30,366
edits
User talk:Tiddlywinks: Difference between revisions
→Production Terminology page
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
:Hoo boy. Yup, I can tell you're downright mad. The overall impression I get from your message here is that you're taking this way too personally. I acknowledge offense with the edit summary and I apologize for not fully editing myself. But the rest is how wikis work. Your work will be edited by others. You shouldn't be so angry over someone trying to improve a page that they thought needed improvement. | :Hoo boy. Yup, I can tell you're downright mad. The overall impression I get from your message here is that you're taking this way too personally. I acknowledge offense with the edit summary and I apologize for not fully editing myself. But the rest is how wikis work. Your work will be edited by others. You shouldn't be so angry over someone trying to improve a page that they thought needed improvement. | ||
:I'm going to take this in stages. I'm gonna leave things here for today and hope that the break will help us get past some of the anger before I touch on some of your other questions tomorrow. See ya then. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 23:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | :I'm going to take this in stages. I'm gonna leave things here for today and hope that the break will help us get past some of the anger before I touch on some of your other questions tomorrow. See ya then. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 23:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::I dunno why you would actively acknowledge that what you did was offensive, and then immediately tell me to "not be so angry" like if you're gonna provoke somebody, obviously I'm going to be frustrated? I also have no idea why you would outwardly be condescending whilst not addressing any of the points that I actually brought up relating to the page, it doesn't get anyone anywhere when my objective is to make the site a bigger/better/more accurate place. I'm not frustrated because somebody edited a page I worked on, I'm frustrated because you were (and continue) to be mega insulting about it when it was a page that I was asked to do, by staff, and you got so much wrong? like alright man | :::I dunno why you would actively acknowledge that what you did was offensive, and then immediately tell me to "not be so angry" like if you're gonna provoke somebody, obviously I'm going to be frustrated? I also have no idea why you would outwardly be condescending whilst not addressing any of the points that I actually brought up relating to the page, it doesn't get anyone anywhere when my objective is to make the site a bigger/better/more accurate place. I'm not frustrated because somebody edited a page I worked on, I'm frustrated because you were (and continue) to be mega insulting about it when it was a page that I was asked to do, by staff, and you got so much wrong? like alright man {{unsigned|Lewtwo}} | ||
::::It seems I suck at apologizing, so I guess I'll move directly to the points you want to discuss. | |||
::::Regarding the '''bank system'''... I'm a little surprised I have to spell this out, but just because an English word is used in a foreign language, that doesn't mean you can turn around in a translation and use that same word in English exactly the same. (For a quick example, in まず漫画家と編集者が打ち合わせをしてからネームを描き、それを修正しつつ進めてから最後に原稿を描くことが多い[https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0_(%E6%BC%AB%E7%94%BB)], using "name" in the English version would be ridiculous.) At the point that a language is adopting a foreign word like bank, that word stops being "English" and instead changes to suit the needs of its new speakers. The needs of Japanese speakers are far different than the needs of English speakers; they don't inflect the word in any way that English would, saying that English should adopt the word back exactly how Japanese uses it and any derivation is evil is simply foolish. Let Japanese use the word how it will; in turn, English will use it as English will, not at the whims of prior Japanese usage. | |||
::::Telling me that there are a bunch of Japanese texts like BANKは以前作られた素材を流用して新しいカットを作る事です[https://twitter.com/animator1965/status/1405885886345093131] that use BANK/バンク is utterly unpersuasive. If you want to know what these terms should be in English, you ask an English person who is actively using the system (or an equivalent) in an English setting (i.e., production). I readily admit I lack/cannot find such a source, but you clearly have not provided one either. Of course, that lack does not mean we must therefore be slaves to Japanese use of English words. Something like "BANK in AG121" is plainly ungrammatical and not fit for an English site. Even "BANK animation" is, especially when you're defining it as a saved animation; in natural English conversation, you wouldn't refer to that as "bank (animation)", you'd say it was "banked". (And that's further ignoring the folly of using all caps.) | |||
::::Regarding ''limited animation'', I may have mistaken what the PDF I linked[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342551066_The_Ritualization_of_the_Bank_System_in_Japanese_TV_Animation_with_Hero_or_Heroine] said a bit. Instead of saying it is a technique of limited animation, it may have been better to say it derives from limited animation. Frankly, a version of the bank system could certainly fit very well in the umbrella of "limited animation", because they're fundamentally very similar: they're simply "economic" measures, where instead of drawing a thing new every time, you reuse what you already did. If the only difference is whether you can save something simple (limited animation) or complex (banked animation), then I think it ''is'' fair to link the two, perhaps saying that the latter is a derivation or evolution. And I think that link is especially useful if we don't know of a modern direct equivalent to the bank system in English production. (If there is a proper English term, I'm all for using that, and then we can probably skip limited animation.) | |||
::::Regarding '''key frames''', if you're saying that 原画 refers to drawings from key animation (to be clear, you are: <code>Genga, (Japanese: 原画 lit. "original pictures") is a term used to describe the Key Animation drawings used in 2D animation</code>), those drawings are key frames. While few sites seem to link "key animation" and "key frames" (I think because they are pretty interchangeable so they probably mostly use one or the other), a pretty telling example is https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/原画#アニメーション. Furthermore, I think we can agree that key animation is done by key animators, and I can find plenty of sites (such as [https://businessofanimation.com/behind-the-scenes-of-a-key-animator-in-an-animation-studio/]) that describe a key animator's work as drawing key frames. You protest that 原画 isn't "even remotely" similar, but the only difference you've cited here is colors. This is a terrible argument. That argument suggests that any time someone decides to use different colors, we have to call it something different. No, holding 原画 as special because of its colors is pointless; it's just the specifics of the Japanese tradition of key frames. We can easily call them key frames, and specify that Japanese productions use specific colors. That's not at all a crazy or evil thing. (If there is more that is indeed "not remotely" similar to key frames, I shall be surprised, but that ball is in your court.) | |||
::::It does appear I made a small mistake with '''sakuga'''. Can you show me instances of the slang use in Japanese? I find it a little hard to imagine. Which may just be my own failure, but I'd love to understand the nuance for myself too. | |||
::::I also made some mistake with "'''model sheets'''". I could've sworn a site I saw said model sheets included locations. But at any rate, there seem to be other solutions. We can define the section as setting materials, but using that word (or settei) throughout the site is more confusing than necessary. Your [https://sakugabooru.com/wiki/show?title=tag_guidelines sakugabooru tag guidelines] delineate a few types of settei: so we do that, and if something is a model sheet, we call it a model sheet, or concept art, or whatever is appropriate for the actual item. They don't all need to be lumped into one word; sakugabooru explicitly says settei includes those things; we don't need to call them all one thing, calling them by specific names should be good in most cases. I will say, if you would really prefer, then having a category for "setting materials" on the archives to gather all those subsets of items would be fine. But that's probably the only place (besides the appendix) that it would need to be used...well, I guess if you're talking overall about production, referring to "setting materials" would be fine (I think it'd help to define an example or two, but I guess at that point linking to the appendix arguably suffices as well). But no single image should generically be described as a settei or setting materials: it should be given a specific and accurate English name. | |||
::::(I don't have a clue what your complaints about mistranslations regarding 原画/original pictures or 設定/setting materials are about. Let's do be clear: I have a pretty good grasp of Japanese. It's your complaints that are confusing to me. My edit included the exact same texts you had, <code><nowiki>(Japanese: '''原画''' lit. ''"original pictures"'')</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>(Japanese: '''設定''' lit. ''"setting materials"'')</nowiki></code>, I did not change them.) | |||
::::The thrust of all of these points is the same: Japanese words should not be used when there are English words that equally describe the thing. It may be a "Japanese [whatsit]", where Japan does something a little different, but that Japanese twist does not mean that the Japanese word is the only appropriate term. As an English site, we aim to be understood by English speakers. Certainly, some people may not be any more familiar with English animation terms than Japanese ones. But on the one hand, there are people who are familiar with animation terms and obscuring what should be familiar concepts with new words is a bad idea. And on the other hand, even if someone doesn't know an animation term, the fact that it ''is'' English makes it immediately easier for them to grasp and remember than a foreign word. We are an English site. Unless there is a strong reason, we should prefer English terms as much as possible. | |||
::::It is worth noting that of all the words you're contesting here, sakuga is the most unique, but I don't think that really means it can't/shouldn't be replaced if it's used anywhere on our site. You'd have to convince me that there is an actually compelling reason to use that term as opposed to describing it in another way. (I'm not saying I care overall about its place in the appendix. I care about any uses outside that page.) | |||
::::As a final aside: a page of tagged images on ''any'' repository simply does not constitute a "reference". A reference should eludicate a thing...in words. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 03:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||