra correctness is not useful to anyone, and the order again does not inherently change the meaning of the name.
 * As for Butlerusk: translation - even of terms in kana - does not equal transliteration/romanization. Just like with kanji, you cannot translate terms by looking at only one or two kana at a time, you have to look at the whole word and how it fits into the phrase, and try to get an idea of whether there's some deeper meaning as well (as is the case with puns or portmanteaus). The strongest argument for Butlerusk" as a valid translation is that it fits the pattern of the other "Madolche" card names, showing that the deeper meaning is the portmanteau in this case. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 22:47, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Like Dino said, "Captain Wing" is just fucking "Captain Wing" name, not like he's boss of the team or anything. It's just his name. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:53, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * So, what you're saying is that once again, it comes down to nitpicking small (and unnecessary) details. We should really have a policy on this, because it seems silly to note "translated" names which are basically the same as the English name, like "Urubonus, the Avatar of Malice", while at the same time removing other "translated" names because they're the exact same as the English name, like "Little Trooper".--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 23:13, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it doesn't change the meaning. You should still not be allowed to rearrange the apposition, even if it doesn't harm the translation. It seems like you're just not placing the Japanese name on equal grounds as the TCG name. The TCG name for Gorz the Emissary of Darkness cannot be rewritten as Emissary of Darkness, Gorz, because it is clearly written as the opposite. The same thing should apply to the OCG name. The one who named the card intended for Avatar of Malice to be in front, and it is clearly written as Avatar of Malice in front. What I'm saying is this:
 * Gorz the Emissary of Darkness is the written name for the card. We cannot rearrange it as Emissary of Darkness, Gorz. If the OCG names are treated with the same importance as TCG names, then the card's name is Junen no Keshin Urubonus, and the translated name will be kept as closely as the Japanese name intended. Your reasoning of Butlerusk is also flawed. It doesn't fit with the phonetic name, i.e. you're making up your own names to better suit your own language, even though they're obviously wrong. The only problem I see here is that the Japanese names are treated on a lower level than the TCG names. Mad Rest 23:36, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Gorz the Emissary of Darkness" is English Name, "Emissary of Darkness, Gorz" is Japan name - get over with it. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:41, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * So, you're actually separating them both as English and Japanese, with reversed appositions. Thanks, that actually helps my argument. Mad Rest 23:51, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * What language is this site right now? If we are going for English, we are using English pattern only. If you agreed, then stfu about those craps. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:55, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, "an English pattern"? There is no English pattern. Every card name has its own pattern, and you people think it's not important if that pattern differentiates between the TCG and OCG, because you view them unequally. Mad Rest 00:12, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is English Site, and we have to using most of English, not Japan, not Egypt nor ever North Pole style in the post. So Joey's right, I am right - you're wrong and you're screw up each time. Please cut it out and just accept that most of the translation you had done are fake. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:24, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * You're straying way off-topic. This discussion has nothing to do with your hallucination of what we're talking about. <font color="silver" size="2px">Mad <font color="gold" size="2px">Rest 00:27, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Indent Reset

Then knocking yourself off, Sénior D. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:29, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like you're just not placing the Japanese name on equal grounds as the TCG name. The TCG name for Gorz the Emissary of Darkness cannot be rewritten as Emissary of Darkness, Gorz, because it is clearly written as the opposite. The same thing should apply to the OCG name.
 * Except for one thing: the Japanese name of "Gorz" is 「のゴーズ」; any name written in Latin characters is either a transliteration/romanization (which isn't under discussion here) or a translation. We do place the Japanese names of cards on the same level as their English and other-language/-region names; you're intentionally ignoring the fact that a translation of a card's Japanese name is not the same thing as its Japanese name. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:04, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * FredCat, I don't think you quite understand the points Master D is making. We would like if this could be resolved peacefully. You can't keep attacking and insulting other people's translations, especially when you don't understand their logic. It's only going to stir up tempers. YamiWheeler, Dinoguy and a few other editors have a better understanding of what he is saying, while they may still disagree with it. Could you just let them resolve the issue? If you must comment, can you check and make sure that you understand him correctly before being critical? Please? -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:09, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the Japanese and translated names are different. But why treat them differently? It seems to me, that for some reason, the translated name has to be more closer to the TCG name than the OCG name, even to the point where you don't care if it fits with the Japanese name, but only with the English name. That was the case with Butlerusk. The conversation I had on the Talk Page about Butlerusk was when it didn't have a TCG name, and it clearly didn't fit with the OCG name, and the one who brought it up stayed quiet for some time. Once the TCG name was released, the argument was suddenly revived, as if Konami actually influences the intended Japanese name. All this points that you don't care about keeping the intended Japanese names, whether it be the original apposition or the Japanese pun. The translated name should be a direct translation of the Japanese name, following it as closely as possible, if it doesn't somehow disrupt the translation itself. The only time we won't add a translation is when the TCG and OCG names are exactly the same (this also means order of the apposition or words), or if they translate into exactly the same words (the number of words should also be acknowledged). Like with Spirit Converter; the TCG and translated names are essentially the same thing, but there is an extra word in the OCG name that cannot be left out. The same applies with the order of the apposition. I don't know why it should be treated as unimportant just because it translates into the same thing. A lot of translation on this wiki are essentially the same with the TCG name: Red-Eyes B. Dragon as the TCG name, and Red-Eyes Black Dragon as the translated name. Even though the meaning of their words is exactly the same, there is a subtle difference that must be recorded. Another subtle difference would be he order of the apposition. <font color="silver" size="2px">Mad <font color="gold" size="2px">Rest 14:49, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * @Deltaneos, I only wish for him to shut the hell up about all those translations. He just made us look stupid and shit. If he wanted to help - he should go back to Cram School and improving his Japanese Translation himself. He's on my last nervous already and I am through talk to him. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  14:53, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought there was a chance Master D was right this time. I looked through a lot more card names to see if there was any proof of disproof. Well, there's a lot of cards whose Japanese name is formatted "&lt;title&gt;, &lt;name&gt;" and very few, if not none, formatted "&lt;name&gt;, &lt;title&gt;". Since English names started being somewhat consistent, nearly every single one of them swapped the apposition for such cards to "&lt;name&gt;, &lt;title&gt;". I thought there must be some value to that. Fair enough, you can point out that Konami don't always use precise translations and if they want to break translation rules to use an order they prefer, there's nothing stopping them. So, I've taken a look at some examples where Konami have no control.
 * Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, called ケンブリッジ公爵夫人キャサリン (Kenburijji Kōshaku Fujin Kyasarin) in Japanese.
 * Conan the Barbarian, called 英雄コナン (Eiyū Konan) or 蛮人コナン (Banjin Konan) in Japanese.
 * Diana, Princess of Wales, called ウェールズ公妃ダイアナ (Hoēruzu Kōhi Daiana) in Japanese.
 * Jack the Ripper, called 切り裂きジャック (Kirisaki Jakku) in Japanese.
 * Mary, Mother of Jesus, called イエスの母マリア (Iesu no Haha Maria) in Japanese.
 * Thomas the Tank Engine, called きかんしゃトーマス (Kikansha Tōmasu) in Japanese.
 * I don't know if I have the romanisations perfect, but you can see that each time, the Japanese name moves the name of person (or train) to the end. That just seems to be the convention in Japanese. Is it grammatically incorrect to say Jakku Kirisaki in Japanese? "Duchess of Cambridge, Catherine", "Barbarian Conan", "Princess of Wales, Diana", "Ripper Jack", "Mother of Jesus, Mary" and "Tank Engine, Thomas" all sound kinda weird in English (Although that could be because I'm more familiar with the others).
 * If "&lt;name&gt;, &lt;title&gt;" is grammatically incorrect in Japanese (I don't know if it is), that means you would be saying that "&lt;name&gt;, &lt;title&gt;" would never appear in a translation? I don't think we should avoid using the common English structure for that reason.
 * You can point out that all of the examples I gave are English (or another language) to Japanese and none are Japanese to English. (It was harder to find Japanese examples.) But supposing there is a princess or emperor of a particular region in Japan, their Japanese name would be formatted "&lt;region&gt; &lt;title&gt; &lt;name&gt;", but I'm sure when translated to English, they would be called "&lt;name&gt;, &lt;title&gt; of &lt;region&gt;".
 * -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:26, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * In my option, they are better off as " " regardless other people's opinion... If it's backward, then we should shoving our last name in the place of the usually name, like "Dr. Faker" (ZEXAL Antagonist) or "Dr. Fudo" - Yusei's father. --  i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:33, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I was trying to demonstrate that "&lt;name&gt; &lt;title&gt;" is the commonly used structure in English, despite the order the words appear in Japanese. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:23, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * We treat them differently because they are different things. The Japanese name is an absolute, something that cannot be changed just because some translator thinks it doesn't make sense; it comes directly from Konami and they are the only ones that can change it. The translated name, on the other hand, is completely unofficial, since Konami doesn't provide "official" translations of Japanese names - the closest they come is the TCG names, which may differ from the Japanese names by a wide margin (though Konami are quite a bit better about staying close to the Japanese name than UDE ever were).
 * I find it ironic that you mention Butlerusk and "keeping the [...] Japanese pun" in the same breath. The Japanese pun involved with Butlerusk is the portmanteau of the English words "butler" and "rusk"; not only is this seen from the card's English name, but also from the names of the rest of the "Madolche" cards, which also all feature these portmanteaus. In addition, Konami does influence the intended Japanese name; Konami are the ones responsible for the OCG, and their American branch are the ones responsible for the TCG, so I really don't know where you're coming up with the idea that Konami doesn't influence the Japanese name.
 * Translation is not an absolute, immutable science, even between languages as similar as, say, English and Spanish. Japanese is quite different from English, in terms of history, culture, vocabulary, and grammar, so there really isn't such a thing as a "direct" translation in many cases. Translation is an art, and those who've been practicing this art for any amount of time recognize that always striving for some direct, "perfect" translation is pure folly; there are an infinite number of cases where a direct translation which is completely faithful to the literal meaning of a name is far inferior to a translation that takes more liberties with the details, but more accurately conveys the overall meaning of the translated text (and of course, the nature of the text being translated matters as well: if it's a technical work, like a set of instructions, the translation will be more literal because the person following the instructions has to execute a particular series of actions in a particular way, so a "looser" translation that reads better could result in instructions that are inaccurate; whereas a literary work, such as poetry or a novel, benefits far more from looser translation that sacrifices some accuracy in favor of better capturing the emotions the work is trying to convey). This also means that talking about whether a Japanese name "translate[s] into exactly the same words" as the English name doesn't make sense: Japanese words can usually be translated into more than one English word, sometimes nearly independently of context, and the same is true of the other direction; each side often has shades of meaning that no word (and sometimes, no phrase) on the other side can convey.
 * "Red-Eyes" is a bit of a special case: the English name uses an abbreviation that some people may not understand, so there's a very strong argument for providing a separate translation, which serves the double purpose of explaining the abbreviation. On the other hand, cards which use appositions don't have any such feature arising from the apposition that a translation might explain, so the question reduces directly to one of importance: is the apposition important enough that we must document? No one cares about the precise ordering of terms in the Japanese name, if it is otherwise identical to the English name, and said ordering has no meaning within the name, so I don't see why it is important enough to justify documenting. Anyone that could be affected by whether our ordering matches the actual apposition (and I maintain that the number of such people is zero) should know enough to be working directly from the Japanese name anyways, instead of our translation.
 * Lastly, Delt's rundown of some examples suggests that the ordering shown by appositions in Japanese is a standard feature of the language, and may have arisen in the same way that much of the language's layers upon layers of formality and politeness did, which reinforces the idea that the ordering is actually irrelevant to the meaning and is, therefore, unimportant information that can be safely ignored. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:07, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asked to put my own two cents in on this discussion, but I'll admit there's not much I can add. The word order may be different, sure, but the bottom line here is that "Urobonus the Avatar of Malice" is a perfectly legit translation of 邪念の化身ウロボヌス.--Ryusui (talk • contribs) 04:20, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * To add a bit more, another comparison I just thought of (and am now kicking myself for not thinking of much sooner, considering how obvious it is) is with a Japanese person's name: in Japanese, a person's name is normally rendered &lt;family name> &lt;given name>, whereas when the name is rendered in English, it is changed to &lt;given name> &lt;family name>. This is not an issue with how either language works, nor is it related to translation; it is entirely determined by the culture. The order is considered unimportant in translation, not even registering in comparison to ensuring unambiguity in the rendered name (and indeed, this is why you'll often see either the given or family name rendered in all-capitals when a romanized Japanese name is ordered using the Japanese order, since the expectation is that the given name comes first and the usage in question breaks that expectation, creating ambiguity). 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 05:57, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference here is that we're talking about translating a title. I agree that if we're translating a text, it wouldn't matter if we rearrange it. Also, Chaos Goddess uses opposite apposition, as an example. I'm just saying that the translated name should be the OCG name personified in English. And since you're personifying it, it must be as absolute as possible, because some people are interested in even the smallest differences between the TCG and OCG names. This is not a general translation. The trans parameter also exists for comparison between the TCG and OCG. It isn't only for people to understand what the Japanese name means. Some people, like me, are actually interested in how the naming system is different between the TCG and OCG. There are also other countries (I think Britain) who also arrange the surname first. <font color="silver" size="2px">Mad <font color="gold" size="2px">Rest 09:55, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * No Master D, as a British person myself, I can confirm that we DO NOT put the surname first. Its mainly Asian countries that do that due to the syntax they use. Also, according to Deltaneos' explanation, the order mainly stems from things like language differences, and rearranging it does no damage to the name, and is still an accurate translation of the name, so order shouldn't make a difference. Neos01 (talk • contribs) 10:23, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing you're not getting is that translation is not always a matter of one-for-one conversion - there is typically room for interpretation. The "absolutes" and "personifications" you demand are unicorns and chimeras: chasing them is a futile pursuit because they don't exist. Sometimes you get lucky and stumble across a term that has a generally agreed-upon meaning in your target language, but you can't assume that for every possible combination of Japanese words, there is one and only one "perfect" translation. Take エルフの剣士, for example. "Elf Swordsman" seems obvious enough, but what about "Elvish Swordsman"? Or "Elves' Swordsman"? "Swordsman of the Elves"? "Swordsman of the Elf"? Any and all of these are valid interpretations; we just happened to pick the one that someone thought sounded best in English (and happens to be the name used in early episodes of the 4Kids dub).


 * Instead of "absolutes" and "personifications" (what the hell do you even mean by "personifying the OCG name," anyway?), we instead rely on precedent. We know that 氷結界 should be translated as "Ice Barrier" and not "Ice Boundary" because 1. "Ice Barrier" is a legitimate translation and 2. it's what appears on the official English cards. We know エクシーズ is "Xyz" because Konami freaking said so, and nothing the "Exceed(s)" crowd can do will magically insert a ッ before that final character or turn it into ド. We know that a name with an appositive before a proper noun in Japanese should have the appositive after the proper noun in English with the two separated by either a comma or the article "the" because that's how it's usually done. Put another way: is 暗黒騎士ガイア "Gaia the Dark Knight"? Or is he "Dark Knight Gaia"? Was changing "Dark" to "Fierce" in order to avoid a potential lawsuit the only thing Konami did to the name, or did they change the whole thing by reversing the order of the words in translation?


 * You're tilting at windmills if you think it contributes anything but confusion to note switching the order of appositives and nouns to fit English grammar conventions as if it were an actual change. If anything, you're suggesting that the typical Yu-Gi-Oh! fan is too stupid to recognize that the appositive and noun are reversed in English from the supplied romanization alone, and for those who genuinely are that stupid, it merely adds to the festering pool of misinformation regarding what actually gets changed in the English version. Don't think I've forgiven or forgotten the throngs who whined when Konami released Pandemonium under its proper name when Edo's site called it "Lair of the Ten Thousand Demon Lords" (a name which does not even resemble the actual name on the Japanese card), or took a Hong Kong pirate sub written by people with no talent for English or Japanese over Konami's word when Nightmare's Steelcage wasn't called "Nightmare Fence".


 * Your quest for silver bullets in the world of translation is not only unnecessary, it is destructive. I will say it again: "Urobonus, the Avatar of Malice" is a perfectly valid and legitimate translation of 邪念の化身ウロボヌス. Drop the issue.--Ryusui (talk • contribs) 10:53, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the order of the apposition affects the translation. I'm just saying that this site is catered for English speakers. Some people won't get that a change has been made in the name just by reading the phonetic name (change doesn't only imply meaning). Whether you want to admit it or not, a change has been made, however insignificant to the translation. But as I said, the other purpose of the trans parameter is to offer comparison between the TCG and OCG names. English-only speakers don't understand the phonetic name, and would never get a chance to realize that a change has been made, no matter if you think it doesn't matter. We are not talking about translation issues any more. We're talking about if it's worthy to list changes, not only in meaning, but in other ways. <font color="silver" size="2px">Mad <font color="gold" size="2px">Rest 11:09, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine many Japanese people noting something like Daiana, Kōhi no Hoēruzu as a direct translation of Diana, Princess of Wales, so that people will notice a "change" has been made in the standard translation. They may however use the katakana of the English name ダイアナ・プリンセス・オブ・ウェールズ (Daiana Purinsesu obu Hoēruzu), which is similar to what we do with romaji names.
 * As for whether it's worthy to list these changes in the trans parameter or not, I think it's not. It is going to mislead people into thinking that these are the proper standard translations of the Japanese name and the English names are not. If someone wanted to write a fanfic using the cards' original names, just looking at how monarch names are translated between English and Japanese inside and outside of Yu-Gi-Oh!, I would recommend "Tytannial, Princess of Camellias" as the translation of "椿姫ティタニアル" and not "Camellia Princess, Tytannial", regardless of whether the card had an English release or not. -- Deltaneos (talk) 14:30, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * And I think the overwhelming majority and points in the favour of apposition not being relevant in this case win. Thank you to everyone who participated in this. You articulated the points far better than I ever could have. As for you, Master D, as Ryusui said, drop the issue and get over it.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 14:41, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I get what you're saying. I guess there is no hope in convincing you, since you don't seem to recognize the importance of apposition, but whatever. However, if there is a difference in the translation between TCG and OCG names, I will translate it using the original apposition. Your argument was that it wasn't necessary since there was no difference in translation, and that apposition is unimportant. In cases where there is, it will retain the original apposition. <font color="silver" size="2px">Mad <font color="gold" size="2px">Rest 14:59, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Tittle says it all. Also, I'm changing some things that were not as good as they can be, in the article you created, about the featured card, snowman eater, such as saying that the effect is optional, and some others, that, if you do not agree with, can be discussed. That'd be all. Bye. --Yes, im Pato (talk • contribs) 06:10, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't edit other people's articles without permission. I don't think your points are necessary. I don't feel the need to baby my readers and expect them to understand the basics of the game to know what steps cards activate in, and other such details. As for the mandatory issue, you're taking it too literally. My sentence is akin to saying "has the ability to", not "is optional." Finally, your grammar points were horrible, so please don't tell me that my article was not written as well as it could be. Once again, do not edit other people's articles again without permission. Your edits have been reverted and will stay reverted.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 08:43, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

So, bassically, every random user that changed makes a new page with the image of a d*ck has to be asked before that page is removed? huh, seems legit. It's not baby. want baby? Ok little boy, when a card doesn't say you can, it most likely has a mandatory effect. One other thing boy, if you destroy a kristia, not only your opponent will spam the hell out of you, but next turn, guess who will appear again? No, not your mommy, ms. kristia. "Hey, I use hand destruction, send 2 dark world monsters, draw and use their effects" "No bobby, you can't, read the card, it sends, doesn't discards" "Oh pato, you stupid f*ck, you are taking the card too literally" "My god, you are right, my bad man, my bad." I'll give that one to you. You are allowed to fix my grammar, It's a little rusty. Once again, don't undo my edits unless i give you permission to. That'd be all. --Yes, im Pato (talk • contribs) 09:55, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, fucker, I've politely asked you not to edit my article. You were told numerous times on the other page that you do not edit someone else's work without getting permission first, as well. I will now be reverting your edit, and if you dare undo my revert again, I will be taking it straight to an admin and I will get your ass banned from this Wiki. I know you're very thickheaded and basically a complete imbecile, and you need to have things your way, but I swear to God, if you touch my work again, you will regret it. I don't take you seriously. You're just a troll who can't speak or type English very well in my eyes. I really don't want or need advice from someone like you.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 17:58, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yami's actually correct - but you need some common sense. We don't allow some "dick" images; that's actually inappropriate type of image or language included that article. So by following the code of laws, we are automatic to deleting any inappropriate relating articles, or at least reviving the article back to old version before it got vandalism, and be done with it. Joey sent his time on his own article and he wish for it to be the way he want it to be. If you continued to disagreed with that article, talk first before headbutt anything you hated out of that article. Like Delta always warning me before - do not doing the Edit-Warring, Discussing first! -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  16:11, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to clarify some things for starters. I know you make this discussion in your own talk page, so people arguing you do not get notified when they have been answered. It's cheap and everyone knows you write here because of that. I also wanted to say that, consider this a formal threat, If you insult me again, don't bother coming to this continent. I also recommend that if you ever, for some coincidence of faith, run into me, and, for some reason, i recognize you, I will punch you in the face and relatively similar amount of times, for each time you insulted me in any way. Also, I have gained the right to warn you. You have been insulting me from the very start. You do not have the right to threaten me with a ban. You are not capable of doing that, and, If you wanna start a fight, using deltaneos as a middle man, giving that he does not have anything better to do, I will accept it. As well," You're just a troll who can't speak or type English very well in my eyes." Maybe you should go beyond the way i write, and Look at the content I write. Again, for the forth time, You can check my grammar; I'm more than aware that it's not perfect. --Yes, im Pato (talk • contribs) 20:43, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh noooo, the Yu-Gi-Oh! mafia are coming to get me! You're a big-mouthed idiot and well done, threatening me with physical violence is going to be the exact thing to get you banned, but we all knew that you'd be your own undoing. I just find it very ironic that it was in the same breath as you telling me that I'd never get you banned. I'd never want to step on your continent anyway, if you're any example of what to expect there, but I just might and take pictures, just to remind you what a powerless person you are. I'm not scared of your empty threats, I consider you beneath me, so please, bring it on.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 21:14, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Featured Card
Hi Yami. I just wished to inform you that there is a broken link on your Featured Card Article with the broken link being: Elemental HERO Neos Alius, near the bottom of the article. I wanted to get your permission first as I know from experience I like to edit my own works!!

I would like to say as well, it is a very well written article and something you should be pleased with. I hope to see you write another one soon. =) -- Bobbles Talk 16:06, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yes, that was from Pato M's illicit edit of my article. It's been removed altogether.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 18:00, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill
OK, I've had a chance to read both of your posts. I'm posting this on both of your Talk Pages.

Yami, I don't where you've gotten this idea, but articles submitted by individual users never remain property of the person who writes it. By agreeing to create or edit an article, you are agreeing to what you submit being edited or re-published at will by anyone. Pato M had every right to edit the page, and still does. Making threats if he 'touches' your work again will not be tolerated. I should also point out that it is good manners to reply on the other person's talk page. Not doing so does indeed leave you open to accusations of being a coward.


 * On further reflection and analysis of the article, YamiWheeler, I conclude that Pato M was very correct in editing your article. If you're going to post a card in future, learn the different between Mandatory and Optional Trigger Effects. Learning to spell and not use slang or incomplete words (reliability in place of reliably, cause in place of because) would also be very welcome. This is the grown-up's world, not Kindergarten.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:01, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Pato M, threats of violence are VERY serious. It's also very childish, and does nothing to help your case (which in this case, you were in the right, until you started making counter-threats). If you have a problem with a user, I am more than willing to review it.

You are both on Probation as of this moment. I see either one of you step out of line (and that includes retaliation), and I will have no hesitation of banning you, and it won't be a short trip, either.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 21:39, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * All articles come under the same envelope, and they have done since Wikia was originally founded as Wikicities, first under the GNU Free Documentation License, and secondly under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike License. All articles are free to be edited by any other users, likewise am I or anyone else free to take the content and use it, provided I link to it. Do you honestly think this Wiki, or even ones like Wikipedia, would be where they are today, if users had to track down the creator of an article, to say, "Can I pretty please make this edit to the page you wrote?". You may want to check the License Page, which is included in the Terms of Service at the bottom of the Wikia, and one you are supposed to sign to have read when you made an account.


 * As for what is right and what is wrong, it boils down to this: If the edit is useful and constructive, it stays. If it is not, it doesn't stay. Pato M's additions were both useful and constructive. He even had to fix an issue where you incorrectly described a monster effect. True, his edit wasn't made with particular grace, but helping him clean it up rather than metaphorically scream at him would be better, wouldn't it?


 * I take personal offence at people carving out a claim to what they upload here. True, he made personal threats, and has been made to recant those, but that would not have happened had you not opened dialogue with swearing, nor laid claim to a boundary that doesn't exist. You're both at fault, but you were the catalyst for this one.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 22:52, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Please check here, where I explain that I wasn't calling it cowardly, only mentioning that some do think it is.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 23:03, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between malice and anger. Useful fact to remember as you grow up. I also made it very clear you're both as bad as each other, hence why you are both on Probation; you for starting a needless and pointless argument in the first place where you were in the wrong, and him for retaliating as he did.


 * I now consider the matter closed.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 23:12, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Little words from the Kitty
I understand that you loved that article with your own words, but yes, I agreed with TwoTailedFox - that article is not your to keep, as of the copyright on User's behavior. Like for my Judge Rulings, I put in my User Name in that article so I can own it. But not to disrespecting your thought, you did your best part. Though I confirmed to agreeing with TwoTailed, I still not siding with either of you or other user, who you had to arguing with earlier.

So advice: If you feel being betrayed or disagreed with the other user(s), please start the Discussion Article before edit the article back to the way you wanted them to be. As usually, "Edit-Warring" can put you in big trouble - discussing the issues with other user(s) does not. I don't ask you to trust me, but that's best advice I can offering to you. So let's hope you can do what you believing in for yourself. Have a happy edit, my amigo. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  21:47, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's just his opinion, nothing more. I don't have to agree with it, and I don't. It only goes as far as, I'm respecting it because he's the founder and I have no other choice, but I seriously question his knowledge on the issue. Okay, so, it isn't technically "my property", despite me having written it and having donated it to the Wiki. I suppose the point is that it was donated. Fair point. However, what does he know about the game anymore? Does he even play? Another user recently undid the edits that he made regarding the Damage Step based on the same criticism as I gave it - it's a basic game mechanic and there is no point in listing it, so clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks so. He doesn't even seem up-to-date with what's happening on the Wiki. He comes on once every 4 months, makes maybe 20 edits, passes judgement and he's off again. He wasn't even aware of the talk page format that the other admins established as the norm, but decided to lecture me on it anyway, just like how he was lecturing me on how the featured card should be handled. I've been writing them for the better part of a year, and no other admins had a problem with it - you know that I always used to run it by Delta until he told me that it was unnecessary. At least I was contributing to that section of the site which was severely neglected before I did, but apparently, that has no merit because I "personally offended" him by trying to claim that what I had written was mine. On top of that, he still skirted around the issue of strict guidelines for the featured card article, as well, which Cheesedude had initially asked for. Like I said, they're all his opinions and they can be challenged by logic, but he doesn't have to care because he's the founder. That's as far as it goes. You can take his side if you wish, I don't really care either way, but just remember that just because he started the Wiki, it doesn't make his opinions any more valid. Some of them come across to me as outdated practices.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:09, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no strict guidelines on Featured Cards, and that's intentional; they should not be formulaic templates churned out like a factory. You also ignored that Neos01 left one mention of the Damage Step ability in there and clarified it, and simply removed the second mention and its corresponding example. Fair play to him.


 * The talk-page format is a personal choice. I didn't dictate what you should be using, only what some users think based on the format you were using.


 * I took personal offense, because your opinions are contradictory to the free and open nature that Wikia and this Wiki were founded on. It's not my opinion, it's fact. Also, you clearly haven't read the license I linked you. It gives you the right to be quoted as a contributor when the page is being linked or used on an external site, but does not grant you control over it's final content, or give you a right to restrict what users can and cannot make amendments to it. If there is a disagreement on what should be on a page between two users, that is where you involve a SysOp.


 * You have done some good work, but it's being overshadowed by your present attitude, both to the environment you're submitting work to, as well as to players in general; not every player who visits this site is as well-versed on the game as you may be, and highlighting some simple mechanics is never a bad thing in that regard.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 23:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I already conceded that the Wiki licence means that anything I post on this site is no longer my property. You're right, I hadn't read the licence when I joined the Wiki, and so I was unaware of this. Yes, I was misguided and wrong, but considering you're taking the time to clear this up with me, I'm sure you can at least see it from my point of view that I saw it as my work being... desecrated by Pato. He didn't know how to edit properly, and many of his opinions were just his preference, i.e. whether or not you should side "Snowman Eater" vs. "Legendary Six Samurai - Shi En." The one thing that I found important among the others was the "Elemental HERO Neos Alius" point, and I edited my article to accommodate that before you even intervened, so I'm not against the point, I'm just against stating it in a condescending way, which is the way Pato seemed to want to state it. I understand that I was wrong about the issue as a whole, but now I know for future. As for my attitude, yes, it can be a bit ugly sometimes. I find Pato to be an insufferable person who contributes very little of value to the Wiki. My past experiences with him have not been great, and I took it as a personal attack when he went and edited the article. Once again, I know I shouldn't have, but he is very hard to reason with. Granted, I'll admit that I've stopped trying. I'm well aware that I have a short fuse, but I don't act in that sort of manner with everybody. That was more ugly than it is usually. I just want to make it clear that I enjoy editing on the Wiki, and I always have sought to better it in my own way. If my attitude is overshadowing that, then I'll work on it.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 23:47, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I can indeed see how you'd feel that way, but a spirit of collaboration should always be maintained; where collaboration doesn't work between people is when we step in. I've had to take action on The Seal of Orichalcos, because there's been an edit war there, for example. All I'm asking is for you to keep a cool head; if you remain level-headed, and it's clear someone else is way out of line, it makes our job much easier.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 00:10, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate that you can see where I was coming from, and yes, I understand. I'll try to be more tolerant and calm in future. I'll start by saying I'm sorry for being hostile towards you and I hope we don't have to deal with a situation like this again.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 00:42, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise. You should have an easier time now Palo M talked himself into a long ban.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page)


 * Glad that you admit yourself, Joey. But too late, he's ban- I mean, blocked for some good amount of times. I am sure he can still respond to you through different Net. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:45, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * He isn't my concern. I don't plan to respond to his baiting.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 00:48, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this discussion was my cause so that's actually my own concern. I would just welcoming him back in but it's better off let TailedFox do his judge. To be honestly, his comment below (earlier than this conversation) was not bothering me at all. I know he's little silly with my using of "Kitty" words and define - that's harmless comment. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:50, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that - but he trusted Cheese when the latter fixed it to the latest version of what Manual was asking for. And also, I am starting to follow Delta's explanation: being neutral was enough. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  22:12, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's hard to be as neutral as Delta. I've never met anyone quite like him in my life.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 22:13, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * TailedFox sure hit the nail in the coffin... Quite surprise that they are so true. So for me being neutral: It's the deal between you and Pato, I only agreed with TailedFox because he did proving the points and he had a source like up above just now. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  23:26, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, keep ranting me, the creator of the wikia, and everybody else. It's fun for us. Oh and, soft kitty, little piece of fur, thanks for, after ranting us, telling writing down that it's a deal that doesn't involve you. I like those opinions, you guys should really keep this show going. --Yes, im Pato (talk • contribs) 00:12, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I warned you. Enjoy your time off.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 00:16, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt that was ban worthy, yet his continous insulting is not. I was just stating facts. I come back from locals, and I see 2 people i don't know talking about me. I stated that it was honestly fun. I don't know if you saw insults, aggresions, harrasment, or anything alike, but I did not intend those, and I really think that you banning me over this is passing the line. Also, I'm Pato M, from a cyber cafe. --190.139.29.1 (talk) 00:25, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * He was stating personal opinion in context of the conversation. If you had a problem, a note on my talk page would have been appropriate. Instead, you chose to snipe rather than take part in a discussion. I warned you, and you failed to take heed of that warning.--TwoTailedFox (My Talk Page) 00:29, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agreed with TailedFox - I only tried to help Joey to get around the conflict he is suffering in. I knew that I should not get myself included because it would worth the troublesome. But Joey and I are good buddy and I just wish to give him some kindly advice. And that advice would also work on you too, Pato - you need to make an habit to do it too, only without haste and hardhead on the discussing. That was all I can do to help you both. Discussing before Edit-Warring, it's like thinking before acting. -- i  F  r  e  d  C  a  t  00:36, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Nosferatu
Hiey im from romania and can tell you that there is no such word in the romanian language thereis a german play that does contain the word and might be refrence to that also it cannot be found in the DEX wich is the Romanian dictionary also scholars do not recognize the word its a made up word in other words. --Veriteo (talk • contribs) 11:40, September 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm from England and I don't know of the existence of every English word in the history of the language. The Wikipedia article clearly states that it may have come from an archaic Romanian word that obviously would not be used today, but the fact that it is synonymous with vampire stands. Here's a list of archaic words within the English language that have no meaning today, but did exist in the past.--YamiWheeler (talk • contribs) 12:05, September 29, 2012 (UTC)